Random Discussions On The Case

[Kate Sachel]

I'd like for this thread to be a place where individuals can have discussion regarding random topics involving the case that may be too small for their own thread or don't fall into one of the categories already created.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I recently finished re-reading the book "I'm not Dancing anymore" by OJ's niece Terri Baker.

Terri lived with OJ and Nicole for a period of time, and her family stayed at Rockingham for much of the criminal trial and Terri was by OJ's side during much of the civil trial.

She mentions that when she and her parents visited the Bundy crime scene the day after the murders, they had all viewed blood on the back gate.

Thoughts?

Kate

[William Anthony]

I recently finished re-reading the book "I'm not Dancing anymore" by OJ's niece Terri Baker.

Terri lived with OJ and Nicole for a period of time, and her family stayed at Rockingham for much of the criminal trial and Terri was by OJ's side during much of the civil trial.

She mentions that when she and her parents visited the Bundy crime scene the day after the murders, they had all viewed blood on the back gate.

Thoughts?

Kate

Did she mention the time of day when they visited? I think the police should not have so quickly released the crime scene. Were they aware that Simpson's family had visited?

[William Anthony]

I recently finished re-reading the book "I'm not Dancing anymore" by OJ's niece Terri Baker.

Terri lived with OJ and Nicole for a period of time, and her family stayed at Rockingham for much of the criminal trial and Terri was by OJ's side during much of the civil trial.

She mentions that when she and her parents visited the Bundy crime scene the day after the murders, they had all viewed blood on the back gate.

Thoughts?

Kate

I have briefly reviewed the testimony of Simpson's sister and, if Terri visited the scene, it would seem that she probably visited after Simpson's blood had been taken.

[Kate Sachel]

Did she mention the time of day when they visited? I think the police should not have so quickly released the crime scene. Were they aware that Simpson's family had visited?

There is no mention of the police being aware of the visit. As for the time, it appears to have been in the afternoon but I would have to go back and check that to confirm.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I have briefly reviewed the testimony of Simpson's sister and, if Terri visited the scene, it would seem that she probably visited after Simpson's blood had been taken.

I believe they visited the scene while OJ was at Parker Center. I do not have the book with me, but will double check this evening.

Kate

[weezer]

I recently finished re-reading the book "I'm not Dancing anymore" by OJ's niece Terri Baker.

Terri lived with OJ and Nicole for a period of time, and her family stayed at Rockingham for much of the criminal trial and Terri was by OJ's side during much of the civil trial.

She mentions that when she and her parents visited the Bundy crime scene the day after the murders, they had all viewed blood on the back gate.

Thoughts?

Kate

This is one of the books I have not read --

What was your take on it? Did you get the feeling from other things she said that she was being honest? Whose daughter is she?

[Kate Sachel]

This is one of the books I have not read --

What was your take on it? Did you get the feeling from other things she said that she was being honest? Whose daughter is she?

Her mom is Shirley Baker, and I found the good to be good.

I thought it to be a good book. It wasn't about blame or defenses, it was just an honest look on how she viewed OJ and Nicole Simpson and how she viewed both the criminal and civil cases. She definitely appears to believe OJ guilty of murder, though at the beginning she thought him innocent, and talks openly about how she was not allowed to question OJ's guilt with her family.

She had positive and negative things to say about both OJ and Nicole, which showed her willingness to be candid and unbiased. There was never a sense of "Nicole bashing" when she spoke of what she felt to be her flaws however.

I really would recommend the book, she had alot of good thoughts.

Kate

[martin II]

Did she mention the time of day when they visited? I think the police should not have so quickly released the crime scene. Were they aware that Simpson's family had visited?

From testimony i read The Bundy crime scene was released on 6/14?? I will recheck the date again.
The contents of the condo removed by family and sone friends and the outside washed down with a water hose by Lou Brown and some helpers.imo

A lady across the street fronm me was found dead in her house. le put up yellow tape and it remained for a little more than three weeks.

martin II

[martin II]

I have briefly reviewed the testimony of Simpson's sister and, if Terri visited the scene, it would seem that she probably visited after Simpson's blood had been taken.

OJs blood was taken on 6/13 at about 1-2 pm.

[weezer]

Her mom is Shirley Baker, and I found the good to be good.

I thought it to be a good book. It wasn't about blame or defenses, it was just an honest look on how she viewed OJ and Nicole Simpson and how she viewed both the criminal and civil cases. She definitely appears to believe OJ guilty of murder, though at the beginning she thought him innocent, and talks openly about how she was not allowed to question OJ's guilt with her family.

She had positive and negative things to say about both OJ and Nicole, which showed her willingness to be candid and unbiased. There was never a sense of "Nicole bashing" when she spoke of what she felt to be her flaws however.

I really would recommend the book, she had alot of good thoughts.

Kate

okay -- you sold me -- I plan on getting the book. I saw her once on tv but didn't catch all of the interview so I'm really limited on what I know about her. Isn't Shirley the one that was in Vegas with orenthal for one of his hearings?

[Redmama]

Kate - love this thread - makes me a little more comfortable to reply for some reason.

If I was at a crime scene and saw something like a spot of blood, the last thing I would think to do was go check the police records - I probably would assume it was known about and wouldn't realize how big of a deal it was until way down the line.

What an awful thing to have to see, no matter what the circumstances.

[William Anthony]

I believe they visited the scene while OJ was at Parker Center. I do not have the book with me, but will double check this evening.

Kate

"This is from Ms. Shirley Baker's testimony of July 11th

MR. SHAPIRO: Where was your brother when you arrived?

MS. BAKER: My brother--the first time we went there, we weren't able to get in, and when we went back we went into the house and my brother was sitting on the couch in the TV room. I would think that Ms. Terri was talking about the day of the 14th.

MR. SHAPIRO: Why weren't you able to get in the first time?

MS. BAKER: The police would not allow us into the home.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what time was this?

MS. BAKER: 4:30, five o'clock.

MR. SHAPIRO: Where did you go?

MS. BAKER: We left there and we went to the police station to see if we could find out anything and then from there we left and we went to the Brentwood Lodge, which is up the street from O.J.'s house.

MR. SHAPIRO: And then you returned that evening?

MS. BAKER: Yes. We kept calling until we were able to get into the house.

MR. SHAPIRO: When you came into the house did you see your brother?

MS. BAKER: Yes. We walked in and went into the TV room and he was sitting there.

MR. SHAPIRO: And can you describe what his mood and demeanor was like when you first saw him?

MS. BAKER: He was devastated. He was crying, he was sad, he was in disbelief, he was in shock. It was--it was sad, it was just so sad.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you try to comfort him?

MS. BAKER: We tried to, but we were--we were all in shock. Umm, Nicole had been a part of our family for 17 years and we couldn't--we couldn't believe what was going on and we didn't know what was going on because we were only hearing bits and pieces from the newspaper and everything and the TV we had no idea what had happened and we were just all just devastated.

MR. SHAPIRO: Were there other family members there when you were there with your brother?

MS. BAKER: Yes, there were.

MR. SHAPIRO: What other family members were there?

MS. BAKER: My mother was there, Arnelle was there, Jason was there. There was a house full of people there. Some of my children were there, friends.

MR. SHAPIRO: Were there people that were coming and going?"

I guess the some of my children leaves the answer to the question vague. IIRC, when Simpson arrived at Rockingham and was handcuffed and taken to parker center, there were still members of LE at Bundy.

[William Anthony]

From testimony i read The Bundy crime scene was released on 6/14?? I will recheck the date again.
The contents of the condo removed by family and sone friends and the outside washed down with a water hose by Lou Brown and some helpers.imo

A lady across the street fronm me was found dead in her house. le put up yellow tape and it remained for a little more than three weeks.

martin II

IIRC, there was at some time a dispute between the Browns and I can't remember who else about going to Bundy and taking things and I can't remember how soon after the dispute occurred.

[William Anthony]

There is no mention of the police being aware of the visit. As for the time, it appears to have been in the afternoon but I would have to go back and check that to confirm.

Kate

I have no reason to disbelieve Ms. Terri's account and that is not my point. I do have a problem with LE not knowing who was at the murder scene or allowing others into the scene when they had not fully processed the scene. I do not have doubt that Ms. Terri at some point saw blood on the gate. The question remains as to what blood she saw and when was the blood she saw deposited and exactly what blood she saw.

There may have been an implication by the defense that all the blood on the gate was deposited but my understanding is that one of the stains collected three weeks later contained EDTA in a level that suggested the blood had been planted and I do not know if the other gate stains were tested for the presence of EDTA. If LE was that lapse in the protection of the crime scene, then the possibility that the evidence should not be trusted looms large, imho.

[martin II]

"This is from Ms. Shirley Baker's testimony of July 11th

MR. SHAPIRO: Where was your brother when you arrived?

MS. BAKER: My brother--the first time we went there, we weren't able to get in, and when we went back we went into the house and my brother was sitting on the couch in the TV room. I would think that Ms. Terri was talking about the day of the 14th.

MR. SHAPIRO: Why weren't you able to get in the first time?

MS. BAKER: The police would not allow us into the home.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what time was this?

MS. BAKER: 4:30, five o'clock.

MR. SHAPIRO: Where did you go?

MS. BAKER: We left there and we went to the police station to see if we could find out anything and then from there we left and we went to the Brentwood Lodge, which is up the street from O.J.'s house.

MR. SHAPIRO: And then you returned that evening?

MS. BAKER: Yes. We kept calling until we were able to get into the house.

MR. SHAPIRO: When you came into the house did you see your brother?

MS. BAKER: Yes. We walked in and went into the TV room and he was sitting there.

MR. SHAPIRO: And can you describe what his mood and demeanor was like when you first saw him?

MS. BAKER: He was devastated. He was crying, he was sad, he was in disbelief, he was in shock. It was--it was sad, it was just so sad.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you try to comfort him?

MS. BAKER: We tried to, but we were--we were all in shock. Umm, Nicole had been a part of our family for 17 years and we couldn't--we couldn't believe what was going on and we didn't know what was going on because we were only hearing bits and pieces from the newspaper and everything and the TV we had no idea what had happened and we were just all just devastated.

MR. SHAPIRO: Were there other family members there when you were there with your brother?

MS. BAKER: Yes, there were.

MR. SHAPIRO: What other family members were there?

MS. BAKER: My mother was there, Arnelle was there, Jason was there. There was a house full of people there. Some of my children were there, friends.

MR. SHAPIRO: Were there people that were coming and going?"

I guess the some of my children leaves the answer to the question vague. IIRC, when Simpson arrived at Rockingham and was handcuffed and taken to parker center, there were still members of LE at Bundy.

when Cora went to Bundy on the day of the 14th lou Brown and i think cici. denise and one or two other friends were removing Nicoles and the childrens items from the house. She helped pack some of nicoles things upstairs and Lou Brown and another man were washing down the walkway.maby le was there in the morning of 14th.Fung completed his collection at about 6 pm on 6/13.:shrug:

[martin II]

I have no reason to disbelieve Ms. Terri's account and that is not my point. I do have a problem with LE not knowing who was at the murder scene or allowing others into the scene when they had not fully processed the scene. I do not have doubt that Ms. Terri at some point saw blood on the gate. The question remains as to what blood she saw and when was the blood she saw deposited and exactly what blood she saw.

There may have been an implication by the defense that all the blood on the gate was deposited but my understanding is that one of the stains collected three weeks later contained EDTA in a level that suggested the blood had been planted and I do not know if the other gate stains were tested for the presence of EDTA. If LE was that lapse in the protection of the crime scene, then the possibility that the evidence should not be trusted looms large, imho.

Cora stated that Lous friend was washing down all the outside,don't know if that includes the "gates" she just said they were washing down the walkway.
Obviously le had released the crime scene before this activity.She was there i think at aobut 1-2 pm. I think that after this was when le returned to check
to see if that key oj had was for the gate or the house and a locksmith was involved in checking or changing the lock.So it seems they returned for the lock issues after they had closed the bundy scene?
Others had brought flowers to the gate area also.I think front gate.not sure.
If Terri was there on the 14th then she was there when lou was cleaning the walkway.Say from 2 pm to night time.

Cora in her testimony was asked who was there when she was there and i don't remember her naming Terri.
imo

[martin II]

Kate - love this thread - makes me a little more comfortable to reply for some reason.

If I was at a crime scene and saw something like a spot of blood, the last thing I would think to do was go check the police records - I probably would assume it was known about and wouldn't realize how big of a deal it was until way down the line.

What an awful thing to have to see, no matter what the circumstances.

If she was at Bundy before the crime scene was released on 6/14 there was blood everywhere. After the release, the water hose was washing eveything
down. The blood spot eventually found was very small so she must have had a eagle eye.imo

[William Anthony]

when Cora went to Bundy on the day of the 14th lou Brown and i think cici. denise and one or two other friends were removing Nicoles and the childrens items from the house. She helped pack some of nicoles things upstairs and Lou Brown and another man were washing down the walkway.maby le was there in the morning of 14th.Fung completed his collection at about 6 pm on 6/13.:shrug:

As I said, I do not doubt Ms. Terri's account of what she saw. I do not know whether she meant the 13th or the 14th. Either way she would have visited after LE had taken Simpson's blood, imho. At what time did DF allegedly take possession of Simpson's blood sample?

[William Anthony]

I recently finished re-reading the book "I'm not Dancing anymore" by OJ's niece Terri Baker.

Terri lived with OJ and Nicole for a period of time, and her family stayed at Rockingham for much of the criminal trial and Terri was by OJ's side during much of the civil trial.

She mentions that when she and her parents visited the Bundy crime scene the day after the murders, they had all viewed blood on the back gate.

Thoughts?

Kate

Was the point of your post to dispel the notion that LE could have planted the blood or was it to show the emotional impact that a bloody murder scene had on the families of the victims and the accused, or that the site of the blood on the gate caused Ms. Terri to rethink her uncle's guilt? I think I should have asked that question first.

[martin II]

As I said, I do not doubt Ms. Terri's account of what she saw. I do not know whether she meant the 13th or the 14th. Either way she would have visited after LE had taken Simpson's blood, imho. At what time did DF allegedly take possession of Simpson's blood sample?

vanhatter said he gave Fung the envelope at about 2;15 at rockingham on 6/13.Fung then went Bundy to collect evidence.I think that is correct. I don't think she was at bundy on 6/13 because the scene was full of cops.

The only time i see the crime scene being released would be the morning of 6/14 before 1 pm when it was washed down. So Terri was in the back walkway facing the back gate and saw this small blood stain when the area was being washed?

[William Anthony]

I have no reason to disbelieve Ms. Terri's account and that is not my point. I do have a problem with LE not knowing who was at the murder scene or allowing others into the scene when they had not fully processed the scene. I do not have doubt that Ms. Terri at some point saw blood on the gate. The question remains as to what blood she saw and when was the blood she saw deposited and exactly what blood she saw.

There may have been an implication by the defense that all the blood on the gate was deposited but my understanding is that one of the stains collected three weeks later contained EDTA in a level that suggested the blood had been planted and I do not know if the other gate stains were tested for the presence of EDTA. If LE was that lapse in the protection of the crime scene, then the possibility that the evidence should not be trusted looms large, imho.

Correction-There may have been an implication by the defense that all the blood on the gate was planted...

[William Anthony]

vanhatter said he gave Fung the envelope at about 2;15 at rockingham on 6/13.Fung then went Bundy to collect evidence.I think that is correct. I don't think she was at bundy on 6/13 because the scene was full of cops.

The only time i see the crime scene being released would be the morning of 6/14 before 1 pm when it was washed down. So Terri was in the back walkway facing the back gate and saw this small blood stain when the area was being washed?

Ms. Terri said she went to Bundy with her parents. According, to Ms. Baker's testimony, she remained at Rockingham on the 13th, which would mean that any visit to Bundy would have occurred after the 13th.

[martin II]

I am not sure Terri was a witness in either trial.

[martin II]

Ms. Terri said she went to Bundy with her parents. According, to Ms. Baker's testimony, she remained at Rockingham on the 13th, which would mean that any visit to Bundy would have occurred after the 13th.

Then it would have to be the morning of 6/14 before or at the time the Bundy scene was being released or at or after 1 pm when the scene was being washed down with the water hose.
I don't know what time on 6/14 the crime scene was released. I don't think ojs family would be allowed to be inside before the crime scene was released.

[martin II]

Did she mention the time of day when they visited? I think the police should not have so quickly released the crime scene. Were they aware that Simpson's family had visited?

Here Terri is quoted about who went to bundy with her.

"I thought back to the day when dad and I had gone by the murder scene...We had
seen blood on the back gate that day..."

[Kate Sachel]

Was the point of your post to dispel the notion that LE could have planted the blood or was it to show the emotional impact that a bloody murder scene had on the families of the victims and the accused, or that the site of the blood on the gate caused Ms. Terri to rethink her uncle's guilt? I think I should have asked that question first.

I didn't have a real point as far as how I personally viewed it, I only found it interesting that she noted that there was blood on the back gate when she was there while some have said that the blood did not appear there until much later.

In going back, by the way, and viewing her comments I have determined that her visit to Bundy must have been on June 14th. She doesn't specify the date, in fact she notes "it was a day after the murders and all the blood was still there" which may lead someone to believe she was there on June 13th. However, she states that the visit was the morning after they spent their first night at Rockingham. They arrived at Rockingham on the afternoon of June 13th, so that puts the visit to Bundy at June 14th.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Here is another interesting point in the book which makes me wonder if violence was considered the acceptable way to keep someone in line within the Simpson family.

Terri was in the backseat of a vehicle with her father and mother in the front seats when she finally dared to ask them "how come no one is asking whether or not he really could have done this? What if he did?". She states that her mother's reaction was "instantaneous and violent as she flew over the seat and began beating me with her fists". Her father had to pull the vehicle over and Terri had to jump out the back.

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

Here is another interesting point in the book which makes me wonder if violence was considered the acceptable way to keep someone in line within the Simpson family.

Terri was in the backseat of a vehicle with her father and mother in the front seats when she finally dared to ask them "how come no one is asking whether or not he really could have done this? What if he did?". She states that her mother's reaction was "instantaneous and violent as she flew over the seat and began beating me with her fists". Her father had to pull the vehicle over and Terri had to jump out the back.

Kate

Kate, this is an interesting point you bring up. I have often believed that familial violence isn't just one generation. I believe, more often than not, it's cyclical and wide-spread.

Children learn behavior from parents and close family.

It's a shame that her mother reacted that way to asking an honest question. Certainly her mother had to have wondered, even just a little, in the way back of her mind if it was possible he did it.

Perhaps she already knew the answer?

[Kate Sachel]

Kate, this is an interesting point you bring up. I have often believed that familial violence isn't just one generation. I believe, more often than not, it's cyclical and wide-spread.

Children learn behavior from parents and close family.

It's a shame that her mother reacted that way to asking an honest question. Certainly her mother had to have wondered, even just a little, in the way back of her mind if it was possible he did it.

Perhaps she already knew the answer?

It appears that her parents refused to entertain the idea in any format. According to Terri, it is her father's belief that there is a conspiracy in America to bring down all successful black men and thus OJ simply was framed.

Apparently no one in the family was allowed to question OJ on any point in his life no matter what the circumstance, and when Terri dared to do just that her family was furious and questioned her on why she would want to hurt people that way. That struck me as quite odd; does asking honest and insightful questions equate into a desire to want to hurt someone?

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

It appears that her parents refused to entertain the idea in any format. According to Terri, it is her father's belief that there is a conspiracy in America to bring down all successful black men and thus OJ simply was framed.

Apparently no one in the family was allowed to question OJ on any point in his life no matter what the circumstance, and when Terri dared to do just that her family was furious and questioned her on why she would want to hurt people that way. That struck me as quite odd; does asking honest and insightful questions equate into a desire to want to hurt someone?

Kate

Perhaps. Especially if you take into consideration the wild belief about the conspiracy in America to bring down all successful black men.

It seems that belief continues on, even today.

It's the SODDI mentality, IMO.

To me, I believe that for some people the moment you ask the question you have to be prepared for the answer(s). The notion of not asking is, to me, a way to avoid the conversation.

[martin II]

Terri is quoted.

"I asked Uncle O. J. about the fibers later. He didn’t have an answer."



"All through the trial, we had discussed gathering together to go on vacation to celebrate as a family. But, it never happened. Instead, Uncle O. J. chartered a plane so he could fly his buddies to Florida for a round of golf."

[martin II]

Cora fischman testrified that when she arrived at Bundy on 6/14 lou brown and a friend were washing down the walkways of the house with a water house and removing the contents of the house.

She was asked give the names of all those there and she did. Terri nor her father were named.

It would be interesting to know exactly when Terri and her Father were at the back gate at bundy.imo

[Kate Sachel]

Cora fischman testrified that when she arrived at Bundy on 6/14 lou brown and a friend were washing down the walkways of the house with a water house and removing the contents of the house.

She was asked give the names of all those there and she did. Terri nor her father were named.

It would be interesting to know exactly when Terri and her Father were at the back gate at bundy.imo

She and her father were there prior to the wash down, and Terri went back to Bundy later with Ron Fischman and that was when the place had just been hosed down. The Browns ended up having LE remove Terri from the condo because she was a member of the Simpson family and thus they stated that they were uncomfortable with her presence.

Kate

[weezer]

She and her father were there prior to the wash down, and Terri went back to Bundy later with Ron Fischman and that was when the place had just been hosed down. The Browns ended up having LE remove Terri from the condo because she was a member of the Simpson family and thus they stated that they were uncomfortable with her presence.

Kate

wasn't there pictures showing the blood on the back gate taken at the time of the murders?

[martin II]

wasn't there pictures showing the blood on the back gate taken at the time of the murders?

If there was a picture of blood on the back gate then there would have been no argument about it if was or was not. Don't you think?I don't think there was a picture.imo

[martin II]

T.B.

"Like Uncle O. J., Marcus Allen definitely preferred white women... I always
suspected Marcus wanted everything Uncle O. J. had-including Nicole...We all
knew Marcus had an affair with Nicole."..

[limakey]

Kate,

Is there any other information that confirms that Terri and parents did go to Bundy right after the murders?

I find it hard to believe that her parents would have gone to Bundy at all. I mean what would be the purpose of their visit? They already knew the Browns believed OJ murdered their daughter-sister.

I just don't see the point of them going to Bundy. I know they loved Nicole and she was a member of their family for 17 years but why would they go over there and even risk running into the Browns or worse, the LAPD?

[martin II]

Kate,

Is there any other information that confirms that Terri and parents did go to Bundy right after the murders?

I find it hard to believe that her parents would have gone to Bundy at all. I mean what would be the purpose of their visit? They already knew the Browns believed OJ murdered their daughter-sister.

I just don't see the point of them going to Bundy. I know they loved Nicole and she was a member of their family for 17 years but why would they go over there and even risk running into the Browns or worse, the LAPD?


Limakey

That is the same question i have.

6/14 ---Le is there closing down the crime scene at some time that
morning/day

Nicoles friends about 4-5 of them are removing childrens and nicoles
contents from the condo.

People are leaving flowers at the bundy sidewalk.

Lou Browns friend is outside washing down the back,side and front
walkway crime scene of blood etc.

Terrie and her father are walking around the crime scene looking for
evidence? Examining the back gate?:shrug:

From other comments it seems that terri had some long term
dissatisfaction that she was not the recipiant of ojs charity as other family mebers or that she thought she deserved.

Note
Her comments about oj renting a plane to take some friends to play Golf ALL DURING THE TRIAL? Thats news. When did this happen?

Ron F. testified but was not asked questions about any visit to Bundy on 6/14.

Wonder why the prosecution nor the plaintiffs lawyers thought to call Terri as their witness to verify that blood on the gate.:shrug:
imo

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

Is there any other information that confirms that Terri and parents did go to Bundy right after the murders?

I find it hard to believe that her parents would have gone to Bundy at all. I mean what would be the purpose of their visit? They already knew the Browns believed OJ murdered their daughter-sister.

I just don't see the point of them going to Bundy. I know they loved Nicole and she was a member of their family for 17 years but why would they go over there and even risk running into the Browns or worse, the LAPD?

Perhaps you don't see the point, but that doesn't mean that others don't have a reason why they do the things they do.

First of all, they didn't love Nicole. As a matter of fact, that portion of the family hardly ever saw either OJ or Nicole and Terri's parents didn't agree with their lifestyle. Terri spent a summer living with OJ and Nicole, but by the end of summer she and Nicole had a falling out that was never resolved and Nicole hated her. Terri spoke in the book about how she could not bring herself to grieve for Nicole, that Nicole was a woman her family hardly knew.

Terri and her father appeared not to have planned the visit. In the book, she speaks of how she and her father went to the grecoery store to pick up items, and out of impulse, and a curiousity they she said they couldn't explain, they found themselves at Bundy.

Tourists came from around the United States to visit that condo on Bundy out of morbid curiousity, yet you find it difficult to believe that members of the family involved wouldn't? Interesting.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Limakey

That is the same question i have.


Terrie and her father are walking around the crime scene looking for
evidence? Examining the back gate?:shrug:

From other comments it seems that terri had some long term
dissatisfaction that she was not the recipiant of ojs charity as other family mebers or that she thought she deserved.

Note
Her comments about oj renting a plane to take some friends to play Golf ALL DURING THE TRIAL? Thats news. When did this happen?

Wonder why the prosecution nor the plaintiffs lawyers thought to call Terri as their witness to verify that blood on the gate.:shrug:
imo

First, they weren't looking for evidence. She simply recalled that she had seen blood on the gate that day and that she was surprised by the amount of carnage she saw everywhere.

Not the recipient of OJ's charity? She lived with him rent free at Rockingham for a summer and when the school year started, he paid her rent so that she could stay in Los Angeles and go to school. I'd say she was quite a recipient of his charity.

You have her comments wrong. She did not say that he rented a plane to take some friends to play golf all during the trial. She said that, after the trials he and the family were supposed to go on a vacation together but that he chartered a plane to take his buddies to play golf instead.

I doubt the prosecution even knew who Terri was, or that she had been to the crime scene. She wanted to protect OJ, and she never offered any information to the prosecution, though she did offer tidbits to the defense.

Kate

[martin II]

While Arnell,Jason and other family members spoke of their love and good relationship with Nicole it was Terri that had a totally different opinion of how everyone felt about nicole.

While all the family members believed ojs was not guilty it was terri that thought that he was and says she did some important investigation of the crime scene looking for clues.

Looks like terri thought that All the family should have sat oj down on 6/13 and asked him some question about the murders.

All the other family members were bad people and terri was the only good one
with insight into the murders.

B Pavalic reported that terri from her living quarters at Rockingham, using the phone in her room had called a resturant to ask for a certain waitress that oj wanted to talk to.Got the waitress on the phone and clicked oj into the conversation so he could speak to the woman but at the same time she speaks negatively of oj and other women.

Terri and nicole had not resolved their argument and Nicole hated her Yet terri
just walked into nicoles condo on 6/14 with the browns and friends there to SEE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. Quite a agressive act on her part.

Seems like terri had many unresolved issues not only with Nicole but with all
of her family members.

imo

[martin II]

Terri book review

Not at all what it seems., Jul 12 2001
By "cj81510975677"

When I first bought the book,"I'm Not Dancing Anymore" by O.J. Simpsons neice I thought it was going to be another book trashing O.J. I really thought I was going to sit down read the book and hear about how awfuel O.J. was, but I was completly wrong. Terri Baker describes a completly different character of Nicole Simpson. Nicole was described as having a bad temper, writing people off and contributing to her argumets with O.J. In all the books that I had read so far,(and I have read all but five)not one book describes the pain that the Simpson family went throught throughout the trial. Miss.Baker did mention that for a while she never really knew who her Uncle O.J. was growing up because he was never really around. This book having been written by one of the Simpson family member, was not a book to defend him and not a book to blame him, she just told us in her eyes who O.J. Simpson was to his family. This is one of the many best books about the Simpson case that is worth the reading.

[martin II]

Terri quoted

"Uncle O. J. had bought Grandma a house when he started making money, but
otherwise we were pretty much on our own financially.

Somehow Uncle O. J. set up a deal to put Grandma in one of his
commercials...What did Uncle O. J. need with the extra money?...I couldn’t
understand why he hadn’t just let Grandma keep the whole fee...

"At Christmas time, the family would get Honey Baked hams..."

"Like Uncle O. J., Marcus Allen definitely preferred white women... I always
suspected Marcus wanted everything Uncle O. J. had-including Nicole...We all
knew Marcus had an affair with Nicole..."


martinii

[Kate Sachel]

While Arnell,Jason and other family members spoke of their love and good relationship with Nicole it was Terri that had a totally different opinion of how everyone felt about nicole.

While all the family members believed ojs was not guilty it was terri that thought that he was and says she did some important investigation of the crime scene looking for clues.

Looks like terri thought that All the family should have sat oj down on 6/13 and asked him some question about the murders.

All the other family members were bad people and terri was the only good one
with insight into the murders.

B Pavalic reported that terri from her living quarters at Rockingham, using the phone in her room had called a resturant to ask for a certain waitress that oj wanted to talk to.Got the waitress on the phone and clicked oj into the conversation so he could speak to the woman but at the same time she speaks negatively of oj and other women.

Terri and nicole had not resolved their argument and Nicole hated her Yet terri
just walked into nicoles condo on 6/14 with the browns and friends there to SEE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. Quite a agressive act on her part.

Seems like terri had many unresolved issues not only with Nicole but with all
of her family members.

imo

You have such a distorted and incorrect view. Tell me, have you even read her book or have the slighest idea of what she has really said? I'm calling you out right now and saying that it's obvious that you haven't read anything that she has written, you only automatically dislike her because she questions OJ's guilt.

1. Terri spoke of Arnelle and Jason's love for Nicole, she never denied that.

2. Terri did not even begin to question OJ's guilt until some time into the criminal trial. Terri never said she did any investigative work into the crime scene or even looked for clues so quit making things up.

3. Terri did not expect her family to sit OJ down on June 13th. As stated above, she did not even begin to question his guilt until some time into the criminal trial.

4. No one, including Terri said that her family was bad and that she was the only good one with insight into the murders.

5. Just because she granted his request that she call a woman when she was 17/18 years old and living at Rockingham doesn't mean she isn't allowed to speak negatively about his affairs with other women.

6. She didn't just walk into Nicole's condo. When she went that particular time it was with Ron Fischman and when the Brown's granted access they assumed that Ron was alone. When they saw that Terri was with, they asked LE to have her removed.

7. I would have unresolved issues with a family that literally forbade me, as an adult, to speak my mind and ask questions. I would especially have issues with a loser of an individual like Shirley Baker (Terri's mother) who's reaction when I actually do ask a question is to fly over a car seat to begin beating me. Having unresolved issues with her loser of a mother doesn't make Terri dishonest.

Hopefully one day you will actually read the book and speak with knowledge instead of callously making things up as you go along. I won't hold my breath.

Kate

[martin II]

"Shirley Baker specifically mentions seeing Rolf Brown -- a distant Brown cousin -- hose down the Bundy crime scene after the cops released it. She also mentions that the back gate was covered with fingerprint powder. Considering that this later collected blood was in plain sight, I regard it as inconceivable that Rolf Brown missed it."
b Pavalic

[martin II]

"Shirley Baker specifically mentions seeing Rolf Brown -- a distant Brown cousin -- hose down the Bundy crime scene after the cops released it. She also mentions that the back gate was covered with fingerprint powder. Considering that this later collected blood was in plain sight, I regard it as inconceivable that Rolf Brown missed it."
b Pavalic

Seems like terries mother was at Bundy also.Wonder if Lou had her removed
? Maby Terri did not know her mother was there also.

[limakey]

Kate,

IMO, there is much evidence to suggest that people are drawn to crime scenes. For some bizarre reason, people did feel drawn to Bundy, Rockingham and the Mezzaluna. I can understand a stranger doing this, but members of the family? You are right, it is difficult to explain any one's behavior.

If this did happen, I do not think it was done for any sinister reason, however, I would have thought their presence at Bundy would have been reported well before the criminal trial started. Again, just IMO.

[martin II]

Terri had a right to write a book just as so many others did to give her opinions of the relationships between oj, his family members, Nicole and why she decided oj was guilty.

Without proof offered by her, her comments are just her opinions
expressed by her. Every family member was in denial but Terri.

I have never read that her mother beat her with her fist or that
the family was pronged to violence between themselves.

If Terris story has truth i wonder what her relationship is with them today.Especially her mother and oj.

Her story is not backed by testimony that i have read. but hopefully she made money from the book.imo

[martin II]

Quotes of TERRI

Why wasn’t Uncle O. J. offering to help with airfare?...The family couldn’t begin to afford a hotel...Uncle O. J.’s large bedroom and bath were kept locked at all times.
Only Paula Barbieri was ever allowed to sleep in there...My VW was too small to fit everyone in...Uncle O.J’s Bentley was sitting gathering dust in the garage...
----------------
i thought ojs Bently was parked in the driveway and he drove it regurlarly.

[martin II]

Quotes of TERRI

Why wasn’t Uncle O. J. offering to help with airfare?...The family couldn’t begin to afford a hotel...Uncle O. J.’s large bedroom and bath were kept locked at all times.
Only Paula Barbieri was ever allowed to sleep in there...My VW was too small to fit everyone in...Uncle O.J’s Bentley was sitting gathering dust in the garage...
----------------
i thought ojs Bently was parked in the driveway and he drove it regurlarly.

correction; regularly

[martin II]

Kate,

Is there any other information that confirms that Terri and parents did go to Bundy right after the murders?

I find it hard to believe that her parents would have gone to Bundy at all. I mean what would be the purpose of their visit? They already knew the Browns believed OJ murdered their daughter-sister.

I just don't see the point of them going to Bundy. I know they loved Nicole and she was a member of their family for 17 years but why would they go over there and even risk running into the Browns or worse, the LAPD?

It is reported that Terri says she went to Bundy 'With her father" then it is reported that she went there with her "Parents".Then again she went with R. Fischman and was asked to leave. Seems she went to Bundy three times on 6/14. She went there in the morning before the washdown and then later after the washdown. I guess.imo

[SlowHandSam]

I've read and reread the "suicide" note and I'm not convinced that

(a) OJ wrote it and/or
(b) that it was truly meant to be considered a "suicide" note

I question who authored the note as it does not sound, as I read it, that OJ could have written it. It does not ring as his vernacular and every day speech.


To Whom It May Concern:

First, everyone understand. I have nothing to do with Nicole's murder. I loved her; always have and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much.

Recently, we came to the understanding that for now we were not right for each other, at least for now. Despite our love, we were different and that's why we mutually agreed to go our separate ways.

It was tough splitting for a second time, but we both knew it was for the best. Inside, I had no doubt that in the future we would be close friends or more. Unlike what has been written in the press, Nicole and I had a great relationship for most of our lives together. Like all long-term relationships, we had a few downs and ups.

I took the heat New Year's 1989 because that's what I was supposed to do. I did not plead no contest for any other reason but to protect our privacy and was advised it would end the press hype.

I don't want to belabor knocking the press, but I can't believe what is being said. Most of it is totally made up. I know you have a job to do, but as a last wish, please, please, please, leave my children in peace. Their lives will be tough enough.

I want to send my love and thanks to all my friends. I'm sorry I can't name every one of you, especially A.C. Man, thanks for being in my life. The support and friendship I received from so many: Wayne Hughes, Lewis Marks, Frank Olson, Mark Packer, Bender, Bobby Kardashian. I wish we had spent more time together in recent years. My golfing buddies: Hoss, Alan Austin, Mike, Craig, Bender, Wyler, Sandy, Jay, Donnie, thanks for the fun.

All my teammates over the years: Reggie, you were the soul of my pro career. Ahmad, I never stopped being proud of you. Marcus, you've got a great lady in Catherine, don't mess it up. Bobby Chandler, thanks for always being there. Skip and Kathy, I love you guys. Without you, I never would have made it through this far.

Marguerite, thanks for the early years. We had some fun. Paula, what can I say? You are special. I'm sorry I'm not going to have, we're not going to have, our chance. God brought you to me, I now see. As I leave, you'll be in my thoughts.

I think of my life and feel I've done most of the right things. So why do I end up like this? I can't go on. No matter what the outcome, people will look and point. I can't take that. I can't subject my children to that. This way, they can move on and go on with their lives.

Please, if I've done anything worthwhile in my life, let my kids live in peace from you, the press.

I've had a good life. I'm proud of how I lived. My mama taught me to do unto others. I treated people the way I wanted to be treated. I've always tried to be up and helpful. So why is this happening?

I'm sorry for the Goldman family. I know how much it hurts.

Nicole and I had a good life together. All this press talk about a rocky relationship was no more that what every long-term relationship experiences. All her friends will confirm that I have been totally loving and understanding of what she's been going through.

At times, I have felt like a battered husband or boyfriend, but I loved her; make that clear to everyone. And I would take whatever it took to make it work.

Don't feel sorry for me. I've had a great life, great friends. Please think of the real O.J. and not this lost person.

Thanks for making my life special. I hope I helped yours.

Peace and love, O.J.


the other thing I find odd about this is that not a single mention about any of his kids - no "final" thoughts to them. He managed to give a shout-out to his teammates, golfing buddies, former wife and his former girlfriend but not a single comment to his kids.

Am I the only one who things that is odd?

[martin II]

I've read and reread the "suicide" note and I'm not convinced that

(a) OJ wrote it and/or
(b) that it was truly meant to be considered a "suicide" note

I question who authored the note as it does not sound, as I read it, that OJ could have written it. It does not ring as his vernacular and every day speech.



the other thing I find odd about this is that not a single mention about any of his kids - no "final" thoughts to them. He managed to give a shout-out to his teammates, golfing buddies, former wife and his former girlfriend but not a single comment to his kids.

Am I the only one who things that is odd?

I think Rk said oj took some paper and went to a bedroom and wrote the letter.imo

[martin II]

When Park was buzzing the phone system from the Ashford gate,why didn't Kato buzz the gate from his room to open the gate?

[martin II]

I've read and reread the "suicide" note and I'm not convinced that

(a) OJ wrote it and/or
(b) that it was truly meant to be considered a "suicide" note

I question who authored the note as it does not sound, as I read it, that OJ could have written it. It does not ring as his vernacular and every day speech.



the other thing I find odd about this is that not a single mention about any of his kids - no "final" thoughts to them. He managed to give a shout-out to his teammates, golfing buddies, former wife and his former girlfriend but not a single comment to his kids.

Am I the only one who things that is odd?

Here he mentions his kids.

I don't want to belabor knocking the press, but I can't believe what is being said. Most of it is totally made up. I know you have a job to do, but as a last wish, please, please, please, leave my children in peace. Their lives will be tough enough.

[Kayleighjo]

I've read and reread the "suicide" note and I'm not convinced that

(a) OJ wrote it and/or
(b) that it was truly meant to be considered a "suicide" note

I question who authored the note as it does not sound, as I read it, that OJ could have written it. It does not ring as his vernacular and every day speech.



the other thing I find odd about this is that not a single mention about any of his kids - no "final" thoughts to them. He managed to give a shout-out to his teammates, golfing buddies, former wife and his former girlfriend but not a single comment to his kids.

Am I the only one who things that is odd?

The pure selfishness of the letter makes me think he wrote it, if it'd been anybody else that wrote it they probably would have been smart enough to include the kids.

I don't think he ever intented to kill himself either though, just a big sympathy ploy while he tried to flee. What a joke.

[Kayleighjo]

I've read Terri Baker's book by the way, and her family obviously promotes oppression and violence.

She's an adult and her father flat out told her that she couldn't loan her car to Kato for the drive to Nicole's funeral. Seriously? And she claims that she just shrugged her shoulders to Kato in response because she knew not to cross her parents. Again, seriously? And then her mom beats her for questioning if Simpson might have done it?

And by the way, her mom Shirley also uses the oh so dreaded "N" word that is so taboo for the white folks to say.

[SlowHandSam]

The pure selfishness of the letter makes me think he wrote it, if it'd been anybody else that wrote it they probably would have been smart enough to include the kids.

I don't think he ever intented to kill himself either though, just a big sympathy ploy while he tried to flee. What a joke.

Kayleighjo, you make a good point about the selfishness.

I'm not sure it was a ply for "sympathy" per se, but more of a deflection tactic to cause people to focus on something different instead of the idea and belief that he murdered his wife and her friend. But that's just MO.

Something just doesn't sit with me while reading it, though, on how the words used in the letter. It comes across as someone who has a far different everyday vernacular than oj.

[weezer]

Kayleighjo, you make a good point about the selfishness.

I'm not sure it was a ply for "sympathy" per se, but more of a deflection tactic to cause people to focus on something different instead of the idea and belief that he murdered his wife and her friend. But that's just MO.

Something just doesn't sit with me while reading it, though, on how the words used in the letter. It comes across as someone who has a far different everyday vernacular than oj.

I think it sounds like a self-absorbed, illiterate psychotic who just murdered two human beings. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

I didn't have a real point as far as how I personally viewed it, I only found it interesting that she noted that there was blood on the back gate when she was there while some have said that the blood did not appear there until much later.

In going back, by the way, and viewing her comments I have determined that her visit to Bundy must have been on June 14th. She doesn't specify the date, in fact she notes "it was a day after the murders and all the blood was still there" which may lead someone to believe she was there on June 13th. However, she states that the visit was the morning after they spent their first night at Rockingham. They arrived at Rockingham on the afternoon of June 13th, so that puts the visit to Bundy at June 14th.

Kate

You may be correct that some feel that the blood was planted on the gate after the 13th. I think that, if the blood was planted as evidenced by the DNA in one of the stains, then it must have been planted there sometime after the 13th when the evidence was collected and sometime between the time they returned and collected those stains, whether of the 13th or much later.

[William Anthony]

Here is another interesting point in the book which makes me wonder if violence was considered the acceptable way to keep someone in line within the Simpson family.

Terri was in the backseat of a vehicle with her father and mother in the front seats when she finally dared to ask them "how come no one is asking whether or not he really could have done this? What if he did?". She states that her mother's reaction was "instantaneous and violent as she flew over the seat and began beating me with her fists". Her father had to pull the vehicle over and Terri had to jump out the back.

Kate

I cannot make that leap that a family condones violence as a means of control, simply because of this particular situation. I think it may have been hard for a niece to understand the relationship or the love shared by a brother and sister, who were raise in a poor community, their experiences or the character of the brother. While Ms. Baker may not have agreed with the domestic abuse, she may also felt her brother was incapable of murder and the possibility that her brother may have been facing criminal charges when she knew he was incapable of committing such horrendous acts may have caused her to lose control, when her daughter questioned if her brother was guilty or not, without truly understanding the past relationship and the character of her brother.

I do not think that I would have been beaten with a fist, if I questioned whether one of my father's or mother's siblings were capable of committing double murder, I would have found it unable to sit comfortably and been ashamed to take my shirt of or wear shorts. I do not equate the use of force to violence. I think that a child must be taught to know how to conduct themselves, depending on to what the particular child responds. Talking only worked with me on occasions, unfortunately, and my father reminded me several times, if I kept on campaigning I was going to get elected.:)

[William Anthony]

It appears that her parents refused to entertain the idea in any format. According to Terri, it is her father's belief that there is a conspiracy in America to bring down all successful black men and thus OJ simply was framed.

Apparently no one in the family was allowed to question OJ on any point in his life no matter what the circumstance, and when Terri dared to do just that her family was furious and questioned her on why she would want to hurt people that way. That struck me as quite odd; does asking honest and insightful questions equate into a desire to want to hurt someone?

Kate

I think that my above response may have answered why the family question her motives.

[martin II]

You may be correct that some feel that the blood was planted on the gate after the 13th. I think that, if the blood was planted as evidenced by the DNA in one of the stains, then it must have been planted there sometime after the 13th when the evidence was collected and sometime between the time they returned and collected those stains, whether of the 13th or much later.

if the gates and walkway were washed down on 6/14 with a water hose i doubt the washer missed anything especially all the finger print powder.So
after 6/14 or the date the blood was found is the date it was put there.
imo

[William Anthony]

I've read Terri Baker's book by the way, and her family obviously promotes oppression and violence.

She's an adult and her father flat out told her that she couldn't loan her car to Kato for the drive to Nicole's funeral. Seriously? And she claims that she just shrugged her shoulders to Kato in response because she knew not to cross her parents. Again, seriously? And then her mom beats her for questioning if Simpson might have done it?

And by the way, her mom Shirley also uses the oh so dreaded "N" word that is so taboo for the white folks to say.

I did not know that Shirley was white.

[William Anthony]

a self-absorbed, illiterate psychotic who just murdered two human beings.

I wonder how long it took to reach that conclusion?

[martin II]

I cannot make that leap that a family condones violence as a means of control, simply because of this particular situation. I think it may have been hard for a niece to understand the relationship or the love shared by a brother and sister, who were raise in a poor community, their experiences or the character of the brother. While Ms. Baker may not have agreed with the domestic abuse, she may also felt her brother was incapable of murder and the possibility that her brother may have been facing criminal charges when she knew he was incapable of committing such horrendous acts may have caused her to lose control, when her daughter questioned if her brother was guilty or not, without truly understanding the past relationship and the character of her brother.

I do not think that I would have been beaten with a fist, if I questioned whether one of my father's or mother's siblings were capable of committing double murder, I would have found it unable to sit comfortably and been ashamed to take my shirt of or wear shorts. I do not equate the use of force to violence. I think that a child must be taught to know how to conduct themselves, depending on to what the particular child responds. Talking only worked with me on occasions, unfortunately, and my father reminded me several times, if I kept on campaigning I was going to get elected.:)

I support your post completely.The leap is much too large for me also.

[William Anthony]

I didn't have a real point as far as how I personally viewed it, I only found it interesting that she noted that there was blood on the back gate when she was there while some have said that the blood did not appear there until much later.

In going back, by the way, and viewing her comments I have determined that her visit to Bundy must have been on June 14th. She doesn't specify the date, in fact she notes "it was a day after the murders and all the blood was still there" which may lead someone to believe she was there on June 13th. However, she states that the visit was the morning after they spent their first night at Rockingham. They arrived at Rockingham on the afternoon of June 13th, so that puts the visit to Bundy at June 14th.

Kate

As I have previously stated that I have no reason to discount Ms. Terri's account of what she observed, it seems she did take literary license by her statement that "all the blood was still there". I do not know what her purpose was in writing the book, although one of my instructors told me that all authors write to make money, with which I see nothing wrong.

I also would like to add that, because someone reaches the age of adulthood, it does not make them an adult or have the maturity equivalent to the age. I have found and said that you demonstrate a level of maturity that surpasses your age and I think some demonstrate a level of maturity that is equal to those of a much younger age than they have attained. I personally do not know enough about Ms. Terri to make an assumption. Perhaps, Ms. Shirley considered her a child despite her age. Allegedly, we attacked and invaded Iraq on a belief that they were a danger to our way of living. It would seem that violence is condoned base on a perceived threat to our way of living. I am neither condoning Ms. Baker's or America's use of violence. I am merely drawing a similarity to things that make one resort to violence. I think that Simpson helped his family in trying times and that all may have received some favorable treatment simply by telling others of their relationship with him. That may have been a relationship or status that Ms. Baker did not want jeopardized by anyone.

[martin II]

As I have previously stated that I have no reason to discount Ms. Terri's account of what she observed, it seems she did take literary license by her statement that "all the blood was still there". I do not know what her purpose was in writing the book, although one of my instructors told me that all authors write to make money, with which I see nothing wrong.

I also would like to add that, because someone reaches the age of adulthood, it does not make them an adult or have the maturity equivalent to the age. I have found and said that you demonstrate a level of maturity that surpasses your age and I think some demonstrate a level of maturity that is equal to those of a much younger age than they have attained. I personally do not know enough about Ms. Terri to make an assumption. Perhaps, Ms. Shirley considered her a child despite her age. Allegedly, we attacked and invaded Iraq on a belief that they were a danger to our way of living. It would seem that violence is condoned base on a perceived threat to our way of living. I am neither condoning Ms. Baker's or America's use of violence. I am merely drawing a similarity to things that make one resort to violence. I think that Simpson helped his family in trying times and that all may have received some favorable treatment simply by telling others of their relationship with him. That may have been a relationship or status that Ms. Baker did not want jeopardized by anyone.


It is reported that Ms Terri seemed to have had concerns that in her opinion
OJ did not seem to be greiving enough over Nicoles death, yet because of some dissagreement or her opinion of how Nicole dealt with others,she was not able to greive over her death.imo

[William Anthony]

First, they weren't looking for evidence. She simply recalled that she had seen blood on the gate that day and that she was surprised by the amount of carnage she saw everywhere.

Not the recipient of OJ's charity? She lived with him rent free at Rockingham for a summer and when the school year started, he paid her rent so that she could stay in Los Angeles and go to school. I'd say she was quite a recipient of his charity.

You have her comments wrong. She did not say that he rented a plane to take some friends to play golf all during the trial. She said that, after the trials he and the family were supposed to go on a vacation together but that he chartered a plane to take his buddies to play golf instead.

I doubt the prosecution even knew who Terri was, or that she had been to the crime scene. She wanted to protect OJ, and she never offered any information to the prosecution, though she did offer tidbits to the defense.

Kate

Are there specifics on the tidbits she offered the prosecution?

[martin II]

Are there specifics on the tidbits she offered the prosecution?

From a report Terri was at Bundy three times on 6/14.So if le knew this the DA did also.

If Terri had tidbits to offer, where did she get them from if not by some mini
investigation like seeing blood on the back gate?

[William Anthony]

Are there specifics on the tidbits she offered the prosecution?

Correction-Are there specifics on the tidbits she offered the defense?

[weezer]

Hattiesburg 06/27/08
Former O.J. Simpson Juror and His Wife Found Dead

Questions continue to surround the deaths of a man who was once a juror in the O.J. Simpson murder trial and his wife in Hattiesburg.

Tracy Kennedy and his wife Judy died earlier this week at their home in Hattiesburg. The couple retired from California a few years ago.

Tracy Kennedy served as a juror in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, but was kicked off after lying about having juror information on his notebook computer. He later wrote a book about the affects of the trial and his thoughts of suicide following it.

Recently, Judy Kennedy had filed for divorce. The Kennedy's died of gunshot wounds and there are reports two handguns were found near the bodies.

It is not known how long the pair had been dead. Early reports were that their deaths were the result of a murder-suicide.

Authorities are officially calling it a double death investigation.

[martin II]

I wonder if Terri saw the gate covered with finger print powder that others saw.?

[weezer]

I wonder if Terri saw the gate covered with finger print powder that others saw.?

I can't find any mention of powder but she does say she saw the blood.

[martin II]

I can't find any mention of powder but she does say she saw the blood.


Well then the question becomes WHEN did she see blood on the gate?

[martin II]

"Shirley Baker specifically mentions seeing Rolf Brown -- a distant Brown cousin -- hose down the Bundy crime scene after the cops released it. She also mentions that the back gate was covered with fingerprint powder. Considering that this later collected blood was in plain sight, I regard it as inconceivable that Rolf Brown missed

[Kayleighjo]

Quotes of TERRI

Why wasn’t Uncle O. J. offering to help with airfare?...The family couldn’t begin to afford a hotel...Uncle O. J.’s large bedroom and bath were kept locked at all times.
Only Paula Barbieri was ever allowed to sleep in there...My VW was too small to fit everyone in...Uncle O.J’s Bentley was sitting gathering dust in the garage...
----------------
i thought ojs Bently was parked in the driveway and he drove it regurlarly.

Uh, not while he was jail.

[Kayleighjo]

I did not know that Shirley was white.

Her relationship with her brother O.J. probably would have been better if she was.

Maybe then he'd have coughed up that airfare and hotel.

[Kayleighjo]

I cannot make that leap that a family condones violence as a means of control, simply because of this particular situation. I think it may have been hard for a niece to understand the relationship or the love shared by a brother and sister, who were raise in a poor community, their experiences or the character of the brother. While Ms. Baker may not have agreed with the domestic abuse, she may also felt her brother was incapable of murder and the possibility that her brother may have been facing criminal charges when she knew he was incapable of committing such horrendous acts may have caused her to lose control, when her daughter questioned if her brother was guilty or not, without truly understanding the past relationship and the character of her brother.

I do not think that I would have been beaten with a fist, if I questioned whether one of my father's or mother's siblings were capable of committing double murder, I would have found it unable to sit comfortably and been ashamed to take my shirt of or wear shorts. I do not equate the use of force to violence. I think that a child must be taught to know how to conduct themselves, depending on to what the particular child responds. Talking only worked with me on occasions, unfortunately, and my father reminded me several times, if I kept on campaigning I was going to get elected.:)

Always good to see the excuses for violence. You don't equate the use of force to violence? Do you see leaping over a seat to begin punching your daughter with fists to be force or violence?

[William Anthony]

Always good to see the excuses for violence. You don't equate the use of force to violence? Do you see leaping over a seat to begin punching your daughter with fists to be force or violence?

I am not of the opinion that children should not be struck as a means of discipline. I think that, if you read all my posts on the subject, you might understand my position, as I feel talking or time out does not work with every child in every situation. However, let us put this in context as to what transpired in a situation where a sibling was accused of double murder and a niece questions the innocence. I do not believe that Ms. Shirley had the right reaction but cannot jump to the conclusion that she did this always as a means to control her daughter.

[William Anthony]

Her relationship with her brother O.J. probably would have been better if she was.

Maybe then he'd have coughed up that airfare and hotel.

I assume you think that the friends he paid for where all White?

[martin II]

I assume you think that the friends he paid for where all White?

i think that some that hate oj and any family member that surpported him would automatically assume that Terris story was absolutely true and jump to all kinds of conclusions based on their bias against him and his family. We don't know if her mother just slapped her across her mouth to shut her up not.

[martin II]

"Not the recipient of OJ's charity? She lived with him rent free at Rockingham for a summer and when the school year started, he paid her rent so that she could stay in Los Angeles and go to school. I'd say she was quite a recipient of his charity. "

[William Anthony]

I assume you think that the friends he paid for where all White?

Correction-]I assume you think that the friends he paid for were all White?

[weezer]

i think that some that hate oj and any family member that surpported him would automatically assume that Terris story was absolutely true and jump to all kinds of conclusions based on their bias against him and his family. We don't know if her mother just slapped her across her mouth to shut her up not.

I'm not even believing you posted this: ". . .We don't know if her mother just slapped her across her mouth to shut her up not."

I assume you think being 'slapped across her mouth to shut her up' is not violence. Geez

[Kate Sachel]

i think that some that hate oj and any family member that surpported him would automatically assume that Terris story was absolutely true and jump to all kinds of conclusions based on their bias against him and his family. We don't know if her mother just slapped her across her mouth to shut her up not.

By the same way of thinking, it may appear that you automatically dismiss anything said by an individual that does not support OJ Simpson.

It is a book, and of course there is no way to either confirm or deny everything that has been written in the book. We are merely having conversation regarding that book and her thoughts and opinions.

Frankly, I see no reason to disbelieve her. She obviously still loves her uncle; even when she forced herself to question his guilt she remained loyal to both him and the entire rest of her family and she continued to be one of his greatest supporters. She rearranged her entire life so that she could ensure that she was there to visit him in jail and to be present in the courtroom to show her support.

I do find it interesting your final comment. Do you find it appropriate martin, to slap someone across their mouth to shut them up? Even the particular words that you chose to make that statement creep me out.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I cannot make that leap that a family condones violence as a means of control, simply because of this particular situation. I think it may have been hard for a niece to understand the relationship or the love shared by a brother and sister, who were raise in a poor community, their experiences or the character of the brother. While Ms. Baker may not have agreed with the domestic abuse, she may also felt her brother was incapable of murder and the possibility that her brother may have been facing criminal charges when she knew he was incapable of committing such horrendous acts may have caused her to lose control, when her daughter questioned if her brother was guilty or not, without truly understanding the past relationship and the character of her brother.

I do not think that I would have been beaten with a fist, if I questioned whether one of my father's or mother's siblings were capable of committing double murder, I would have found it unable to sit comfortably and been ashamed to take my shirt of or wear shorts. I do not equate the use of force to violence. I think that a child must be taught to know how to conduct themselves, depending on to what the particular child responds. Talking only worked with me on occasions, unfortunately, and my father reminded me several times, if I kept on campaigning I was going to get elected.:)

With all due respect, regardless of what your own personal family experiences are, I do not find it acceptable to use violence against any human being. Shirley Baker's actions in that moment were actions of violence against a family member. It is against the law to use your fists to attack another human being, regardless of if they are family or not.

I'm quite certain that Shirley did find her brother incapable of such violence as she quite clearly disregarded anything that anyone said to the contrary. Regardless of her love for her brother, I find her actions both violent and highly inappropriate. It matters not what Terri understood or did not understand regarding her mother and uncle's past relationship.

I'm somewhat disheartened to see you attempt to explain those actions away or to paint them as acceptable in any light whatsoever.


Kate

[martin II]

I'm not even believing you posted this: ". . .We don't know if her mother just slapped her across her mouth to shut her up not."

I assume you think being 'slapped across her mouth to shut her up' is not violence. Geez

well Weezer

If it happened, it sounds better than "my mother jumped in the back seat and beat me with her [B]fist]" as claimed by Terri.imo
Actually i think neither happend.imo

[Kate Sachel]

well Weezer

If it happened, it sounds better than "my mother jumped in the back seat and beat me with her [B]fist]" as claimed by Terri.imo
Actually i think neither happend.imo

Of course you think neither happened; you are clearly of the mentality that if she was brazen enough to question OJ's guilt then she must be dishonest.

Kate

[William Anthony]

With all due respect, regardless of what your own personal family experiences are, I do not find it acceptable to use violence against any human being. Shirley Baker's actions in that moment were actions of violence against a family member. It is against the law to use your fists to attack another human being, regardless of if they are family or not.

I'm quite certain that Shirley did find her brother incapable of such violence as she quite clearly disregarded anything that anyone said to the contrary. Regardless of her love for her brother, I find her actions both violent and highly inappropriate. It matters not what Terri understood or did not understand regarding her mother and uncle's past relationship.

I'm somewhat disheartened to see you attempt to explain those actions away or to paint them as acceptable in any light whatsoever.


Kate

I guess I should have made myself more clear, I did not intend to say that violence is acceptable or that my family practiced violence on me. I do think that physical force is sometimes necessary in modifying behavior and teaching respect for others. What I meant to say is that, while Ms. Shirley's actions in that extraordinary situation may have been violent, I cannot make the leap that the Simpson family routinely used violence as a means of control. There were occasions in my upbringing when talking and/or punishment worked better than a whipping. I am not one who thinks that whipping automatically equates to abuse. I do think that the use of fists may have been a violent over reaction but that does not make me conclude that it was the norm or what Shirley had learned was acceptable.

[weezer]

well Weezer

If it happened, it sounds better than "my mother jumped in the back seat and beat me with her [B]fist]" as claimed by Terri.imo
Actually i think neither happend.imo

'sounds better'? Good Gawd martin -- you have a distorted view. :eek:

[martin II]

'sounds better'? Good Gawd martin -- you have a distorted view. :eek:

if i were younger i would prefer a slap than a nice size woman jumping on me in the back seat of a car and giving me a good beat down with her fist.
maby you prefer the beatdown. hahahaha

but there is really no proof that either happened.imo

[weezer]

if i were younger i would prefer a slap than a nice size woman jumping on me in the back seat of a car and giving me a good beat down with her fist.
maby you prefer the beatdown. hahahaha

but there is really no proof that either happened.imo

sad that you find humor in any of this. . . .

what if it is true? doesn't matter to you since :eek: she had doubts to orenthal's innocence?

how sad.

[martin II]

sad that you find humor in any of this. . . .

what if it is true? doesn't matter to you since :eek: she had doubts to orenthal's innocence?

how sad.

What if it is not true? Then your personal comments to me would be the same nonsense.
See, how it works is, not everyone must agree with your opinions and no one should have to receive negative personal comments from you because of their opinions.imo

[weezer]

What if it is not true? Then your personal comments to me would be the same nonsense.
See, how it works is, not everyone must agree with your opinions and no one should have to receive negative personal comments from you because of their opinions.imo

you're right martin, not everyone is going to agree that hitting another person is violent and wrong -- even to 'shut them up'.

and while we're talking about personal comments and nonsense, here's yours to me: ". . .maby you prefer the beatdown. hahahaha"

[martin II]

you're right martin, not everyone is going to agree that hitting another person is violent and wrong -- even to 'shut them up'.

and while we're talking about personal comments and nonsense, here's yours to me: ". . .maby you prefer the beatdown. hahahaha"

Seems to me you are again looking for a fight so i think i will leave my comments about Terri as i have posted them and leave you alone.:cool:

[martin II]

Le must have released the Bundy crime scene some time on 6/14 morning and
12--1pm when the scene was being washed down with a water hose by a friend of Lou Brown.

It is reported that Terri says she went to Bundy 'With her father" then it is reported that she went there with her "Parents".Then again she went with R. Fischman and was asked to leave. Seems she went to Bundy three times on 6/14. She went there in the morning before the washdown and then later after the washdown. If after the washdown how did she see blood on the gate?

[William Anthony]

No prayer in school and no spanking allowed by parents=an increase in the prison population and the murder of many youths.

[Kate Sachel]

No prayer in school and no spanking allowed by parents=an increase in the prison population and the murder of many youths.

For myself, when I do have children they will be raised to understand that hands are not for hitting. It would be hypocritical for me then to use my hands to spank them as a means of discipline.

I don't for a moment believe that a lack of spanking is what leads to more crime, I think that lazy parenting does. In my own personal opinion there are far too many lazy parents in this world who, instead of taking time and setting standards and following through with the threatened discipline, find it much easier to put their hands on their child's behind to give it a whack.

Where anyone thinks that it is productive to keep your child in line by having them fear you is beyond my comprehension.

Kate

[William Anthony]

For myself, when I do have children they will be raised to understand that hands are not for hitting. It would be hypocritical for me then to use my hands to spank them as a means of discipline.

I don't for a moment believe that a lack of spanking is what leads to more crime, I think that lazy parenting does. In my own personal opinion there are far too many lazy parents in this world who, instead of taking time and setting standards and following through with the threatened discipline, find it much easier to put their hands on their child's behind to give it a whack.

Where anyone thinks that it is productive to keep your child in line by having them fear you is beyond my comprehension.

Kate

My parents raised me to believe that violence is wrong unless in self defense and there is no other alternative. The likewise tried several remedies before resorting to spanking and only used spanking when other remedies did not work. Neither of my parents were lazy parents and I can honestly say that they did not spank me unless I deserved it. I understand your feelings on fear and I did not fear my parents in anyway other than the biblical sense, which was to love and respect them. The spanking help to instill in me a respect for others when I acted inappropriately and a respect for telling the truth. I honestly think the spankings helped more than hurt me. I will not try to speak for other children as to the effect it had on them. I feel that the removal of prayer from schools and spanking as loosing self-respect and respect for others making violence and crimes easier to commit.

[martin II]

My parents raised me to believe that violence is wrong unless in self defense and there is no other alternative. The likewise tried several remedies before resorting to spanking and only used spanking when other remedies did not work. Neither of my parents were lazy parents and I can honestly say that they did not spank me unless I deserved it. I understand your feelings on fear and I did not fear my parents in anyway other than the biblical sense, which was to love and respect them. The spanking help to instill in me a respect for others when I acted inappropriately and a respect for telling the truth. I honestly think the spankings helped more than hurt me. I will not try to speak for other children as to the effect it had on them. I feel that the removal of prayer from schools and spanking as loosing self-respect and respect for others making violence and crimes easier to commit.

I remember being spanked for not flollowing request to be in the house by a certain time.That spanking taught me that a parents request must be followed. Prior to that i had thought i could get by with ignoring that request because i knew my parents loved me.

The spankings i got was not a lesson that violence was acceptable but that i had to learn to live by the rules of the house.

I think that people with children learn quickly that a little tap on the butt is helpful in the overall teaching of dicipline with some youngsters that try daily to do their own thing. imo

[Redmama]

My Mom taught me early on to do what she said. Anytime she said do this or...she always followed through on the "or." It was usually like be home when you are supposed to or tomorrow night you can't go out and play. I never even considered not listening to her. I've brought my daughter up the same way - she knew that if I made a threat, I followed through. I am happy to say my Mother never needed to hit me, and my daughter who is 21 has never been hit by me.

[martin II]

My Mom taught me early on to do what she said. Anytime she said do this or...she always followed through on the "or." It was usually like be home when you are supposed to or tomorrow night you can't go out and play. I never even considered not listening to her. I've brought my daughter up the same way - she knew that if I made a threat, I followed through. I am happy to say my Mother never needed to hit me, and my daughter who is 21 has never been hit by me.

You obviously got your mothers message and that is a good thing.For you.

I am not of the opinion that a tap on the butt will cause children to use violence in their daily lives. imo

[Redmama]

You obviously got your mothers message and that is a good thing.For you.

I am not of the opinion that a tap on the butt will cause children to use violence in their daily lives. imo

I'm of the opinion that parents resort to hitting just a little too easily. Following through on discipline is really hard work, hitting only takes seconds to do and is not consistent for a child. I truly believe that if you discipline consistently, the child knows what to expect, and raising your voice isn't even necessary. From my experience, it is the kids that are sometimes disciplined and sometimes not for the same behaviors that have the problem - that is right where the problem starts.

[martin II]

I'm of the opinion that parents resort to hitting just a little too easily. Following through on discipline is really hard work, hitting only takes seconds to do and is not consistent for a child. I truly believe that if you discipline consistently, the child knows what to expect, and raising your voice isn't even necessary. From my experience, it is the kids that are sometimes disciplined and sometimes not for the same behaviors that have the problem - that is right where the problem starts.

i can agree with your position about half way. my grandchildren receives all the love and juice they can consume. but one enjoyes putting herself in danger by opening the fridge and climibing up on shelves to ger more of what she wants. it was taps on the butt and explaing the danger that caused her to ask for juice now.

[Redmama]

i can agree with your position about half way. my grandchildren receives all the love and juice they can consume. but one enjoyes putting herself in danger by opening the fridge and climibing up on shelves to ger more of what she wants. it was taps on the butt and explaing the danger that caused her to ask for juice now.

I wouldn't consider a tap on the butt the same as a spanking.

[weezer]

I wouldn't consider a tap on the butt the same as a spanking.

me either. at any rate, it sounds like the altercation at the simpson's was a little more than a tap on the butt or a spanking. I have to admit that it did make me laugh out loud that he got the whipping this time though. Sorry but I can't help myself -- it just seems so right somehow.

[William Anthony]

I wouldn't consider a tap on the butt the same as a spanking.

Me either, because if they were taps I probably would not have modified my behavior. :) I considered them growing pains.:) My parent often told me they were spanking me because the loved me and I asked them to love me a little less. :)

[Kate Sachel]

Me either, because if they were taps I probably would not have modified my behavior. :) I considered them growing pains.:) My parent often told me they were spanking me because the loved me and I asked them to love me a little less. :)

I definitely would not want anyone loving me that way, and frankly I find that wording disturbing. It's eerily reminiscent of a man abusing his wife and then telling her that he loves her.

I was reading recent studies that show a link between spanking and erratic or more rebellious behavior from those spanked children later in their lives. Many of these children grow up to believe that putting their hands on another human being is the way to modify someone's behavior and I find that a shame and I find that unacceptable.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I'm of the opinion that parents resort to hitting just a little too easily. Following through on discipline is really hard work, hitting only takes seconds to do and is not consistent for a child. I truly believe that if you discipline consistently, the child knows what to expect, and raising your voice isn't even necessary. From my experience, it is the kids that are sometimes disciplined and sometimes not for the same behaviors that have the problem - that is right where the problem starts.

A lovely and wise post; thank you.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I definitely would not want anyone loving me that way, and frankly I find that wording disturbing. It's eerily reminiscent of a man abusing his wife and then telling her that he loves her.

I was reading recent studies that show a link between spanking and erratic or more rebellious behavior from those spanked children later in their lives. Many of these children grow up to believe that putting their hands on another human being is the way to modify someone's behavior and I find that a shame and I find that unacceptable.

Kate

I only have one sister and no brothers. My sister will say that she received a great number of spankings, which I know is not true. She was never spanked by my father and I can recall three that I received from him. I do not want you to think that this was the normal course of discipline in my family. However, there were times when it was called for and there was one when it was not. A teacher told half the truth and when I told my father the truth, he did not believe me, because I had lied to him about another school situation.
When he found out that the teacher lied he apologized and cried. I know that both my parents loved me and never doubted that, even if they did not believe me or spanked me for something that was not my fault. I responded to a provocation by that teacher in a manner that was inappropriate. I do not think that my father would have spanked me if he could have trusted me not to lie to him. I would not have gotten a spanking for my inappropriate response but would have received some other type of discipline. Those two spankings, one deserved for lying and one undeserved for lying taught me a great deal. If I had not have lied in the first place, I would not have destroyed his trust in me. I think that knowledge hurt more than the spanking. I joked with them about loving me less but would not have exchanged them or the spankings I received from them for anything in the world and wish they were here to spank me now.

[martin II]

i think that if we are talking about spanking but not brutal spanking/hitting that decision is best left with the parent who knows the child better than anyone. There may be some parents that spank in anger and this is never a good idea. People that actually have children quickly learn what is required for their childrens safety and respect for parental authority.imo

[Kate Sachel]

i think that if we are talking about spanking but not brutal spanking/hitting that decision is best left with the parent who knows the child better than anyone. There may be some parents that spank in anger and this is never a good idea. People that actually have children quickly learn what is required for their childrens safety and respect for parental authority.imo

Do you spank your wife if she does something that you deem out of line or inappropriate? Why a child then? Because you can?

We may not all be parents, but we are all children and that has insight. Growing up, my best friend Aislynn listened to her father all through childhood and her teenage years for one reason - fear. She feared his hands on her, but she did not respect him. She didn't listen to him because she valued his insight or authority, she listened to him because she was afraid not to. I think that's sad.

Kate

[weezer]

Do you spank your wife if she does something that you deem out of line or inappropriate? Why a child then? Because you can?

We may not all be parents, but we are all children and that has insight. Growing up, my best friend Aislynn listened to her father all through childhood and her teenage years for one reason - fear. She feared his hands on her, but she did not respect him. She didn't listen to him because she valued his insight or authority, she listened to him because she was afraid not to. I think that's sad.

Kate

And, what one parent calls a 'spanking', another parent would call 'hitting'. -- I think it's terribly sad that there are children in the ER, doctor's office, hospital or morgue whose parents thought they had the right to 'spank'.

[William Anthony]

Do you spank your wife if she does something that you deem out of line or inappropriate? Why a child then? Because you can?

We may not all be parents, but we are all children and that has insight. Growing up, my best friend Aislynn listened to her father all through childhood and her teenage years for one reason - fear. She feared his hands on her, but she did not respect him. She didn't listen to him because she valued his insight or authority, she listened to him because she was afraid not to. I think that's sad.

Kate

As with anything, it can be abused. I feel sad for your friend, if she never respected her father and he only gave her reason to fear him. Along with my spankings came instructions on what I had done to deserve it, how many chances I had been given to modify the behavior and the reassurance that I was loved. Their came a time when I was not spanked, because I had attained that level of maturity to understand that my parents always had my best interest at heart and I was told that violence against others was never acceptable unless in self defense or defense of a loved one. It is true that we are not all parents but we were once all children. Age does not make one adult but maturity does. The original context was in regard to Ms. Shirley's actions and the idea that it was a programmed behavior, as opposed to a reaction to very trying circumstances. I still do not equate her reaction to a learned pattern of behavior.

[SlowHandSam]

And, what one parent calls a 'spanking', another parent would call 'hitting'. -- I think it's terribly sad that there are children in the ER, doctor's office, hospital or morgue whose parents thought they had the right to 'spank'.

From someone with children, I can say that I believe there is a balance between corporal punishment and verbal behavior modification techniques. All children (and some adults) require some level of behavior modification at some point, regardless of how good a parent one thinks they might be.

I can count on one hand the number of times I've spanked my son. I have used verbal methods as well. I believe there is a balance and that there are times that a spanking is "the only way" to get their attention.

I do not advocate HITTING or SLAPPING or otherwise abusing children (or adults) in any shape. I do, however, believe that there is nothing wrong with corporal punishment when the need arises so long as it is not done in anger or done in a manner that physically harms the child more than a red butt.

I, at my age, am still scared of my folks. My mom can cut her eyes and put the fear of God in my in 2 seconds flat. My daddy can pierce his lips in a way and I know I've crossed the line. I respected my parents (and still do) but I also feared them. Mom spanked us, plenty. Mom also corrected us verbally, plenty. It's the balance to learn what's acceptable and not.

What happened in the car - coming over the seat and slapping her was unacceptable, IMO, for the context of what was going on at the time.

[William Anthony]

From someone with children, I can say that I believe there is a balance between corporal punishment and verbal behavior modification techniques. All children (and some adults) require some level of behavior modification at some point, regardless of how good a parent one thinks they might be.

I can count on one hand the number of times I've spanked my son. I have used verbal methods as well. I believe there is a balance and that there are times that a spanking is "the only way" to get their attention.

I do not advocate HITTING or SLAPPING or otherwise abusing children (or adults) in any shape. I do, however, believe that there is nothing wrong with corporal punishment when the need arises so long as it is not done in anger or done in a manner that physically harms the child more than a red butt.

I, at my age, am still scared of my folks. My mom can cut her eyes and put the fear of God in my in 2 seconds flat. My daddy can pierce his lips in a way and I know I've crossed the line. I respected my parents (and still do) but I also feared them. Mom spanked us, plenty. Mom also corrected us verbally, plenty. It's the balance to learn what's acceptable and not.

What happened in the car - coming over the seat and slapping her was unacceptable, IMO, for the context of what was going on at the time.

I think that we have reached an agreement for the most part and would only add that a fat lip is sometimes a reminder that every time something comes up, something does not have to come out. :)

[Kate Sachel]

From someone with children, I can say that I believe there is a balance between corporal punishment and verbal behavior modification techniques. All children (and some adults) require some level of behavior modification at some point, regardless of how good a parent one thinks they might be.

I can count on one hand the number of times I've spanked my son. I have used verbal methods as well. I believe there is a balance and that there are times that a spanking is "the only way" to get their attention.

I do not advocate HITTING or SLAPPING or otherwise abusing children (or adults) in any shape. I do, however, believe that there is nothing wrong with corporal punishment when the need arises so long as it is not done in anger or done in a manner that physically harms the child more than a red butt.

I, at my age, am still scared of my folks. My mom can cut her eyes and put the fear of God in my in 2 seconds flat. My daddy can pierce his lips in a way and I know I've crossed the line. I respected my parents (and still do) but I also feared them. Mom spanked us, plenty. Mom also corrected us verbally, plenty. It's the balance to learn what's acceptable and not.

What happened in the car - coming over the seat and slapping her was unacceptable, IMO, for the context of what was going on at the time.

Spanking a child is slapping them, what is it that your hand does when it connects with their butt? It slaps it. Do you advocate a parent's hand slapping a child's face? If so, why is their a difference in the body part in which your hand connects with? How can one argue that a red butt is better than a red face or something else? Or that giving your child a red butt isn't physically harmful for that matter?

I'd also like for someone to explain to me why slapping an adult on the butt to modify behavior would not be considered acceptable, and is in fact considered a crime, but doing the same to a child is not?

Kate

[William Anthony]

Spanking a child is slapping them, what is it that your hand does when it connects with their butt? It slaps it. Do you advocate a parent's hand slapping a child's face? If so, why is their a difference in the body part in which your hand connects with? How can one argue that a red butt is better than a red face or something else? Or that giving your child a red butt isn't physically harmful for that matter?

I'd also like for someone to explain to me why slapping an adult on the butt to modify behavior would not be considered acceptable, and is in fact considered a crime, but doing the same to a child is not?

Kate

There is a presumption that adults know how to conform their behavior to ways that are acceptable to society. I think that presumption can be rebutted, :). I think in some instances a red face on a child, depending on the child is necessary. I have seen too many children cuss at their parents and nothing is done to modify that behavior. I know that both my face and butt would have been red. I would not say that the red but or face was not harmful, but I will say it was more embarrassing than harmful. I think that an unwanted slap on the butt of an adult may be viewed as a crime and the same degree of a slap, if accepted by the adult, is not. I do not think that, unless someone is charged with modifying the behavior of adults, such as in penal institutions, it is the same as a parent, who has the responsibility of attempting to make the child into a responsible adult that abides by the rules and morals of society.

[martin II]

There is a presumption that adults know how to conform their behavior to ways that are acceptable to society. I think that presumption can be rebutted, :). I think in some instances a red face on a child, depending on the child is necessary. I have seen too many children cuss at their parents and nothing is done to modify that behavior. I know that both my face and butt would have been red. I would not say that the red but or face was not harmful, but I will say it was more embarrassing than harmful. I think that an unwanted slap on the butt of an adult may be viewed as a crime and the same degree of a slap, if accepted by the adult, is not. I do not think that, unless someone is charged with modifying the behavior of adults, such as in penal institutions, it is the same as a parent, who has the responsibility of attempting to make the child into a responsible adult that abides by the rules and morals of society.


I believe most children make the decision to behave so as not to receive another spanking rather than out of some serious fear of the parent. I don't believe a spanking by itself causes one to become a violent adult.imo

[SlowHandSam]

Spanking a child is slapping them, what is it that your hand does when it connects with their butt? It slaps it. Do you advocate a parent's hand slapping a child's face? If so, why is their a difference in the body part in which your hand connects with? How can one argue that a red butt is better than a red face or something else? Or that giving your child a red butt isn't physically harmful for that matter?

I'd also like for someone to explain to me why slapping an adult on the butt to modify behavior would not be considered acceptable, and is in fact considered a crime, but doing the same to a child is not?

Kate

I don't equate spanking and slapping as the same thing. I believe a slap is done in anger and precipitates/perpetuates further physical confrontation between two people.

Spanking, IMO, is corporal punishment to modify behavior of a small person who doesn't always understand what the words mean.

Although the definition of a spank is "a slap on the buttocks as a form of punishment", I think a slap from a spank is different than say a slap across a face in an act of anger/rage/violence.

I'm married to a Swede and it's actually against the law to spank your children in Sweden. I'm a Southerner and was raised "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentality and I raise my little person the same. We use the Southerner approach as my spouse doesn't believe that eliminating spanking all together is effective either. It's a balance.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with spanking a child. I believe the problem begins when bruises, cuts etc are left as a result of said spanking. A red butt for a few minutes, IMO, is not inappropriate when verbal behavior modification is ineffective.

I would never slap a child across the face. I would never condone someone who does slap, punch, hit, kick etc any child or adult.

This takes me back to my point that I believe that coming across the front seat to slap and adult for asking a question during a tense time is wholly inappropriate and inexcusable.

[William Anthony]

I don't equate spanking and slapping as the same thing. I believe a slap is done in anger and precipitates/perpetuates further physical confrontation between two people.

Spanking, IMO, is corporal punishment to modify behavior of a small person who doesn't always understand what the words mean.

Although the definition of a spank is "a slap on the buttocks as a form of punishment", I think a slap from a spank is different than say a slap across a face in an act of anger/rage/violence.

I'm married to a Swede and it's actually against the law to spank your children in Sweden. I'm a Southerner and was raised "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentality and I raise my little person the same. We use the Southerner approach as my spouse doesn't believe that eliminating spanking all together is effective either. It's a balance.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with spanking a child. I believe the problem begins when bruises, cuts etc are left as a result of said spanking. A red butt for a few minutes, IMO, is not inappropriate when verbal behavior modification is ineffective.

I would never slap a child across the face. I would never condone someone who does slap, punch, hit, kick etc any child or adult.

This takes me back to my point that I believe that coming across the front seat to slap and adult for asking a question during a tense time is wholly inappropriate and inexcusable.

I think we are in complete agreement. I also think that, if it was a common practice for her parents to react in such a manner, Ms. Terry would have so written. I think that the leap to the conclusion that the Simpson family learned that violence was an acceptable way of controlling the actions of others is too great a leap to make based upon Ms. Shirley's behavior under this circumstance.

[Kate Sachel]

I don't equate spanking and slapping as the same thing. I believe a slap is done in anger and precipitates/perpetuates further physical confrontation between two people.

Spanking, IMO, is corporal punishment to modify behavior of a small person who doesn't always understand what the words mean.

Although the definition of a spank is "a slap on the buttocks as a form of punishment", I think a slap from a spank is different than say a slap across a face in an act of anger/rage/violence.

I'm married to a Swede and it's actually against the law to spank your children in Sweden. I'm a Southerner and was raised "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentality and I raise my little person the same. We use the Southerner approach as my spouse doesn't believe that eliminating spanking all together is effective either. It's a balance.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with spanking a child. I believe the problem begins when bruises, cuts etc are left as a result of said spanking. A red butt for a few minutes, IMO, is not inappropriate when verbal behavior modification is ineffective.

I would never slap a child across the face. I would never condone someone who does slap, punch, hit, kick etc any child or adult.

This takes me back to my point that I believe that coming across the front seat to slap and adult for asking a question during a tense time is wholly inappropriate and inexcusable.

As you are aware due to my previous postings, I wholly and firmly disagree with your thoughts and stand firm that, as the definition does point out, spanking is the same as slapping with the only difference being the area of the body that is being slapped.

I cannot fathom how one can be so adamant that a slap across the face is wrong while giving a red butt for several minutes is somehow excuseable. That is just too contradictory for me.

Apparently will we have to disagree on this one and move forward.

Kate

[fgump2]

I find it interesting that the wounds to Nicole Simpson, the fact that the killer repeatedly slashed at her throat, indicates that O.J. Simpson was the killer for two different reasons.
First of all, NBS predicted that OJS would killer her by cutting her throat, and I believe she also predicted that he would continue slashing at her after she was dead. Murder by cutting the throat is unusual, and to keep slashing at a person’s throat after the victim is dead is even more unusual.
The second reason that the throat slashing indicates OJS was the killer is that according to two experts on crime scene analysis, John Douglas and Park Dietz, the killing of NBS showed both rage and revenge; this means that the killer probably knew NBS.
Taking this into account it seems that the police should have tried to find out which men had romantic relationships with her, and if she was afraid of any specific men.
John Douglas wrote about this case in his book ‘Journey into Darkness”. Park Dietz, an expert on forensic psychiatry and crime scene analysis, is quoted about this case in Petrocelli’s book, ‘Triumph of Justice’. .
Both Dietz and Douglas said that the attack on NBS was by a person who knew her, and was seeking revenge. They also said that the wounds on Ron Goldman indicate neither rage nor revenge. It was probably just killing a witness.
Suppose I had known NBS in the year before her death killing and she had been telling me that she felt sure OJS would kill her by slashing her throat. If I later heard that she had been killed by slashes to her throat. I would suspect that OJS had done it, and if I also knew that the killing was done near her home, in a low crime neighborhood, I would regard that as further confirmation. If I also later learned that the killer used a pair of rare gloves, and OJS used to wear gloves like that, I would regard that is even more confirmation.
I realize that this doesn’t prove that OJS was the killer; it is just one additional piece of evidence. I have seen lists of evidence that the police couldn’t have rigged that indicate that OJS was the killer. These lists almost always leave off the fact that NBS was killed by slashes to the throat. There is so much evidence against OJS that most of the writers have a hard time keeping track of it.
I also believe that J. Cochran’s argument that OJS wouldn’t have worn the hat as a disguise is quite weak.
First of all, in the dark it would have disguised OJS a little bit. Secondly everyone has bad judgment at times, especially when they are angry. OJS might have been looking for a ski mask to cover his face, and then grabbed the other hat because he couldn’t find a ski mask.
According to J. Cochran, the killer left two gloves at the scene of the crime. This doesn’t show very good thinking. If the killer was that careless in committing the crime, he might have been careless in planning the crime.

[William Anthony]

I find it interesting that the wounds to Nicole Simpson, the fact that the killer repeatedly slashed at her throat, indicates that O.J. Simpson was the killer for two different reasons.
First of all, NBS predicted that OJS would killer her by cutting her throat, and I believe she also predicted that he would continue slashing at her after she was dead. Murder by cutting the throat is unusual, and to keep slashing at a person’s throat after the victim is dead is even more unusual.
The second reason that the throat slashing indicates OJS was the killer is that according to two experts on crime scene analysis, John Douglas and Park Dietz, the killing of NBS showed both rage and revenge; this means that the killer probably knew NBS.
Taking this into account it seems that the police should have tried to find out which men had romantic relationships with her, and if she was afraid of any specific men.
John Douglas wrote about this case in his book ‘Journey into Darkness”. Park Dietz, an expert on forensic psychiatry and crime scene analysis, is quoted about this case in Petrocelli’s book, ‘Triumph of Justice’. .
Both Dietz and Douglas said that the attack on NBS was by a person who knew her, and was seeking revenge. They also said that the wounds on Ron Goldman indicate neither rage nor revenge. It was probably just killing a witness.
Suppose I had known NBS in the year before her death killing and she had been telling me that she felt sure OJS would kill her by slashing her throat. If I later heard that she had been killed by slashes to her throat. I would suspect that OJS had done it, and if I also knew that the killing was done near her home, in a low crime neighborhood, I would regard that as further confirmation. If I also later learned that the killer used a pair of rare gloves, and OJS used to wear gloves like that, I would regard that is even more confirmation.
I realize that this doesn’t prove that OJS was the killer; it is just one additional piece of evidence. I have seen lists of evidence that the police couldn’t have rigged that indicate that OJS was the killer. These lists almost always leave off the fact that NBS was killed by slashes to the throat. There is so much evidence against OJS that most of the writers have a hard time keeping track of it.
I also believe that J. Cochran’s argument that OJS wouldn’t have worn the hat as a disguise is quite weak.
First of all, in the dark it would have disguised OJS a little bit. Secondly everyone has bad judgment at times, especially when they are angry. OJS might have been looking for a ski mask to cover his face, and then grabbed the other hat because he couldn’t find a ski mask.
According to J. Cochran, the killer left two gloves at the scene of the crime. This doesn’t show very good thinking. If the killer was that careless in committing the crime, he might have been careless in planning the crime.

It does not take a strong argument to debunk a weak theory. The hair and fiber evidence or lack thereof combined with the missing blood and the evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove as well as Martz's wrong results indicate planting of evidence.

You are correct that nothing in your posts proves that Simpson was the murderer, imho. That exposes the weaknesses in the prosecution's case. The prosecution was required to present evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer. The prosecution had a bunch of ifs and maybes. You now say that you are somehow giving credibility to the theory of the magnificent one that there were two gloves at Bundy and I would like to thank you for acknowledging that since a particular poster refuses to or acts like he can't understand the claim. I think it requires more than hearsay to convict a person of murderer or at least I hope it does.

The sad part is that, if Simpson was the murderer, the prosecution did not have evidence of a caliber to prove he was beyond a reasonable doubt and the best part is that our penal and judicial processes worked in that the prosecution was held to its burden of proof in order to ensure that an innocent is not convicted even if it means letting the guilty go free. Another sad thing is that it seems the case is closed, because the court of public opinion feels that Simpson is the murderer, because of reliance on a socio-political, imho, motivated trial that the court of public opinion erroneously states proved Simpson was guilty of the crime of murder, which that civil trial could never do. I think Petrocelli has done quite a bit to perpetuate this myth and, as an officer of the court before an author of fiction, he should have been more honest in his writings, imho.

[martin II]

I find it interesting that the wounds to Nicole Simpson, the fact that the killer repeatedly slashed at her throat, indicates that O.J. Simpson was the killer for two different reasons.
First of all, NBS predicted that OJS would killer her by cutting her throat, and I believe she also predicted that he would continue slashing at her after she was dead. Murder by cutting the throat is unusual, and to keep slashing at a person’s throat after the victim is dead is even more unusual.
The second reason that the throat slashing indicates OJS was the killer is that according to two experts on crime scene analysis, John Douglas and Park Dietz, the killing of NBS showed both rage and revenge; this means that the killer probably knew NBS.
Taking this into account it seems that the police should have tried to find out which men had romantic relationships with her, and if she was afraid of any specific men.
John Douglas wrote about this case in his book ‘Journey into Darkness”. Park Dietz, an expert on forensic psychiatry and crime scene analysis, is quoted about this case in Petrocelli’s book, ‘Triumph of Justice’. .
Both Dietz and Douglas said that the attack on NBS was by a person who knew her, and was seeking revenge. They also said that the wounds on Ron Goldman indicate neither rage nor revenge. It was probably just killing a witness.
Suppose I had known NBS in the year before her death killing and she had been telling me that she felt sure OJS would kill her by slashing her throat. If I later heard that she had been killed by slashes to her throat. I would suspect that OJS had done it, and if I also knew that the killing was done near her home, in a low crime neighborhood, I would regard that as further confirmation. If I also later learned that the killer used a pair of rare gloves, and OJS used to wear gloves like that, I would regard that is even more confirmation.
I realize that this doesn’t prove that OJS was the killer; it is just one additional piece of evidence. I have seen lists of evidence that the police couldn’t have rigged that indicate that OJS was the killer. These lists almost always leave off the fact that NBS was killed by slashes to the throat. There is so much evidence against OJS that most of the writers have a hard time keeping track of it.
I also believe that J. Cochran’s argument that OJS wouldn’t have worn the hat as a disguise is quite weak.
First of all, in the dark it would have disguised OJS a little bit. Secondly everyone has bad judgment at times, especially when they are angry. OJS might have been looking for a ski mask to cover his face, and then grabbed the other hat because he couldn’t find a ski mask.
According to J. Cochran, the killer left two gloves at the scene of the crime. This doesn’t show very good thinking. If the killer was that careless in committing the crime, he might have been careless in planning the crime.


I think it is a good idea to pay more attention to the evidence presented and not presented and the cross examination of witnesses in court than to rely on information in books by biased individuals.imo

[Kate Sachel]

It does not take a strong argument to debunk a weak theory. The hair and fiber evidence or lack thereof combined with the missing blood and the evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove as well as Martz's wrong results indicate planting of evidence.

You are correct that nothing in your posts proves that Simpson was the murderer, imho. That exposes the weaknesses in the prosecution's case. The prosecution was required to present evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer. The prosecution had a bunch of ifs and maybes. You now say that you are somehow giving credibility to the theory of the magnificent one that there were two gloves at Bundy and I would like to thank you for acknowledging that since a particular poster refuses to or acts like he can't understand the claim. I think it requires more than hearsay to convict a person of murderer or at least I hope it does.

The sad part is that, if Simpson was the murderer, the prosecution did not have evidence of a caliber to prove he was beyond a reasonable doubt and the best part is that our penal and judicial processes worked in that the prosecution was held to its burden of proof in order to ensure that an innocent is not convicted even if it means letting the guilty go free. Another sad thing is that it seems the case is closed, because the court of public opinion feels that Simpson is the murderer, because of reliance on a socio-political, imho, motivated trial that the court of public opinion erroneously states proved Simpson was guilty of the crime of murder, which that civil trial could never do. I think Petrocelli has done quite a bit to perpetuate this myth and, as an officer of the court before an author of fiction, he should have been more honest in his writings, imho.

Specifically which writings of Petrocelli are you referring to?

Kate

[William Anthony]

Specifically which writings of Petrocelli are you referring to?

Kate

The claim that he proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer. I have not read his book but I am sure there are other exaggerations or, if you will, examples of author's liberty contained within it.

[fgump2]

It does not take a strong argument to debunk a weak theory. The hair and fiber evidence or lack thereof combined with the missing blood and the evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove as well as Martz's wrong results indicate planting of evidence.

You are correct that nothing in your posts proves that Simpson was the murderer, imho. That exposes the weaknesses in the prosecution's case. The prosecution was required to present evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer. The prosecution had a bunch of ifs and maybes. You now say that you are somehow giving credibility to the theory of the magnificent one that there were two gloves at Bundy and I would like to thank you for acknowledging that since a particular poster refuses to or acts like he can't understand the claim. I think it requires more than hearsay to convict a person of murderer or at least I hope it does.

The sad part is that, if Simpson was the murderer, the prosecution did not have evidence of a caliber to prove he was beyond a reasonable doubt and the best part is that our penal and judicial processes worked in that the prosecution was held to its burden of proof in order to ensure that an innocent is not convicted even if it means letting the guilty go free. Another sad thing is that it seems the case is closed, because the court of public opinion feels that Simpson is the murderer, because of reliance on a socio-political, imho, motivated trial that the court of public opinion erroneously states proved Simpson was guilty of the crime of murder, which that civil trial could never do. I think Petrocelli has done quite a bit to perpetuate this myth and, as an officer of the court before an author of fiction, he should have been more honest in his writings, imho.
I don't give any credibility to the theory that there were 2 gloves at the crime scene, and that one glove was planted at OJS's house. The point I was making is that to argue that the killer left two gloves there is to assume that the killer was very careless in committing the murder, this would suggest that he might have been careless in planning the murder as well. I also believe that a high degree of carelessness also indicates a first time criminal who is acting on personal anger.
Cochran also said, out of court, that the murder was a typical drug hit. This was strange I assume he meant professional drug hit. Professional killers don't leave gloves at the scene of the crime, at least not very often. They also use guns with silencers, not knives.
I believe that there was much stronger evidence than the throat slashing.
The main point I was making is that a lot of the pro prosecution books leave out some of the evidence that points to his guilt. The prosecutors did a bad job and left out even more.
I think that since a throat slashing indicates a personal grudge, and usually a romantic relationship that turned bad, a logical way to analyze the murder would be to get a list of men she had romantic relationships with, and also if she had been afraid of any of them. I don't know if the LAP knew that throat slashing indicates a failed romantic relationship.
I would find it easier to repect the pro OJS people if the would at least admit that there was a lof of evidence pointing to OJS, and that a lot of this couldn't have been rigged by the LAP.
Most murder convictions aren't based on several pieces of perfectly gathered evidence that prove guilt in an air tight manner. The convictions are usually based on a lot of evidence which points in the direction of guilt, and it is usually true that some of the evidence was gathered in an imperfect manner.

[William Anthony]

I don't give any credibility to the theory that there were 2 gloves at the crime scene, and that one glove was planted at OJS's house. The point I was making is that to argue that the killer left two gloves there is to assume that the killer was very careless in committing the murder, this would suggest that he might have been careless in planning the murder as well. I also believe that a high degree of carelessness also indicates a first time criminal who is acting on personal anger.
Cochran also said, out of court, that the murder was a typical drug hit. This was strange I assume he meant professional drug hit. Professional killers don't leave gloves at the scene of the crime, at least not very often. They also use guns with silencers, not knives.
I believe that there was much stronger evidence than the throat slashing.
The main point I was making is that a lot of the pro prosecution books leave out some of the evidence that points to his guilt. The prosecutors did a bad job and left out even more.
I think that since a throat slashing indicates a personal grudge, and usually a romantic relationship that turned bad, a logical way to analyze the murder would be to get a list of men she had romantic relationships with, and also if she had been afraid of any of them. I don't know if the LAP knew that throat slashing indicates a failed romantic relationship.
I would find it easier to repect the pro OJS people if the would at least admit that there was a lof of evidence pointing to OJS, and that a lot of this couldn't have been rigged by the LAP.
Most murder convictions aren't based on several pieces of perfectly gathered evidence that prove guilt in an air tight manner. The convictions are usually based on a lot of evidence which points in the direction of guilt, and it is usually true that some of the evidence was gathered in an imperfect manner.

I guess I wasn't clear. What I meant was that you realize that the defense did make the claim that there were two gloves at Bundy, One poster said that no defense lawyer ever made that claim. I did not mean that you thought the theory was credible but that it was credible that the claim was made.

There are a lot of reasons why two gloves would have been left, such as commotion at or near the residence, a barking dog and fear of detection. We can guess but a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are many indications indicated by a throat slashing as the magnificent one pointed out that it was typical in drug murders. I don't know whether he meant professional killers or not, since I do not think most drug dealers physically commit murders. Whether or not this was an action of an enraged drug dealer was brought up in the trial. There was some discussion of someone being seen crouching in the bushes by Ms. Nicole's home, an unidentified Caucasian hair and a blood type that did not belong to Simpson, Ms.Nicole or Mr. Ronald. I use the Ms. and Mr. as a sign of those I think should be acknowledged.

I am not pro Simpson and I admit that the prosecution presented a lot evidence they claimed showed he was the murderer. The problem was that the caliber of the evidence was severely diminished on cross.

It was this gathering, storing, packaging of the evidence along with what some believe were human errors and mistakes that were exposed by the defense that lead to reasonable doubt. The burden in a trial is twofold. One is the production of evidence and proving its credibility or discrediting it and the other is persuading the trier of fact that your view of the evidence is the closer to the correct one. I think the defense successfully discredited the evidence and persuaded the jury, due to that, there was reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

I don't give any credibility to the theory that there were 2 gloves at the crime scene, and that one glove was planted at OJS's house. The point I was making is that to argue that the killer left two gloves there is to assume that the killer was very careless in committing the murder, this would suggest that he might have been careless in planning the murder as well. I also believe that a high degree of carelessness also indicates a first time criminal who is acting on personal anger.
Cochran also said, out of court, that the murder was a typical drug hit. This was strange I assume he meant professional drug hit. Professional killers don't leave gloves at the scene of the crime, at least not very often. They also use guns with silencers, not knives.
I believe that there was much stronger evidence than the throat slashing.
The main point I was making is that a lot of the pro prosecution books leave out some of the evidence that points to his guilt. The prosecutors did a bad job and left out even more.
I think that since a throat slashing indicates a personal grudge, and usually a romantic relationship that turned bad, a logical way to analyze the murder would be to get a list of men she had romantic relationships with, and also if she had been afraid of any of them. I don't know if the LAP knew that throat slashing indicates a failed romantic relationship.
I would find it easier to repect the pro OJS people if the would at least admit that there was a lof of evidence pointing to OJS, and that a lot of this couldn't have been rigged by the LAP.
Most murder convictions aren't based on several pieces of perfectly gathered evidence that prove guilt in an air tight manner. The convictions are usually based on a lot of evidence which points in the direction of guilt, and it is usually true that some of the evidence was gathered in an imperfect manner.


Because of your interest in the gloves, can you show evidence presented in the criminal trial showing proof of the prosecutions claim that oj simpson jumped the south fence to get onto his property on 6/12? can you disprove the testimony of the three detectives?

[Kate Sachel]

I came across something that interests me. There has previously been much discussion on our forum regarding Judge Ito's determination that Detective Vanatter acted with a "reckless disregard for the truth" and many OJ supporters had quite a bit to say about that.

I am taking a look at sanctions handed down to both the criminal prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys during the trial and came across a sanction issued against Johnnie Cochran in which he had to pay a monetary sum of $950.00 for making "untrue representations to the Court in reckless disregard for the truth".

Interesting.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I came across something that interests me. There has previously been much discussion on our forum regarding Judge Ito's determination that Detective Vanatter acted with a "reckless disregard for the truth" and many OJ supporters had quite a bit to say about that.

I am taking a look at sanctions handed down to both the criminal prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys during the trial and came across a sanction issued against Johnnie Cochran in which he had to pay a monetary sum of $950.00 for making "untrue representations to the Court in reckless disregard for the truth".

Interesting.

Kate

I think we previously agreed that the prosecution had more of an ethical duty to represent the truth. I think that would also apply to members of the prosecution team. However, I will agree that both sides should act in an ethical manner.

[Kate Sachel]

I think we previously agreed that the prosecution had more of an ethical duty to represent the truth. I think that would also apply to members of the prosecution team. However, I will agree that both sides should act in an ethical manner.

Do you consider a witness called by the prosecution part of the prosecution team?

Kate

[weezer]

I think we previously agreed that the prosecution had more of an ethical duty to represent the truth. I think that would also apply to members of the prosecution team. However, I will agree that both sides should act in an ethical manner.

this makes no sense -- one party can't be more ethically responsible than the other(s).

[weezer]

I came across something that interests me. There has previously been much discussion on our forum regarding Judge Ito's determination that Detective Vanatter acted with a "reckless disregard for the truth" and many OJ supporters had quite a bit to say about that.

I am taking a look at sanctions handed down to both the criminal prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys during the trial and came across a sanction issued against Johnnie Cochran in which he had to pay a monetary sum of $950.00 for making "untrue representations to the Court in reckless disregard for the truth".

Interesting.

Kate

funny how that works isn't it? I found this:

"Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 177.5, defense counsel Carl
E. Douglas shall pay a monetary sanction of $950.00. The Court finds
this to be a reasonable sanction because Mr. Douglas had the
responsibility for discovery compliance and had been the subject of
sanctions as noted previously. Defense counsel Johnnie L. Cochran Jr.
shall pay a monetary sanction of $950.00. The Court finds this to be a
reasonable sanction because not only is Mr. Cochran lead trial counsel
responsible for the conduct of the defense team, but he is also the
trial counsel presenting the testimony of the witness in question and
had made untrue representations to the Court in reckless disregard for
the truth."

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

[William Anthony]

Do you consider a witness called by the prosecution part of the prosecution team?

Kate

Not unless that witness is part of LE.

[William Anthony]

Whether it makes sense or not the ethical responsibilities can be found, partially in the rules of discovery.

[William Anthony]

Isn't it ironic that the only person convicted of a crime based on the criminal trial was a member of LE, perjury-lying under oath on the witness stand?

[William Anthony]

If a client-attorney relationship has been established and the client tells the attorney he is guilty, it would be a violation of the attorney's ethical duty to tell someone that. If on the other hand, the prosecutions finds evidence that could potentially exculpate that same defendant, the prosecution has a duty to disclose the information.

[weezer]

If a client-attorney relationship has been established and the client tells the attorney he is guilty, it would be a violation of the attorney's ethical duty to tell someone that. If on the other hand, the prosecutions finds evidence that could potentially exculpate that same defendant, the prosecution has a duty to disclose the information.

which probably best describes the mess our courts and laws are in. I see where the defendant's rights are protected but where are mine -- Susie Q Citizen -- protected?

[William Anthony]

The victims' rights are protected through reports of crimes, investigations should LE choose :), arrests, charges filed and trials held.

[weezer]

The victims' rights are protected through reports of crimes, investigations should LE choose :), arrests, charges filed and trials held.

you mean the same arrests, charges and trials where the only concern is for the defendant? that process? please.

[William Anthony]

I mean those rules established through tradition that attempt to ensure that the innocent will not be wrongfully punished.

[weezer]

I mean those rules established through tradition that attempt to ensure that the innocent will not be wrongfully punished.

okay -- so we've established that the defendant has folks like you looking out for his/her rights. now, who's looking out for the rights of the victim?

[William Anthony]

Those same courts. Yes, people like me that have respect for the law.

[weezer]

Those same courts. Yes, people like me that have respect for the law.

this really isn't meant to be a slam but of all the people on this board, you are the one that I would say has the least respect for the law. I say this because you don't use the law for good in interpreting its meaning, you use it to manipulate to win. to me, that isn't respect --

[William Anthony]

Just say that my interpretation does not agree with yours.

[martin II]

okay -- so we've established that the defendant has folks like you looking out for his/her rights. now, who's looking out for the rights of the victim?

The prosecutor.
you didn't know that?

[martin II]

this really isn't meant to be a slam but of all the people on this board, you are the one that I would say has the least respect for the law. I say this because you don't use the law for good in interpreting its meaning, you use it to manipulate to win. to me, that isn't respect --

That is because you don't understand the law. Your biased opinions do not allow you to understand.

[William Anthony]

That is because you don't understand the law. Your biased opinions do not allow you to understand.

I think that people, who have read legal opinions, see that there are concurring opinions that agree on a basis different than the one given in the opinion of the court and there are dissenting opinions. Those people understand that the law is not written in stone and lends itself to interpretation.

[William Anthony]

The prosecutor.
you didn't know that?

In most cases they are looking out for the rights of the victim. I am not sure what Clark and Darden were looking out for.

[wind149]

In four more days OJ will know for sure what direction the rest of his life takes him and he has no one to blame but himself. Too many times he has gotten away with stuff and this time, his luck is gonna run out and based on the kidnapping charges alone, he is facing 20 years which would be a life sentence, but it took these charges to finally put him where he belongs, behind bars. His arrogance, his mind-set of being above the law, his getting away with two murders, and these charges, society is sick to death of this has been loser and everyone, especially my black friends want him to rot in prison, he is not a popular person and surely won't be in prison. Some folks will still think of him as the great football player, but he will be more known for the violent murders of two great people, and these current charges where the jury has spoken and yes, I am pleased he will be going to prison, he has no regard for anyone but himself including his own children with Nicole, how can you murder their mother, and then slap the Goldman's and Brown's in the face and then write a tell all murder book??? He has lied all these years to his own children and for that I damm him to hell and he is half-way there. I will raise my glass when I sit down in front of CNN and watch him go bye bye!!!:hat:

[William Anthony]

In four more days OJ will know for sure what direction the rest of his life takes him and he has no one to blame but himself. Too many times he has gotten away with stuff and this time, his luck is gonna run out and based on the kidnapping charges alone, he is facing 20 years which would be a life sentence, but it took these charges to finally put him where he belongs, behind bars. His arrogance, his mind-set of being above the law, his getting away with two murders, and these charges, society is sick to death of this has been loser and everyone, especially my black friends want him to rot in prison, he is not a popular person and surely won't be in prison. Some folks will still think of him as the great football player, but he will be more known for the violent murders of two great people, and these current charges where the jury has spoken and yes, I am pleased he will be going to prison, he has no regard for anyone but himself including his own children with Nicole, how can you murder their mother, and then slap the Goldman's and Brown's in the face and then write a tell all murder book??? He has lied all these years to his own children and for that I damm him to hell and he is half-way there. I will raise my glass when I sit down in front of CNN and watch him go bye bye!!!:hat:

I have read some of your other posts and I do not consider you a racist. I am confused however over your power. I understand that it is your opinion that he murdered two people, despite the fact that there was insufficient evidence to prove that. I also understand that you feel that Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Ronald Goldman were great people. I understand that you do not feel that Simpson is popular. I understand that you feel he wrote a confession, even though Mr. Fred Goldman changed the title and wrote a chapter. I don't know, if you knew that but I think you might call that a tad bit disrespectful to Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson's memory and her children. I understand that you will be happy to see Simpson get a harsh sentence. What I fail to understand is your ability to play God. How can you damn anyone to hell?

[William Anthony]

this really isn't meant to be a slam but of all the people on this board, you are the one that I would say has the least respect for the law. I say this because you don't use the law for good in interpreting its meaning, you use it to manipulate to win. to me, that isn't respect --

Only because I think this post was earnestly made will I respond to it directly. Sometimes, some do not and cannot appreciate the law, if they have not studied and, until I did, I did not understand. Perhaps, the greatest case in the history of civil rights was Brown v. Board of Education. The winning argument in that case was not a legal one, because the law was against the argument made. Marshall could not argue that segregation was illegal. Instead he put forth a moral and social argument that segregation caused irreparable harm, supported by science. The Supreme Court was not called upon to decide what the law was but rather the effects of the law and decided that it was better to overturn a precedent set forth in Plessy v. Ferguson. It is not the interpretation of the law that is manipulated but the feelings of people that cannot be denied that makes me respect the law, simply because it is allowed to be manipulated, even in ways that I do not always agree. It is the very fact that the law is not set in stone that makes me respect it. In it one can find compassion or indifference, right or wrong but the larger concern is justice for all. Yes, I like to win but will stay within the rules and will respect the ruling until changed and, if I can change a ruling that is wrong, then call it manipulation or winning if you will.

[William Anthony]

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483

"In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors. 9 Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education."

Because the law has a heart, today, we see that all America has won. It is more than the interpretation or the manipulation of the law that makes a win. It is making sense of a senseless world.

[weezer]

Only because I think this post was earnestly made will I respond to it directly. Sometimes, some do not and cannot appreciate the law, if they have not studied and, until I did, I did not understand. Perhaps, the greatest case in the history of civil rights was Brown v. Board of Education. The winning argument in that case was not a legal one, because the law was against the argument made. Marshall could not argue that segregation was illegal. Instead he put forth a moral and social argument that segregation caused irreparable harm, supported by science. The Supreme Court was not called upon to decide what the law was but rather the effects of the law and decided that it was better to overturn a precedent set forth in Plessy v. Ferguson. It is not the interpretation of the law that is manipulated but the feelings of people that cannot be denied that makes me respect the law, simply because it is allowed to be manipulated, even in ways that I do not always agree. It is the very fact that the law is not set in stone that makes me respect it. In it one can find compassion or indifference, right or wrong but the larger concern is justice for all. Yes, I like to win but will stay within the rules and will respect the ruling until changed and, if I can change a ruling that is wrong, then call it manipulation or winning if you will.

just out of curiosity, where are you exactly in your studies? can I assume you've completed an undergraduate degree? I know you've posted that you needed to study for your LSAT so I'm guessing you're still a ways out from a JD. I think it's more than a little presumptious for you to assume that there are people here who haven't studied law and/or couldn't possibly understand something that a paralegal understands.

[wind149]

Wills, I am not playing God, it is more like he should be sent to hell and in his case he has to go to prison and that is a hell and that is where I want him. I understand that not everyone thought that Nicole was a saint, but Ron Goldman had not done a thing wrong in his life and he lost his life for being a good person. He could have just chucked the sunglasses in the lost and found box and if he had, he would be alive today. I know that you and I will disagree for life about OJ, I know you think he is innocent and ya know I might have agreed with you had I not heard the 911 calls made by Nicole years before the murder when he beat the crap out of her and there are pictures to back that up. I heard he had also beaten up his first wife, however, she never came forward, probably scared witless of him, he digs intimidating people, I guess in his twisted mind that gets him off.

The whole thing was so botched, people were worried there would be another LA riot had he been found guilty, so partially I think politics played a part, but one thing I am clear in my mind about. Mark Furman never planted evidence, like the bloody glove in the back yard or the blood in the Bronco. First of all he had no clue who the victims were till he arrived at the scene. He harbored nothing towards OJ, and he said as much. He was a seasoned homicide detective and probably at that point had seen so many, that is was just a matter of fact. No one had reason to murder Ron Goldman, OJ thought of Nicole as a possession and for rejecting him, he was going to make her pay. I have no doubt in my mind, prior to the murders, that he was casing her house, to see who came there and how long they stayed. He saw a young handsome man going into his possession's house and flipped out, as his big fat ego could not handle the fact that she did not want him anymore. So now, he will pay for what he did, granted, on new charges, but I think that Fred Goldman will finally have a smile on his face for the first time in 14 years and who can blame him???

[William Anthony]

just out of curiosity, where are you exactly in your studies? can I assume you've completed an undergraduate degree? I know you've posted that you needed to study for your LSAT so I'm guessing you're still a ways out from a JD. I think it's more than a little presumptious for you to assume that there are people here who haven't studied law and/or couldn't possibly understand something that a paralegal understands.

It matters not where I am in my studies as I have done things that some attorneys have not. I have been a lawyer. In case you did not read clearly enough, I said some here. I think I can tell by the posts, those who have studied the law or for that matter have some functional knowledge of it. I think that any, who have, know that the law is to be manipulated, which is why trials are called adversarial events. That means that there are two ways of looking at the facts and how the law applies to those facts. Some even understand that legal arguments as to the manipulation of the law are crucial in determining what evidence and the limits of the evidence that will be presented. It may surprise you to know that many paralegals are people with their JDs that have not passed the bar. I would never be so presumptuous (correct spelling) to minimize the tasks or the knowledge of a housewife, because I have never been one. I think those who have been paralegals know that to make themselves invaluable to a lawyer, they must think like a lawyer. I have heard that those, who have dedicated their lives to being housewives, know that they make themselves invaluable to their husbands by thinking about home and raising children. However, I am not so crude, crass or rude to buy into that way of thinking. I may have an advantage as I am not jealous of any housewife. However, let me not digress. I will finish with my Bachelors degree in political science in approximately two weeks. I think my GPA is a 3.89. After that, I will decide, if I want to continue to law school or open a business doing something in the legal field. Knowing my love for a spirited debate, it will more likely than not be law school. Thanks for you curiosity but I remind you-curiosity killed the cat and satisfaction could not bring him back.

[William Anthony]

Wills, I am not playing God, it is more like he should be sent to hell and in his case he has to go to prison and that is a hell and that is where I want him. I understand that not everyone thought that Nicole was a saint, but Ron Goldman had not done a thing wrong in his life and he lost his life for being a good person. He could have just chucked the sunglasses in the lost and found box and if he had, he would be alive today. I know that you and I will disagree for life about OJ, I know you think he is innocent and ya know I might have agreed with you had I not heard the 911 calls made by Nicole years before the murder when he beat the crap out of her and there are pictures to back that up. I heard he had also beaten up his first wife, however, she never came forward, probably scared witless of him, he digs intimidating people, I guess in his twisted mind that gets him off.

The whole thing was so botched, people were worried there would be another LA riot had he been found guilty, so partially I think politics played a part, but one thing I am clear in my mind about. Mark Furman never planted evidence, like the bloody glove in the back yard or the blood in the Bronco. First of all he had no clue who the victims were till he arrived at the scene. He harbored nothing towards OJ, and he said as much. He was a seasoned homicide detective and probably at that point had seen so many, that is was just a matter of fact. No one had reason to murder Ron Goldman, OJ thought of Nicole as a possession and for rejecting him, he was going to make her pay. I have no doubt in my mind, prior to the murders, that he was casing her house, to see who came there and how long they stayed. He saw a young handsome man going into his possession's house and flipped out, as his big fat ego could not handle the fact that she did not want him anymore. So now, he will pay for what he did, granted, on new charges, but I think that Fred Goldman will finally have a smile on his face for the first time in 14 years and who can blame him???

I want to become a lawyer but not a judge, as I am neither Solomon nor God. It matters not to me whether they were saints or evil. They did not deserve to be murdered. Some can engage in speculation and that is there right. I do not know whether Simpson is innocent or not. I do not know what he digs, other than holes for himself.

I am glad you are so certain about things. I am not. MF knew who was killed when he arrived. He admitted to planting evidence and the evidence was that he hated, hated, hated interracial couples and Blacks. He took the stand. He told a lie. Those are the things I know and that Simpson was found not guilty of murder.

[Kate Sachel]

Not unless that witness is part of LE.

That is simply your opinion correct? I assume so because I also assume that you are as aware as I that a member of law enforcement called as a witness by the prosecution does not make that witness part of the prosecution team. It makes them a witness for the prosecution.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I am glad you are so certain about things. I am not. MF knew who was killed when he arrived. He admitted to planting evidence and the evidence was that he hated, hated, hated interracial couples and Blacks. He took the stand. He told a lie. Those are the things I know and that Simpson was found not guilty of murder.

I agree that he took the stand and told a lie. I do not necessarily agree that the lie was relevant.

Kate

[William Anthony]

That is simply your opinion correct? I assume so because I also assume that you are as aware as I that a member of law enforcement called as a witness by the prosecution does not make that witness part of the prosecution team. It makes them a witness for the prosecution.

Kate

I base my statement on the basis of the fact that we have all heard that the prosecution has resources available to it that defendant don't, unless they hire them privately in most cases. However, here is a link on the subject, which explains why I said that.

http://www.sdsheriff.net/legalupdates/bradytrainingbulletin.pdf

[William Anthony]

I agree that he took the stand and told a lie. I do not necessarily agree that the lie was relevant.

Kate

I have to disagree as the credibility of witness is always relevant. I think you are saying that you do not believe the line of questioning was relevant. I do, because it provided a motivation to support one of the defense's theories of the case.

[William Anthony]

Kate,

I see those fingers on the keyboard, again. I agree, if the line of questioning is not relevant, the answer is irrelevant. I think that you have agreed that wide latitude is permitted when establishing evidence of motivation. That is why I feel that the line of questioning itself was not irrelevant. Yes, I am trying to cut you off at the pass. :)

[FDInLaw]

WOO HOO! The random thread is open! No more, "Let's stick to the Nevada Case!" :D



Thank you DW! :seeya:

[William Anthony]

I also heard on trutv that shoeprint analysis is flawed.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/02/courtroom_forensic_disciplines.html

[weezer]

I also heard on trutv that shoeprint analysis is flawed.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/02/courtroom_forensic_disciplines.html

sooooooooo -- the make and model of the shoe worn by the murderer was identified (never found), orenthal denies ever owning any shoes like that and then BAM! pictures of orenthal wearing those exact make/model shoes turn up years later is just what? coincidence?

[William Anthony]

sooooooooo -- the make and model of the shoe worn by the murderer was identified (never found), orenthal denies ever owning any shoes like that and then BAM! pictures of orenthal wearing those exact make/model shoes turn up years later is just what? coincidence?

My post was more in line with the correctness of the jury criminal verdict or, if you will, the finding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the civil verdict may have been based in part on flawed science or what the innocent project with which I was briefly associated called junk science. I think it is a moot point to make an identification and then show pictures of the alleged shoes, if the science that made the identification is untrustworthy.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09054/950979-85.stm

[weezer]

My post was more in line with the correctness of the jury criminal verdict or, if you will, the finding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the civil verdict may have been based in part on flawed science or what the innocent project with which I was briefly associated called junk science. I think it is a moot point to make an identification and then show pictures of the alleged shoes, if the science that made the identification is untrustworthy.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09054/950979-85.stm

ha -- you remind me of orenthal -- 'who you gonna believe? me or your lying eyes?'

[William Anthony]

ha -- you remind me of orenthal -- 'who you gonna believe? me or your lying eyes?'

I merely question the validity of the alleged science based on the recent articles.

"DNA has shown us that, to a certain degree, forensic science isn't hard science. It's bonehead science."

[martin II]

sooooooooo -- the make and model of the shoe worn by the murderer was identified (never found), orenthal denies ever owning any shoes like that and then BAM! pictures of orenthal wearing those exact make/model shoes turn up years later is just what? coincidence?

The problem is no murder shoes were ever entered into evidence as none were ever collected.They needed shoes with bloody soles to make the case.

[martin II]

My post was more in line with the correctness of the jury criminal verdict or, if you will, the finding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the civil verdict may have been based in part on flawed science or what the innocent project with which I was briefly associated called junk science. I think it is a moot point to make an identification and then show pictures of the alleged shoes, if the science that made the identification is untrustworthy.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09054/950979-85.stm

TheFBI 'expert' shoe dog and pony picture show was just more flawed FBI testimony to support the prosecutions flawed case and their inability to produce shoes with bloody soles. imo

[martin II]

I merely question the validity of the alleged science based on the recent articles.

"DNA has shown us that, to a certain degree, forensic science isn't hard science. It's bonehead science."

Don't be surprised that at some point as science moves forward we will find that DNA 16 years ago was all flawed testing.

[tv]

Don't be surprised that at some point as science moves forward we will find that DNA 16 years ago was all flawed testing.How about all the people that DNA testing has freed from prison? You want to believe that testing was flawed? You can't have it both ways. :)

[William Anthony]

The links seem to take note that the DNA science is the only validated science, while the other alleged mentioned sciences are junk sciences, with which the articles take umbrage. I wonder if the information about the junk sciences, term coined by the Innocence Project, had been known would the civil verdict have been the same and, if Petrocelli would claim that he proved Simpson guilty, IIRC, beyond a reasonable doubt, and, if some would still believe, or question he did.

[William Anthony]

Don't be surprised that at some point as science moves forward we will find that DNA 16 years ago was all flawed testing.

I am not surprised at most things. However, I don't know if it will show that all DNA testing was flawed. I do believe it will show that some of it was and that some may be the majority. I think the Simpson criminal murder trial exposed how DNA results could not be trusted based on the collection, handling, storage, testing and evaluation methods used.

[martin II]

How about all the people that DNA testing has freed from prison? You want to believe that testing was flawed? You can't have it both ways. :)


For years the FBI had used a certain method to test bullets recently it was reported that that testing was flawed.imo

[martin II]

I am not surprised at most things. However, I don't know if it will show that all DNA testing was flawed. I do believe it will show that some of it was and that some may be the majority. I think the Simpson criminal murder trial exposed how DNA results could not be trusted based on the collection, handling, storage, testing and evaluation methods used.

Maby the opinions of the test by the tester is what i should have said.

[William Anthony]

Maby the opinions of the test by the tester is what i should have said.

That is what one of the links seemed to indicate that the bias of the scientist, as to seeing himself/herself as part of LE, may play a part in the evaluation of the results rendered. I think that over the years the handling, storage, collection and testing techniques may have been honed to a better degree, allowing an indication of reliability to the DNA procedure. I think those rudimentary safeguards were missing at the time of the Simpson murder trial.

[weezer]

then the flip side of that would be that all of the cases where anyone was let go or freed because of those tests need to be re-examined also?

[Parker]

Wow. There are a lot of people here who know this case. It's interesting reading.

William Anthony, you must be a prosecutor. Which state do you practise in or aren't you allowed to say on a board?

[William Anthony]

I am not against reexamination of the results but, presumably, that would have been done by the prosecution, before anyone was released. That may be a pertinent line of inquiry.

[William Anthony]

Wow. There are a lot of people here who know this case. It's interesting reading.

William Anthony, you must be a prosecutor. Which state do you practise in or aren't you allowed to say on a board?

Welcome aboard. I am not a prosecutor and the consensus of opinion is that I would likely be a defense lawyer, :). I choose not to disclose my location and I am not licensed to practice law in any state. I will not bore you with what I believe is common knowledge on this board about my experience.

[Parker]

OK. A defense lawyer. That's cool. I thought you might be a prosecutor. You know what you're talking about.

So why does anyone think OJ was guilty of murder in LA?

[William Anthony]

OK. A defense lawyer. That's cool. I thought you might be a prosecutor. You know what you're talking about.

So why does anyone think OJ was guilty of murder in LA?

A very interesting question, imho. I know for a fact that he is not guilty of murder and so should everyone else, imho. I am not convinced that he did or did not commit murder. I am convinced that there was reasonable doubt of his guilt and, therefore, he could have only been deemed not guilty in a court of law. I hope I am understanding your question, correctly. I think many of are the opinion that he did commit the murders. I think that is a different question as to why they believe that.

[William Anthony]

then the flip side of that would be that all of the cases where anyone was let go or freed because of those tests need to be re-examined also?

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Prison-Exonerations-Gross19apr04.htm

[weezer]

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Prison-Exonerations-Gross19apr04.htm

hmmm -- looks like the defense lawyers have a problem. . . .if the science is no good for LE to use, how in the world can it be trusted to exonerate anyone?

[martin II]

then the flip side of that would be that all of the cases where anyone was let go or freed because of those tests need to be re-examined also?

If there is a fault in DNA testring it may be when the tester makes a personal interpretation of the machine results. Example: Dr Cotton was a prosecution witness.

[martin II]

That is what one of the links seemed to indicate that the bias of the scientist, as to seeing himself/herself as part of LE, may play a part in the evaluation of the results rendered. I think that over the years the handling, storage, collection and testing techniques may have been honed to a better degree, allowing an indication of reliability to the DNA procedure. I think those rudimentary safeguards were missing at the time of the Simpson murder trial.

Dr Cotton testified that the collection, storage and preperation was not under her control and that she only tested what was given her by le. Plus there was a question of the very small African American data base she had on her computers.

[martin II]

Wow. There are a lot of people here who know this case. It's interesting reading.

William Anthony, you must be a prosecutor. Which state do you practise in or aren't you allowed to say on a board?

Welcome abord.

[weezer]

If there is a fault in DNA testring it may be when the tester makes a personal interpretation of the machine results. Example: Dr Cotton was a prosecution witness.

ahhh -- as I remember it, prosecution AND defense stated that Dr. Cotton's reputation was stellar and the lab she represented above reproach.

I am of the firm conviction that there are folks who have pictures (we did - Nicole's beaten face) and/or video (we did -- Las Vegas armed robbery) and they would still believe orenthal is the victim.

As far as the forensics not being trustworthy, I can't imagine there is a defense lawyer anywhere that's going to say the forensics are worth a dang unless of course, you work for the innocence project. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

hmmm -- looks like the defense lawyers have a problem. . . .if the science is no good for LE to use, how in the world can it be trusted to exonerate anyone?

The one method of obtaining evidence that seems to be valid as a science is DNA, according to the links. Defense lawyers have argued for eons that the other alleged forensic sciences can not be trusted. I think that in the cases where the other alleged sciences have been used the defense was able to show that the interpretation of the results did not fit what was offered in court by the prosecution, not to mention the perjured testimony, concealment of evidence and sloppy investigations by LE, according to the links. As the burden of proof belongs to the prosecution, so does the onus of proving the validity of the results of the alleged forensic science evidence, imho. I don't see the problem for the defense.

[William Anthony]

Dr Cotton testified that the collection, storage and preperation was not under her control and that she only tested what was given her by le. Plus there was a question of the very small African American data base she had on her computers.

I think that the defense pointed out that she only could test what she received and couldn't say that anything untoward had been done as it related to the pristine quality, of the evidence at the time it was collected, meaning that there could have been contamination leading to an improper identification of a mixed stain.

[William Anthony]

ahhh -- as I remember it, prosecution AND defense stated that Dr. Cotton's reputation was stellar and the lab she represented above reproach.

I am of the firm conviction that there are folks who have pictures (we did - Nicole's beaten face) and/or video (we did -- Las Vegas armed robbery) and they would still believe orenthal is the victim.

As far as the forensics not being trustworthy, I can't imagine there is a defense lawyer anywhere that's going to say the forensics are worth a dang unless of course, you work for the innocence project. :tongue:

I have never had the opportunity to work (noun) for, although I did work (verb) for the local chapter affiliate of the Innocence (Innocence Institute) Project briefly, as a volunteer. I found those running that chapter to be dedicated and devoted to taking all efforts to see that those wrongly convicted were exonerated. For the brief period that I was there I did not buy into the term junk sciences and I really did not have time to research all the information they had on the subject. However, judging from the recent links and discovery in the area of the alleged forensic sciences, I think that I may agree with the term.

[William Anthony]

http://books.google.com/books?id=D76WEhRWow0C&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=shoeprint+analysis+is+untrustworthy&source=bl&ots=A6DK-XBcEt&sig=OO0xiYSk8-3Sttl_9T8nTRRtvO0&hl=en&ei=cU2oSdr7FZaitgflhYnjDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA146,M1

[weezer]

I think that the defense pointed out that she only could test what she received and couldn't say that anything untoward had been done as it related to the pristine quality, of the evidence at the time it was collected, meaning that there could have been contamination leading to an improper identification of a mixed stain.

LOL -- sorry but I think you're 'mis-remembering' the evidence. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

LOL -- sorry but I think you're 'mis-remembering' the evidence. :rolleyes:

November 14th,

Dr. Cotton.

"Q. You have no personal knowledge as to how the evidence was collected,
preserved and packaged before it was sent to your lab?

A. That's right.

Q. Would you agree with your -- that your test results are only as good as the
evidence that you're given by an outside agency?

A. Of course,

Q. And if you're given evidence from an outside agency that has been
contaminateed or degraded or tampered with or whatever, you can't make it any
better, can you?

A. No.

Q. So your test results are only as reliable as the evidence that you get?

A. Yes."



"Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1038. We might end up at the end of the chain with broken
up DNA that you can't tell anything about?

A. Yes, that's possible.

Q. And if you tested that, you wouldn't get a result?

A. Right.

Q. I want to talk about contamination. The term "contamination" can mean
several things?

A. Sure.

Q. One of the things it can mean is a little DNA from another source getting
into a sample, correct?

A. Yes."

[martin II]

ahhh -- as I remember it, prosecution AND defense stated that Dr. Cotton's reputation was stellar and the lab she represented above reproach.

I am of the firm conviction that there are folks who have pictures (we did - Nicole's beaten face) and/or video (we did -- Las Vegas armed robbery) and they would still believe orenthal is the victim.

As far as the forensics not being trustworthy, I can't imagine there is a defense lawyer anywhere that's going to say the forensics are worth a dang unless of course, you work for the innocence project. :tongue:


i don't remember the Dr Name but he was a prfessor and some lagre university
that examined and evaluated the lapd lab and reported that it was one of the most contamined labs in the country. imo

[martin II]

LOL -- sorry but I think you're 'mis-remembering' the evidence. :rolleyes:

I think the post is correct as that is how i remember her testimony. she was not involved in the collecting or packaging of any blood evidence so she could not verify how this was done.

[martin II]

William

A case of prosecutor descretion.

Anderson a drunk driver of a Merceds killed a drunk woman standing on the road trying to hail a taxi. He left the schene and was later found.


Manhattan prosecutors originally charged Anderson with vehicular manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. But he was allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanor DWI and leaving the scene of an accident

The prosecuter allowed a plea and agreed to a sentance of EIGHT days in jail. The judge increased it to fifteen days,

[William Anthony]

William

A case of prosecutor descretion.

Anderson a drunk driver of a Merceds killed a drunk woman standing on the road trying to hail a taxi. He left the schene and was later found.


Manhattan prosecutors originally charged Anderson with vehicular manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. But he was allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanor DWI and leaving the scene of an accident

The prosecuter allowed a plea and agreed to a sentance of EIGHT days in jail. The judge increased it to fifteen days,

It seems that some lives are more valuable than others, and it could be based on whether you are male or female and whether you drive a Mercedes Benz or are a pedestrian. This whole thing sounds eerily similar to the federal bailouts that were given. :)

I think, if it had been Simpson and the incident occurred in Nevada, He would have been charged with DWI, murder, criminal homicide, negligent homicide, resisting arrest, leaving the scene of the accident, attempt to avoid prosecution, gross behavior, reckless driving, violations of public policy and any other charges they could think of.

[martin II]

It seems that some lives are more valuable than others, and it could be based on whether you are male or female and whether you drive a Mercedes Benz or are a pedestrian. This whole thing sounds eerily similar to the federal bailouts that were given. :)

I think, if it had been Simpson and the incident occurred in Nevada, He would have been charged with DWI, murder, criminal homicide, negligent homicide, resisting arrest, leaving the scene of the accident, attempt to avoid prosecution, gross behavior, reckless driving, violations of public policy and any other charges they could think of.


I agree
People are up in arms about the plea but it is a done deal and the guy started serving his 15 days yesterday.:shrug:

[William Anthony]

I agree
People are up in arms about the plea but it is a done deal and the guy started serving his 15 days yesterday.:shrug:

Seriously, I think that it is a travesty. There were some suggestions that Simpson was involved in Ms. Prody's accident, IIRC.

[Parker]

Ms Prody was one of OJ's girls, that right? Was he involved in the actual car crash that she was injured in?

[William Anthony]

Ms Prody was one of OJ's girls, that right? Was he involved in the actual car crash that she was injured in?

I don't know if the suggestion was made in jest. I hope it was.

[Parker]

The poster before me, Martin, said 'there were some suggestions that Simpson was involved in Ms Prody's accident.' I was only asking a question about that. Or have I done this wrong? Do you have to quote the whole message for your post to be OK?

[William Anthony]

The poster before me, Martin, said 'there were some suggestions that Simpson was involved in Ms Prody's accident.' I was only asking a question about that. Or have I done this wrong? Do you have to quote the whole message for your post to be OK?

You haven't done anything wrong. I made the post about the suggestion. I could not believe that anyone seriously thought Simpson was responsible for the accident, which involved Ms. Prody, given the circumstance surrounding the accident.

[martin II]

Ms Prody was one of OJ's girls, that right? Was he involved in the actual car crash that she was injured in?

Parker

It is my understanding from media reports of Ms Prody accident at some gas station is that she ran into a gas pump but oj was at home when this happenned not with her. I don't know of any charges brought against him as a result of her accident.imo

[martin II]

The poster before me, Martin, said 'there were some suggestions that Simpson was involved in Ms Prody's accident.' I was only asking a question about that. Or have I done this wrong? Do you have to quote the whole message for your post to be OK?

martin never posted any suggestion.

[martin II]

Seriously, I think that it is a travesty. There were some suggestions that Simpson was involved in Ms. Prody's accident, IIRC.

Alexander was one of those financially secure persons that was obviously well connected. The prosecuter changed their minds about the charges saying they could not prove them.The odd thing is the judge only added a few days to the plea agreement.

[William Anthony]

Parker

It is my understanding from media reports of Ms Prody accident at some gas station is that she ran into a gas pump but oj was at home when this happenned not with her. I don't know of any charges brought against him as a result of her accident.imo

I was talking about the accident where she was struck crossing the freeway after having two flat tires. I think this is the accident, which was suggested that Simpson may have had a part in. I had forgotten all about the gas station accident.

[William Anthony]

Alexander was one of those financially secure persons that was obviously well connected. The prosecuter changed their minds about the charges saying they could not prove them.The odd thing is the judge only added a few days to the plea agreement.

Did you mean to say Anderson?

[weezer]

i don't remember the Dr Name but he was a prfessor and some lagre university
that examined and evaluated the lapd lab and reported that it was one of the most contamined labs in the country. imo

no amount of contamination could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's or vice versa.

psst -- Dr. Cotton didn't work for the lapd lab.

[William Anthony]

Dr. Cotton's testimony

November 14th,

"Q. And if you're given evidence from an outside agency that has been
contaminateed or degraded or tampered with or whatever, you can't make it any
better, can you?

A. No.

Q. So your test results are only as reliable as the evidence that you get?

A. Yes."

With the evidence of missing blood, sloppy evidence handling and storage a it is impossible, imho, to say for certain that evidence wasn't contaminated, improper mixtures formed.

[weezer]

Dr. Cotton's testimony

November 14th,

"Q. And if you're given evidence from an outside agency that has been
contaminateed or degraded or tampered with or whatever, you can't make it any
better, can you?

A. No.

Q. So your test results are only as reliable as the evidence that you get?

A. Yes."

With the evidence of missing blood, sloppy evidence handling and storage a it is impossible, imho, to say for certain that evidence wasn't contaminated, improper mixtures formed.

no amount of contamination could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

no amount of contamination could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa. :shrug:

It has nothing to do with changing DNA. It has to do with how the DNA came to be there, as exposed by Dr. Cotton's testimony. Interestingly, CJJR and the other 8 esteemed legal minds are holding hearings on the Due Process rights of those to have a DNA test post conviction. With the evidence of missing blood, sloppy evidence handling and storage a it is impossible, imho, to say for certain that evidence wasn't contaminated, improper mixtures formed. Those improper mixtures can lead to improper inferences.

[martin II]

no amount of contamination could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's or vice versa.

psst -- Dr. Cotton didn't work for the lapd lab.

Dr Cotton/her company was paid by the la DA for services and terstimony to support their case.

psst its not a secrete.

[martin II]

It has nothing to do with changing DNA. It has to do with how the DNA came to be there, as exposed by Dr. Cotton's testimony. Interestingly, CJJR and the other 8 esteemed legal minds are holding hearings on the Due Process rights of those to have a DNA test post conviction. With the evidence of missing blood, sloppy evidence handling and storage a it is impossible, imho, to say for certain that evidence wasn't contaminated, improper mixtures formed. Those improper mixtures can lead to improper inferences.

Especially in a cesspool lab like lapd lab.

[martin II]

no amount of contamination could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa. :shrug:

pssst
It was proven under cross examination that MAZOLLA could not identify the
ojs blood samples in court that she had testified that she collected which led many to believe his blood samples were switched in the lapd lab.

[weezer]

at the time of her death, the only person on earth that Nicole was afraid of harming her was orenthal james simpson. the DNA, hair, fiber, and pigeon-toed footprints left by the murderer at the murder scene proved her intuition/feelings to be correct. as proven in the civil trial, orenthal james simpson is responsible for the death of Ron Goldman and the battery of Nicole Brown.

[weezer]

It has nothing to do with changing DNA. It has to do with how the DNA came to be there, as exposed by Dr. Cotton's testimony. Interestingly, CJJR and the other 8 esteemed legal minds are holding hearings on the Due Process rights of those to have a DNA test post conviction. With the evidence of missing blood, sloppy evidence handling and storage a it is impossible, imho, to say for certain that evidence wasn't contaminated, improper mixtures formed. Those improper mixtures can lead to improper inferences.

no amount of contamination could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa.

[weezer]

Dr Cotton/her company was paid by the la DA for services and terstimony to support their case.

psst its not a secrete.

no amount of contamination could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa.

[weezer]

Especially in a cesspool lab like lapd lab.

no amount of contamination could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa. :shrug:

[weezer]

pssst
It was proven under cross examination that MAZOLLA could not identify the
ojs blood samples in court that she had testified that she collected which led many to believe his blood samples were switched in the lapd lab.

only the 'many' (actually -- few) that needed to believe the impossible in order to excuse and defend orenthal. :eek:

[martin II]

no amount of contamination could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa. :shrug:

As Lawyer Baker said We do not know if the blood on the ground is the same blood used in the DNA testing.

Mazzolas changed testinmony (lie) supports this idea.imo.

[weezer]

As Lawyer Baker said We do not know if the blood on the ground is the same blood used in the DNA testing.

Mazzolas changed testinmony (lie) supports this idea.imo.

ah yes -- the great conspiracy to frame poor ole orenthal. LOL

Mazzola didn't change her testimony and lawyer baker lost the case.

[martin II]

at the time of her death, the only person on earth that Nicole was afraid of harming her was orenthal james simpson. the DNA, hair, fiber, and pigeon-toed footprints left by the murderer at the murder scene proved her intuition/feelings to be correct. as proven in the civil trial, orenthal james simpson is responsible for the death of Ron Goldman and the battery of Nicole Brown.

I am sure that i would not be in a position to know who Nicole might have been afraid of and don't think anyone but Nicole would know that.

[martin II]

ah yes -- the great conspiracy to frame poor ole orenthal. LOL

Mazzola didn't change her testimony and lawyer baker lost the case.

criminal trial testimony.

Mazzola under direct quesitoning by prosecutors said 'I put my initials in every bendle/envelope blood sample i collected.

Under cross examination by defense she was given all the bendles/envelopes blood samples she collected and asked to point to her initials. When she observed with everyone that her initials were NOT on THOSE bendles/envelopes, she was asked why they were not there. She said I DON'T KNOW. Later she said maby i did not put my initials on them.imo

[William Anthony]

I am sure that i would not be in a position to know who Nicole might have been afraid of and don't think anyone but Nicole would know that.

Seems to have been quite a great deal of reliance on the junk sciences.

[martin II]

ah yes -- the great conspiracy to frame poor ole orenthal. LOL

Mazzola didn't change her testimony and lawyer baker lost the case.

I see it as a effort by some to try to enhance what was a weak case for a conviction.

[Parker]

But OJ was found innocent in LA. Why do people still argue about that?

And OJ was found guilty in LV. Why do people still argue about that?

Is it possible that OJ can be released from jail in Nevada?

[tv]

But OJ was found innocent in LA. Why do people still argue about that?

And OJ was found guilty in LV. Why do people still argue about that?

Is it possible that OJ can be released from jail in Nevada?

OJ wasn't found innocent in LA; he was found not guilty. :)

[Parker]

OK. Thanks. OJ was found not guilty.

[William Anthony]

But OJ was found innocent in LA. Why do people still argue about that?

And OJ was found guilty in LV. Why do people still argue about that?

Is it possible that OJ can be released from jail in Nevada?

I tend to agree with the verdict in California, meaning there was reasonable doubt.

I tend to believe Simpson's Constitutional rights may have been violated in Nevada.

I doubt that he will be released but I do see the possibility of a new trial or a reduced sentence with some of the convictions reversed or remanded for a decision in line with the reasoning of the appellate court. I think it would take a judge with the intestinal fortitude, thus far unforeseen, to release him, even if his release was called for.

[Parker]

William Anthony, what would you suggest that an appeal for OJ be based on?

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, what would you suggest that an appeal for OJ be based on?

I have listed and discussed most of them. However, they all deal in some manner with a deprivation of Due Process, or fairness, if you will.

I will simply list three that readily to mind.

1. The admissibility of the tapes
2. The Batson challenge
3. The inconsistency in the element of intent or the need for uniformity of the laws, if you will.

I think that the Due Process arguments would entail such other things as the over charging by the prosecution and the demeanor, conduct, rulings and statements of judge J. Glass. Least I forget, the reversal of the kidnapping conviction.

[weezer]

I have listed and discussed most of them. However, they all deal in some manner with a deprivation of Due Process, or fairness, if you will.

I will simply list three that readily to mind.

1. The admissibility of the tapes
2. The Batson challenge
3. The inconsistency in the element of intent or the need for uniformity of the laws, if you will.

I think that the Due Process arguments would entail such other things as the over charging by the prosecution and the demeanor, conduct, rulings and statements of judge J. Glass. Least I forget, the reversal of the kidnapping conviction.

aha -- don't forget #4: wishful thinking. :tongue:

[Parker]

Hi. You don't agree with William Anthony. What has he posted that is not correct?

What should I be reading?

[William Anthony]

aha -- don't forget #4: wishful thinking. :tongue:

Every change or over turning of a verdict and law, begins with a wishful thought that someone will find that the law and verdict as rendered were incorrect. I thought that was understood.

[martin II]

aha -- don't forget #4: wishful thinking. :tongue:


weezer

What is it about the below action that you dissagree with?

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=3&gl=us

February 15, 2007

Dear Chairman Anderson and Members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee,
1.1 am writing in opposition to AB 19, which will be heard by your Committee on Friday,
February 16, 2007.

“In enacted AB 19 would in effect overrule a recent decision of the Nevada Supreme Court in Rolden (Bolden, sic) v State. 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 86,124 P.3d 191 (2005), and would permit a person to be convicted of a specific intent offense, even if that person did not act with specific mtent (intent, sic) Such a result would be an aberration to our criminal code and would be fundamentally unfair. The Nevada Supreme Court's decision in Bolden was correct, so I urge this Committee to reject AB...”

[William Anthony]

Hi. You don't agree with William Anthony. What has he posted that is not correct?

What should I be reading?

I will begin with the easiest, the kidnapping charge, which I have previously provided a link to a Nevada supreme court decision, in which the kidnapping charge was overturned, because there was no force used, which was substantially excessive of the force necessary to commit the associated crime. Pardon me but I forgot the case and it should be on one of these pages, IIRC. However, in my search to find the case, I found this.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Interim_Agendas_Minutes_Exhibits/Exhibits/AdminJustice/E060908Q.pdf

I don't think that the kidnapping conviction will be upheld but I would argue that the overcharging of the offense, sustained by judge J. Glass and the prosecution, who arguably should know the state of the law, additionally is collateral evidence of the prejudicial state of mind which prevented Simpson from receiving a fair trial.

[William Anthony]

This is from post # 732 on this thread.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...OpNo86&invol=2

"This court recently clarified the criteria required to support dual convictions for kidnapping and robbery when those charges arise from a single course of conduct. In Mendoza v. State,[3] we concluded that �movement or restraint incidental to an underlying offense where restraint or movement is inherent, as a general matter, will not expose the defendant to dual criminal liability under either the first- or second-degree kidnapping statutes.�[4] Yet we qualified that generality by stating that in situations

where the movement or restraint serves to substantially increase the risk of harm to the victim over and above that necessarily present in an associated offense . . . or where the seizure, restraint or movement of the victim substantially exceeds that required to complete the associated crime charged, dual convictions under the kidnapping and robbery statutes are proper.[5]"

You do not have the similar circumstances to support a dual conviction in the Simpson case, imho, and which will likely be a successful argument on appeal based on case law. The Mendoza case did not remove this requirement and only said that it could be found in robbery cases. The court maintained that substantial force must be shown over that required to commit the associated crime of robbery.

[William Anthony]

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/200.310.html

The Nevada supreme court seems to have disagreed with the statutory deliniation of kidnapping, when there is an associated crime of robbery, without a legislative revision to the statute, which to me signifies a recognition that the law as written is unrealistic and impractical and, enforcing the law as codified, would result in a miscarriage of justice.

[William Anthony]

More on DNA and LE misconduct.

http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/43898.php

[Kate Sachel]

OK. A defense lawyer. That's cool. I thought you might be a prosecutor. You know what you're talking about.

So why does anyone think OJ was guilty of murder in LA?

Hi Parker - I hope you are doing well.

Just as in all cases, there are individuals who believe in the guilt and those who believe in the innocence. I personally believe in his guilt, but agree with the criminal verdict of "not guilty" because I don't believe that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ Simpson murdered two people at the time of trial.

Kate

[weezer]

Hi Parker - I hope you are doing well.

Just as in all cases, there are individuals who believe in the guilt and those who believe in the innocence. I personally believe in his guilt, but agree with the criminal verdict of "not guilty" because I don't believe that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ Simpson murdered two people at the time of trial.

Kate

Hi Kate -- it's good to see you. Hope all is well.

[fgump2]

Dr. Cotton's testimony

November 14th,

"Q. And if you're given evidence from an outside agency that has been
contaminateed or degraded or tampered with or whatever, you can't make it any
better, can you?

A. No.

Q. So your test results are only as reliable as the evidence that you get?

A. Yes."

With the evidence of missing blood, sloppy evidence handling and storage a it is impossible, imho, to say for certain that evidence wasn't contaminated, improper mixtures formed.

I agree that the evidence was imperfectly processed; in fact I would go one step further and say that very little that people do is perfectly done. It isn't possible to process a mountain of evidence without making numerous errors. But look at it this way: If Henry Lee had done the work it probably would have been a lot worse judging by the mistakes he made; for example confusing trowel marks in the cement with foot prints in blood.
If the evidence was contaminated it was an amazing coincidence that it held together is a logical manner. Gerdes was an expert who ridiculed the LA crime lab as 'garbage in, garbage out', but he was unable to find any lab results which caused the wrong person to be arrested, or prevented a guilty person from being convicted. If he could have, he would have.

[fgump2]

I am sure that i would not be in a position to know who Nicole might have been afraid of and don't think anyone but Nicole would know that.

There is a fair amount of evidence that Nicole was afraid of OJS. First of all a psychotherapist that Nicole consulted, Susan Forward said that Nicole was afraid of OJS, and from Nicole' description of the relationship, the psychotherapist thought that OJS might kill Nicole.
In Petrocelli's book on page 212, a friend of Nicole said the Nicole thought he would kill her, cut her up, and throw the pieces on the freeway.
In the civil trial Kato K said that Nicole was afraid that OJS would kill her by cutting her throat. I think, Martin, that you would understand the case better if you had paid less attention to Fred Goldman, and more attention to the relationship between Nicole and OJS.