Criminal Trial

[Deepwater]

Discussion on the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson in the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

In all the years of discussing this case, it seems it is so easy to get side tracked. People do forget that the grand jury, the prelim hearing and other motions argued before the actual trial serve, IMO, one major purpose, and this is to lock the witness into their story.

I think it would be very interesting to see how the people who testified in at least two of these proceedings. I am very interested in Philip Vanatter (VA). I want to focus on what he said he saw and what door he said he entered in the grand jury vs prelim hearing vs criminal trial.

What do you think?

Plus I will look up in their book to see if changes.

[martin II]

Martin and William,

In all the years of discussing this case, it seems it is so easy to get side tracked. People do forget that the grand jury, the prelim hearing and other motions argued before the actual trial serve, IMO, one major purpose, and this is to lock the witness into their story.

I think it would be very interesting to see how the people who testified in at least two of these proceedings. I am very interested in Philip Vanatter (VA). I want to focus on what he said he saw and what door he said he entered in the grand jury vs prelim hearing vs criminal trial.

What do you think?

Plus I will look up in their book to see if changes.

good idea.

[martin II]

Martin and William,

In all the years of discussing this case, it seems it is so easy to get side tracked. People do forget that the grand jury, the prelim hearing and other motions argued before the actual trial serve, IMO, one major purpose, and this is to lock the witness into their story.

I think it would be very interesting to see how the people who testified in at least two of these proceedings. I am very interested in Philip Vanatter (VA). I want to focus on what he said he saw and what door he said he entered in the grand jury vs prelim hearing vs criminal trial.

What do you think?

Plus I will look up in their book to see if changes.


i will look for the testimony of the lapd cop that proves that Arnell told the truth about which door she and the others entered.imo

[martin II]

Here is the testimony of the cop that saw the detectives escort Arnell from the back of the house to the front of the house. proving that no one entered the house through a back door as some testified they did. This is from the civil trial proving her criminal trial testimony about entering the front door with the detectives was correct. The detectives all lied and kato lied about when he entered the house.



testimony.

Q. And you were -- after you came back from the excursion from the
Bronco, you remained in the area between the Ashford gate and
Rockingham, right?
A. Well, I positioned myself such that I could see the Bronco from
that point.
Q. And you could see the Bronco from your vantage point, basically
on the point there between Rockingham and Ashford, right?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. That's where you stayed, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't hear any discussions about whether or not Fuhrman
was going to go over the wall?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. And you didn't see him go over the wall?
A. I don't remember seeing him.
Q. And you didn't know that he went over the wall at all the night
of June 13, 1994, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Never had any idea that this detective that you knew from the
West Los Angeles Police Department had jumped the wall and entered
Mr. Simpson's estate while you were standing guard out here at the
point between Ashford and Rockingham, right.
A. I don't recall seeing him climb a gate or scale a wall.
Q. You don't have any recollection that he even did that on the
night of June 13, true?
A. That's true.
Q. Okay. But you do recall seeing the detectives from your vantage
point, going on the north side of Mr. Simpson's property, up the
pathway and then lost sight of them, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And what time was that, did you say, I'm sorry?
A. Approximately 5:30, 5:45.
Q. And how -- and how long was it until they came back with Arnelle
Simpson?
A. I don't know specifically.
Q. Estimate. 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15, half hour, hour?
A. It's hard for me to say. Approximately, between 15 to 30 minutes.
I don't know.
Q. So sometime between 6 and 6:15?
A. I don't know.
Q. Now, you observed the detectives walk back with a black female
that was later identified to you as Arnelle Simpson, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And they walked around the path and down into the driveway, did
they not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see any detective take Arnelle Simpson and lead her over
to the Rockingham gate to look at the Bronco?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear any detective tell Arnelle Simpson that her
stepmother had been murdered?
A. No.
Q. And you saw a group of detectives leading Arnelle Simpson from
the north path out towards the driveway area, correct?
A. I can't recall how many people were with her. I seem to recall
there not being -- perhaps one or two.
Q. Why don't you look at page 3 of your statement, fourth paragraph
down, and see if that refreshes your recollection.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, you observed two or three detectives leading her back,
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you never saw Arnelle Simpson or the detectives go back down
the path and toward the rear of the house again after they came
forward, isn't that true?
A. Yes, I believe it to be.
Q. And they entered the house from the front door, didn't they?
A. I don't know. I couldn't see.
Q. Well, did you ever see the detectives and Arnelle Simpson outside
after you saw the detectives escort her around on the north side of
the house at all?
A. Could you repeat that, please.
Q. Did you see Arnelle Simpson or the detectives outside of the
house after they were escorting her around on the north side?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. And you stayed there and you were to kind of guard the premises,
right?

[martin II]

gi

The cops lied about going into a back door was done to try and prove that Arnell had been in the house to wash some clothes. To show that a back door had been left unlocked by her. The cops testimony proves that they did not go through a back door and that Arnell did not earlier leave by a back door after being in the house. she never was in the house early on 6/13 washing any clothes. imo

[GreenIce]

gi

The cops lied about going into a back door was done to try and prove that Arnell had been in the house to wash some clothes. To show that a back door had been left unlocked by her. The cops testimony proves that they did not go through a back door and that Arnell did not earlier leave by a back door after being in the house. she never was in the house early on 6/13 washing any clothes. imo

Martin,

I disagree with why the lied about the door. Vanatter and Lange in their book clearly indicate the clothes in the washing machine were checked for blood and it was determined to be rust. If you think about it, the people who are claiming the clothes in the washer are MF and DP.

I believe there may be several reasons why the cops lied about the door. First, there were two Westec employees that were there. And IMO, I think the alarm was turned off and the door was opened probably by one of the Westec people.

They also lied about the number of detectives that were with Arnelle. They had to bury where Vanatter was. As I posted before, I think VA knew about the thumps, knew there was no glove back there and knew MF planted it.
It is clear in Kato's testimony that VA knew about the thumps before MF told VA to talk to him.

And VA said that MF told him about the thumps and MF said he didn't. I do believe MF on this.

[martin II]

gi

The other unresolved issue is wht did lang after being at rockingham for short time have this cop drive him back to Bundy for a 10 minute stay and return to Rockingham.i had never read this before and wonder what lang had to do at Bundy at that time.:shrug:

[martin II]

gi

The other unresolved issue is wht did lang after being at rockingham for short time have this cop drive him back to Bundy for a 10 minute stay and return to Rockingham.i had never read this before and wonder what lang had to do at Bundy at that time.:shrug:

lang left rockingham at about 6 am driven by the cop and returned 10 minutes later.this must have been after furhman "found" the glove and after they had entered the house. later he asked furhman to come to bundy to verify the gloves was a match but if he had seen the rockingham glove at rockingham why did he need furhman to come to bundy top verify it when lang returned to bundy later?

[martin II]

Martin,

I disagree with why the lied about the door. Vanatter and Lange in their book clearly indicate the clothes in the washing machine were checked for blood and it was determined to be rust. If you think about it, the people who are claiming the clothes in the washer are MF and DP.

I believe there may be several reasons why the cops lied about the door. First, there were two Westec employees that were there. And IMO, I think the alarm was turned off and the door was opened probably by one of the Westec people.

They also lied about the number of detectives that were with Arnelle. They had to bury where Vanatter was. As I posted before, I think VA knew about the thumps, knew there was no glove back there and knew MF planted it.
It is clear in Kato's testimony that VA knew about the thumps before MF told VA to talk to him.

And VA said that MF told him about the thumps and MF said he didn't. I do believe MF on this.

i think westec left the property before lapd entered the property. something about they had another call. not sure but think that is what happened.

kato activated the alarm and it was on until Arnell took it off when she let vannatter and 1-2 other cops in. i believe the detectives were vannatter,lang and phillips that entered the front door with Arnell.

The whole idea about the door was to try and prove that arnell had been in the house earlier and washed some clothes and that she left by that back door and left it unlocked and that is how the detectives were able to get into the house because they knew that door could not be entered as it had no outside lock for a key.
i think the whole lies about what door they used was to try support that arnell had used the washing ,machine and washed the blood off the sweats.

[GreenIce]

i think westec left the property before lapd entered the property. something about they had another call. not sure but think that is what happened.

kato activated the alarm and it was on until Arnell took it off when she let vannatter and 1-2 other cops in. i believe the detectives were vannatter,lang and phillips that entered the front door with Arnell.

The whole idea about the door was to try and prove that arnell had been in the house earlier and washed some clothes and that she left by that back door and left it unlocked and that is how the detectives were able to get into the house because they knew that door could not be entered as it had no outside lock for a key.
i think the whole lies about what door they used was to try support that arnell had used the washing ,machine and washed the blood off the sweats.

Martin,

I truly believe the clothes in the washing machine is a red herring that MF has used and Petrocelli jumped on it. Brad Roberts never testified in the civil trial. Petrocelli never challenges Arnelle on this issue. He is just making this up knowing that it means nothing.

He is trying to play hero and he failed, IMO.

[GreenIce]

i think westec left the property before lapd entered the property. something about they had another call. not sure but think that is what happened.

kato activated the alarm and it was on until Arnell took it off when she let vannatter and 1-2 other cops in. i believe the detectives were vannatter,lang and phillips that entered the front door with Arnell.

The whole idea about the door was to try and prove that arnell had been in the house earlier and washed some clothes and that she left by that back door and left it unlocked and that is how the detectives were able to get into the house because they knew that door could not be entered as it had no outside lock for a key.
i think the whole lies about what door they used was to try support that arnell had used the washing ,machine and washed the blood off the sweats.

Martin,

I think it was in Shapiro's book that the Westec guy said the detectives were already at the front door when he gave them the number. However, does it make sense to you that the LAPD would fight for a phone number when they spent 20 minutes ringing the gate phone? Did they think they would get a response from a different ring?

Also, I think in MF's book, he says that only he was told about the maid. But I will have to check that.

[GreenIce]

gi

The other unresolved issue is wht did lang after being at rockingham for short time have this cop drive him back to Bundy for a 10 minute stay and return to Rockingham.i had never read this before and wonder what lang had to do at Bundy at that time.:shrug:

lang left rockingham at about 6 am driven by the cop and returned 10 minutes later.this must have been after furhman "found" the glove and after they had entered the house. later he asked furhman to come to bundy to verify the gloves was a match but if he had seen the rockingham glove at rockingham why did he need furhman to come to bundy top verify it when lang returned to bundy later?

Martin,

IMO, I think MF was sent back to Bundy to cover up the time of the picture, the one where he was point at the glove. And I think Riske is up to his neck in this as well. He believed right from the beginning that Simpson was involved in the murders. His testimony must be view through that window, IMO.

I think Lange so he wouldn't see what VA was going to do. The more I read about Lange, the more dents I see in his testimony.

And to be honest, what difference does it make that the gloves may not have been match? How does that exclude anybody?

[martin II]

Martin,

As you know, I truly believe that they did know where he was and what time he left for several reasons. However, I forgot about his phone message saying that he was out of town.

In reading MF's book, he says that Kato told them about seeing the limo that night. But has no reaction to that? Also there are a few books that say that there was log and it that at about 2:30 a.m., OJ was the prime suspect.

Also, as you know, I think MF is capable of anything but I do believe he is at his best when he is telling the truth, like about not telling VA about the thumps. He would be telling the truth if VA heard about the thumps from Kato.

The redacted phone records they have the defense.

And, I still can't figure out why VA would ever write such a stupid lie about the unexpected trip as well as lying about Simpson coming home on his own.


vannatter lied to the judge because he needed to make oj look guilty to get the search warrant.

[GreenIce]

vannatter lied to the judge because he needed to make oj look guilty to get the search warrant.

Martin,

I don't think that was it. We all know that getting a search warrant and keeping it is pretty much child's play. VA knew and was savvy enough to know that the search warrant would hold up---MC helped him right it.

I still think it was done to take the focus of MF and put it all VA. I mean what did this man have to do get attention, finish his walk through in his underwear? :)

[martin II]

Martin,

I don't think that was it. We all know that getting a search warrant and keeping it is pretty much child's play. VA knew and was savvy enough to know that the search warrant would hold up---MC helped him right it.

I still think it was done to take the focus of MF and put it all VA. I mean what did this man have to do get attention, finish his walk through in his underwear? :)

you may be correct. most judges just believe the cop asking for the warrant.also cops can get search warrants by phone to a judge in most places. vannatter took responsibility for what was said in the warrant because he knew that ito or no olther judge would toss all the evidence found at rockingham. That required too much independance of most judges. So ito just told vannater i don't believe you and let him get by with the lies. IMO

[martin II]

lapd entered ojs property at about 5:20 am. about 30 minutes later land was taken to Bundy for 10 minutes and he returned to Rockingham.
what did he make this trip for. vannater,phillips and furhman and roberts were at rockingham. what did he have to do that could not have been done on the phone.

[Kate Sachel]

Martin,

I don't think that was it. We all know that getting a search warrant and keeping it is pretty much child's play. VA knew and was savvy enough to know that the search warrant would hold up---MC helped him right it.

I still think it was done to take the focus of MF and put it all VA. I mean what did this man have to do get attention, finish his walk through in his underwear? :)

If "MC" in your post stands for Marcia Clark then you are mistaken, Marcia Clark did not help to write the search warrant. If you will recall, Marcia offered to assist and was told she would receive a phone call back shortly. When the phone call finally came, the warrant had already been written and approved without her consultation.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

vannatter lied to the judge because he needed to make oj look guilty to get the search warrant.

I will assume that this is your opinion and not made as a factual statement.

Kate

[martin II]

gi

This may be what caused vannatter and others to remain quite.


Blue Code of Silence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Blue Code of Silence (or Blue Wall of Silence) is an unwritten rule among many police officers in the United States not to report on another colleague's errors, misconducts or crimes. It is considered to be the worst kind of betrayal if this code is broken.

Ironically, it is similar to the code of silence in organized crime, like the Omertà.

Studies demonstrate that most police feel that the code is applicable in cases of "illegal brutality or bending of the rules in order to protect colleagues from criminal proceedings," but not to illegal actions with an "acquisitive motive."[1][2]

--------------------------

The Blue Wall of Silence, does not have an official existence. This is not a written code. John Diedrich in the Milwaukee Sentinel article titled “Wall of Silence Not Breaking” calls it the ‘unwritten code of silence’. By common reasoning, it is easy to connect the existence of police brutality with the Blue Wall of Silence. Where there is police brutality, the issue of the Blue Wall of Silence coexists. Hence it can be concluded using deductive reasoning that the Blue Wall of Silence exists at all levels of the police. The existence of the Blue Wall of Silence affects the prisoners who face police brutality, as well as the righteous police officers who try to tear down the Blue Wall of Silence.

The case of Frank Jude Jr. merits special attention in this context. Frank Jude Jr., was savagely beaten Oct. 24 by a dozen men who, witnesses said identified themselves as off-duty police officers. This was a case in which the officers’ testimony became crucial. This is a case when the Blue Wall of Silence affects the life of Frank Jude Jr., a victim of police brutality. According to New York Daily News, Barry, a 16-year veteran of the force, contends she was demoted and brought up on disciplinary charges after whistle-blowing on the truancy unit of the Queens South Task Force in 1998. Barry was demoted, assigned to midnight tours and accused of failing to supervise her unit. She was further labeled by other cops as a ‘rat’."Cops will tolerate psychos, alcoholics, wife-beaters, dweebs and geeks, but they will not tolerate rats. Period," said Tony Bouza, chief of the Minneapolis Police Department from 1980 to 1988. In this particular case, the Blue Wall of Silence has affected the life of a righteous police officer, Barry.

[martin II]

lapd entered ojs property at about 5:20 am. about 30 minutes later land was taken to Bundy for 10 minutes and he returned to Rockingham.
what did he make this trip for. vannater,phillips and furhman and roberts were at rockingham. what did he have to do that could not have been done on the phone.

correction

LANG

[martin II]

gi

you were correct vannatter did search the grounds

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: NOW, YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT WHEN YOU WENT INTO THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECTION AS TO WHERE THE DETECTIVES SHOULD GO; IS THAT CORRECT?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHAT TIME? KIND OF VAGUE.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AS YOU ENTERED ROCKINGHAM, YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT YOU SEARCHED THE GROUNDS TO SEE IF ANYBODY WAS INJURED IN THE AREA; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

[martin II]

vannatter did not speak about lang leaving rockingham to go to bundy for 10 minutes.



A: WELL, WE WERE ALL SEASONED POLICE OFFICERS. OUR PURPOSES FOR BEING THERE WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY WAS OKAY AT THE LOCATION.

Q: DID YOU SEE WHERE DETECTIVE LANGE WENT?

A: YEAH. I WAS CLOSE TO DETECTIVE LANGE MOST OF THE TIME.

Q: SO WERE YOU WORKING AS PARTNERS DURING THAT OBSERVATION PHASE?

A: YEAH. WE WORK AS PARTNERS ALL THE TIME, YES.

Q: AND EVERYWHERE YOU WENT HE WENT?

A: NOT EVERYWHERE, NO.

Q: WHERE DID HE GO THAT YOU DIDN'T GO?

A: HE WENT TO THE BACK DOOR OF THE LOCATION. I LATER WENT THERE. HE REMAINED IN THE KITCHEN WHEN I WENT INTO THE MAID'S QUARTERS AND HE REMAINED IN THE KITCHEN WHEN I WENT BACK INTO THE BAR AREA. AND THEN I WAS OUT OF HIS VIEW FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THAT.

Q: DID YOU DIRECT ANYBODY, WHEN YOU ENTERED, TO LOOK FOR PEOPLE TO FIND WHERE IS O.J.?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THIS IS ASKED AND ANSWERED FROM YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: WE HAD DISCUSSED OUR PURPOSE FOR BEING THERE AND OUR PURPOSE FOR GOING OVER THE WALL WAS TO CHECK THE WELFARE AND SEE IF THERE WERE ANY OCCUPANTS AT THE HOME THAT WAS KNOWN BETWEEN THE FOUR OF US.

[The Boys]

gi

The cops lied about going into a back door was done to try and prove that Arnell had been in the house to wash some clothes. To show that a back door had been left unlocked by her. The cops testimony proves that they did not go through a back door and that Arnell did not earlier leave by a back door after being in the house. she never was in the house early on 6/13 washing any clothes. imo

How on earth does this testimony prove that Arnelle at no point was in the house washing clothes????

[The Boys]

gi

This may be what caused vannatter and others to remain quite.


Blue Code of Silence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Blue Code of Silence (or Blue Wall of Silence) is an unwritten rule among many police officers in the United States not to report on another colleague's errors, misconducts or crimes. It is considered to be the worst kind of betrayal if this code is broken.

Ironically, it is similar to the code of silence in organized crime, like the Omertà.

Studies demonstrate that most police feel that the code is applicable in cases of "illegal brutality or bending of the rules in order to protect colleagues from criminal proceedings," but not to illegal actions with an "acquisitive motive."[1][2]

--------------------------

The Blue Wall of Silence, does not have an official existence. This is not a written code. John Diedrich in the Milwaukee Sentinel article titled “Wall of Silence Not Breaking” calls it the ‘unwritten code of silence’. By common reasoning, it is easy to connect the existence of police brutality with the Blue Wall of Silence. Where there is police brutality, the issue of the Blue Wall of Silence coexists. Hence it can be concluded using deductive reasoning that the Blue Wall of Silence exists at all levels of the police. The existence of the Blue Wall of Silence affects the prisoners who face police brutality, as well as the righteous police officers who try to tear down the Blue Wall of Silence.

The case of Frank Jude Jr. merits special attention in this context. Frank Jude Jr., was savagely beaten Oct. 24 by a dozen men who, witnesses said identified themselves as off-duty police officers. This was a case in which the officers’ testimony became crucial. This is a case when the Blue Wall of Silence affects the life of Frank Jude Jr., a victim of police brutality. According to New York Daily News, Barry, a 16-year veteran of the force, contends she was demoted and brought up on disciplinary charges after whistle-blowing on the truancy unit of the Queens South Task Force in 1998. Barry was demoted, assigned to midnight tours and accused of failing to supervise her unit. She was further labeled by other cops as a ‘rat’."Cops will tolerate psychos, alcoholics, wife-beaters, dweebs and geeks, but they will not tolerate rats. Period," said Tony Bouza, chief of the Minneapolis Police Department from 1980 to 1988. In this particular case, the Blue Wall of Silence has affected the life of a righteous police officer, Barry.

You're assuming that they had something to be quiet about. I think it's just possible that they might be tellin' the truth and that ol' man Simpson's just a killer.

[martin II]

Q: Did you give any direction to detective fuhrman regarding a man known as brian kato kaelin?

A: No.

Q: He gave you direction, though, didn't he?

A: No, he didn't give me direction.

Q: He didn't tell you to talk to kato?

A: He asked me to speak with him.

Q: Did he tell you what he wanted you to speak to kato about?

A: Briefly, yes.

Q: What did he tell you he wanted to speak about?

A: He said that kato had heard some sounds outside of his room that he thought was an earthquake and he wanted me to talk to him about that.

Q: At that time did you know where o.j. Simpson was?

A: I believe i was aware that a phone call was being made to find out where he was at.

Q: At that time were you aware of where o.j. Simpson was? Yes or no?

A: I -- i may have been. I'm not sure.

Q: Did you ask kato "where's o.j."?

A: Yes, i did.

Q: And did he tell you he had gone on a trip to chicago for hertz?

A: Yes, he did.

Q: And he put that -- and you wrote that down in your notes, did you not?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you know that -- did you know where o.j. Was at the time that you walked into the house with the maid -- looking for the maid, i'm sorry?

A: No, i did not.

Q: When you came in looking for the maid did you ask anybody where's o.j. At that time?

A: I did not, no.

Q: Did you ask arnelle simpson "where's o.j."?

A: At what point?

Q: When you came in looking for the maid?

A: I had asked her previously.

Q: Did you ask her if he was in the house?

A: Yes.

Q: And what did she say?

A: She gestured toward the house and said "isn't i here?" and i asked her, is he? Do you have a key? Can we go check?" and she took us into the home.

Q: Did you ask her where o.j.'s bedroom was?

A: No, i did not.

Q: If you were concerned about o.j., wouldn't you want to go up to his bedroom and see if he was still sleeping?

A: If he hadn't had been accounted for, yes. He was accounted for at a point there that morning.

Q: But he wasn't accounted for immediately, was he?

A: No, sir, he wasn't.

Q: And there was a period of time when you were concerned about looking for the maid and sitting and talking to kato before you were concerned about where is o.j.; isn't that true?

A: Before i was concerned about looking for o.j.?

Q: Correct.

A: I think the main concern was to locate o.j. And that was done quite quickly after we arrived in there by phone call. He was accounted for. The maid was obviously not there. At that point is when i believe i started walking back toward the back. I knew they were on the phone attempting to locate o.j. At that point.

Q: Your first knowledge of the accountability of o.j. Simpson was because of a phone call?

A: Yes. I heard arnelle tell either detective phillips or lange that she could make a phone call to his secretary and she would always know where he was at.

Q: And did you get the results of that phone call?

A: At a later time, yes.

Q: What time did you confirm that o.j. Simpson was in chicago?

A: Oh, i was told that by kato and then i was later told that by my partner.

Q: What time did you confirm it?

A: Shortly after six o'clock that morning.

Q: What time do your phone records indicate that o.j. Simpson was contacted in chicago?

A: If i could see the records i could tell you.

Q: Okay. Do you have those records?

A: Yeah. This may be in my book there.

Q: We talked about that yesterday, didn't we?

A: Yeah.

Mr. Shapiro: We asked you to look for that. They are in this book. May i bring these up, your honor?

The court: You may.

(brief pause.)

the witness: There are volumes of records. I'm having a hard time right now locating them.

(discussion held off the record between defense counsel.)

mr. Shapiro: Maybe -- your honor, i would have no objection to detective lange helping detective phillips (sic) try to locate this.

The court: All right. Detective lange, why don't you take the investigation notebooks and see if you can find the phone records for that point in time.

(brief pause.)

the court: Mr. Shapiro, let me suggest that detective lange make the record search and we proceed with any other questions for detective vannatter.

Mr. Shapiro: That is acceptable, your honor.

The court: All right.

Q: By mr. Shapiro: Is it your position, detective vannatter, that prior to trying to go up to a bedroom or look around the house for o.j., you decided to try to locate him telephonically?

A: I don't quite understand that. Could you say that again? My contention what?

Mr. Shapiro: Your honor, could that be reread to the witness?

The court: "is it your position, detective vannatter, that prior to trying to go up to a bedroom or look around the house for o.j. You decided to try to locate him telephonically?"

the witness: That is what occurred with his daughter, yes.

Mr. Shapiro: How about if we refer to the defendant as mr. Simpson.

Mr. Shapiro: Thank you, your honor.

[martin II]

here is vannatter search warrant lie. He is trying to say SOMEONE told him oj left on a unexpected trip to chicago. he told this lie to get the search warrant.




Q: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU APPLIED FOR SEVERAL SEARCH WARRANTS IN THIS CASE, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND A SEARCH WARRANT REQUIRES AN AFFIDAVIT SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, DOES IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT REQUIREMENT IS SO THAT AN INDEPENDENT MAGISTRATE OR A JUDGE CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A SEARCH WARRANT SHOULD ISSUE AND NOT LET THE POLICE RELY ON THEIR OWN INSTINCTS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN FILLING OUT A SEARCH WARRANT YOU INDICATED TO A MAGISTRATE UNDER, PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT YOU WERE TOLD THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON AN UNEXPECTED MIGHT TO CHICAGO, DID YOU NOT?

A: I DIDN'T SAY I WAS TOLD THAT.

Q: YOU REPORTED --

A: I DID WRITE THAT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, YES.

Q: AND YOU SIGNED THAT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY?

A: YES. THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

Q: AND THAT WASN'T TRUE, WAS IT?

A: I FIND -- I FOUND OUT LATER THAT THAT INFORMATION WAS INCORRECT. THAT WAS BASED ON ARNELLE SIMPSON'S RESPONSE THAT MORNING, AS WELL AS KATO KAELIN TELLING ME THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A PHONE CALL AFTER SIMPSON HAD LEFT THE RESIDENCE TELLING HIM TO ALARM THE HOUSE, THAT HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO ON A BUSINESS TRIP FOR HERTZ.

Q: YOU FILLED OUT THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT AT WHAT TIME, SIR?

A: I STARTED THAT APPROXIMATELY 7:45 IN THE MORNING.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID YOU PRESENT IT TO A MAGISTRATE, SIR?

A: IT WAS SIGNED AT 10:45.

[martin II]

Q: And isn't it true, sir, that at six o'clock in the morning your handwritten notes indicate that in your interview with kato kaelin that he told you that o.j. Simpson had left on a flight for chicago for hertz?

A: Yes, that's correct.

Q: And did you also indicate, under penalty of perjury, sir, that you observed what appeared to be human blood, which was later confirmed by a criminalist to be human blood?

A: Yes, i said that.

Q: And isn't it true at the time that that was not a test to determine whether or not this was human blood?

[martin II]

Q: By mr. Shapiro: Is it -- is it -- did -- is it your opinion that the person who did the killing was bleeding at the time he came or she came to rockingham?

A: Yes.

Q: I take it then there was a thorough search for blood from the area of rockingham -- from rockingham to the area where the glove was found?

A: Yes, that's correct.

Q: How much blood was found there?

A: None. None that i am aware of.

Q: I take it a thorough search was done of the adjacent property for blood; is that correct?

A: The area was searched, yes.

Q: For blood?

A: Well, searched for any type of evidence.

Q: Was it searched for blood?

A: Yes, sir, that would include any type of evidence.

Q: How much blood was found there?

A: None.

Q: I take it a thorough search of the fence was undertaken if somebody climbed the fence for blood?

A: Yes.

Q: How much blood was found there?

A: None.

Q: I take it a thorough search was done of the walls?

A: That's correct, yes.

Q: How much blood was found there?

A: None.

[The Boys]

Q: And isn't it true, sir, that at six o'clock in the morning your handwritten notes indicate that in your interview with kato kaelin that he told you that o.j. Simpson had left on a flight for chicago for hertz?

A: Yes, that's correct.

Q: And did you also indicate, under penalty of perjury, sir, that you observed what appeared to be human blood, which was later confirmed by a criminalist to be human blood?

A: Yes, i said that.

Q: And isn't it true at the time that that was not a test to determine whether or not this was human blood?

The warrant said he observed what APPEARED to be human blood - he didn't say that it WAS human blood.

Nice try though.

[martin II]

here is vannatter search warrant lie. He is trying to say someone told him oj left on a unexpected trip to chicago. He told this lie to get the search warrant.




Q: Detective vannatter, you applied for several search warrants in this case, did you not?

A: Yes.

Q: And a search warrant requires an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury, does it not?

A: Yes.

Q: And that requirement is so that an independent magistrate or a judge can make a determination as to whether or not a search warrant should issue and not let the police rely on their own instincts; isn't that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And in filling out a search warrant you indicated to a magistrate under, penalty of perjury, that you were told that o.j. Simpson had left on an unexpected might to chicago, did you not?

A: I didn't say i was told that.

Q: You reported --

a: I did write that in the search warrant, yes.

Q: And you signed that under penalty of perjury?

A: Yes. That's correct, sir.

Q: And that wasn't true, was it?

A: I find -- i found out later that that information was incorrect. That was based on arnelle simpson's response that morning, as well as kato kaelin telling me that he had received a phone call after simpson had left the residence telling him to alarm the house, that he was going to chicago on a business trip for hertz.

Q: You filled out the affidavit for the search warrant at what time, sir?

A: I started that approximately 7:45 in the morning.

Q: And what time did you present it to a magistrate, sir?

A: It was signed at 10:45.


q: At any time, when you were at rockingham that morning, did you hear arnelle or kato ever use the word "unplanned"?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever hear that word used by cathy randa or attributed to her?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever hear that word used by anyone?

A: No.

[martin II]

gi

i don't think many people know this. the cut on ojs finger was not at the location of the cut on the bundy glove. hmmmm



Q: YOU EXAMINED THE INDEX FINGER OF MR. SIMPSON AND OBSERVED IT TO HAVE A CUT WHICH YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED HERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND I TAKE IT YOU EXAMINED THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE AT BUNDY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DIDN'T. I HAD IT EXAMINED.

Q: AND WAS A CUT FOUND ON THE LEFT HAND GLOVE AT BUNDY THAT WOULD BE IN THE AREA OF THE CUT ON O.J. SIMPSON'S LEFT HAND?

A: NO.

MR. SHAPIRO: NOTHING FURTHER

[GreenIce]

If "MC" in your post stands for Marcia Clark then you are mistaken, Marcia Clark did not help to write the search warrant. If you will recall, Marcia offered to assist and was told she would receive a phone call back shortly. When the phone call finally came, the warrant had already been written and approved without her consultation.

Kate

Kate,

This is not how VA and TL wrote about it their book. She was called by VA from the crime scene. Right there raises a red flag IMO.

Not one lie VA told regarding the search warrant made no sense.

When did the Westec representative testifiy that Simpson always alerted him when he went out of town, did I miss that?

[GreenIce]

I will assume that this is your opinion and not made as a factual statement.

Kate

Kate,

It is a fact, several actually, that VA lied on the search warrant. I would assume his motive was his belief that Simpson was indeed guilty. Too bad his lies blew his credibility. IMO, MF had more credibility then VA did. Of course, VA had to take a few for the home team, IMO.

[martin II]

The warrant said he observed what APPEARED to be human blood - he didn't say that it WAS human blood.

Nice try though.
It could appear to be many other red looking things also.He was streatching again like he did when he talked about what he did after receiving ojs blood.

[martin II]

Kate,

This is not how VA and TL wrote about it their book. She was called by VA from the crime scene. Right there raises a red flag IMO.

Not one lie VA told regarding the search warrant made no sense.

When did the Westec representative testifiy that Simpson always alerted him when he went out of town, did I miss that?

vannater testified that someone told him oj left for Chicago unexpected but later had to adfmit that no one said the word unexpected to him that night.
in the search warrabt he told the judge that oj left on a unexpected trip to make it look like oj killed the people and then ran to the airport to establish a alibi, that was a hugh lie

[martin II]

Kate,

This is not how VA and TL wrote about it their book. She was called by VA from the crime scene. Right there raises a red flag IMO.

Not one lie VA told regarding the search warrant made no sense.

When did the Westec representative testifiy that Simpson always alerted him when he went out of town, did I miss that?

I think she advised vannatter by phone what to put in the search warrant.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

This is not how VA and TL wrote about it their book. She was called by VA from the crime scene. Right there raises a red flag IMO.

Not one lie VA told regarding the search warrant made no sense.

When did the Westec representative testifiy that Simpson always alerted him when he went out of town, did I miss that?

Yes, she was phoned from the crime scene because VA wanted her input on whether she felt that they had enough to obtain a search warrant. She did not, however, assist in writing it. She had expected to assist, but VA did not phone her back to do so as he told her he would.

I'm not certain why it raises a red flag for you that she was phoned from the crime scene as it is a common practice that I have watched happen for years in the law firm I used to be employed with.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

It is a fact, several actually, that VA lied on the search warrant. I would assume his motive was his belief that Simpson was indeed guilty. Too bad his lies blew his credibility. IMO, MF had more credibility then VA did. Of course, VA had to take a few for the home team, IMO.

I saw some things that could have been speculated to be lies; but I was not aware that anything was actually proven to be a lie.

Is there something that I am missing?

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

vannater testified that someone told him oj left for Chicago unexpected but later had to adfmit that no one said the word unexpected to him that night.
in the search warrabt he told the judge that oj left on a unexpected trip to make it look like oj killed the people and then ran to the airport to establish a alibi, that was a hugh lie

I believe that he was left with the clear impression that the flight was unexpected, considering that Arnelle advised him that OJ was supposed to be at home.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Vanatter could have suffered from what I believe to be a characteristic abundant in human beings in that, while lasting, a first impression may be a wrong one.

[GreenIce]

Yes, she was phoned from the crime scene because VA wanted her input on whether she felt that they had enough to obtain a search warrant. She did not, however, assist in writing it. She had expected to assist, but VA did not phone her back to do so as he told her he would.

I'm not certain why it raises a red flag for you that she was phoned from the crime scene as it is a common practice that I have watched happen for years in the law firm I used to be employed with.

Kate

Kate,

I will have to re-read the passage from the book. They were angry because they felt Clark threw VA under the bus on the search warrant. Of course, I am sure both books will have a different take on it.

VA was too experienced to need a DA to help him get a warrant. The fact that he knew Clark and she knew him, IMO, tells me he had some problems.

There is not one thing that is the truth in what VA and Lange said regarding the entry on to the estate. When VA insisted that OJ was no more of a suspect then Robert Shapiro was, just cooked his lying goose, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I believe that he was left with the clear impression that the flight was unexpected, considering that Arnelle advised him that OJ was supposed to be at home.

Kate

Kate,

That is a complete and total lie about Arnelle. She told the detectives her father was out of town but she didn't know exactly what town he was in but she knew who did know exactly where he was.

Common sense tells you that they knew where Simpson was, when he left. There own books again, cook their lying goose. I would type gooses but I am not sure if that works!

[GreenIce]

Vanatter could have suffered from what I believe to be a characteristic abundant in human beings in that, while lasting, a first impression may be a wrong one.

William,

Disagree with you here. VA knew the glove was planted. I do believe they did truly believed Simpson did it but them lying about Simpson not being a suspect just proves what they knew and when they knew it, IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

Disagree with you here. VA knew the glove was planted. I do believe they did truly believed Simpson did it but them lying about Simpson not being a suspect just proves what they knew and when they knew it, IMO.

GreenIce,

I was speaking on the possible impressions Vanatter could have formed and when he formed them in regard to what he placed in the affidavit for the search warrant. He learned by the time that he prepared the affidavit Simpson's departure had been scheduled and there was not anything untoward in his leaving. I think the impression was made by the poster that Vanatter relied on the statement of Ms. Arnelle when he created the affidavit but ignored the statements of the person most knowledgeable about his travels, even according to Ms. Arnelle, Ms. Randa, which is what I meant when I said that Vannatter's initial impression was wrong and thus the statement in the affidavit displayed a reckless disregard for the truth.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

I will have to re-read the passage from the book. They were angry because they felt Clark threw VA under the bus on the search warrant. Of course, I am sure both books will have a different take on it.

VA was too experienced to need a DA to help him get a warrant. The fact that he knew Clark and she knew him, IMO, tells me he had some problems.

There is not one thing that is the truth in what VA and Lange said regarding the entry on to the estate. When VA insisted that OJ was no more of a suspect then Robert Shapiro was, just cooked his lying goose, IMO.

Why is it that you believe the detectives when you think it buries another member of the prosecution team, yet you believe nothing when it comes to their thoughts or testimony on OJ or any of his entourage?

As I stated prior, despite your beliefs, it is quite common for a detective to contact a District Attorney to go over information in regard to obtaining a search warrant.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

That is a complete and total lie about Arnelle. She told the detectives her father was out of town but she didn't know exactly what town he was in but she knew who did know exactly where he was.

Common sense tells you that they knew where Simpson was, when he left. There own books again, cook their lying goose. I would type gooses but I am not sure if that works!

I disagree in this case that common sense tells me any such thing, especially since I believe that either scenario (they knew or did not know) is possible.

Perhaps "geese"?

Kate

[William Anthony]

I disagree in this case that common sense tells me any such thing, especially since I believe that either scenario (they knew or did not know) is possible.

Perhaps "geese"?

Kate

What about ganders?:)

[martin II]

It has been reported by media that MC was actually at rockingham on 6/13, and that she advised vannatter on the search warrant. However when the search warrant was attacked for vannatter lies , it seems that her involvement was not a topic of discussion.

[William Anthony]

It has been reported by media that MC was actually at rockingham on 6/13, and that she advised vannatter on the search warrant. However when the search warrant was attacked for vannatter lies , it seems that her involvement was not a topic of discussion.

I do recall, although I am not sure of the location or the date, that a picture was shown of Ms. Clark at the crime scene in the early stages of the investigation. It would seem that she was involved soon after the crimes and would have had a knowledge of what evidence was or was not observed and the conditions under which such observations had allegedly been made, givving her an excellent chance to discuss theoretically with Vannatter how they could circumvent probable cause based on what he would say.

[martin II]

Kate,

That is a complete and total lie about Arnelle. She told the detectives her father was out of town but she didn't know exactly what town he was in but she knew who did know exactly where he was.

Common sense tells you that they knew where Simpson was, when he left. There own books again, cook their lying goose. I would type gooses but I am not sure if that works!

vannatter in his testimony on cross admitted that he was in the kitchen when Arnell informned them that she could find out where oj was by a phone call to CR. She called CR in front of them and phillips talked to CR and was told the trip had been scheduled about two weeks in advance.le had the ability to check this if that had wanted to at that time.
vannatter was the lead detective with his partner Lang. It is not reasonable to suggest that the main issue for them being inside ojs house was to locate and verify his absence and his partners did not inform him of why oj was in chicago immediately after the CR call.

le does have the ability to call lax,run ojs name through the computer of all airlines to see if he boarded any flight.So it is possible they had done this and knew he had left even before they talked to CR.
ps
After they had been informed that oj was in Chicago and the maid was not in the house,the reason for being there according to them, why didn't they just leave the property?? Their stated concerns had been satified. imo

[martin II]

I do recall, although I am not sure of the location or the date, that a picture was shown of Ms. Clark at the crime scene in the early stages of the investigation. It would seem that she was involved soon after the crimes and would have had a knowledge of what evidence was or was not observed and the conditions under which such observations had allegedly been made, givving her an excellent chance to discuss theoretically with Vannatter how they could circumvent probable cause based on what he would say.

That is exactly how i remember the events on 6/13.

[martin II]

GreenIce,

I was speaking on the possible impressions Vanatter could have formed and when he formed them in regard to what he placed in the affidavit for the search warrant. He learned by the time that he prepared the affidavit Simpson's departure had been scheduled and there was not anything untoward in his leaving. I think the impression was made by the poster that Vanatter relied on the statement of Ms. Arnelle when he created the affidavit but ignored the statements of the person most knowledgeable about his travels, even according to Ms. Arnelle, Ms. Randa, which is what I meant when I said that Vannatter's initial impression was wrong and thus the statement in the affidavit displayed a reckless disregard for the truth.

william
Vannater caught in the lie by his own testimony.
vannatter was informed of why oj was not at home after the call to CR. it is my belief that he did what he normally had done twist the truth to the judge to get the warrant. he did not state in his request that he did not know why oj had left he clearly stated that oj had left on a unexpected trip.making it appear that oj was running after the murders.

In his testimony that i have posted he tried to explain this by saying that SOMEONE had told him the trip was unexpected, but on further cross he was forced to admit that NO ONE had said the word unexpected to him on 6/13.

[martin II]

I do recall, although I am not sure of the location or the date, that a picture was shown of Ms. Clark at the crime scene in the early stages of the investigation. It would seem that she was involved soon after the crimes and would have had a knowledge of what evidence was or was not observed and the conditions under which such observations had allegedly been made, givving her an excellent chance to discuss theoretically with Vannatter how they could circumvent probable cause based on what he would say.

I have read the side bar discussion on vannatter and the search warrant issue. MC argued strongly in favor of vannatter claims but it was strange that there was absolutely no mention of any phone call from him to her or her being at the crime scene. zip. it was all about vannatter.

[martin II]

The detectives were not untruthfull in ALL of their testimony. Just some.

example
Based on the testimnony in the civil trial of the detective that was standing guard in front of the house,that i have posted, Arnell and the detectives did enter the front door of the house not any back door as they claimed. He was a eye witness to this and testified to it.

[Hipcheck]

The detectives were not untruthfull in ALL of their testimony. Just some.

example
Based on the testimnony in the civil trial of the detective that was standing guard in front of the house,that i have posted, Arnell and the detectives did enter the front door of the house not any back door as they claimed. He was a eye witness to this and testified to it.

This is totally false and you know it. The person standing guard did not see anyone go into Simpson's house.

The detectives said they went in thru the rear door so someone is lying and I believe that person is named Arnell.

[martin II]

This is totally false and you know it. The person standing guard did not see anyone go into Simpson's house.

The detectives said they went in thru the rear door so someone is lying and I believe that person is named Arnell.

it is not my fault if you don't understand the testimony.
If the guard detective saw Arnell and 2-3 detectives walk around the north side of the house to the front door 10 minutes after they entered the property and dissapeared going east around the house, they could not have entered the back door of the house and be in the kitchen at the same time as they said and be seen by the guard cop in front of house with Arnell.
imo

[William Anthony]

The detectives were not untruthfull in ALL of their testimony. Just some.

example
Based on the testimnony in the civil trial of the detective that was standing guard in front of the house,that i have posted, Arnell and the detectives did enter the front door of the house not any back door as they claimed. He was a eye witness to this and testified to it.

Martin,

Was there any testimony that Ms. Arnelle was accompanied by two to three detectives when she went to get her address book?

[William Anthony]

william
Vannater caught in the lie by his own testimony.
vannatter was informed of why oj was not at home after the call to CR. it is my belief that he did what he normally had done twist the truth to the judge to get the warrant. he did not state in his request that he did not know why oj had left he clearly stated that oj had left on a unexpected trip.making it appear that oj was running after the murders.

In his testimony that i have posted he tried to explain this by saying that SOMEONE had told him the trip was unexpected, but on further cross he was forced to admit that NO ONE had said the word unexpected to him on 6/13.

Martin,

Thank you, as this does not bid well with Vannatter statements in the affidavit, and shows that his alleged impression ignores some of what he knew and only focus on that, which supported his reckless disregard for the truth.

[martin II]

Martin,

Was there any testimony that Ms. Arnelle was accompanied by two to three detectives when she went to get her address book?

no

only one and there is testimony that Arnell exited out the kitchen nook door to get to her car for her address book. 10 minutes after the detectives went around the north side of the house and dissapeared they return around the north side of the house led by Arnell and walked to the area of the front door.

at the time they claimed they had entered the house by the back door they were seen by the cop with arnell walkimng towards the front door.

[martin II]

Martin,

Thank you, as this does not bid well with Vannatter statements in the affidavit, and shows that his alleged impression ignores some of what he knew and only focus on that, which supported his reckless disregard for the truth.

Correct
Baker caught him in the SOMEONE told me lie. vannatter was forcede to admit the lie because if he had not Bakers next question was going to be exactly who told you that word.
when you say reckless disregard for the truth you are being so kind.:)

[Hipcheck]

it is not my fault if you don't understand the testimony.
If the guard detective saw Arnell and 2-3 detectives walk around the north side of the house to the front door 10 minutes after they entered the property and dissapeared going east around the house, they could not have entered the back door of the house and be in the kitchen at the same time as they said and be seen by the guard cop in front of house with Arnell.
imo

You're the one who doesn't understand the testimony.

No one testified that they seen the detectives and Arnell enter the house thru the front door.

The detectives did testify that they entered the house from the rear which means Arnell is lying.

[socaldiva]

You're the one who doesn't understand the testimony.

No one testified that they seen the detectives and Arnell enter the house thru the front door.

The detectives did testify that they entered the house from the rear which means Arnell is lying.

Your posting matches my recollection of events. I've never heard of anyone in LE testifying that they saw Arnelle & the detectives enter the front of the house while they were "standing guard".

[William Anthony]

Correct
Baker caught him in the SOMEONE told me lie. vannatter was forcede to admit the lie because if he had not Bakers next question was going to be exactly who told you that word.
when you say reckless disregard for the truth you are being so kind.:)

Martin,

Perhaps, you may want to change your statement from LE standing guard to just standing idly by, smile.

[martin II]

You're the one who doesn't understand the testimony.

No one testified that they seen the detectives and Arnell enter the house thru the front door.

The detectives did testify that they entered the house from the rear which means Arnell is lying.

The detective did testify that he saw them walk to the front of the house.

So here is the question. obviously you have some problem understanding the detectives testimony and the time.

If the the detectives and ArnelL entered the house by the back door and walked to the kitchen about 10 minutes after they had entered the property.
How is it possibloe that the guard cop saw Arnell and the detectives walk around the house to the front of the house at the time the detectives vannatter, testified they were already inside.

if you have a reasonabloe answer for that please give it.

[martin II]

Martin,

Perhaps, you may want to change your statement from LE standing guard to just standing idly by, smile.

Standing idly by but observing who was walking around to the front of the house.:cool:
And what time it was.

[martin II]

Your posting matches my recollection of events. I've never heard of anyone in LE testifying that they saw Arnelle & the detectives enter the front of the house while they were "standing guard".

The guard detetectives testimony has been posted above.

i don't think Arnell and the detectives could be in two places at the same time. Do you.

[Hipcheck]

The detective did testify that he saw them walk to the front of the house.

So here is the question. obviously you have some problem understanding the detectives testimony and the time.

If the the detectives and ArnelL entered the house by the back door and walked to the kitchen about 10 minutes after they had entered the property.
How is it possibloe that the guard cop saw Arnell and the detectives walk around the house to the front of the house at the time the detectives vannatter, testified they were already inside.

if you have a reasonabloe answer for that please give it.

Was the police officer that was standing guard watching the Bronco a detective? According to his testimony he wasn't sure about the times. He said it could have been a half hour later when he saw the detectives with Arnell which means they had already been inside of the house.

The detectives testified that they entered thru the back door as did Kateo which means Arnell was lying when she said they entered thru the front door.

[martin II]

Was the police officer that was standing guard watching the Bronco a detective? According to his testimony he wasn't sure about the times. He said it could have been a half hour later when he saw the detectives with Arnell which means they had already been inside of the house.

The detectives testified that they entered thru the back door as did Kateo which means Arnell was lying when she said they entered thru the front door.

obviously you don't understand all the testimony on the issue.
I have posted the testimony that backs my conclusion. i don't think i can help you understand if you misread the testimony. so i will leave it as it is as i see no reason to argue the obvious.

see ya.

[martin II]

Q. And how -- and how long was it until they came back with Arnelle
Simpson?
A. I don't know specifically.
Q. Estimate. 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15, half hour, hour?

There is no testimony from anyone that the detectives after entering the kitchen that they and Arnell left the kitchen to walk around the house to the front door. After entering the house by the front door they stayed in the house talking to CR OJ and Later Kato.

Arnell only left the house by the kitchen nook to go to her car and return. Arnell and the detectives never left the house togeather after first entering.

that is the testimony.
.

[martin II]

Martin,

Thanks, as I believe to consider anything other than what the testimony was, statements in side bars, arguments and rulings is to speculate.

IF one argues absent any abiliy to understand said testimony,sidebar, statements and ruling it amounts to just noise.
It is conforting to know that after all the false claims against Arnell simply because she was such a lovely woman and oj simpsons daughter, that her testimony was backed and supported by a lone lapd cop just standing guard duty. One of their own proved 3-4 seasoned detectives lied in their testimony. imo

[socaldiva]

The guard detetectives testimony has been posted above.

i don't think Arnell and the detectives could be in two places at the same time. Do you.

I think you cherry pick testimony. That's what I think ;)

[martin II]

I think you cherry pick testimony. That's what I think ;)

nope

i posted the complete testimony of the lapd detective. word for word. that is plain for all to see. That imo proves that Arnell and the detectives had not entered the back door and were in the kitchem. it showed that they were in front of the house about to enter the front door when the detective lost sight of them. Arnell told the truth.

[Kate Sachel]

I do recall, although I am not sure of the location or the date, that a picture was shown of Ms. Clark at the crime scene in the early stages of the investigation. It would seem that she was involved soon after the crimes and would have had a knowledge of what evidence was or was not observed and the conditions under which such observations had allegedly been made, givving her an excellent chance to discuss theoretically with Vannatter how they could circumvent probable cause based on what he would say.

She was there, but only as an observer. Lange and Vannatter were not present and she was not allowed access.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

For the record, this thread is titled "The Criminal Trial" and I am kindly suggesting that lengthy testimony from the civil trial be posted on that thread in an effort to avoid admonishment for not following rules of posting.

Thoughts?

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

IF one argues absent any abiliy to understand said testimony,sidebar, statements and ruling it amounts to just noise.
It is conforting to know that after all the false claims against Arnell simply because she was such a lovely woman and oj simpsons daughter, that her testimony was backed and supported by a lone lapd cop just standing guard duty. One of their own proved 3-4 seasoned detectives lied in their testimony. imo

You are blatantly accusing Marcia Clark of wrongdoing in regard to the search warrant with, as far as I can see, absolutely nothing concrete to back up said accusations. Do you have something to offer us here on the board that shows that she did anything other than offer an opinion of a search warrant based on the information she was given at that time by Vannatter?

Kate

[Hipcheck]

You are blatantly accusing Marcia Clark of wrongdoing in regard to the search warrant with, as far as I can see, absolutely nothing concrete to back up said accusations. Do you have something to offer us here on the board that shows that she did anything other than offer an opinion of a search warrant based on the information she was given at that time by Vannatter?

Kate

ITA

Also the police officer NEVER said he saw Arnell and the detectives enter the house thru the front door.

The detectives had no reason to lie when they all said they entered thru the rear door. They didn't know that the rear door was left unlocked and that the alarm had been turned off.

Arnell had to lie because it showed that she had to have been the one to deactivate the alarm earlier and leave the back door open.

[socaldiva]

ITA

Also the police officer NEVER said he saw Arnell and the detectives enter the house thru the front door.

The detectives had no reason to lie when they all said they entered thru the rear door. They didn't know that the rear door was left unlocked and that the alarm had been turned off.

Arnell had to lie because it showed that she had to have been the one to deactivate the alarm earlier and leave the back door open.

Exactly! I've NEVER heard/read that a member of LE said they saw Arnell & the others enter the front door. Pure fiction. imo.

[GreenIce]

You are blatantly accusing Marcia Clark of wrongdoing in regard to the search warrant with, as far as I can see, absolutely nothing concrete to back up said accusations. Do you have something to offer us here on the board that shows that she did anything other than offer an opinion of a search warrant based on the information she was given at that time by Vannatter?

Kate

Kate,

It has been written in at least two books about the search warrant. The detectives were mad at her because they felt she through them under the bus over a warrant she helped him to write and submit to the judge.

There should be no argument over this because VA did not call in for a search warrant, he called a DA he has worked with before and she is known as "Cop's DA"---she can handle problems of evidence.

It was Harvey Levin who first broke the story that Clark entered Rockingham before the search warrant was signed. Later it was determined that the clock on the camera said it was the same time but it was PM not AM.

Yes, the search warrant was upheld because Ito kept lowering the standard for it. In Shapiro's book, he goes over this in detail.

And she was too experienced not to know that something was wrong with the search warrant, it contained lies that never needed to be told and the detectives knew to be false. IMO.

[GreenIce]

ITA

Also the police officer NEVER said he saw Arnell and the detectives enter the house thru the front door.

The detectives had no reason to lie when they all said they entered thru the rear door. They didn't know that the rear door was left unlocked and that the alarm had been turned off.

Arnell had to lie because it showed that she had to have been the one to deactivate the alarm earlier and leave the back door open.

Hipcheck,

The detectives had plenty of reason to lie and they have proved that over and over again. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I disagree in this case that common sense tells me any such thing, especially since I believe that either scenario (they knew or did not know) is possible.

Perhaps "geese"?

Kate

Kate,

I think you are right, but geese doesn't sound any better.

Here is the problem with the detectives:

Not one of them showed any concern about the prior DV calls regarding the Simpsons. Was not a suspect and they were ordered to find him and give him personal notifification.

Simpson becomes the prime suspect when a bloody glove was found on his property.

I teeny tiny blood drop on the Bronco caused the detectives to believe that a massacre could have happened inside the home, yet they continue to ring the bell gate.

They jump over the wall and go to the front door and again try to raise someone inside the home.

When the defense finally tracked down the Westec people, the detectives were at the front door, again ringing the doorbell. Where was their panic over the massacre inside the house?

It was when they were already on the grounds, at the front door they learned about a live in maid. Little late, IMO to show concern about a maid.

Do the break the door in? No, they go around back, they play patty cake with Kato and Arnelle.

Never did they ask Kato or Arnelle, at that time, about the maid. They waited until Arnelle was walking them around the house to the front door to enter.

They allow Arnelle to open the door and turn off the alarm, she was used as a human shield.

Arnelle and Kato both told them OJ was out of town.

MF is told, while questioning Kato about the limo he saw, again, not flags went up, but the thumps raise the flag. Simpson is prime suspect when glove is found---how did they know when it was dropped? There was no way to look at glove and know when it was dropped and who dropped it.

All the detectives said that Arnelle made a gesture toward the house and their interpetation of this gesture was that she was saying he should be inside the house. She contradicts that saying that she knew he was out of town but didn't know what city he was in.

Explain to me how allegedy 1 detective asks her point blank where her father is and the other two detectives start asking her questions and not one of them listens to what her response is?

How did 4 detectives not figure out that when Kato asked if Simpson's plane went down did not figure out that Simpson was out of town?

Again, asking questions and not listening to answers, isn't that a no brainer for a detective, to ask questions and listen to the answers?

That search warrant was, IMO, and their lame no suspect claims was the kiss of death for this case. No one was going to believe them, no one. IMO.

[GreenIce]

ITA

Also the police officer NEVER said he saw Arnell and the detectives enter the house thru the front door.

The detectives had no reason to lie when they all said they entered thru the rear door. They didn't know that the rear door was left unlocked and that the alarm had been turned off.

Arnell had to lie because it showed that she had to have been the one to deactivate the alarm earlier and leave the back door open.

Hipcheck,

Why would Arnelle have to lie about being in the main house? Since she lived there and she had responsibilities when her father was out of town, what is the big deal if she was inside the house?

And why did MF write in his book that Simpson always called Westec when he went out of town?

[GreenIce]

How on earth does this testimony prove that Arnelle at no point was in the house washing clothes????

The Boys,

There is no testimony about clothes being washed that night or early morning. When was Arnelle asked about these? When was Arnelle or the maid asked what clothes were in the washing machine?

In Lange and Vanatter's book, they are very clear, the clothes were taken and they were tested, no blood was found on them.

Never do they say it was a sweat suit.

There is no testimony from the person who shot the video about what the contents of the washing machine was nor was there any testimony from any state witness, such as a detective or tech who took the clothes out of the washer and examined them.

The only person who is saying they were sweats is MF and DP. We know MF's records, he can't be trusted.

DP, he never questioned Arnelle about this. I don't know if he did in her depo but never did he bring it out in the trial.

Bottom line, no proof Simpson was wearing sweats that night, no proof that the contents in the washing machine were in fact in there when the search warrant was carried out.

Clark has the sweats in the upstair's hamper. TL and VA said the clothes only had rust on them.

Remember, Kato never said he was positive on what Simpson was wearing but I think he has him in two sweat suits.

[William Anthony]

She was there, but only as an observer. Lange and Vannatter were not present and she was not allowed access.

Kate

I think she wanted to involve herself in the case as early as possible in its commencement. I also think that she may have been in touch with Lange and Vannatter via the telephone as to what the testimony would be in regard to the circumvention of the requisite probable cause. However, this is speculation on my part, in which I do not desire to engage, but the fact is that Ito did say that Vannatter showed a reckless disregard for the truth in regard to the statements in the affidavit.

[William Anthony]

For the record, this thread is titled "The Criminal Trial" and I am kindly suggesting that lengthy testimony from the civil trial be posted on that thread in an effort to avoid admonishment for not following rules of posting.

Thoughts?

Kate

I am not sure, since the discussion is regarding the testimonies offered in the criminal trial in regard to an issue upon which there was, IMHO, relevant testimony in, IMHO, the socio political production. Perhaps, the moderator can advise us.

[William Anthony]

ITA

Also the police officer NEVER said he saw Arnell and the detectives enter the house thru the front door.

The detectives had no reason to lie when they all said they entered thru the rear door. They didn't know that the rear door was left unlocked and that the alarm had been turned off.

Arnell had to lie because it showed that she had to have been the one to deactivate the alarm earlier and leave the back door open.

There is much speculation going on about what the detectives did not know. That was the problem with the case. The case failed, IMHO, because the detectives and others were shown to have provided inaccurate testimony (I will not say lied) about what they claimed to have known, which demonstrated that there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Hipcheck]

Hipcheck,

Vanatter is a proven liar. Tom Lange is a proven liar. Ron Phillips is a proven liar. MF, is a proven liar as well.

Now it is your turn to post the testimony that proves Arnelle is a liar. IMO.

Vannatter was NEVER provn to be a liar.

Lange was NEVER proven to be a liar.

Phillips was NEVER proven to be a liar.

Arnell Simpson was proven to be a liar.

We have the bloody size 12 Bruno Magli Lorzno style shoe print left at the scene. O.J. Simpson claims he NEVER owned Bruno Magli shoes but we have 30+ photos of him wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes which were taken long before the murders and there is absolutely no proof that those photos were doctored.

[William Anthony]

Arnell Simpson was proven to be a liar.

We have the bloody size 12 Bruno Magli Lorzno style shoe print left at the scene. O.J. Simpson claims he NEVER owned Bruno Magli shoes but we have 30+ photos of him wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes which were taken long before the murders and there is absolutely no proof that those photos were doctored.

Please, provide the proof any court of law ruled that Ms. Arnelle lied or made any statement that she displayed a reckless disregard for the truth.l

Do you call wearing the same as owning?

[Hipcheck]

Do you call wearing the same as owning?

Yes I do because all the shoes that I wear I own like everyone else I know.

:shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:: shrug:

[William Anthony]

Yes I do because all the shoes that I wear I own like everyone else I know.

:shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:: shrug:

There are people, who are very different from us and those that we might know, called celebrities, who have their wardrobes selected for them for when they appear in front of the camera. Unlike us, they may be given the opportunity to keep the selected items of apparel, if they desire. Hence, IMHO, because a celebrity, such as Simpson is seen or photographed wearing certain items of clothing does not prove Simpson owned them and I, although I speak solely for myself, would not call Simpson a liar on the limited basis of his statement that he did not own one of those selected and photographed items of clothing he was shown wearing.

[martin II]

ITA

Also the police officer NEVER said he saw Arnell and the detectives enter the house thru the front door.

The detectives had no reason to lie when they all said they entered thru the rear door. They didn't know that the rear door was left unlocked and that the alarm had been turned off.

Arnell had to lie because it showed that she had to have been the one to deactivate the alarm earlier and leave the back door open.

The lapd guard detective is quite clear.
He observed Arnell and the detectives in front of the house at the time vannatter and others claimed they were in the house. Maby you believe they were in two places at the same time but i believe it was impossible.
I am not sure why you continue to argue something that is very obvious but that is your choice.

[martin II]

ITA

Also the police officer NEVER said he saw Arnell and the detectives enter the house thru the front door.

The detectives had no reason to lie when they all said they entered thru the rear door. They didn't know that the rear door was left unlocked and that the alarm had been turned off.

Arnell had to lie because it showed that she had to have been the one to deactivate the alarm earlier and leave the back door open.

It appears that you are not paying attention to all the testimony surrounding this issue and therefore you remain confused.

When Arnell and vannatter was observed in front of the house, where did they go if not into the front door??

[martin II]

Yes I do because all the shoes that I wear I own like everyone else I know.

:shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:: shrug:

HIPCHECK
How about you deal with facts.Bloomingdales where oj purchased all of his shoes and the only store that sole the BM shoe testified that they NEVER SOLD OJ ANY BM SHOE. There was no picture of the complete bottom sole of the shoe oj had on that match the sole print found at buindy.
Are you suggesting that absence this proof we are suppose to believe they were BM shoes because you think they were or that he owned the shoes anyway.

[martin II]

Vannatter was NEVER provn to be a liar.

Lange was NEVER proven to be a liar.

Phillips was NEVER proven to be a liar.

Arnell Simpson was proven to be a liar.

We have the bloody size 12 Bruno Magli Lorzno style shoe print left at the scene. O.J. Simpson claims he NEVER owned Bruno Magli shoes but we have 30+ photos of him wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes which were taken long before the murders and there is absolutely no proof that those photos were doctored.

Of the 30 pictures which one was a view of a complete sole of the shoes on oj that would allow you to compare them to the sole print at bundy.

Please offer proof that Arnell lied about anything in her testimony or by any other testimony. not your opinion but testimony since you say it was proven that she lied.

[martin II]

I think she wanted to involve herself in the case as early as possible in its commencement. I also think that she may have been in touch with Lange and Vannatter via the telephone as to what the testimony would be in regard to the circumvention of the requisite probable cause. However, this is speculation on my part, in which I do not desire to engage, but the fact is that Ito did say that Vannatter showed a reckless disregard for the truth in regard to the statements in the affidavit.

If MC was not engaged in advising vannatter on the search warrant exactly why was she at Rockingham at about 8-9 AM just prior to vannatter completing his affidavit for the search warrant. Obviously he lied to the judge
to get the warrant and the evidence collected should have been tossed.imo

[martin II]

I am not sure, since the discussion is regarding the testimonies offered in the criminal trial in regard to an issue upon which there was, IMHO, relevant testimony in, IMHO, the socio political production. Perhaps, the moderator can advise us.

I think any testimony from the civil trial that impacted on the criminal trial claims should be discussed as it brings clearity to issues of the criminal trial.
Some times it is necessary to review lengthly testimony so that issues can be revied in contex.There is no problem with thread memory so i see no problem.imo

[martin II]

Kate,

I think you are right, but geese doesn't sound any better.

Here is the problem with the detectives:

Not one of them showed any concern about the prior DV calls regarding the Simpsons. Was not a suspect and they were ordered to find him and give him personal notifification.

Simpson becomes the prime suspect when a bloody glove was found on his property.

I teeny tiny blood drop on the Bronco caused the detectives to believe that a massacre could have happened inside the home, yet they continue to ring the bell gate.

They jump over the wall and go to the front door and again try to raise someone inside the home.

When the defense finally tracked down the Westec people, the detectives were at the front door, again ringing the doorbell. Where was their panic over the massacre inside the house?

It was when they were already on the grounds, at the front door they learned about a live in maid. Little late, IMO to show concern about a maid.

Do the break the door in? No, they go around back, they play patty cake with Kato and Arnelle.

Never did they ask Kato or Arnelle, at that time, about the maid. They waited until Arnelle was walking them around the house to the front door to enter.

They allow Arnelle to open the door and turn off the alarm, she was used as a human shield.

Arnelle and Kato both told them OJ was out of town.

MF is told, while questioning Kato about the limo he saw, again, not flags went up, but the thumps raise the flag. Simpson is prime suspect when glove is found---how did they know when it was dropped? There was no way to look at glove and know when it was dropped and who dropped it.

All the detectives said that Arnelle made a gesture toward the house and their interpetation of this gesture was that she was saying he should be inside the house. She contradicts that saying that she knew he was out of town but didn't know what city he was in.

Explain to me how allegedy 1 detective asks her point blank where her father is and the other two detectives start asking her questions and not one of them listens to what her response is?

How did 4 detectives not figure out that when Kato asked if Simpson's plane went down did not figure out that Simpson was out of town?

Again, asking questions and not listening to answers, isn't that a no brainer for a detective, to ask questions and listen to the answers?

That search warrant was, IMO, and their lame no suspect claims was the kiss of death for this case. No one was going to believe them, no one. IMO.

I have posted vannatters testimony proving that he lied about not knowing oj was on a planned trip to Chicago.That no one told him that oj was on a unexpected trip. Testimony is that Vannatter,phillips and lang were informed that the trip was planned well in advance by CR several hours before he created the request for the warrant. so there is no reasonable chance that his knowledge could have been either or or. imo

[GreenIce]

I have posted vannatters testimony proving that he lied about not knowing oj was on a planned trip to Chicago.That no one told him that oj was on a unexpected trip. Testimony is that Vannatter,phillips and lang were informed that the trip was planned well in advance by CR several hours before he created the request for the warrant. so there is no reasonable chance that his knowledge could have been either or or. imo

Martin,

Isn't it obvious that VA, TL, RP and MF lied because of their responses or lack of responses to statements made, the past events and their actions were all based on they knew where Simpson was.

I think it was in MF's book that he says he was told by Westec that Simpson always called them when he was going out of town. Did both Westec responders testify?

[martin II]

Kate,

It has been written in at least two books about the search warrant. The detectives were mad at her because they felt she through them under the bus over a warrant she helped him to write and submit to the judge.

There should be no argument over this because VA did not call in for a search warrant, he called a DA he has worked with before and she is known as "Cop's DA"---she can handle problems of evidence.

It was Harvey Levin who first broke the story that Clark entered Rockingham before the search warrant was signed. Later it was determined that the clock on the camera said it was the same time but it was PM not AM.

Yes, the search warrant was upheld because Ito kept lowering the standard for it. In Shapiro's book, he goes over this in detail.

And she was too experienced not to know that something was wrong with the search warrant, it contained lies that never needed to be told and the detectives knew to be false. IMO.

Vannatter knew the warrant request contained lies but needed MCS help in structuring it.He knew it would be her that would have to defend the warrant contents in court if the defense attacked it. That is exactly what happened and she argued very strong to defend it.

[GreenIce]

Vannatter knew the warrant request contained lies but needed MCS help in structuring it.He knew it would be her that would have to defend the warrant contents in court if the defense attacked it. That is exactly what happened and she argued very strong to defend it.

Martin,

I only posted what VA and TL wrote in their book. They were pissed she threw them under the bus over a search warrant she helped write and approved before it was submitted. This was in the first hearing and it was before or during the grand jury.

However, the point is, there should have no lies and they didn't have to be told, so why do it? A bloody glove should and tiny speck of blood should not have the been the reasons they suspected Simpson. That makes no sense.

[GreenIce]

Vannatter knew the warrant request contained lies but needed MCS help in structuring it.He knew it would be her that would have to defend the warrant contents in court if the defense attacked it. That is exactly what happened and she argued very strong to defend it.

Martin,

The defense tried several times to have the issue reopened. They had "new" discovery that called their claims into question. Basically, Ito's ruling said that as long as at least one of the detectives were credible, then that was good enough. He kept lowering the bar.

[Hipcheck]

The lapd guard detective is quite clear.
He observed Arnell and the detectives in front of the house at the time vannatter and others claimed they were in the house. Maby you believe they were in two places at the same time but i believe it was impossible.
.

The police officer stationed at the front gate is quiet sure about one thing when he saw Arnelle with the detectives and that is he not sure what time he had seen them and he NEVER seen them enter thru the front door.

[Hipcheck]

HIPCHECK
How about you deal with facts.Bloomingdales where oj purchased all of his shoes and the only store that sole the BM shoe testified that they NEVER SOLD OJ ANY BM SHOE. There was no picture of the complete bottom sole of the shoe oj had on that match the sole print found at buindy.
Are you suggesting that absence this proof we are suppose to believe they were BM shoes because you think they were or that he owned the shoes anyway.

The person from Bloomingdales said he NEVER sold O.J. any Bruno Magli shoes which means some other employee could have sold them to him or Nicole.

The 30 plus photos of O.j. shows him wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes so we don't need a picture of the bottoms of the shoes.

There was NEVER any dispute that the shoes in the photos were actually Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes.

[martin II]

Martin,

Isn't it obvious that VA, TL, RP and MF lied because of their responses or lack of responses to statements made, the past events and their actions were all based on they knew where Simpson was.

I think it was in MF's book that he says he was told by Westec that Simpson always called them when he was going out of town. Did both Westec responders testify?

Westec gave vannatter ojs house phome mumber. he called and got a message from oj saying he is not home leave a message. Why did they then jump the wall and enter his property.
Answer: Because they wanted to search his home or plant evidence.

[GreenIce]

The person from Bloomingdales said he NEVER sold O.J. any Bruno Magli shoes which means some other employee could have sold them to him or Nicole.

The 30 plus photos of O.j. shows him wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes so we don't need a picture of the bottoms of the shoes.

There was NEVER any dispute that the shoes in the photos were actually Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes.

Hipcheck,

There is no proof about the shoes. Those pictures were known about before the civil trial, they were not used. If you read the history on the photos and the testimony regarding them, you will see the gaps in common sense. And the plaintiff's own witness testified that he could be fooled and the pictures could have been doctored. It was his opinon they weren't. However, he never talked to the person in England.

Those pictures would never have been allowed in the criminal trial. They were allowed in "kiddie court", which is what I believe the Simpson civil trial was. It was a joke.

[GreenIce]

Westec gave vannatter ojs house phome mumber. he called and got a message from oj saying he is not home leave a message. Why did they then jump the wall and enter his property.
Answer: Because they wanted to search his home or plant evidence.

Martin,

Not true, they already jumped the fence and were at Simpson's front door when they got the phone number. There were two Westec responders. MF (I think it is MF) who said that the second Westec responder told him that Simpson would have called them if he was going out of town.

So why didn't they use that in the search warrant?

And if no one responded to the phone in regards to the gate buzzer, what was a telephone number going to do?

[martin II]

The person from Bloomingdales said he NEVER sold O.J. any Bruno Magli shoes which means some other employee could have sold them to him or Nicole.

The 30 plus photos of O.j. shows him wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes so we don't need a picture of the bottoms of the shoes.

There was NEVER any dispute that the shoes in the photos were actually Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes.

The mens shoe department manager handeled all of Bloomingdales celebrity clients. He is the person that always sold oj all of his shoes at bloomingdales. no one else. He knew oj personally. No other person sold him shoes.
Saying he could have is not proof.

He testified that he would never have sold oj that BM shoe for wear in Buffalo because of the weather.

Without a picture of the sole of the shoe it was impossible to compare it to the Bundy prints. Period.

There was believable testimony which i posted that the pictures were doctored.

However no size 12 BM shoes were ever presented in any court to match the Bundy prints and even if oj had on a pair of BM shoes that in no way is proof
that he had on shoes at Bundy that made the prints on 6/12 because they is no proof that oj was even at bundy on 6/12. Just guesses and made up stuff in a effort to patch up a false claim by the prosecution.
It didn't work as the jury saw straight through it.imo

[GreenIce]

The mens shoe department manager handeled all of Bloomingdales celebrity clients. He is the person that always sold oj all of his shoes at bloomingdales. no one else. He knew oj personally. No other person sold him shoes.
Saying he could have is not proof.

He testified that he would never have sold oj that BM shoe for wear in Buffalo because of the weather.

Without a picture of the sole of the shoe it was impossible to compare it to the Bundy prints. Period.

There was believable testimony which i posted that the pictures were doctored.

However no size 12 BM shoes were ever presented in any court to match the Bundy prints and even if oj had on a pair of BM shoes that in no way is proof
that he had on shoes at Bundy that made the prints on 6/12 because they is no proof that oj was even at bundy on 6/12. Just guesses and made up stuff in a effort to patch up a false claim by the prosecution.
It didn't work as the jury saw straight through it.imo


Martin,

As I have posted before, I believe Darden and Goldberg made references to these pictures being known about during the criminal trial. I think the civil defense wanted to call MC and CD to the stand about them but the judge would not allow it.

There should be a paper trail if OJ bought those shoes, IMO.

[Hipcheck]

Martin,

As I have posted before, I believe Darden and Goldberg made references to these pictures being known about during the criminal trial. I think the civil defense wanted to call MC and CD to the stand about them but the judge would not allow it.

There should be a paper trail if OJ bought those shoes, IMO.

The photos of O.J. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli were found after the crimnal trial was over and most of them were found after the civil trial had started.

The photos show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. The bloody shoe print found at Bundy and in the Ford Bronco were made by a Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoe so we don't need to see a photo of the bottom of his shoes in those photos.

[GreenIce]

The photos of O.J. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli were found after the crimnal trial was over and most of them were found after the civil trial had started.

The photos show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. The bloody shoe print found at Bundy and in the Ford Bronco were made by a Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoe so we don't need to see a photo of the bottom of his shoes in those photos.

Hipcheck,

And I have posted that, IMO, the DA's knew about these pictures or found these pictures, at the very least, during the criminal trial.

The story behind the photos is not credible, so there is no way to prove what type of shoes they are. IMO.

And even if they were proven to be fake, it would take just 1 nano-second for you say it doesn't matter, the pictures don't clear him. Which, IMO, explains the judge's ruling against the defense's request to have more time to examine the pictures. How lucky were they these pictures just happened to fall into their hands during the Christmas break?

And even then, the technology was pretty darn good and that negative and/or photos could be doctored to such a degree, that they could fool an expert.

One more thing, after the criminal trial verdict, it appears to be that a great many Americans took the verdict very, very hard. You would have sworn that Ron and Nicole's were their family members.

Mr. Goldman wrote in his book that he received a few offers from people to have Simpson killed and they would make sure it never got back to or linked back to him or his family. Mr. Goldman declined the offer.

It is not a great leap logic to believe that if people were ready to kill Simpson over the verdict, doctoring a photo is not such a big deal. And the civil trial is only about money. His freedom was not on the line.

And you can't dimiss the lower burden of proof nor can you take it as a fact that every single juror believed those pictures were true and that is what they thought.

[GreenIce]

The mens shoe department manager handeled all of Bloomingdales celebrity clients. He is the person that always sold oj all of his shoes at bloomingdales. no one else. He knew oj personally. No other person sold him shoes.
Saying he could have is not proof.

He testified that he would never have sold oj that BM shoe for wear in Buffalo because of the weather.

Without a picture of the sole of the shoe it was impossible to compare it to the Bundy prints. Period.

There was believable testimony which i posted that the pictures were doctored.

However no size 12 BM shoes were ever presented in any court to match the Bundy prints and even if oj had on a pair of BM shoes that in no way is proof
that he had on shoes at Bundy that made the prints on 6/12 because they is no proof that oj was even at bundy on 6/12. Just guesses and made up stuff in a effort to patch up a false claim by the prosecution.
It didn't work as the jury saw straight through it.imo

Martin,

I agree with your post. However, I would like to add something to it. Why did the DA's lock themselves into the type of shoes? Why go for the rare and expensive angle? The same with the gloves. Why go for a home run when even a bunt would have worked?

[William Anthony]

HIPCHECK
How about you deal with facts.Bloomingdales where oj purchased all of his shoes and the only store that sole the BM shoe testified that they NEVER SOLD OJ ANY BM SHOE. There was no picture of the complete bottom sole of the shoe oj had on that match the sole print found at buindy.
Are you suggesting that absence this proof we are suppose to believe they were BM shoes because you think they were or that he owned the shoes anyway.

Ah, the onus of proving ownership. :)

[William Anthony]

The photos of O.J. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli were found after the crimnal trial was over and most of them were found after the civil trial had started.

The photos show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. The bloody shoe print found at Bundy and in the Ford Bronco were made by a Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoe so we don't need to see a photo of the bottom of his shoes in those photos.

What bloody shoe print found in which Ford Bronco?

[William Anthony]

If MC was not engaged in advising vannatter on the search warrant exactly why was she at Rockingham at about 8-9 AM just prior to vannatter completing his affidavit for the search warrant. Obviously he lied to the judge
to get the warrant and the evidence collected should have been tossed.imo

Well, it became a photo opportunity for her. I wonder, if the prosecutor's office had some internal way of deciding what prosecutor would handle the next crime, involving a celebrity, and was Ms. Clark previously aware that it was her turn to handle this type of case.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

As I have posted before, I believe Darden and Goldberg made references to these pictures being known about during the criminal trial. I think the civil defense wanted to call MC and CD to the stand about them but the judge would not allow it.

There should be a paper trail if OJ bought those shoes, IMO.

GreenIce,

IMHO, there was not a blood trail leading to any shoes owned or worn by Simpson on the night of the murders, let alone a paper trail.

[martin II]

Martin,

Not true, they already jumped the fence and were at Simpson's front door when they got the phone number. There were two Westec responders. MF (I think it is MF) who said that the second Westec responder told him that Simpson would have called them if he was going out of town.

So why didn't they use that in the search warrant?

And if no one responded to the phone in regards to the gate buzzer, what was a telephone number going to do?


i was not aware of a second westec person. The phone number did not yield better results.

[martin II]

Well, it became a photo opportunity for her. I wonder, if the prosecutor's office had some internal way of deciding what prosecutor would handle the next crime, involving a celebrity, and was Ms. Clark previously aware that it was her turn to handle this type of case.

It is my understanding that MC and vannatter had worked togeather previously. That MC was not the first choice of GG BUT after A strong political effort by her, GG gave her the lead job. But that had to have come later. How and why she was there early on 6/13 i have no idea other than maby vannatter called her at home and asked her to come. I am pretty sure she was at rockingham in person early that morning advising vannatter on the language of the warrant.

[William Anthony]

It is my understanding that MC and vannatter had worked togeather previously. That MC was not the first choice of GG BUT after A strong political effort by her, GG gave her the lead job. But that had to have come later. How and why she was there early on 6/13 i have no idea other than maby vannatter called her at home and asked her to come. I am pretty sure she was at rockingham in person early that morning advising vannatter on the language of the warrant.

I also have trouble understanding why she was there at that particular time. She probably was able to argue that she had an early involvement in the case and that she had a rapport with Vannatter, who had relied upon her, and, therefore, was the logical person to handle the prosecution but, again, this is simply speculation and I rely on the court's statement as to Vannnatter's reckless regard for the truth to determine that the Rockingham evidence should have been suppressed.

[William Anthony]

9/14-Bodziack

"MR. BODZIAK: In--if I am questioned specifically about a particular mark or pattern or imprint or impression or whatever that person calls it, on an item, and I cannot determine that it is or isn't a shoe impression because it is so small or partial or faint, I will say it is of too limited a value to make a positive determination.

MS. CLARK: And why is--I'm sorry, go ahead.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. If it is obviously something that has enough detail where I can say positively what it is, then depending if it is a shoe impression or not, I will proceed in the appropriate fashion.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. BODZIAK: Why--

MS. CLARK: Why do you not make a determination regarding the possibilities of whether something is a shoeprint when you are not sure?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. Because impressions of all objects, whether they are fingerprints, ears, noses, shoes, fabric, rungs of a ladder, no matter what they are, there are impressions of varying quality and varying density, and so if you have an impression that you can hardly see that is very partial, it is very faint where you can't see reliable detail, then more than likely you are not going able to make a valid comparison of it. You might be guessing to try to presume what it is and it just does not contain enough detail for sufficient comparison or a meaningful comparison and it would be best not to go beyond what information that you can see in that impression. On the other spectrum you may have a very, very clear impression and all of the detail is very crisp and clear and you can make a very valid impression.

MS. CLARK: When there is insufficient detail to characterize an imprint as a shoeprint, in your opinion, sir, is it scientifically inappropriate to say it could be consistent with a shoeprint or might be a shoeprint?

MR. BODZIAK: If I were asked to make a comparison of an imprint, I would either be asked to compare it with a shoe, in which case I may be able to make a comparison if there is enough detail. If there were no shoe, was just an imprint by itself, then I would render what opinion I could, but I would only render it based on what I could see with absolute certainty. If it was too faint, I wouldn't render an opinion because it could be misleading.'
***

9/15

"MR. SCHECK: Okay. Do you think it is fair for an expert to testify that an imprint cannot be eliminated as coming from a shoe and can not be positively associated either?

MR. BODZIAK: If they state it that way just as you have, no.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And didn't Dr. Lee in the course of his testimony about imprints indicate as to various different imprints, that some of them--one of them he could say was a shoeprint and others he said he could not eliminate as having come from a shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: At times, he did do that, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And in fact, you offered very similar testimony, almost precisely the same kind of testimony in talking about certain imprints and impressions in this case; did you not?

MR. BODZIAK: There were shoeprints I talked about today as well as other marks which were not shoeprints, yes.

MR. SCHECK: When you were talking about the Bronco carpet fiber, you reached the opinion that you couldn't eliminate it, you couldn't possibly associate it with the Bruno Magli?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And you went on to answer a question where you were asked to take a rubber shoe and describe for us how it is possibly consistent with the Bruno Magli and you then began playing with the overlays and lining things up?

MR. BODZIAK: I was asked that specific question and that was my answer, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you went on to talk about possibilities even though in your opinion, you could not either eliminate or positively associate?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Now--and there was nothing misleading about that, was there?

MR. BODZIAK: I hope not."

[Hipcheck]

Hipcheck,

And I have posted that, IMO, the DA's knew about these pictures or found these pictures, at the very least, during the criminal trial.

The story behind the photos is not credible, so there is no way to prove what type of shoes they are. IMO.

And even if they were proven to be fake, it would take just 1 nano-second for you say it doesn't matter, the pictures don't clear him. Which, IMO, explains the judge's ruling against the defense's request to have more time to examine the pictures. How lucky were they these pictures just happened to fall into their hands during the Christmas break?

And even then, the technology was pretty darn good and that negative and/or photos could be doctored to such a degree, that they could fool an expert.

One more thing, after the criminal trial verdict, it appears to be that a great many Americans took the verdict very, very hard. You would have sworn that Ron and Nicole's were their family members.

Mr. Goldman wrote in his book that he received a few offers from people to have Simpson killed and they would make sure it never got back to or linked back to him or his family. Mr. Goldman declined the offer.

It is not a great leap logic to believe that if people were ready to kill Simpson over the verdict, doctoring a photo is not such a big deal. And the civil trial is only about money. His freedom was not on the line.

And you can't dimiss the lower burden of proof nor can you take it as a fact that every single juror believed those pictures were true and that is what they thought.

The prosecution NEVER had the photos of O.J. Simpson wearing those Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes because if they did you can bet they would have used them in the criminal trial.

The plaintiff's witness examined the negatives on Jan. 7th while the civil trial was going on and he testified on Jan 18th. He examined the negatives and determined that they were not docotoed in any way.

The next witness for the plantiff testified to the type of shoe that made the bloody shoe print and the type of shoes that were in the 30+ photo of O.J. Simpson. He testified that the bloody shoe prints were made by a Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoe and he also testified that those were the same style shoes that O.J. Simpson was wearing in those photos.

O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers agreed that the photots showed him wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. They did not agree the point and stimulated to that fact.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution NEVER had the photos of O.J. Simpson wearing those Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes because if they did you can bet they would have used them in the criminal trial.

The plaintiff's witness examined the negatives on Jan. 7th while the civil trial was going on and he testified on Jan 18th. He examined the negatives and determined that they were not docotoed in any way.

The next witness for the plantiff testified to the type of shoe that made the bloody shoe print and the type of shoes that were in the 30+ photo of O.J. Simpson. He testified that the bloody shoe prints were made by a Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoe and he also testified that those were the same style shoes that O.J. Simpson was wearing in those photos.

O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers agreed that the photots showed him wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. They did not agree the point and stimulated to that fact.

"MR. SCHECK: And you went on to answer a question where you were asked to take a rubber shoe and describe for us how it is possibly consistent with the Bruno Magli and you then began playing with the overlays and lining things up?

MR. BODZIAK: I was asked that specific question and that was my answer, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you went on to talk about possibilities even though in your opinion, you could not either eliminate or positively associate?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Now--and there was nothing misleading about that, was there?

MR. BODZIAK: I hope not."

[martin II]

The prosecution NEVER had the photos of O.J. Simpson wearing those Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes because if they did you can bet they would have used them in the criminal trial.

The plaintiff's witness examined the negatives on Jan. 7th while the civil trial was going on and he testified on Jan 18th. He examined the negatives and determined that they were not docotoed in any way.

The next witness for the plantiff testified to the type of shoe that made the bloody shoe print and the type of shoes that were in the 30+ photo of O.J. Simpson. He testified that the bloody shoe prints were made by a Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoe and he also testified that those were the same style shoes that O.J. Simpson was wearing in those photos.

O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers agreed that the photots showed him wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. They did not agree the point and stimulated to that fact.

Without any links i will assume these claims are just your thoughts/opinions.
Not facts backed by testimony.

[GreenIce]

The prosecution NEVER had the photos of O.J. Simpson wearing those Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes because if they did you can bet they would have used them in the criminal trial.

The plaintiff's witness examined the negatives on Jan. 7th while the civil trial was going on and he testified on Jan 18th. He examined the negatives and determined that they were not docotoed in any way.

The next witness for the plantiff testified to the type of shoe that made the bloody shoe print and the type of shoes that were in the 30+ photo of O.J. Simpson. He testified that the bloody shoe prints were made by a Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoe and he also testified that those were the same style shoes that O.J. Simpson was wearing in those photos.

O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers agreed that the photots showed him wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. They did not agree the point and stimulated to that fact.

Hipcheck,

NEVER say NEVER. You have no idea what the DA's had or didn't have. You do know of evidence they had and opted not to use.

We do not not know all of the evidence that either side had. We do not know why they played lets make a deal with the evidence, as in "you don't use this and we don't use that". Which appears to be normal procedure when both sides agree.

Regardless of what expert looked at, he can only give his opinon.

Because of comments Darden wrote in his book, an interview with Hank Goldberg, I believe they knew of these pictures. They opted not to use them for whatever reason.

I do believe the civil trial attorney wanted MC and CD to take the stand about the pictures, if and when they knew about them, but the judge ruled against them. It didn't matter, that was the criminal trial and this is the civil trial.

Again, NEVER say Never. And not just about this case, IMO. :)

[GreenIce]

9/14-Bodziack

"MR. BODZIAK: In--if I am questioned specifically about a particular mark or pattern or imprint or impression or whatever that person calls it, on an item, and I cannot determine that it is or isn't a shoe impression because it is so small or partial or faint, I will say it is of too limited a value to make a positive determination.

MS. CLARK: And why is--I'm sorry, go ahead.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. If it is obviously something that has enough detail where I can say positively what it is, then depending if it is a shoe impression or not, I will proceed in the appropriate fashion.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. BODZIAK: Why--

MS. CLARK: Why do you not make a determination regarding the possibilities of whether something is a shoeprint when you are not sure?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. Because impressions of all objects, whether they are fingerprints, ears, noses, shoes, fabric, rungs of a ladder, no matter what they are, there are impressions of varying quality and varying density, and so if you have an impression that you can hardly see that is very partial, it is very faint where you can't see reliable detail, then more than likely you are not going able to make a valid comparison of it. You might be guessing to try to presume what it is and it just does not contain enough detail for sufficient comparison or a meaningful comparison and it would be best not to go beyond what information that you can see in that impression. On the other spectrum you may have a very, very clear impression and all of the detail is very crisp and clear and you can make a very valid impression.

MS. CLARK: When there is insufficient detail to characterize an imprint as a shoeprint, in your opinion, sir, is it scientifically inappropriate to say it could be consistent with a shoeprint or might be a shoeprint?

MR. BODZIAK: If I were asked to make a comparison of an imprint, I would either be asked to compare it with a shoe, in which case I may be able to make a comparison if there is enough detail. If there were no shoe, was just an imprint by itself, then I would render what opinion I could, but I would only render it based on what I could see with absolute certainty. If it was too faint, I wouldn't render an opinion because it could be misleading.'
***

9/15

"MR. SCHECK: Okay. Do you think it is fair for an expert to testify that an imprint cannot be eliminated as coming from a shoe and can not be positively associated either?

MR. BODZIAK: If they state it that way just as you have, no.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And didn't Dr. Lee in the course of his testimony about imprints indicate as to various different imprints, that some of them--one of them he could say was a shoeprint and others he said he could not eliminate as having come from a shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: At times, he did do that, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And in fact, you offered very similar testimony, almost precisely the same kind of testimony in talking about certain imprints and impressions in this case; did you not?

MR. BODZIAK: There were shoeprints I talked about today as well as other marks which were not shoeprints, yes.

MR. SCHECK: When you were talking about the Bronco carpet fiber, you reached the opinion that you couldn't eliminate it, you couldn't possibly associate it with the Bruno Magli?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And you went on to answer a question where you were asked to take a rubber shoe and describe for us how it is possibly consistent with the Bruno Magli and you then began playing with the overlays and lining things up?

MR. BODZIAK: I was asked that specific question and that was my answer, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you went on to talk about possibilities even though in your opinion, you could not either eliminate or positively associate?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Now--and there was nothing misleading about that, was there?

MR. BODZIAK: I hope not."

William,

IMO, what destroyed Bodizak's credibilty was that he was not a neutral witness. Also, I don't know how anybody can look at Ron's pants and not see that footprint.

I think Bodizak's and Deedrick's testimony about this was not believeable.

When you look at what Bodizak did, like go Italy to the factory but nothing was done about the fibers--does that make sense?

And, I think most people forget something about the footprints, there is no way the killers could have killed Ron and Nicole and leave the scene in less then two minutes and have those footprints.

It makes no sense that the killers hung around because they wanted to admire their handiwork, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I think she wanted to involve herself in the case as early as possible in its commencement. I also think that she may have been in touch with Lange and Vannatter via the telephone as to what the testimony would be in regard to the circumvention of the requisite probable cause. However, this is speculation on my part, in which I do not desire to engage, but the fact is that Ito did say that Vannatter showed a reckless disregard for the truth in regard to the statements in the affidavit.

Wlliam,

I agree with you but would like to add something to it. I think Clark did things that made sure she got this case, one of them was showing up at Rockingham. GG had to know there was going to be problems with the search warrant and with the glove. Clark stuck her neck out and if a DA's head was going to roll when the case was over, it would be Clark's, not his.

Ito kept lowering the bar and would not consider new discovery in his rulings. IMO, the only reason why Ito used those comments in his ruling is because he was going to allow the search warrant but knew he had to acknowledge that the stories just didn't jell. He needs votes to keep his job. IMO.

In Bosco's book, he said that Clark told another DA the case was a loser but it was going to make her career. I don't know if it made her career, but it made her a very rich woman.

[GreenIce]

There is much speculation going on about what the detectives did not know. That was the problem with the case. The case failed, IMHO, because the detectives and others were shown to have provided inaccurate testimony (I will not say lied) about what they claimed to have known, which demonstrated that there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

William,

I have to disagree, I don't think "inaccurate" is a fair word to use in describing the testimony. It was unbelieveable. It wasn't even close to being innaccurate.

IMO, inaccurate would be fair to use with Dr. Cotton, Dr. Weir, and perhaps a few others. They at least admitted to their failings. Not one detective ever came clean with their failings. Their explainations were just not believeable and, IMO, can only be considered lies. Again, IMO.

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

NEVER say NEVER. You have no idea what the DA's had or didn't have. You do know of evidence they had and opted not to use.

We do not not know all of the evidence that either side had. We do not know why they played lets make a deal with the evidence, as in "you don't use this and we don't use that". Which appears to be normal procedure when both sides agree.

Regardless of what expert looked at, he can only give his opinon.

Because of comments Darden wrote in his book, an interview with Hank Goldberg, I believe they knew of these pictures. They opted not to use them for whatever reason.

I do believe the civil trial attorney wanted MC and CD to take the stand about the pictures, if and when they knew about them, but the judge ruled against them. It didn't matter, that was the criminal trial and this is the civil trial.

Again, NEVER say Never. And not just about this case, IMO. :)


without personal knowledge of all the evidence it is a good idea not to say what either side would have done.

But i can see where the prosecution may have decided not to use the pictures because they could not authenticate then or they didn't prove anything. imo

[martin II]

William,

IMO, what destroyed Bodizak's credibilty was that he was not a neutral witness. Also, I don't know how anybody can look at Ron's pants and not see that footprint.

I think Bodizak's and Deedrick's testimony about this was not believeable.

When you look at what Bodizak did, like go Italy to the factory but nothing was done about the fibers--does that make sense?

And, I think most people forget something about the footprints, there is no way the killers could have killed Ron and Nicole and leave the scene in less then two minutes and have those footprints.

It makes no sense that the killers hung around because they wanted to admire their handiwork, IMO.

GI

I don't believe the agent went to the BM factory and could not get one pair of that BM size 12 shoe. Usually those companies save at least one pair of all models for their shoe library.
But there was no proof that oj ever purchased that shoe so it is a unprovable fact that he ever owned one.

[martin II]

Wlliam,

I agree with you but would like to add something to it. I think Clark did things that made sure she got this case, one of them was showing up at Rockingham. GG had to know there was going to be problems with the search warrant and with the glove. Clark stuck her neck out and if a DA's head was going to roll when the case was over, it would be Clark's, not his.

Ito kept lowering the bar and would not consider new discovery in his rulings. IMO, the only reason why Ito used those comments in his ruling is because he was going to allow the search warrant but knew he had to acknowledge that the stories just didn't jell. He needs votes to keep his job. IMO.

In Bosco's book, he said that Clark told another DA the case was a loser but it was going to make her career. I don't know if it made her career, but it made her a very rich woman.


The oj case jumped started many no bodies career and they made lots of money off of OJ. I think that caused oj to decide to make money off of himself. Therefore 'IF I DID IT'

MC and Darden LEFT the DAS office to cash in. So i don't think winning was the most important issue for either one. Especially since the case was not winable from the begining. imo

[martin II]

William,

IMO, what destroyed Bodizak's credibilty was that he was not a neutral witness. Also, I don't know how anybody can look at Ron's pants and not see that footprint.

I think Bodizak's and Deedrick's testimony about this was not believeable.

When you look at what Bodizak did, like go Italy to the factory but nothing was done about the fibers--does that make sense?

And, I think most people forget something about the footprints, there is no way the killers could have killed Ron and Nicole and leave the scene in less then two minutes and have those footprints.

It makes no sense that the killers hung around because they wanted to admire their handiwork, IMO.

What we should understand is the FBI is law enforcement. They rarely testify for the defense. They are used to support the prosecutions case and to prove guilt. However that is not their mandate.imo
But pople do believe that they always testify truthfully but that is not the case. See Martz.

[William Anthony]

Wlliam,

I agree with you but would like to add something to it. I think Clark did things that made sure she got this case, one of them was showing up at Rockingham. GG had to know there was going to be problems with the search warrant and with the glove. Clark stuck her neck out and if a DA's head was going to roll when the case was over, it would be Clark's, not his.

Ito kept lowering the bar and would not consider new discovery in his rulings. IMO, the only reason why Ito used those comments in his ruling is because he was going to allow the search warrant but knew he had to acknowledge that the stories just didn't jell. He needs votes to keep his job. IMO.

In Bosco's book, he said that Clark told another DA the case was a loser but it was going to make her career. I don't know if it made her career, but it made her a very rich woman.

GreenIce,

I agree with all that you have considered in regard to Ms. Clark. I think her career goal was to become rich and famous.:)

[William Anthony]

What we should understand is the FBI is law enforcement. They rarely testify for the defense. They are used to support the prosecutions case and to prove guilt. However that is not their mandate.imo
But pople do believe that they always testify truthfully but that is not the case. See Martz.

Recent revelations alledge that the FBI is not above testilying.

[martin II]

William,

IMO, what destroyed Bodizak's credibilty was that he was not a neutral witness. Also, I don't know how anybody can look at Ron's pants and not see that footprint.

I think Bodizak's and Deedrick's testimony about this was not believeable.

When you look at what Bodizak did, like go Italy to the factory but nothing was done about the fibers--does that make sense?

And, I think most people forget something about the footprints, there is no way the killers could have killed Ron and Nicole and leave the scene in less then two minutes and have those footprints.

It makes no sense that the killers hung around because they wanted to admire their handiwork, IMO.

As reported by the media the sweats were collected and tested. They compared the fibers to the sweats and they did not match. So they just made a claim that they went back weeks later looking for the sweats and they were not there. That was an attempt to say oj got rid of the sweats. imo

[martin II]

recent revelations alledge that the fbi is not above testilying.

they have been exposed for doing just that. Lying to put citizens that pay their salaries in jail.

[GreenIce]

The oj case jumped started many no bodies career and they made lots of money off of OJ. I think that caused oj to decide to make money off of himself. Therefore 'IF I DID IT'

MC and Darden LEFT the DAS office to cash in. So i don't think winning was the most important issue for either one. Especially since the case was not winable from the begining. imo

Martin,

MC and CD could never return to the DA's office and practice law. Darden and MC lost so much credibility, the flaws of the system were exposed. The facts were in Simpson's favor. The DA's may have had the emotion, but that was it.

[martin II]

Merry christmas
&
a
happy new year

[martin II]

Martin,

MC and CD could never return to the DA's office and practice law. Darden and MC lost so much credibility, the flaws of the system were exposed. The facts were in Simpson's favor. The DA's may have had the emotion, but that was it.

Agreed and in the trialthe media gave the prosecution a advantage by telling the public oj was guilty. The public agreed because of who oj was and who the victims were.

This case was a great example of how the playing field has to be level if a defendant is to get a fair trial. Unfortunately most defendants don't have the resources to hire smart lawyers,investigators and qualified experts. imo

[GreenIce]

As reported by the media the sweats were collected and tested. They compared the fibers to the sweats and they did not match. So they just made a claim that they went back weeks later looking for the sweats and they were not there. That was an attempt to say oj got rid of the sweats. imo

Martin,

I agree. What I find interesting is that only MF has pushed the sweat suit theory. And Petrocelli. What a joke!

[GreenIce]

Recent revelations alledge that the FBI is not above testilying.

William,

A great book that addresses this very issue is "Tainted Evidence".

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree. What I find interesting is that only MF has pushed the sweat suit theory. And Petrocelli. What a joke!

We know petrocelli used all kinds of 'HE MUST HAVE ' claims not backed by facts to win the jury.

[martin II]

"MR. SCHECK: And you went on to answer a question where you were asked to take a rubber shoe and describe for us how it is possibly consistent with the Bruno Magli and you then began playing with the overlays and lining things up?

MR. BODZIAK: I was asked that specific question and that was my answer, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you went on to talk about possibilities even though in your opinion, you could not either eliminate or positively associate?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Now--and there was nothing misleading about that, was there?

MR. BODZIAK: I hope not."


this is another instance of BODZIAK testifying and talking about something he should not be talking about just to assist the prosecutions case.

[GreenIce]

this is another instance of BODZIAK testifying and talking about something he should not be talking about just to assist the prosecutions case.

Martin,

IMO, the DA's were trying to use the money "card". It makes no sense that if he was going to committ these murders, that he would have worn "rare" dress shoes, expensive socks, and gloves with a cheap sweat suit and a knit cap.

A knit cap on someone's head is just not a reasonable disguise--especially if you are a famous person. As you know, I question MF's comments about a ski mask. I can't see how he made that mistake.

Do you remember if he was ever asked how he made it?

[GreenIce]

this is another instance of BODZIAK testifying and talking about something he should not be talking about just to assist the prosecutions case.

Martin,

I agree and I think it is obvious that not only did this hurt him but it hurt Roger Martz and Doug Deedrick as well. They are supposed to be neutral witnesses and they were not.

That book I mentioned to William was written in part because of the Simpson case. It has been years since I read it.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, the DA's were trying to use the money "card". It makes no sense that if he was going to committ these murders, that he would have worn "rare" dress shoes, expensive socks, and gloves with a cheap sweat suit and a knit cap.

A knit cap on someone's head is just not a reasonable disguise--especially if you are a famous person. As you know, I question MF's comments about a ski mask. I can't see how he made that mistake.

Do you remember if he was ever asked how he made it?

a cap would not hide oj in a place that people knew him very well and his white bronco was well known parked at nicoles house. why would oj wear BM boots when he had a closet full of sneakers.it makes no sense.

[martin II]

although he got some details wrong i believe wagner was on point of who killed nicole and ron.i agree with that motive.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree and I think it is obvious that not only did this hurt him but it hurt Roger Martz and Doug Deedrick as well. They are supposed to be neutral witnesses and they were not.

That book I mentioned to William was written in part because of the Simpson case. It has been years since I read it.

Although all of the above were fbi experts i am thinking that the jury did not have a high opinion of them after Martz testified. it was obvious that they were trying very hard to assist the prosecution and not being fair or truthful.

[Hipcheck]

a cap would not hide oj in a place that people knew him very well and his white bronco was well known parked at nicoles house. why would oj wear BM boots when he had a closet full of sneakers.it makes no sense.

The one thing we do know is that the killer wore size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes and not boots like you said. We also know that O.J. Simpson owned a pair of Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes as we have over 30 photos showing that and we also know that Simpson's shoe size is 12.

People did know Simpson's white Ford Brono and that's the reason he parked it out back but we have two witnesses that seen his white Ford Bronco leaving the area of Bundy right after the murders and one said she could identify him.

[martin II]

The one thing we do know is that the killer wore size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes and not boots like you said. We also know that O.J. Simpson owned a pair of Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes as we have over 30 photos showing that and we also know that Simpson's shoe size is 12.

People did know Simpson's white Ford Brono and that's the reason he parked it out back but we have two witnesses that seen his white Ford Bronco leaving the area of Bundy right after the murders and one said she could identify him.

There was no proof oin the criminal or civil triasl that oj simpson ever purchased any BM shoes. JS claimed to have seen oj at 10;45 but then testified that she left home at 10;45. no other person testified to seeing ojs white bronco any place near bundy.

testimony proves your claims lack proof but you continue to make the claims.

The testimony is available if you are interested in facts and don't mind reading. imo

[William Anthony]

this is another instance of BODZIAK testifying and talking about something he should not be talking about just to assist the prosecutions case.

I think that we have now shown that, as many have said, there was reasonable doubt and the prosecution failed to prove its case.

[martin II]

The one thing we do know is that the killer wore size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes and not boots like you said. We also know that O.J. Simpson owned a pair of Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes as we have over 30 photos showing that and we also know that Simpson's shoe size is 12.

People did know Simpson's white Ford Brono and that's the reason he parked it out back but we have two witnesses that seen his white Ford Bronco leaving the area of Bundy right after the murders and one said she could identify him.

If the below is true and you have 30 pictures please post one picture of the shoe/boot. it has been referred to as a shoe and also as a low top boot.

your statement.
we have over 30 photos showing that and we also know that Simpson's shoe size is 12.

[martin II]

The one thing we do know is that the killer wore size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes and not boots like you said. We also know that O.J. Simpson owned a pair of Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes as we have over 30 photos showing that and we also know that Simpson's shoe size is 12.

People did know Simpson's white Ford Brono and that's the reason he parked it out back but we have two witnesses that seen his white Ford Bronco leaving the area of Bundy right after the murders and one said she could identify him.

You may not be aware but no one parked their car on bundy as it was a no park street. there were people walking their dogs in nicoles alley on 6/12 and it was a medium level traffic way. so oj would not have parked in the alley as a means to evade being seen.

[Hipcheck]

Robert Heidstra testifed that he saw a white SUV speed away from Bundy during the time of the murders.

Doug Deedrick testifed that he found hair that matched Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman on the glove found at Rockingham.

Doug Deedrick testifed that a hair on Ron Goldman's shirt had the same microsopic characteristics as O.J. Simpson's hair.

Doug Deedrick testified that he found 12 hairs in the knit cap which matched the hair belonging to O.J. Simpson.

Doug Deedrick testified that blue/black fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt matched fibers found on O.J. Simpson's socks.

Doug Deedrick testified that cashmere fibers found on the knit cap matched fibers from the gloves.

Doug Deedrick testifed that fibers from the Ford Bronco's carpet matched fibers found on the glove at Rockigham.

Bill Bodziak testifed about the photos he examined and that he used 18 areas as to what he identifed the Bruno Maagli Lorenzo shoes from stitching to the soles to make the comparison.

All of the above proves that O.J. SIMPSON is GUILTY of murdering Nicole and Ron.

[socaldiva]

You may not be aware but no one parked their car on bundy as it was a no park street. there were people walking their dogs in nicoles alley on 6/12 and it was a medium level traffic way. so oj would not have parked in the alley as a means to evade being seen.


You are claiming the alley "was a medium level traffic way"? Huh? It was/is an alley. I've been there.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

It has been written in at least two books about the search warrant. The detectives were mad at her because they felt she through them under the bus over a warrant she helped him to write and submit to the judge.

There should be no argument over this because VA did not call in for a search warrant, he called a DA he has worked with before and she is known as "Cop's DA"---she can handle problems of evidence.

It was Harvey Levin who first broke the story that Clark entered Rockingham before the search warrant was signed. Later it was determined that the clock on the camera said it was the same time but it was PM not AM.

Yes, the search warrant was upheld because Ito kept lowering the standard for it. In Shapiro's book, he goes over this in detail.

And she was too experienced not to know that something was wrong with the search warrant, it contained lies that never needed to be told and the detectives knew to be false. IMO.

I am sure that you mentioned it before, but was Lange and Vannatter's book one of those you make reference to? I would like to know which book to reach for this evening.

Marcia Clark, in her book, states that she only advised Vannatter that it sounded as though he enough for a warrant. After that point, he was supposed to phone her to read her what he had written but according to her no phone call ever came.

I also do not recall where either Lange or Vannatter said that Marcia Clark helped to write the warrant so I will definitely refresh my memory as it has been quite some time since I have reviewed their book.

For the record though, Lance Ito is not the only who upheld the warrant. Judge Kennedy-Powell also upheld it in the prelim trial.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I think she wanted to involve herself in the case as early as possible in its commencement. I also think that she may have been in touch with Lange and Vannatter via the telephone as to what the testimony would be in regard to the circumvention of the requisite probable cause. However, this is speculation on my part, in which I do not desire to engage, but the fact is that Ito did say that Vannatter showed a reckless disregard for the truth in regard to the statements in the affidavit.

I understand that he said that Vannatter showed a reckless disregard for the truth. I also understand that he made the identical statement about Johnnie Cochran. I suppose that means that both of those have shown a reckless disregard for the truth.

It just highly interests me because I feel very certain that, had OJ Simpson been lying in that house dying, and the detectives had waited to enter until they had typed a warrant and had it signed, people would be outraged. I don't doubt that we would be hearing all about how the detectives should have made immediate entry given the sequence of events.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I am not sure, since the discussion is regarding the testimonies offered in the criminal trial in regard to an issue upon which there was, IMHO, relevant testimony in, IMHO, the socio political production. Perhaps, the moderator can advise us.

I agree that the moderator should advise. I simply assume that the Criminal and Civil Trial threads are separated for a reason. And thus far in this Criminal Trial thread I am reading alot of civil trial testimony. I have also been reading the slight jabs at Petrocelli which I do happen to know has no place in the Criminal Trial thread.

Kate

[martin II]

The one thing we do know is that the killer wore size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes There is no proof of your statement. all we know is some shoe sole prints were found and a prosecution expert said they were from a bm shoe.and not boots like you said. We also know that O.J. Simpson owned a pair of Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes as we have over 30 photos showing that and we also know that Simpson's shoe size is 12.There was never any complete shoe sole shown on any photo that was matched to the shoe sole print found at bundy.

People did know Simpson's white Ford Brono and that's the reason he parked it out back but we have two witnesses that seen his white Ford Bronco leaving the area of BundyNo witness "SEEN" oj leaving bundy in his white bronco. JS Lied about oj being at the intersection at 10:45 because she testified that she left home at 10:45. right after the murders and one said she could identify him. Heidstra testified that he saw a white car at Bundy and Dorothy at 10:45 but he did not know who was driving

That is the testimony.

[martin II]

I think that judge kennedy didn't know or did not care to know the details of how and when vannatter came to know oj was on a prearranged trip.not a unscheduled one as he stated in the warrant. ito knew.

It would take a strong judge to follow the law and toss that evidence based on the lies told to get the warrant. That judge was not present.imo

[martin II]

Robert Heidstra testifed that he saw a white SUV speed away from Bundy during the time of the murders.

Doug Deedrick testifed that he found hair that matched Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman on the glove found at Rockingham.

Doug Deedrick testifed that a hair on Ron Goldman's shirt had the same microsopic characteristics as O.J. Simpson's hair.

Doug Deedrick testified that he found 12 hairs in the knit cap which matched the hair belonging to O.J. Simpson.

Doug Deedrick testified that blue/black fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt matched fibers found on O.J. Simpson's socks.

Doug Deedrick testified that cashmere fibers found on the knit cap matched fibers from the gloves.

Doug Deedrick testifed that fibers from the Ford Bronco's carpet matched fibers found on the glove at Rockigham.

Bill Bodziak testifed about the photos he examined and that he used 18 areas as to what he identifed the Bruno Maagli Lorenzo shoes from stitching to the soles to make the comparison.

All of the above proves that O.J. SIMPSON is GUILTY of murdering Nicole and Ron.


The juros did not accept the terstimony of Deedrick as being proof beyond a reasonable doubt so it does not matter what he said or whar his opinions were.He never testified to a scientific certainty on anything so his report was his opinions and his opinions only. We do know that the FBI testified to support the prosecutions case and their bias was obvious.

BM was not the only company that used that shoe sole. The company that made the mold was in japan and they made that same mold for LLOYDS a large international shoe company so we really don't know the make of the shoe that made the prints.

You may think a complete sole print made at bundy can be accurately compared to the tip side of another sole shown in a picture but i think that position must be taken by those that start with the premise that oj was guilty and are guided by that bias. common sense rules against that thinking.
imo:cool:

[martin II]

Robert Heidstra testifed that he saw a white SUV speed away from Bundy during the time of the murders.Your previous post imdicated the heidstra was one of two people that saw OJ leaving the crime sceme. White broncos was a very popular suvs in brentwood at that time so that car could have been driven by many people not only oj. heidstra testified he could not tell who was driving the car he saw./

Doug Deedrick testifed that he found hair that matched Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman on the glove found at Rockingham.

Doug Deedrick testifed that a hair on Ron Goldman's shirt had the same microsopic characteristics as O.J. Simpson's hair.

Doug Deedrick testified that he found 12 hairs in the knit cap which matched the hair belonging to O.J. Simpson.

Doug Deedrick testified that blue/black fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt matched fibers found on O.J. Simpson's socks.

Doug Deedrick testified that cashmere fibers found on the knit cap matched fibers from the gloves.

Doug Deedrick testifed that fibers from the Ford Bronco's carpet matched fibers found on the glove at Rockigham.

Bill Bodziak testifed about the photos he examined and that he used 18 areas as to what he identifed the Bruno Maagli Lorenzo shoes from stitching to the soles to make the comparison.

All of the above proves that O.J. SIMPSON is GUILTY of murdering Nicole and Ron.

All of the above proves nothing but deedricks thoughts/opinions and your opinions of deedricks opinions. nothing else.

[martin II]

I think that we have now shown that, as many have said, there was reasonable doubt and the prosecution failed to prove its case.

Your post says it all. the honerable jury declared oj was not guilty. end of story.

[GreenIce]

Although all of the above were fbi experts i am thinking that the jury did not have a high opinion of them after Martz testified. it was obvious that they were trying very hard to assist the prosecution and not being fair or truthful.


Martin,

I disagree, since Martz testified after them. I think both Bodizak's and Deedrick's refusal to say that the print on Ron's pants couldn't have been a shoe print, hurt.

I think the fact that Martz wasn't called by the DA's sunk him even before he said a word, IMO.

[GreenIce]

without personal knowledge of all the evidence it is a good idea not to say what either side would have done.

But i can see where the prosecution may have decided not to use the pictures because they could not authenticate then or they didn't prove anything. imo


Martin,

From what I got from Darden's book and Goldberg's interview, I think you are dead on. They didn't use them because they would not have been able to enter them into evidence. Darden already lost a few pounds from his hide with that one photo he threw up on the screen.

In keeping with their way of thinking, I think they realized they were better off with the "image" of the expensive shoes. Just like not using the Bronco chase, they were hoping that the jurors would not forget about it and make, IMO, a pretty fair assumption, flight can easily be seen as an admission of guilt. Yet on the other hand, if you are juror, you got be wondering why they didn't use it.

As you know, I am not a fan of the DA's but their case wasn't the slam dunk that the majority of the media and commentators wanted the public to believe. Again, they had an easier time in the court of public of opinon, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I am sure that you mentioned it before, but was Lange and Vannatter's book one of those you make reference to? I would like to know which book to reach for this evening.

Marcia Clark, in her book, states that she only advised Vannatter that it sounded as though he enough for a warrant. After that point, he was supposed to phone her to read her what he had written but according to her no phone call ever came.

I also do not recall where either Lange or Vannatter said that Marcia Clark helped to write the warrant so I will definitely refresh my memory as it has been quite some time since I have reviewed their book.

For the record though, Lance Ito is not the only who upheld the warrant. Judge Kennedy-Powell also upheld it in the prelim trial.

Kate

Kate,

As I posted before, I was pretty sure both would give different accounts of it.

I should have been clear, Judge Ito was the one who handled the defense's motions regarding new evidence that was found and he kept lowering the bar.

I don't know if you ever read Gerald Uelman's book on this case, but you find it very helpful and interesting. For me, sometimes it is like reading wallpaper but with you interest in the law, you may find it very interesting.

[martin II]

The civil trial testimony of the guard cop relates directly to a important issue in the criminal trial and proves that the detectives testimony in the criminal trial was untrue. The issue of which door Arnell and the detectives entered the house was the issue in the crimninal trial and the civil trial guard detectives testimony proved Arnells criminal testimony was true. That is why i posted it here. imo

[GreenIce]

Robert Heidstra testifed that he saw a white SUV speed away from Bundy during the time of the murders.

Doug Deedrick testifed that he found hair that matched Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman on the glove found at Rockingham.

Doug Deedrick testifed that a hair on Ron Goldman's shirt had the same microsopic characteristics as O.J. Simpson's hair.

Doug Deedrick testified that he found 12 hairs in the knit cap which matched the hair belonging to O.J. Simpson.

Doug Deedrick testified that blue/black fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt matched fibers found on O.J. Simpson's socks.

Doug Deedrick testified that cashmere fibers found on the knit cap matched fibers from the gloves.

Doug Deedrick testifed that fibers from the Ford Bronco's carpet matched fibers found on the glove at Rockigham.

Bill Bodziak testifed about the photos he examined and that he used 18 areas as to what he identifed the Bruno Maagli Lorenzo shoes from stitching to the soles to make the comparison.

All of the above proves that O.J. SIMPSON is GUILTY of murdering Nicole and Ron.

Hipcheck,

As you know, the word "matched" can't be used with type of evidence. "Consistent with" is the only correct terminolgy can be used. You can't make a positive identification on hair unless there is enough of the root to get a DNA sample. I don't believe any of the hairs could have been tested for that, in regards to Simpson. You can't identify the sex of the person who left any hairs in the hat. You can identify the race of the person but I think that is about as specific as you can get---and Doug Deedrick did testify to this.

Robert H., never said the SUV he saw was white, only that it was "light" in color. I may be wrong but I don't think Simpson was the only person in CA who owned a light color SUV. In fact, I think there is at least 3 other White Bronco's in this case, kind of. Paula had one, AC had one and I think the other person was Marcus Allen but I can't be positive, he was the third person.

There were other hairs in that hat that could have added to the ownership of the hat, however, the DA's opted no to do this.

To even believe this hat had anything to do with the murders makes no sense. As much as people made fun of JC when his hat demonstration, to include the criminal trial jurors, he made his point. A knit watch cap was no disguise. Nor could the hair found in the hat be "aged". There is no proof that he wore it that night.

However, one thing that has always interested me is why the hat and the gloves were not tested for DNA that may have been produced from the sweat.

Since a blanket was thrown over Nicole, Ron's body was dragged through the scene, that did not help the DA's.

However, the most important question is where were the fibers found on Ron's shirt?

The problem with Deedrick is he was not a neutral witness and carpet fibers are not rare to one make of a SUV. And he never said where the blue black fibers came from, the only thing he could give his opinon on is that it came from the same cloth. He never identified that cloth.

[GreenIce]

I think that judge kennedy didn't know or did not care to know the details of how and when vannatter came to know oj was on a prearranged trip.not a unscheduled one as he stated in the warrant. ito knew.

It would take a strong judge to follow the law and toss that evidence based on the lies told to get the warrant. That judge was not present.imo

Martin,

IMO, the judge's ruling on the search warrant helped the defense more then it helped the DA's.

IMO, the judge shouldn't be blamed. It would take a strong Chief of Police to have addressed this issue as well as a strong DA's office.

To be fair to the judge and the DA's, it is obvious they are at the mercy of the police. Again, IMO.

[martin II]

Yes. A motion to suppress evidence is based on the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule that if evidence is acquired in violation of the protection of privacy in the Fourth Amendment, then the court has to throw it out, can't use it. We actually filed our motion at the preliminary hearing, which is quite unusual. Usually you wait until later.

But this was a case where there were no reports; there were no written accounts of how they found the glove. So we wanted to pin them down. We wanted to get those officers on the stand and hear their explanation of how they found this evidence at a very early stage in the proceedings, before there was any opportunity to kind of get their stories together.

The theory of the motion to suppress was that they went into O.J.'s premises and conducted a search before they had any probable cause. Before they had a search warrant, they were already in there looking for evidence. As it turned out, their explanation was "We didn't go in there to look for evidence; we went in there to rescue any people who might be in danger, because we thought, well, there was a murder at his former wife's house; maybe the murderer came here and hurt some people," or whatever.

And so they go in, and they find Kato Kaelin living in the cabana by the swimming pool, and he says: "You know, O.J. left last night, but I heard this pounding on my wall. It felt like an earthquake." So they immediately went out and searched the area behind that wall, and that's when Fuhrman claims that he found the glove.

The amazing thing is, they arrived at O.J.'s house at 4:30 in the morning, and then, according to Fuhrman's testimony, he found the glove at about 7:30 in the morning. So our argument was, if your purpose really was not to look for evidence, but it was to rescue people who might be in danger, that would take about 10 minutes, and you were there for three hours, which suggests to us that your purpose in being there was to search for evidence.


You wanted evidence thrown out?

The only thing that we were litigating at that point was the glove, whether that matching glove found behind O.J.'s house had been lawfully seized in a search pursuant to the Fourth Amendment.

I thought we presented a very compelling case that the glove should have been suppressed. And the ironic thing is that if the judge [Kathleen Kennedy-Powell] had granted that motion and thrown out the glove, I think the result in the O.J. case would have been different. Mark Fuhrman would have been out of the case. They had a pretty compelling case without the glove. The glove kind of opened the door to all of the questions about Mark Fuhrman's credibility and his racism. And when he then became such an important witness in the trial, that then opened the door to all of the problems that Mark Fuhrman created for their case. So ironically, if the judge had followed the law, and I think the law really required her to suppress that evidence --

Gerald Uelman

[GreenIce]

Martin,

I think one of the most important thing or lessons that JC state was about the jurors "policing the police". The jurors are the "public" and for too long the "public" was the happy to ignore the police's little "violations", thinking that they have to "bend" the rules in order to get the job done.

The public has to take its responsibility in regards to these rulings, IMO.

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

As you know, the word "matched" can't be used with type of evidence. "Consistent with" is the only correct terminolgy can be used. You can't make a positive identification on hair unless there is enough of the root to get a DNA sample. I don't believe any of the hairs could have been tested for that, in regards to Simpson. You can't identify the sex of the person who left any hairs in the hat. You can identify the race of the person but I think that is about as specific as you can get---and Doug Deedrick did testify to this.

Robert H., never said the SUV he saw was white, only that it was "light" in color. I may be wrong but I don't think Simpson was the only person in CA who owned a light color SUV. In fact, I think there is at least 3 other White Bronco's in this case, kind of. Paula had one, AC had one and I think the other person was Marcus Allen but I can't be positive, he was the third person.

There were other hairs in that hat that could have added to the ownership of the hat, however, the DA's opted no to do this.

To even believe this hat had anything to do with the murders makes no sense. As much as people made fun of JC when his hat demonstration, to include the criminal trial jurors, he made his point. A knit watch cap was no disguise. Nor could the hair found in the hat be "aged". There is no proof that he wore it that night.

However, one thing that has always interested me is why the hat and the gloves were not tested for DNA that may have been produced from the sweat.

Since a blanket was thrown over Nicole, Ron's body was dragged through the scene, that did not help the DA's.

However, the most important question is where were the fibers found on Ron's shirt?

The problem with Deedrick is he was not a neutral witness and carpet fibers are not rare to one make of a SUV. And he never said where the blue black fibers came from, the only thing he could give his opinon on is that it came from the same cloth. He never identified that cloth.


that is exactly what i was talking about but you said it better.Deedricks testimony proved very little to those that examined what he said.

All fibers come from some cloth but the prosecution had no fiber source so fiber testimony was a waste of time.they had nothing to compasre it to. several fiber being alike is one thing but proving where those fibers came from was impossible for them to do.

[GreenIce]

that is exactly what i was talking about but you said it better.Deedricks testimony proved very little to those that examined what he said.

All fibers come from some cloth but the prosecution had no fiber source so fiber testimony was a waste of time.they had nothing to compasre it to. several fiber being alike is one thing but proving where those fibers came from was impossible for them to do.


Martin,

I think Deedrick was one of their weakest witnesses. I don't understand why they used him to close out their case. Hair and fiber evidence is not all that strong in any case, IMO, due to the techology that was even available in 1995.

And how can you say the fibers came from a sweat suit, when you do no fiber compairsons? However, IMO, if these were not done, it was done for a reason. Again, IMO.

ETA--I really can't think of one strong witness the DA's had. I really can't.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

There is one thing that has always bothered me about the footprints. It is like who ever left them, wanted to make sure he left a clear print, doesn't it seem that way?

You would think that when the killer turned around, he would have at least wiped out the prints and make it impossible to determine what type of foot wear left them. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Robert Heidstra testifed that he saw a white SUV speed away from Bundy during the time of the murders.

Doug Deedrick testifed that he found hair that matched Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman on the glove found at Rockingham.

Doug Deedrick testifed that a hair on Ron Goldman's shirt had the same microsopic characteristics as O.J. Simpson's hair.

Doug Deedrick testified that he found 12 hairs in the knit cap which matched the hair belonging to O.J. Simpson.

Doug Deedrick testified that blue/black fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt matched fibers found on O.J. Simpson's socks.

Doug Deedrick testified that cashmere fibers found on the knit cap matched fibers from the gloves.

Doug Deedrick testifed that fibers from the Ford Bronco's carpet matched fibers found on the glove at Rockigham.

Bill Bodziak testifed about the photos he examined and that he used 18 areas as to what he identifed the Bruno Maagli Lorenzo shoes from stitching to the soles to make the comparison.

All of the above proves that O.J. SIMPSON is GUILTY of murdering Nicole and Ron.

"Robert Heidstra testifed that he saw a white SUV speed away from Bundy during the time of the murders", which he saw speeding in direction away from Rockingham.:):)

"Doug Deedrick testifed that he found hair that matched Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman on the glove found at Rockingham", which the defense raised questions based on the evidence as to how the glove got to Rockingham and how the evidence got on the glove.

"Doug Deedrick testified that he found 12 hairs in the knit cap which matched the hair belonging to O.J. Simpson", which the defense showed evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that Simpson had dandruff and that the hairs taken from the cap did not match the exemplars taken from Simpson.

"Doug Deedrick testifed that a hair on Ron Goldman's shirt had the same microsopic characteristics as O.J. Simpson's hair", the answer to which is the same as that in the paragraph directly above.

"Doug Deedrick testified that blue/black fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt matched fibers found on O.J. Simpson's socks", which the defense produced evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that those magical socks had been planted.

"Doug Deedrick testifed that fibers from the Ford Bronco's carpet matched fibers found on the glove at Rockigham", which we have previously discussed the evidence about the glove being planted.

"Bill Bodziak testifed about the photos he examined and that he used 18 areas as to what he identifed the Bruno Maagli Lorenzo shoes from stitching to the soles to make the comparison" but no testimony that the soles had the style he identified as coming from the murder scene, all of which, IMHO, equals reasonable doubt. :);):cool:

[William Anthony]

I understand that he said that Vannatter showed a reckless disregard for the truth. I also understand that he made the identical statement about Johnnie Cochran. I suppose that means that both of those have shown a reckless disregard for the truth.

It just highly interests me because I feel very certain that, had OJ Simpson been lying in that house dying, and the detectives had waited to enter until they had typed a warrant and had it signed, people would be outraged. I don't doubt that we would be hearing all about how the detectives should have made immediate entry given the sequence of events.

Kate

I don't think the fact that Ito made the same remarks about Vannatter and the magnificent one in any way detracts from the fact that Ito made the remark in regards to Vannatter's statements.

[William Anthony]

I understand that he said that Vannatter showed a reckless disregard for the truth. I also understand that he made the identical statement about Johnnie Cochran. I suppose that means that both of those have shown a reckless disregard for the truth.

It just highly interests me because I feel very certain that, had OJ Simpson been lying in that house dying, and the detectives had waited to enter until they had typed a warrant and had it signed, people would be outraged. I don't doubt that we would be hearing all about how the detectives should have made immediate entry given the sequence of events.

Kate

Kate,

I think they could have justified their entry into the house by claiming that they were worried about Simpson as a victim but that does not explain why Vannatter told untruths in the affidavit, which makes it seems as though the whole scenario was just a fabrication to unlawfully invade the curtilage.

[William Anthony]

I agree that the moderator should advise. I simply assume that the Criminal and Civil Trial threads are separated for a reason. And thus far in this Criminal Trial thread I am reading alot of civil trial testimony. I have also been reading the slight jabs at Petrocelli which I do happen to know has no place in the Criminal Trial thread.

Kate

Kate,

I was simply saying that I was unsure and the moderator may have some helpful advice as your point may be well taken, although I can see where on some issues from the criminal trial testimony from the socio political production could be relevant and beneficial. I think Petrocelli deserves whatever comments he receives, regardless of where he receives them, which means that some may be accolades.:)

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

As I posted before, I was pretty sure both would give different accounts of it.

I should have been clear, Judge Ito was the one who handled the defense's motions regarding new evidence that was found and he kept lowering the bar.

I don't know if you ever read Gerald Uelman's book on this case, but you find it very helpful and interesting. For me, sometimes it is like reading wallpaper but with you interest in the law, you may find it very interesting.

I have not read that book; thank you for the suggestion and I do believe that I will do so.

I hope the Holiday Season has found both yourself and your son in good spirits and good health.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I don't think the fact that Ito made the same remarks about Vannatter and the magnificent one in any way detracts from the fact that Ito made the remark in regards to Vannatter's statements.

It doesn't and that is my point. Neither detracts from the other, but if that statement is going to be constantly brought up in an effort to show Vannatter as an evil soul with ulterior motive then I find it only fair to point out that Johnnie Cochran also received that admonishment from Judge Ito which would then also show that the Judge believed Mr. Cochran to be in the same league as Detective Vannatter.

Kate

[socaldiva]

Your post says it all. the honerable jury declared oj was not guilty. end of story.

Then with all due respect, what is your point in posting here?

[William Anthony]

It doesn't and that is my point. Neither detracts from the other, but if that statement is going to be constantly brought up in an effort to show Vannatter as an evil soul with ulterior motive then I find it only fair to point out that Johnnie Cochran also received that admonishment from Judge Ito which would then also show that the Judge believed Mr. Cochran to be in the same league as Detective Vannatter.

Kate

we have previously discussed and agreed that the prosecution is held to a higher ethical standard than the defense, which I feel should be extended to LE. However, while I do not believe that this is the case in regard to the defense ethics and the comments made toward the magnificent one, as the judge was speaking to a representation the magnificent one offered in regard to a discovery violation, which we know happens frequently, both willfully and unintentionally, without lastingly besmirching the character of the lawyer guilty of the violation or representation as it is sometimes simply part of a larger strategy. The point is that the representation the magnificent one made did not have the power to jeopardize an individual's liberty, as did the representation made by Vannatter in regard to upholding the rights of citizens he took an oath to serve and protect. The magnificent one took an oath to give his client the best defense possible, even if it meant incurring the wrath of the honorable court.

[Hotwater]

I just received word from Deepwater saying Crime Library had to go back to the old format (Corporate orders) and in the process anything posted from 12/30/09 thru yesterday was lost.

I'm sorry about all the posts you lost.

HW

[GreenIce]

we have previously discussed and agreed that the prosecution is held to a higher ethical standard than the defense, which I feel should be extended to LE. However, while I do not believe that this is the case in regard to the defense ethics and the comments made toward the magnificent one, as the judge was speaking to a representation the magnificent one offered in regard to a discovery violation, which we know happens frequently, both willfully and unintentionally, without lastingly besmirching the character of the lawyer guilty of the violation or representation as it is sometimes simply part of a larger strategy. The point is that the representation the magnificent one made did not have the power to jeopardize an individual's liberty, as did the representation made by Vannatter in regard to upholding the rights of citizens he took an oath to serve and protect. The magnificent one took an oath to give his client the best defense possible, even if it meant incurring the wrath of the honorable court.

William,

I might be wrong but I think Judge Ito's ruling was about the Rosa Lopez tape. Is that correct?

[GreenIce]

The following list is why I believe the detectives were lying on several issues to include they did not know where Simpson was.

1. DV calls to the Simpson house were very well known to LE department.
2. Lange and VA said they heard this information and paid no attention to it.
3. It could easily have been a crime passion.
4. Children were chatting and knew something was wrong.
5. MF and later detectives are all freaked out by a tiny drop of blood.
6. Never look for other blood drops around the Bronco.
7. Major concern is victims inside the house, injuried or dying
8. Waste valuable moments fighting with Westec to get a phone number.
9. After ringing the buzzer for the gate, ringing the house phone and knocking on door, they, fulling believing people are dying inside the home, never demand Westec give them the tools to open the door.
10. Walk around the back of the estate to the guest houses.
11. MF is checking out Kato and his room while believing someone is dying inside the house.
12. He stops his interview when he hears about the thumps, but does not stop when he learns about the limo Kato saw.
13. Kato is asked where Simpson is, he asks if Simpson's plane has gone down.
14. Again, people inside dying are put on the list while they ask Arnelle about her father.
15. Never ask about live in maid until almost a half hour later.
16. Never search the house for any victims.
17. Let Arnelle be a human shield for the detectives.
18. Never showed any compassion for the Simpson children, to include Arnelle.

I am sure there are more, Martin, William?

[GreenIce]

It doesn't and that is my point. Neither detracts from the other, but if that statement is going to be constantly brought up in an effort to show Vannatter as an evil soul with ulterior motive then I find it only fair to point out that Johnnie Cochran also received that admonishment from Judge Ito which would then also show that the Judge believed Mr. Cochran to be in the same league as Detective Vannatter.

Kate

Kate,

IMO, I think it is important to know the facts surrounding each incident when Judge Ito made his ruling. I think Judge Ito made his ruling against JC over the Rosa Lopez tape. I believe the tape was made by Bill Pavlic, Robert Shapiro's PI. As you know, JC took over as the lead lawyer and was not aware of the taped interview. I can see where it would have been lost during the transition between the two offices. However, I can't fault Judge Ito for his ruling because as lead lawyer, you take the hits for the team.

I also think it is important to remember that the Rosa Lopez was an important for the defense, it makes no sense that the defense would lie about its existence, IMO.

However, it is clear that if VA did not know the facts, it is because he didn't want to know. And by the time he submitted the warrant, he should have known. It makes no sense that important information as well as not hearing the answers to direct and important questions does not bode well for VA.

Another point, JC was not going to take the stand. He was not going to testify about an important issue in the case. VA's credibility was on the line and he knew it--even with the warrant. IMO.

[martin II]

Kate,

IMO, I think it is important to know the facts surrounding each incident when Judge Ito made his ruling. I think Judge Ito made his ruling against JC over the Rosa Lopez tape. I believe the tape was made by Bill Pavlic, Robert Shapiro's PI. As you know, JC took over as the lead lawyer and was not aware of the taped interview. I can see where it would have been lost during the transition between the two offices. However, I can't fault Judge Ito for his ruling because as lead lawyer, you take the hits for the team.

I also think it is important to remember that the Rosa Lopez was an important for the defense, it makes no sense that the defense would lie about its existence, IMO.

However, it is clear that if VA did not know the facts, it is because he didn't want to know. And by the time he submitted the warrant, he should have known. It makes no sense that important information as well as not hearing the answers to direct and important questions does not bode well for VA.

Another point, JC was not going to take the stand. He was not going to testify about an important issue in the case. VA's credibility was on the line and he knew it--even with the warrant. IMO.


In his civil trial testimony it became clear that Vannatter did know oj had left on a scheduled trip not a unscheduled one as he claimed in the warrant request.First vannatter said someone told him the trip was unscheduled but under pressure he admnitted that no one said that to him that day.

For me that was proof that he knew and that he had been untruthful on purpose in his warrant request. imo

[Deepwater]

I ran some maintenance routines to see if that fixed the thread.

--D

[GreenIce]

In his civil trial testimony it became clear that Vannatter did know oj had left on a scheduled trip not a unscheduled one as he claimed in the warrant request.First vannatter said someone told him the trip was unscheduled but under pressure he admnitted that no one said that to him that day.

For me that was proof that he knew and that he had been untruthful on purpose in his warrant request. imo

Martin,

Even that is a lie. VA knew exactly where Simpson was--and if he didn't, it was because he didn't want to know. I think VA knew that eventually someone from Westec was going to nail him on this. IMO.

[martin II]

I ran some maintenance routines to see if that fixed the thread.

--D

i am on the old trutv thread now. not the new thread.

[GreenIce]

i am on the old trutv thread now. not the new thread.

Martin,

Yeah, I think we are. :)

[Hipcheck]

In his civil trial testimony it became clear that Vannatter did know oj had left on a scheduled trip not a unscheduled one as he claimed in the warrant request.First vannatter said someone told him the trip was unscheduled but under pressure he admnitted that no one said that to him that day.

For me that was proof that he knew and that he had been untruthful on purpose in his warrant request. imo

I don't believe Vannatter testified that he was told the trip was unscheduled. Vannatter testified that he wasn't told the trip was scheduled either.

Vannatter testified that he thought the trip was unscheduled because when he asked Arnelle where was her father she said she thought he was in the house.

I read an article from a defense lawyer who hates Vannatter and had sued him one time. He said that Vannatter did nothing wrong and this comes from a person who doesn't like him.

[GreenIce]

I don't believe Vannatter testified that he was told the trip was unscheduled. Vannatter testified that he wasn't told the trip was scheduled either.

Vannatter testified that he thought the trip was unscheduled because when he asked Arnelle where was her father she said she thought he was in the house.

I read an article from a defense lawyer who hates Vannatter and had sued him one time. He said that Vannatter did nothing wrong and this comes from a person who doesn't like him.

Hipcheck,

Yes, Vanatter did say that he was told the trip was unscheduled. He was lying and it was obvious. His actions don't support his testimony and his testimony doesn't support his actions.

Whatever Vanatter didn't know, he made sure he didn't know it. And there is proof he lied and there is no proof that Arnelle lied.

[Hipcheck]

Hipcheck,

Yes, Vanatter did say that he was told the trip was unscheduled. He was lying and it was obvious. His actions don't support his testimony and his testimony doesn't support his actions.

Whatever Vanatter didn't know, he made sure he didn't know it. And there is proof he lied and there is no proof that Arnelle lied.

Then why don't you provide the testifimony where Vannatter said he was told the trip was unscheduled? I have never seen this testimony and doubt you can find it.

There is absolutely no evidence that Vannatter lied but three detectives's testimony shows that Arnelle is a liar just like her father.

[GreenIce]

Then why don't you provide the testifimony where Vannatter said he was told the trip was unscheduled? I have never seen this testimony and doubt you can find it.

There is absolutely no evidence that Vannatter lied but three detectives's testimony shows that Arnelle is a liar just like her father.

Hipcheck,

The proof is in the details. Why did the police jump the wall? How can it be that a detective asked a very important question, but not one of them listened to the answers?

What do you think Kato meant when he asked the detectives if Simpson's plane went down? He did not defer them to Arnelle to answer that question. He deferred them to Arnelle because she was Simpson's daughter.

Martin has posted testimony about what at least one other police officer testified about Arnelle and two detectives entering the front of the house. Marcia Clark confirmed this in the prelim hearing. In fact, during the criminal trial, the DA's had no choice but to leave the jurors with the belief Simpson used his front door because he could not enter any other door. It was the only one he could have entered which supported the blood trail from the Bronco to the front door.

Arnelle was never challenged, even in the civil trial about this. There is only one person who claimed that Arnelle was lying and that was Petrocelli. The detectives were testifying as team on certain issues, it didn't matter what they testified to, as long as they all told the same or almost the same testimony.

When VA wrote that warrant, he should have known the details by the call to Cathy Randa.

Also, Arnelle told them she knew who she had to call to find out exactly where her father was. She told them she had to get her address book out of the car. That proves she told the detectives the truth about her father's whereabouts. She had no reason to lie, the detectives did. By law, when they found out that Simpson was not home, they should have left the property. They weren't going to leave until they got inside the house, so of course they were all going to blame Arnelle.

However, Kato did ask them if Simpson's blame went down. What, no follow up questions, from the man who not only knew that Simpson was not home but also knew what time he left because he told MF about the limo. MF had no reaction to the limo, but he does to the thumps?

And common sense tells us that Sydney Simpson would have told the police where her father was and chances are, they did not have to ask her about it. Do you really believe they did not know where Simpson was? Weren't they given a direct order to find Simpson--that does not mean they were only to look for him at his home. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Hipcheck,

Another problem with VA and the search warrant. The DA's try to sell it that when Simpson's maid called him and asked him to stay out and not to report for duty that night, Simpson took advantage of this and that is when he made the decision to kill Nicole. His maid was out, he was on a schedule flight, what better alibi did he have?

You can't have it both ways, saying the maid was the trigger for him to pick that night and then blow it all with an unscheduled flight.

Also, this was a buisness trip, it was an obvious business trip, why would he hand the DA's the perfect alibi buster? How long would it take for the DA's to prove that Simpson spent his life on a plane, his trips are scheduled weeks if not months in advance. How could he explain an unscheduled business trip?

The only reason VA lied was to justify the search warrant. He had to give vague details but he did not have to lie. He also wrote the glove was found while securing the property, that is a down right lie.

Just too many lies, IMO.

[Hipcheck]

Hipcheck,

The proof is in the details. Why did the police jump the wall? How can it be that a detective asked a very important question, but not one of them listened to the answers?

What do you think Kato meant when he asked the detectives if Simpson's plane went down? He did not defer them to Arnelle to answer that question. He deferred them to Arnelle because she was Simpson's daughter.

Martin has posted testimony about what at least one other police officer testified about Arnelle and two detectives entering the front of the house. Marcia Clark confirmed this in the prelim hearing. In fact, during the criminal trial, the DA's had no choice but to leave the jurors with the belief Simpson used his front door because he could not enter any other door. It was the only one he could have entered which supported the blood trail from the Bronco to the front door.

Arnelle was never challenged, even in the civil trial about this. There is only one person who claimed that Arnelle was lying and that was Petrocelli. The detectives were testifying as team on certain issues, it didn't matter what they testified to, as long as they all told the same or almost the same testimony.

When VA wrote that warrant, he should have known the details by the call to Cathy Randa.

Also, Arnelle told them she knew who she had to call to find out exactly where her father was. She told them she had to get her address book out of the car. That proves she told the detectives the truth about her father's whereabouts. She had no reason to lie, the detectives did. By law, when they found out that Simpson was not home, they should have left the property. They weren't going to leave until they got inside the house, so of course they were all going to blame Arnelle.

However, Kato did ask them if Simpson's blame went down. What, no follow up questions, from the man who not only knew that Simpson was not home but also knew what time he left because he told MF about the limo. MF had no reaction to the limo, but he does to the thumps?

And common sense tells us that Sydney Simpson would have told the police where her father was and chances are, they did not have to ask her about it. Do you really believe they did not know where Simpson was? Weren't they given a direct order to find Simpson--that does not mean they were only to look for him at his home. IMO.

Just as I thought that you can't provide any testimony that Vannatter was told the trip was unscheduled.

Martin provided no testimony about anyone going in the house through the front door so that statement is untrue.

Common sense tells most everyone that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole and Ron.

[William Anthony]

William,

I might be wrong but I think Judge Ito's ruling was about the Rosa Lopez tape. Is that correct?

I think that you are correct.

[martin II]

I don't believe Vannatter testified that he was told the trip was unscheduled. Vannatter testified that he wasn't told the trip was scheduled either.

Vannatter testified that he thought the trip was unscheduled because when he asked Arnelle where was her father she said she thought he was in the house.

I read an article from a defense lawyer who hates Vannatter and had sued him one time. He said that Vannatter did nothing wrong and this comes from a person who doesn't like him.

I posted vannatters testimony where he said someone told him oj was on a unscheduled trip and then he admitted no one told him that. that is his testimony.

Phillip conversation with CR informed all that oj was on a scheduled trip. that is the testimony.
Vannatter knew oj was on a scheduled trip and he just was not truthful on his claims for the warrant.that is not my opinion that is his testimony.imo

[martin II]

Just as I thought that you can't provide any testimony that Vannatter was told the trip was unscheduled.

Martin provided no testimony about anyone going in the house through the front door so that statement is untrue.

Common sense tells most everyone that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole and Ron.

not true.

see vannatters civil trial testimony which i have posted above for all to see.

[William Anthony]

Then why don't you provide the testifimony where Vannatter said he was told the trip was unscheduled? I have never seen this testimony and doubt you can find it.

There is absolutely no evidence that Vannatter lied but three detectives's testimony shows that Arnelle is a liar just like her father.

"THE COURT: TO REBOLSTER DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S TESTIMONY. DO YOU ALSO THINK THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE PROOF OF THE SUBSTANTIVE FACTS ARE THAT IN DISPUTE, THE FACT THAT THIS WAS AN UNANTICIPATED TRIP TO CHICAGO AND THAT AT THE TIME THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT WAS WRITTEN NO TEST HAD BEEN COMPLETED WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD? MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AT THE 1538 IS THAT IT WAS ONLY A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD.

MS. CLARK: CORRECT.

THE COURT: AND NOT A DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO AT THAT POINT IS TO EXPLAIN, THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND OTHER WITNESSES, PRECISELY WHAT BROUGHT HIM TO THOSE -- BROUGHT HIM TO THE POINT WHERE HE MADE THOSE STATEMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT. WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD ON THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO, THE PEOPLE CONCEDE IT WAS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD AND YET IT WAS A LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT THE BLOOD PLACED ON THE DOOR HANDLE OF A CAR WOULD BE BY A HUMAN BEING, AS WE HAVE STATED BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ANIMALS KNOW HOW TO DRIVE CARS OR COULD REACH THE DOOR HANDLE OF A BRONCO, AND I DON'T THINK THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO ARGUE ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY WITH RESPECT TO THAT.

WITH RESPECT, HOWEVER, TO THE UNEXPECTED FLIGHT, NOW WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO ISSUES OF WHAT EXACT INFORMATION WAS IMPARTED TO THE OFFICER WHO SPOKE TO CATHY RANDA AND WHAT INFORMATION EXACTLY WAS IMPARTED FROM THAT OFFICER TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, IF ANY, AND WHERE DETECTIVE -- WHAT WITNESSES TALKED TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO CAUSE HIM TO LEAD HIM TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS AN UNEXPECTED FLIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO NOW CONVENE THE MINI TRIAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND THAT WILL INCLUDE NOT JUST THE -- OF COURSE THE STATEMENTS THAT COUNSEL WANTS TO ELICIT AS BEING INCORRECT, BUT THEN TO BOLSTER HIS CREDIBILITY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO ALL OF THE NUMEROUS STATEMENTS THAT WERE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT TO ESTABLISH NOT ONLY THE FACT THAT THIS WAS NOT A SLOPPY JOB, BUT TO ESTABLISH ALSO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENT. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IF HE IS WRITING A WARRANT THAT CONTAINS SUCH ABUNDANT PROBABLE CAUSE, WHY JEOPARDIZE IT BY DELIBERATELY MISSTATING SOMETHING TO MISLEAD A MAGISTRATE, WHICH IS WHAT THE DEFENSE IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE ARGUING, THAT THERE WAS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD. OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE SEARCH WARRANT WHERE EVERYTHING ELSE IS CORRECT, AND YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE ARGUABLY INCORRECT, AND WITH RESPECT TO THE UNEXPECTED FLIGHT, ALTHOUGH FACTUALLY INCORRECT, AS WE LATER DETERMINED, THE ISSUE IS REALLY WHAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER KNEW AT THE TIME AND THAT IS ANOTHER REASON THAT THIS IS COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT. THIS GOES TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S STATE OF MIND AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT. THIS IS WHAT HE BELIEVED BASED ON A CERTAIN SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT HE HAD. THAT IT LATER DEVELOPED THROUGH THE INVESTIGATION THAT THAT WAS INCORRECT DOES NOT IMPEACH HIS VERACITY AT THE TIME HE MADE THE STATEMENT. IT SIMPLY GOES TO SHOW THAT LATER INVESTIGATION DISPROVED SOME ASPECT OF WHAT HE BELIEVED TO BE TRUE AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT. SO IT DOESN'T EVEN IMPEACH WITH RESPECT TO HIS CREDIBILITY. IT SIMPLY SHOWS THAT FURTHER INVESTIGATION REVEALED FACTS TO THE CONTRARY. HOW IS THAT VALID IMPEACHMENT? HOW IS THAT FAIR IMPEACHMENT? AGAIN WE GET INTO 352 ISSUES AND UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME IN WHICH HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT INFORMATION HE HAD, WHERE HE GOT IT, WHAT LED HIM TO THAT CONCLUSION AND CALL THE WITNESS BACK TO THE WITNESS STAND AND EXPLAIN WHAT THEY TOLD HIM AND WHY THEY TOLD HIM THAT AND AT WHAT POINT AND THEN AT WHAT POINT IT WAS LATER DETERMINED OTHERWISE. WITH RESPECT TO THAT, WITH RESPECT TO THE HUMAN BLOOD AND ANY OTHER MISSTATEMENTS -- I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER ACTUALLY -- BUT WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THAT, SO WE NOW ARE GOING TO CONVENE A MINI TRIAL AND WHAT IS TRUE AND NOT TRUE IN THE AFFIDAVIT, BASICALLY REQUIRING THE JURY TO REVIEW AN AREA THAT IS NOT WITHIN THEIR PROVINCE, AN AREA THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN LITIGATED FULLY AND COMPLETELY AND PROPERLY UNDER THE STATUTES BEFORE THIS COURT. AND THIS COURT MADE ITS DETERMINATION, BUT WHAT COUNSEL IS NOW GOING TO DO IS REOPEN AN AREA THAT IS NOT MEANT TO BE IN THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY, AND RIGHTFULLY SO, BECAUSE AS THE COURT WILL SEE, WE WILL THEN CONVENE THE MINI TRIAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT WRITTEN BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND DERAIL THE TRIAL AND SPEND ANOTHER WEEK ON TESTIMONY THAT SHOULD BE CONCLUDED TODAY. "

Continuation to follow.

[William Anthony]

Continuation

"THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, ONE OF THE CENTRAL THEMES OF THE DEFENSE OF THIS CASE IS THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, AND WE ARE DEALING IN AN AREA HERE WHERE THE COURT HAS ALREADY MADE AN EXTREME FINDING REGARDING THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

THE COURT: SEVERE; NOT EXTREME.

MR. SHAPIRO: SEVERE; BETTER WORD. AN EXTREME FINDING WOULD BE THAT IT WAS WILLFULLY FALSE.

THE COURT: CORRECT.

MR. SHAPIRO: AND THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO SEE WHAT THIS MAN HAS STATED UNDER OATH TO A MAGISTRATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING A WARRANT AND FOR ME TO EXAMINE WHAT HE KNEW AT THE TIME HE GOT THAT WARRANT. THESE ARE NOT COLLATERAL ISSUES. THESE STATEMENTS ARE GOING TO COME DIRECTLY FROM BRIAN KATO KAELIN AS TO WHAT HE TOLD DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND WILL COME DIRECTLY FROM THE VERY SKIMPY TWO PARAGRAPHS OF NOTES THAT WERE THE ONLY NOTES TAKEN BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER BESIDES HIS RECORDATIONS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT. AND SO IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS IMPEACHABLE MATERIAL, HIGHLY RELEVANT, AND GOES TO THE ESSENCE OF WHAT OUR CASE IS ABOUT, AND THAT IS CREDIBILITY, AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE STRESSED FROM DAY ONE.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, WHAT CONCERNS ME MOST IS MISS CLARK'S 352 ISSUE AND HER ARGUMENT THAT THIS WILL NECESSITATE A MINI TRIAL AS TO THE CONTENT OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND ALL THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INVOLVED.

MR. SHAPIRO: I THINK THIS MAY BE THE QUICKEST PART OF CROSS-EXAMINATION WE HAVE SEEN IN THE TRIAL. IT WILL TAKE MUCH LESS TIME THAN WE HAVE TAKEN OVER THE LAST TWO HOURS FROM YESTERDAY AND TODAY IN ARGUING THIS ISSUE. IT SIMPLY IS DID YOU PUT IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT A CHEMIST TOLD YOU THERE WAS HUMAN BLOOD ON THE CAR? WE KNOW A PRESUMPTIVE TEST MEANS ONLY THAT IT COULD BE BLOOD, BUT IT COULD BE OTHER SUBSTANCES.

THE COURT: SO YOU ARE TELLING ME YOU COULD DO THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO THESE TWO SPECIFIC ISSUES IN FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS?

MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN'T SAY FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS, BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE ANSWER. AS YOU KNOW, DETECTIVE VANNATTER IS AN EXPERIENCED OFFICER OF 26 YEARS AND HE DOES NOT LIKE TO DIRECTLY ANSWER A QUESTION, SO IF HE DIRECTLY ANSWERED YES OR NO --

THE COURT: SO MY QUESTION WAS DO YOU THINK YOU CAN DO THIS IN FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS?

MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN DO IT IN THE QUESTIONS, BUT AS YOU KNOW, CROSS-EXAMINATION DEPENDS ON THE ANSWERS. IF HE IS HONEST AND SAYS, YES OR NO, AND YES, I MADE -- I MADE A MISTAKE, OR YES, I MADE A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION, IT CAN BE VERY QUICK. BUT IF HE IS NOT AS FORTHCOMING, THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SHOW HIM WHAT HE WROTE, HOW HE DID IT BEFORE AND THE INFORMATION HE HAD AT HAND. IN ANY EVENT, IT WILL NOT BE A LENGTHY PART OF THE EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. SHAPIRO.

MS. CLARK: MAY I ASK -- MAKE ONE FURTHER POINT, YOUR HONOR? I'M GETTING THE DISTINCTIVE IMPRESSION FROM COUNSEL THAT THERE IS SOME BELIEF ON THIS SIDE OF COUNSEL TABLE THAT THEY CAN ADMIT THE COURT'S FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE SEARCH WARRANT IN THEIR QUESTIONING OF THIS WITNESS BEFORE THE JURY AND THAT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY INAPPROPRIATE. I DON'T THINK THE COURT DISAGREES. "

[William Anthony]

The following list is why I believe the detectives were lying on several issues to include they did not know where Simpson was.

1. DV calls to the Simpson house were very well known to LE department.
2. Lange and VA said they heard this information and paid no attention to it.
3. It could easily have been a crime passion.
4. Children were chatting and knew something was wrong.
5. MF and later detectives are all freaked out by a tiny drop of blood.
6. Never look for other blood drops around the Bronco.
7. Major concern is victims inside the house, injuried or dying
8. Waste valuable moments fighting with Westec to get a phone number.
9. After ringing the buzzer for the gate, ringing the house phone and knocking on door, they, fulling believing people are dying inside the home, never demand Westec give them the tools to open the door.
10. Walk around the back of the estate to the guest houses.
11. MF is checking out Kato and his room while believing someone is dying inside the house.
12. He stops his interview when he hears about the thumps, but does not stop when he learns about the limo Kato saw.
13. Kato is asked where Simpson is, he asks if Simpson's plane has gone down.
14. Again, people inside dying are put on the list while they ask Arnelle about her father.
15. Never ask about live in maid until almost a half hour later.
16. Never search the house for any victims.
17. Let Arnelle be a human shield for the detectives.
18. Never showed any compassion for the Simpson children, to include Arnelle.

I am sure there are more, Martin, William?

With all the interest in finding Simpson's whereabouts,

19. the detective may not have shared with the other detective what he learned from Ms. Randa prior to Vannatter filling out the affidavit for a search warrant.:)

[martin II]

Originally Posted by martin ii
here is vannatter search warrant lie. He is trying to say someone told him oj left on a unexpected trip to chicago. He told this lie to get the search warrant.




Q: Detective vannatter, you applied for several search warrants in this case, did you not?

A: Yes.

Q: And a search warrant requires an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury, does it not?

A: Yes.

Q: And that requirement is so that an independent magistrate or a judge can make a determination as to whether or not a search warrant should issue and not let the police rely on their own instincts; isn't that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And in filling out a search warrant you indicated to a magistrate under, penalty of perjury, that you were told that o.j. Simpson had left on an unexpected might to chicago, did you not?

A: I didn't say i was told that.

Q: You reported --

a: I did write that in the search warrant, yes.

Q: And you signed that under penalty of perjury?

A: Yes. That's correct, sir.

Q: And that wasn't true, was it?

A: I find -- i found out later that that information was incorrect. That was based on arnelle simpson's response that morning, as well as kato kaelin telling me that he had received a phone call after simpson had left the residence telling him to alarm the house, that he was going to chicago on a business trip for hertz.

Q: You filled out the affidavit for the search warrant at what time, sir?

A: I started that approximately 7:45 in the morning.

Q: And what time did you present it to a magistrate, sir?

A: It was signed at 10:45.


q: At any time, when you were at rockingham that morning, did you hear arnelle or kato ever use the word "unplanned"?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever hear that word used by cathy randa or attributed to her?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever hear that word used by anyone?

A: No.

[martin II]

With all the interest in finding Simpson's whereabouts,

19. the detective may not have shared with the other detective what he learned from Ms. Randa prior to Vannatter filling out the affidavit for a search warrant.:)

If Vannatter did not learn from phillips and lang that CR verified oj was on a scheduled trip from the phone call, why did he stop looking for oj after the call.why did he then illegally search the walkway and other property.

vannatter knew and he lied on the search warrant. twice. imo

[martin II]

The following list is why I believe the detectives were lying on several issues to include they did not know where Simpson was.

1. DV calls to the Simpson house were very well known to LE department.
2. Lange and VA said they heard this information and paid no attention to it.
3. It could easily have been a crime passion.
4. Children were chatting and knew something was wrong.
5. MF and later detectives are all freaked out by a tiny drop of blood.
6. Never look for other blood drops around the Bronco.
7. Major concern is victims inside the house, injuried or dying
8. Waste valuable moments fighting with Westec to get a phone number.
9. After ringing the buzzer for the gate, ringing the house phone and knocking on door, they, fulling believing people are dying inside the home, never demand Westec give them the tools to open the door.
10. Walk around the back of the estate to the guest houses.
11. MF is checking out Kato and his room while believing someone is dying inside the house.
12. He stops his interview when he hears about the thumps, but does not stop when he learns about the limo Kato saw.
13. Kato is asked where Simpson is, he asks if Simpson's plane has gone down.
14. Again, people inside dying are put on the list while they ask Arnelle about her father.
15. Never ask about live in maid until almost a half hour later.
16. Never search the house for any victims.
17. Let Arnelle be a human shield for the detectives.
18. Never showed any compassion for the Simpson children, to include Arnelle.

I am sure there are more, Martin, William?


gi
thanks for putting this post togeather. imo it shows the many faults in the detectives conflicting testimony. it shows theirv reason for entering ojs property was to try to catch him destroying evidence or to use notification excuse to be on his property.
MC admitted that the blood on the bronco claim was not true.
see williams post.

[martin II]

Continuation

"THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, ONE OF THE CENTRAL THEMES OF THE DEFENSE OF THIS CASE IS THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, AND WE ARE DEALING IN AN AREA HERE WHERE THE COURT HAS ALREADY MADE AN EXTREME FINDING REGARDING THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

THE COURT: SEVERE; NOT EXTREME.

MR. SHAPIRO: SEVERE; BETTER WORD. AN EXTREME FINDING WOULD BE THAT IT WAS WILLFULLY FALSE.

THE COURT: CORRECT.

MR. SHAPIRO: AND THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO SEE WHAT THIS MAN HAS STATED UNDER OATH TO A MAGISTRATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING A WARRANT AND FOR ME TO EXAMINE WHAT HE KNEW AT THE TIME HE GOT THAT WARRANT. THESE ARE NOT COLLATERAL ISSUES. THESE STATEMENTS ARE GOING TO COME DIRECTLY FROM BRIAN KATO KAELIN AS TO WHAT HE TOLD DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND WILL COME DIRECTLY FROM THE VERY SKIMPY TWO PARAGRAPHS OF NOTES THAT WERE THE ONLY NOTES TAKEN BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER BESIDES HIS RECORDATIONS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT. AND SO IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS IMPEACHABLE MATERIAL, HIGHLY RELEVANT, AND GOES TO THE ESSENCE OF WHAT OUR CASE IS ABOUT, AND THAT IS CREDIBILITY, AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE STRESSED FROM DAY ONE.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, WHAT CONCERNS ME MOST IS MISS CLARK'S 352 ISSUE AND HER ARGUMENT THAT THIS WILL NECESSITATE A MINI TRIAL AS TO THE CONTENT OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND ALL THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INVOLVED.

MR. SHAPIRO: I THINK THIS MAY BE THE QUICKEST PART OF CROSS-EXAMINATION WE HAVE SEEN IN THE TRIAL. IT WILL TAKE MUCH LESS TIME THAN WE HAVE TAKEN OVER THE LAST TWO HOURS FROM YESTERDAY AND TODAY IN ARGUING THIS ISSUE. IT SIMPLY IS DID YOU PUT IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT A CHEMIST TOLD YOU THERE WAS HUMAN BLOOD ON THE CAR? WE KNOW A PRESUMPTIVE TEST MEANS ONLY THAT IT COULD BE BLOOD, BUT IT COULD BE OTHER SUBSTANCES.

THE COURT: SO YOU ARE TELLING ME YOU COULD DO THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO THESE TWO SPECIFIC ISSUES IN FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS?

MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN'T SAY FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS, BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE ANSWER. AS YOU KNOW, DETECTIVE VANNATTER IS AN EXPERIENCED OFFICER OF 26 YEARS AND HE DOES NOT LIKE TO DIRECTLY ANSWER A QUESTION, SO IF HE DIRECTLY ANSWERED YES OR NO --

THE COURT: SO MY QUESTION WAS DO YOU THINK YOU CAN DO THIS IN FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS?

MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN DO IT IN THE QUESTIONS, BUT AS YOU KNOW, CROSS-EXAMINATION DEPENDS ON THE ANSWERS. IF HE IS HONEST AND SAYS, YES OR NO, AND YES, I MADE -- I MADE A MISTAKE, OR YES, I MADE A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION, IT CAN BE VERY QUICK. BUT IF HE IS NOT AS FORTHCOMING, THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SHOW HIM WHAT HE WROTE, HOW HE DID IT BEFORE AND THE INFORMATION HE HAD AT HAND. IN ANY EVENT, IT WILL NOT BE A LENGTHY PART OF THE EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. SHAPIRO.

MS. CLARK: MAY I ASK -- MAKE ONE FURTHER POINT, YOUR HONOR? I'M GETTING THE DISTINCTIVE IMPRESSION FROM COUNSEL THAT THERE IS SOME BELIEF ON THIS SIDE OF COUNSEL TABLE THAT THEY CAN ADMIT THE COURT'S FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE SEARCH WARRANT IN THEIR QUESTIONING OF THIS WITNESS BEFORE THE JURY AND THAT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY INAPPROPRIATE. I DON'T THINK THE COURT DISAGREES. "


thanks william
this should clear up any questions about vannatters untruthful testimony on the search warrant.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by martin ii
here is vannatter search warrant lie. He is trying to say someone told him oj left on a unexpected trip to chicago. He told this lie to get the search warrant.




Q: Detective vannatter, you applied for several search warrants in this case, did you not?

A: Yes.

Q: And a search warrant requires an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury, does it not?

A: Yes.

Q: And that requirement is so that an independent magistrate or a judge can make a determination as to whether or not a search warrant should issue and not let the police rely on their own instincts; isn't that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And in filling out a search warrant you indicated to a magistrate under, penalty of perjury, that you were told that o.j. Simpson had left on an unexpected might to chicago, did you not?

A: I didn't say i was told that.

Q: You reported --

a: I did write that in the search warrant, yes.

Q: And you signed that under penalty of perjury?

A: Yes. That's correct, sir.

Q: And that wasn't true, was it?

A: I find -- i found out later that that information was incorrect. That was based on arnelle simpson's response that morning, as well as kato kaelin telling me that he had received a phone call after simpson had left the residence telling him to alarm the house, that he was going to chicago on a business trip for hertz.

Q: You filled out the affidavit for the search warrant at what time, sir?

A: I started that approximately 7:45 in the morning.

Q: And what time did you present it to a magistrate, sir?

A: It was signed at 10:45.


q: At any time, when you were at rockingham that morning, did you hear arnelle or kato ever use the word "unplanned"?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever hear that word used by cathy randa or attributed to her?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever hear that word used by anyone?

A: No.

I thought that he talked with Arnelle and Kato long before 7:45, and it seems as though he was practicing his testilying, IMHO.:)

[William Anthony]

thanks william
this should clear up any questions about vannatters untruthful testimony on the search warrant.

You're welcome, Martin. However, I do not believe it was unclear as to Vannatter's statements in the affidavit, as evidence by judge Ito's comment concerning Vannatter's reckless disregard for the truth.

[William Anthony]

It seems that it was wise (and I believe I know the one and only deity who is infinite wisdom) that the evidence was not suppressed, because the defense was able to provide evidence of planting to combat some of the evidence that was not suppressed.

[martin II]

I thought that he talked with Arnelle and Kato long before 7:45, and it seems as though he was practicing his testilying, IMHO.:)

correct. he talked to arnell at about 5;20 am when he knocked on her door
and maby when he was walking with her around the house to the front door
to enter the house.which he did.

[martin II]

It seems that it was wise (and I believe I know the one and only deity who is infinite wisdom) that the evidence was not suppressed, because the defense was able to provide evidence of planting to combat some of the evidence that was not suppressed.

Smart defense. they would win either way because the prosecution could not prove oj was even in the walkway to drop the glove. which for me indicates that someone walked to to the first gate and tossed the glove to where it was found. imo

[martin II]

You're welcome, Martin. However, I do not believe it was unclear as to Vannatter's statements in the affidavit, as evidence by judge Ito's comment concerning Vannatter's reckless disregard for the truth.

Some judges would have just said vannatter you lied to get the warrant. ito was very kind in his words. but i believe the jury understood what ito meant and vannatters lies.

[martin II]

I thought that he talked with Arnelle and Kato long before 7:45, and it seems as though he was practicing his testilying, IMHO.:)

after discussing the contents of the warrant request with MC he presented it at about 10;45

[Hipcheck]

I posted vannatters testimony where he said someone told him oj was on a unscheduled trip and then he admitted no one told him that. that is his testimony.

Phillip conversation with CR informed all that oj was on a scheduled trip. that is the testimony.
Vannatter knew oj was on a scheduled trip and he just was not truthful on his claims for the warrant.that is not my opinion that is his testimony.imo

You have posted no such testimony where Vannatter said someone tod him the trip was unscheduled.

Vannatter never talked to Cathy Randa.

[Hipcheck]

Smart defense. they would win either way because the prosecution could not prove oj was even in the walkway to drop the glove. which for me indicates that someone walked to to the first gate and tossed the glove to where it was found. imo

They proved Simpson was in the walkway from the evidence found on the glove. Evidence like Simpson's blood, hairs and fibers.

Vannatter never testfied that he was told it was an unplanned trip. In fact there is no evidence that Vannatter ever lied.

But there is proof that Arnelle lied when she said they went into the house using the front door. Three detectives who testified proved that Arnelle is a liar just like her father.

[martin II]

They proved Simpson was in the walkway from the evidence found on the glove. Evidence like Simpson's blood, hairs and fibers.

Vannatter never testfied that he was told it was an unplanned trip. In fact there is no evidence that Vannatter ever lied.

But there is proof that Arnelle lied when she said they went into the house using the front door. Three detectives who testified proved that Arnelle is a liar just like her father.

The prosecution never presented any evidemce of oj being in the walkway. the glove found did not prove that he was ever in the walkway. As a matter of fact the prosecution did not prove HOW the glove got to the walkway.
saying the glove had ojs blood on it does not prove that oj was responsible for it being there.imo

[martin II]

They proved Simpson was in the walkway from the evidence found on the glove. Evidence like Simpson's blood, hairs and fibers.

Vannatter never testfied that he was told it was an unplanned trip. In fact there is no evidence that Vannatter ever lied.

But there is proof that Arnelle lied when she said they went into the house using the front door. Three detectives who testified proved that Arnelle is a liar just like her father.

le detectives including vannatter testified that no one jumped the fense after their investigation of the fence and the walkway. see vannatters testimony.
vannatter testified that he believed oj entered his property at the rockingham gate and that he walked to the front door of his house.see vannatters testimony.
their testimony cannot be ignored.imo

[martin II]

They proved Simpson was in the walkway from the evidence found on the glove. Evidence like Simpson's blood, hairs and fibers.

Vannatter never testfied that he was told it was an unplanned trip. In fact there is no evidence that Vannatter ever lied.

But there is proof that Arnelle lied when she said they went into the house using the front door. Three detectives who testified proved that Arnelle is a liar just like her father.

vannatter testified that he wrote that oj left on a unscheduled trip in his warrant request. when asked who told him the trip was unscheduled or who used that word to him he admitted no one. So he just made that comment up
to influence the judge to approve the request. he lied about ojs trip to get the approval. ito told him so.imo

[martin II]

gi
as you have indicated vannatter always seems to be present or someplace near to the untruthful testimony or acts. that says a lot about him and what the jury members said when they stated that he was untruthful in his testimony. imo

[martin II]

I thought that he talked with Arnelle and Kato long before 7:45, and it seems as though he was practicing his testilying, IMHO.:)

Phillips talked to CR at about 6 am and found the trip was planned.

[Hipcheck]

vannatter testified that he wrote that oj left on a unscheduled trip in his warrant request. when asked who told him the trip was unscheduled or who used that word to him he admitted no one. So he just made that comment up
to influence the judge to approve the request. he lied about ojs trip to get the approval. ito told him so.imo

Vannatter came to the conclusion that the trip was not planned from his conversations with Arnelle and Kato. Arnelle first told Vannatter that she thought her father was home inside the house and Kato later told him that he got a call from Simpson asking him to set the house alarm as he had forgot.

Vannatter never said that no one juped the fence. He said he found no evidence that someone ha jumped it.

The glove had Simpson's blood, Nicole's blood and Ron's blood on it. The noise Kato heard right after the murders tells most that that person dropped the glove. We know Nicole and Ron couldn't have dropped it so that only leaves Simpson

[martin II]

Vannatter came to the conclusion that the trip was not planned from his conversations with Arnelle and Kato. Arnelle first told Vannatter that she thought her father was home inside the house and Kato later told him that he got a call from Simpson asking him to set the house alarm as he had forgot.

Vannatter never said that no one juped the fence. He said he found no evidence that someone ha jumped it.

The glove had Simpson's blood, Nicole's blood and Ron's blood on it. The noise Kato heard right after the murders tells most that that person dropped the glove. We know Nicole and Ron couldn't have dropped it so that only leaves Simpson

read katos testimoiny about when he first told le was oj was on a trip.
If you read vannatters civil testimony and williams post you may understand better.

when le knocked on katos door the first thing he told them was that oj left on a trip to chicago for Hertz. that was at about 5:30 am Arnell called CR shortly after that and phillips was informed that ojs flight was planned. vannatter was present at rockingham with lang in the kitchen during this phone call. i am sure phillips told the lead detective what CR told him after he got off the phone.

it was not later on when kato told them about ojs call.it was when they first woke him up.

vannatter and two other detectives examined the fense and the walkway and found no evidence that anyone had jumped the fense or was in the walkway. if someone had jumped that fense there would have been evidence that they did.

the prosecution never offered proof of how the glove got to the walkway. opinions are just that not facts.imo

[martin II]

judge ito listened to a long argument about vannatters warrant request. the judge discovered that vannatters excuse for the untruths oin his request did not meet a truth test and told him he was playing fast and loose with the truth. i took that as a polite way of saying ito understood vannatter lied. imo

[William Anthony]

correct. he talked to arnell at about 5;20 am when he knocked on her door
and maby when he was walking with her around the house to the front door
to enter the house.which he did.

Oh what a tangled web we weave..., smile

[William Anthony]

You have posted no such testimony where Vannatter said someone tod him the trip was unscheduled.

Vannatter never talked to Cathy Randa.

According to what they want us to believe, a couple of their paramount interests, after finding the blood, were Simpson's safety and whereabouts. However, they were not so interested in those things as to discuss the matter with their cohorts to discover their knowledge, if that does not seem incredulous.:);):cool:

[William Anthony]

judge ito listened to a long argument about vannatters warrant request. the judge discovered that vannatters excuse for the untruths oin his request did not meet a truth test and told him he was playing fast and loose with the truth. i took that as a polite way of saying ito understood vannatter lied. imo

“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reckless

–adjective
1. utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless (usually fol. by of): to be reckless of danger.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disregard

2. To treat without proper respect or attentiveness.

http://www.selfknowledge.com/101250.htm

1. The quality or being true; as: -- (a) Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been; or shall be. (b) Conformity to rule; exactness; close correspondence with an example, mood, object of imitation, or the like. "Plows, to go true, depend much on the truth of the ironwork." Mortimer. (c) Fidelity; constancy; steadfastness; faithfulness. "Alas! they had been friends in youth, But whispering tongues can poison truth." Coleridge. (d) The practice of speaking what is true; freedom from falsehood; veracity. "If this will not suffice, it must appear That malice bears down truth." Shak.
2. That which is true or certain concerning any matter or subject, or generally on all subjects; real state of things; fact; verity; reality. "Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbor." Zech. viii. 16. "I long to know the truth here of at large." Shak. "The truth depends on, or is only arrived at by, a legitimate deduction from all the facts which are truly material." Coleridge.”

[Kate Sachel]

"THE COURT: TO REBOLSTER DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S TESTIMONY. DO YOU ALSO THINK THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE PROOF OF THE SUBSTANTIVE FACTS ARE THAT IN DISPUTE, THE FACT THAT THIS WAS AN UNANTICIPATED TRIP TO CHICAGO AND THAT AT THE TIME THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT WAS WRITTEN NO TEST HAD BEEN COMPLETED WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD? MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AT THE 1538 IS THAT IT WAS ONLY A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD.

MS. CLARK: CORRECT.

THE COURT: AND NOT A DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO AT THAT POINT IS TO EXPLAIN, THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND OTHER WITNESSES, PRECISELY WHAT BROUGHT HIM TO THOSE -- BROUGHT HIM TO THE POINT WHERE HE MADE THOSE STATEMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT. WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD ON THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO, THE PEOPLE CONCEDE IT WAS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD AND YET IT WAS A LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT THE BLOOD PLACED ON THE DOOR HANDLE OF A CAR WOULD BE BY A HUMAN BEING, AS WE HAVE STATED BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ANIMALS KNOW HOW TO DRIVE CARS OR COULD REACH THE DOOR HANDLE OF A BRONCO, AND I DON'T THINK THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO ARGUE ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY WITH RESPECT TO THAT.

WITH RESPECT, HOWEVER, TO THE UNEXPECTED FLIGHT, NOW WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO ISSUES OF WHAT EXACT INFORMATION WAS IMPARTED TO THE OFFICER WHO SPOKE TO CATHY RANDA AND WHAT INFORMATION EXACTLY WAS IMPARTED FROM THAT OFFICER TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, IF ANY, AND WHERE DETECTIVE -- WHAT WITNESSES TALKED TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO CAUSE HIM TO LEAD HIM TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS AN UNEXPECTED FLIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO NOW CONVENE THE MINI TRIAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND THAT WILL INCLUDE NOT JUST THE -- OF COURSE THE STATEMENTS THAT COUNSEL WANTS TO ELICIT AS BEING INCORRECT, BUT THEN TO BOLSTER HIS CREDIBILITY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO ALL OF THE NUMEROUS STATEMENTS THAT WERE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT TO ESTABLISH NOT ONLY THE FACT THAT THIS WAS NOT A SLOPPY JOB, BUT TO ESTABLISH ALSO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENT. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IF HE IS WRITING A WARRANT THAT CONTAINS SUCH ABUNDANT PROBABLE CAUSE, WHY JEOPARDIZE IT BY DELIBERATELY MISSTATING SOMETHING TO MISLEAD A MAGISTRATE, WHICH IS WHAT THE DEFENSE IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE ARGUING, THAT THERE WAS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD. OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE SEARCH WARRANT WHERE EVERYTHING ELSE IS CORRECT, AND YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE ARGUABLY INCORRECT, AND WITH RESPECT TO THE UNEXPECTED FLIGHT, ALTHOUGH FACTUALLY INCORRECT, AS WE LATER DETERMINED, THE ISSUE IS REALLY WHAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER KNEW AT THE TIME AND THAT IS ANOTHER REASON THAT THIS IS COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT. THIS GOES TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S STATE OF MIND AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT. THIS IS WHAT HE BELIEVED BASED ON A CERTAIN SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT HE HAD. THAT IT LATER DEVELOPED THROUGH THE INVESTIGATION THAT THAT WAS INCORRECT DOES NOT IMPEACH HIS VERACITY AT THE TIME HE MADE THE STATEMENT. IT SIMPLY GOES TO SHOW THAT LATER INVESTIGATION DISPROVED SOME ASPECT OF WHAT HE BELIEVED TO BE TRUE AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT. SO IT DOESN'T EVEN IMPEACH WITH RESPECT TO HIS CREDIBILITY. IT SIMPLY SHOWS THAT FURTHER INVESTIGATION REVEALED FACTS TO THE CONTRARY. HOW IS THAT VALID IMPEACHMENT? HOW IS THAT FAIR IMPEACHMENT? AGAIN WE GET INTO 352 ISSUES AND UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME IN WHICH HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT INFORMATION HE HAD, WHERE HE GOT IT, WHAT LED HIM TO THAT CONCLUSION AND CALL THE WITNESS BACK TO THE WITNESS STAND AND EXPLAIN WHAT THEY TOLD HIM AND WHY THEY TOLD HIM THAT AND AT WHAT POINT AND THEN AT WHAT POINT IT WAS LATER DETERMINED OTHERWISE. WITH RESPECT TO THAT, WITH RESPECT TO THE HUMAN BLOOD AND ANY OTHER MISSTATEMENTS -- I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER ACTUALLY -- BUT WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THAT, SO WE NOW ARE GOING TO CONVENE A MINI TRIAL AND WHAT IS TRUE AND NOT TRUE IN THE AFFIDAVIT, BASICALLY REQUIRING THE JURY TO REVIEW AN AREA THAT IS NOT WITHIN THEIR PROVINCE, AN AREA THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN LITIGATED FULLY AND COMPLETELY AND PROPERLY UNDER THE STATUTES BEFORE THIS COURT. AND THIS COURT MADE ITS DETERMINATION, BUT WHAT COUNSEL IS NOW GOING TO DO IS REOPEN AN AREA THAT IS NOT MEANT TO BE IN THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY, AND RIGHTFULLY SO, BECAUSE AS THE COURT WILL SEE, WE WILL THEN CONVENE THE MINI TRIAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT WRITTEN BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND DERAIL THE TRIAL AND SPEND ANOTHER WEEK ON TESTIMONY THAT SHOULD BE CONCLUDED TODAY. "

Continuation to follow.

Why did you bold "and any other misstatements"?

Kate

[GreenIce]

Vannatter came to the conclusion that the trip was not planned from his conversations with Arnelle and Kato. Arnelle first told Vannatter that she thought her father was home inside the house and Kato later told him that he got a call from Simpson asking him to set the house alarm as he had forgot.

Vannatter never said that no one juped the fence. He said he found no evidence that someone ha jumped it.

The glove had Simpson's blood, Nicole's blood and Ron's blood on it. The noise Kato heard right after the murders tells most that that person dropped the glove. We know Nicole and Ron couldn't have dropped it so that only leaves Simpson

Hipcheck,

Again, you are wrong. Both Kato and Arnelle made it clear that Simpson was not home. Kato told MF about the limo. Vanatter knew exactly where Simpson was even before he ever left Bundy.

The detectives had to lie, Arnelle and Kato did not.

[GreenIce]

Vannatter came to the conclusion that the trip was not planned from his conversations with Arnelle and Kato. Arnelle first told Vannatter that she thought her father was home inside the house and Kato later told him that he got a call from Simpson asking him to set the house alarm as he had forgot.

Vannatter never said that no one juped the fence. He said he found no evidence that someone ha jumped it.

The glove had Simpson's blood, Nicole's blood and Ron's blood on it. The noise Kato heard right after the murders tells most that that person dropped the glove. We know Nicole and Ron couldn't have dropped it so that only leaves Simpson

Hipcheck,

All three detectives never listended to what Arnelle's answer was. There job was to ask questions and get answers. They didn't do that. Read Phillips testimony. He says that he asked Arnelle where her father was and Lange and VA jumped in started talking over him. And according to Arnelle, VA was not even with them. VA was smart, he knew enough to stay away far enough where he could claim he did not hear something or only heard part of it.

VA testifed that Arnelle told him that she did not live at Rockingham, she just happened to sleep there that night. You figure it out.

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

All three detectives never listended to what Arnelle's answer was. There job was to ask questions and get answers. They didn't do that. Read Phillips testimony. He says that he asked Arnelle where her father was and Lange and VA jumped in started talking over him. And according to Arnelle, VA was not even with them. VA was smart, he knew enough to stay away far enough where he could claim he did not hear something or only heard part of it.

VA testifed that Arnelle told him that she did not live at Rockingham, she just happened to sleep there that night. You figure it out.

After the lead detective led the charge onto ojs property to find him and the maid to make sure they were ok, they knew phillips had a phone conversation with CR. After Phillips learned that ojs trip was planned weeks in advance it is unbelievable that Phillips did not immediately inform vannatter that the trip had been confirmed as planned by CR. The CR call confirmed every thing they said they needed to know about oj. That he was not home,confirmed by Kato, that the trip was planned and that oj was in Chicago. Kato confirmed what time oj left rockingham. For vannatter to pretend that he was ingorant
of all of this info is just unbelievable.judge ito told him so in his assessment of vannatters excuses. imo

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

All three detectives never listended to what Arnelle's answer was. There job was to ask questions and get answers. They didn't do that. Read Phillips testimony. He says that he asked Arnelle where her father was and Lange and VA jumped in started talking over him. And according to Arnelle, VA was not even with them. VA was smart, he knew enough to stay away far enough where he could claim he did not hear something or only heard part of it.

VA testifed that Arnelle told him that she did not live at Rockingham, she just happened to sleep there that night. You figure it out.

i have no idea as to why vannatter would make that claim.Arnell had already testified that she lived there.

[martin II]

MC argued that to take time to get to the truth of vannatters warrant, it would require a mini trial and waste time. what did she think the judge was there for?

[GreenIce]

After the lead detective led the charge onto ojs property to find him and the maid to make sure they were ok, they knew phillips had a phone conversation with CR. After Phillips learned that ojs trip was planned weeks in advance it is unbelievable that Phillips did not immediately inform vannatter that the trip had been confirmed as planned by CR. The CR call confirmed every thing they said they needed to know about oj. That he was not home,confirmed by Kato, that the trip was planned and that oj was in Chicago. Kato confirmed what time oj left rockingham. For vannatter to pretend that he was ingorant
of all of this info is just unbelievable.judge ito told him so in his assessment of vannatters excuses. imo

Martin,

IMO, I think the judge probably already believed that they cops knew where Simpson was before they even left Bundy.

What gets me is that the DA's used that maid's staying out as final trigger in the motive in combination with his planed flight.

Also, wouldn't an unscheduled flight be a huge, huge red flag? I mean one minute they have being very cunning and then next minute, he would do something stupid like that.

The bottom line is before he submitted that warrant, he knew the truth. Also, when he talked to Kato, are we to believe that Kato didn't tell him about the limo?

And I posted this on the other board, but we, the public have to take some rsponsbility for judges accepting police's testimony on these issues. JC was right and not just for the people of CA, we, the citizens police the police. They know exactly how much they can get away with and we let them, IMO.

[GreenIce]

MC argued that to take time to get to the truth of vannatters warrant, it would require a mini trial and waste time. what did she think the judge was there for?

Martin,

As I posted in my last post, we the public have to take some of the blame on this. IMO.

[GreenIce]

i have no idea as to why vannatter would make that claim.Arnell had already testified that she lived there.

Martin,

Vanatter knew he could make any claim he wanted. I don't think being believed on these type of these issues is really high on their list. I think he wanted to paint Arnelle as being confused.

[GreenIce]

MC argued that to take time to get to the truth of vannatters warrant, it would require a mini trial and waste time. what did she think the judge was there for?

Martin,

I just thought of this, MC was telling the judge that even we do have a mini trial, you know you are going to admit into evidence any way, so whats the point?

I have posted this many times but the police are the one's who lend credibility to the whole case, it appears to me that DA's, CSI and judge's know who really runs our legal system. They seem to be afraid to piss them off. IMO.

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

All three detectives never listended to what Arnelle's answer was. There job was to ask questions and get answers. They didn't do that. Read Phillips testimony. He says that he asked Arnelle where her father was and Lange and VA jumped in started talking over him. And according to Arnelle, VA was not even with them. VA was smart, he knew enough to stay away far enough where he could claim he did not hear something or only heard part of it.

VA testifed that Arnelle told him that she did not live at Rockingham, she just happened to sleep there that night. You figure it out.

I thought it was vannatter that asked Arnell if she had a key.And lang that asked her if she had a number for CR.

It was vannatter,lang and phillips that the guard detective saw those three walking around the house to the front door.Which they entered. They all went to the kitchen after entering. Lang asked Arnell if she had CR number and she exited the house by thye kitchen nook to her car to get the number from her address book.She then called CR with lang amd vannatter there. if phillips says lang and vannatter talked over Arnell , then that puts vannatter in the kitchen when phillips was talking to CR. It makes no sense that phillips would not inform vannatter and lang of what CR told him immediately after hanging up the phone.imo

[GreenIce]

I thought it was vannatter that asked Arnell if she had a key.And lang that asked her if she had a number for CR.

It was vannatter,lang and phillips that the guard detective saw those three walking around the house to the front door.Which they entered. They all went to the kitchen after entering. Lang asked Arnell if she had CR number and she exited the house by thye kitchen nook to her car to get the number from her address book.She then called CR with lang amd vannatter there. if phillips says lang and vannatter talked over Arnell , then that puts vannatter in the kitchen when phillips was talking to CR. It makes no sense that phillips would not inform vannatter and lang of what CR told him immediately after hanging up the phone.imo

Martin,

I was talking about the detectives who went to her door first. She said that VA wasn't with them, he was over by the pool or patio. Also, I think VA used the excuse that was looking in the maid's room and that he didn't hear the phone call. Notice the pattern here? VA is always on the fringes and that is how he is able to say that he didn't hear or know about certain things.

And I agree with you, Lange and VA were the lead detectives, Phillips would have told him or Tom Lange.

Again, what was the reason that Simpson went behind Kato's wall? Because the limo driver was there. So how can the trip be unscheduled when OJ is trying not to be seen by the limo driver?

[Hipcheck]

Hipcheck,

Again, you are wrong. Both Kato and Arnelle made it clear that Simpson was not home. Kato told MF about the limo. Vanatter knew exactly where Simpson was even before he ever left Bundy.

The detectives had to lie, Arnelle and Kato did not.

Again, you are the one that's wrong. Arnelle told first told Vannatter that she thought her father was inside the house. You hae absolutely no proof that Vannatter knew where Simpson was even before he left Bundy because the fact is he wasn't the only one that didn't know. Arnelle also didn't know where he was.

The guard never said who the detectives were that were with Arnelle and he never said he saw them go in the front door.

The hair evidence combined with the fiber evidence and combine that with the blood evidence along with the bloody Bruno Magli shoe print proves to most of America that O.J. Simpson murdered both Nicole and Ron. All you have to do is use some common sense.

[martin II]

Martin,

I just thought of this, MC was telling the judge that even we do have a mini trial, you know you are going to admit into evidence any way, so whats the point?

I have posted this many times but the police are the one's who lend credibility to the whole case, it appears to me that DA's, CSI and judge's know who really runs our legal system. They seem to be afraid to piss them off. IMO.

mc was right. ito knew he would never toss all the evidence at rockingham and gut the prosecutions case. he ignored the law on that issue. If MC had made that statement to another type judge, the evidence would have been tossed.imo

[martin II]

Again, you are the one that's wrong. Arnelle told first told Vannatter that she thought her father was inside the house. You hae absolutely no proof that Vannatter knew where Simpson was even before he left Bundy because the fact is he wasn't the only one that didn't know. Arnelle also didn't know where he was.

The guard never said who the detectives were that were with Arnelle and he never said he saw them go in the front door.

The hair evidence combined with the fiber evidence and combine that with the blood evidence along with the bloody Bruno Magli shoe print proves to most of America that O.J. Simpson murdered both Nicole and Ron. All you have to do is use some common sense.

When vannatter/lang and phillips entered the front door with Arnell, mf was in katos room.So who do you believe the 2-3 detectives were that the guard saw at the front of the house.

Arnell didn't have to know where oj was. she made the phone call to CR that informed all le where he was and that the trip was planned.

most america was not on the jury or in the court room. Blood evidence was manipulated in the lab. use AM as one example.The planted sock as another and Martz experiement as another. imo The juy did not believe that evidence. imo

[Hipcheck]

mc was right. ito knew he would never toss all the evidence at rockingham and gut the prosecutions case. he ignored the law on that issue. If MC had made that statement to another type judge, the evidence would have been tossed.imo

Judge Ito did not ignore the law and had no reason to toss any evidence and any other judge would have ruled the same way.

Even if that evidence was tossed it shouldn't have mattered because all the evidence found at Bundy pointed to one person as committing these murders and his name is O.J. Simpson.

He made have gotten away with it in the criminal trial but God will punish him when he dies and send him to h e l l and you can bet he's not going to like that.

[GreenIce]

Again, you are the one that's wrong. Arnelle told first told Vannatter that she thought her father was inside the house. You hae absolutely no proof that Vannatter knew where Simpson was even before he left Bundy because the fact is he wasn't the only one that didn't know. Arnelle also didn't know where he was.

The guard never said who the detectives were that were with Arnelle and he never said he saw them go in the front door.

The hair evidence combined with the fiber evidence and combine that with the blood evidence along with the bloody Bruno Magli shoe print proves to most of America that O.J. Simpson murdered both Nicole and Ron. All you have to do is use some common sense.

Hipcheck,

It was Vanatter's job to know where Simpson was. He knew that Phillips and MF were given the order to FIND Simpson and then notify him. At the very least, they had two minor children sitting in a police station and one on the edge knowing something horrific has happened to her mother.

It was MF's and RP's job to tell VA and TL about the DV calls to the Simpson home even if they didn't already know. Do you expect us to believe that neither Lange or VA, as lead detectives in this case, when to Bundy totally blind to the prior police activity regarding the Simpson's?

Arnelle's testimony has always been consist, she told them she knew he was out of town but didn't know exactly where he was but she knew someone who would know exactly where she was, her father's personal assistant, Cathy Randa. Right there, when she said she knew who would know exactly where Simpson was, destroys the unexpected flight lie.

The detectives needed to justify their going over the wall and they had to protect the glove. They lied, pure and simple. Lies that never needed to be told unless they were protecting someone as well as something.

Hair and fiber evidence, for most people who understand such evidence is really nothing more the junk science. There were other hairs found inside that hat and there was never any link to Simpson other then some of the hairs came from an African-American, others came from someone who died their hair and I don't know about the others.

There was never link to the fibers only that it was believed to have come from the same cloth. Deedrick never identified these fibers were consistent with those of a sweat suit. Kato was never positive what Simpson was wearing but if I remember correctly, Kato's description of what he thought Simpson was wearing did not match the dark item in the washing machine.

The style, type and size of the footprints are not the critical points regarding the shoeprints, it is how long were the killers there? The killers were in no hurry to leave the scene. There was a phone call made to a station regarding two murders on Bundy around 10:30 p.m. It is clear who ever killed them wanted the bodies found sooner, not later.

It is VA's job to be as accurate and truthful on warrants. When he lies and a judge signs it, he takes down the credibility of the judge but knows other judges will support the judge who gave the ruling.

You need to believe that they aren't lying, however, common sense tells us they were lying. The facts are the facts and you can't argue what their jobs were and how they performed it. IMO.

[Its just me]

The detectives didn't go through the front door and the guard never said he seen them at the front door.

Most Americans use common sense when looking at the evidence in this case which proves Simpson is a murderer but there are a very few who don't use common sense.

I agree....totally. Also agree about the front door. Hope you have a great 2010.

[William Anthony]

Why did you bold "and any other misstatements"?

Kate

Kate, what followed that which is in bold is uniquely interesting, in that the argument was not that there were no other misstatements, only that they did not know if there were any more.

[William Anthony]

MC argued that to take time to get to the truth of vannatters warrant, it would require a mini trial and waste time. what did she think the judge was there for?

What is the waste of time, when a citizen's rights may have been violated.

[William Anthony]

martin,

i just thought of this, mc was telling the judge that even we do have a mini trial, you know you are going to admit into evidence any way, so whats the point?

ita.

[William Anthony]

Judge Ito did not ignore the law and had no reason to toss any evidence and any other judge would have ruled the same way.

Even if that evidence was tossed it shouldn't have mattered because all the evidence found at Bundy pointed to one person as committing these murders and his name is O.J. Simpson.

He made have gotten away with it in the criminal trial but God will punish him when he dies and send him to h e l l and you can bet he's not going to like that.

I agree that most judges would have ruled the same, irrespective of the law.

All the evidence found at Bundy was not enough to convict.

He may or not have gotten away with murder, because the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and I will not proclaim to know what God does or how God will judge.

[William Anthony]

I would like to take time to wish everyone a Happy and Prosperous New Year and hope that we can all make the changes necessary to keep the forum open, by not agreeing with posts that the moderator may find rude, uncivil and insulting and I hope this is taken is the spirit it was intended, as a band aid and not a criticism, thanks.

[martin II]

85% of one group of people thought oj was guilty long before the first witness or first piece of evidence was presented in the trial.Before the trial started.

Without any knowledge of the testimony or evidence they came to this decision.
That imo, does not indicate the publics use of common sense but that a solid bias against oj based on who he was and what the media had told them was in play.imo

[martin II]

The detectives didn't go through the front door and the guard never said he seen them at the front door.

Most Americans use common sense when looking at the evidence in this case which proves Simpson is a murderer but there are a very few who don't use common sense.

hipcheck

What was vannatter,lang and phillips and Arnell doing in the drive way at the front door at about 5; 50 am if they were not intending to go inside the house when the guard cop testified he saw them. exactly what would be the reason for them to walk from Arnells room around the house to the front door if not to go in.??

Why did 85% of one group believe oj was guilty before the trial. by using common sense?