Criminal Trial

[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

[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.