General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD

[Hotwater]

CL Story on OJ Case

Welcome posters to the OJ case discussion thread on CL. I am allowing only one thread at this time bacause 1)we are due for a major software update and 2)there have been no significant new developments on the case. I may revisit this statement at a later time.

For some reason the CTV Rules have vanished (temporarily I hope), but as a reminder please post only one paragraph from a source and then give a link. TV shows you can list name and air date. Snip only the relevant part of a quote to which you are respnding rather than the whole thing, or just the users name if you are making a general reply (this will save band width) and, as always, please refrain from making your moderator crazy with personal attacks on posters and/or the 10,000 PMs that inevitably follow each attack.

Thanks!

--Hotwater

Thanks! I didn't know to look here for the thread here and I just now found it. Thank you very much, HH2O!

Is it possible to move the other discussion to this forum? The existing OJ thread on the "Current Crimes & Old/Cold Cases" board was started the 23rd of March, just nineteen days ago. Since then, it's accumulated 1,226 posts, or nearly 70 posts per day. The total number of messages on the OJ thread is more than any other on that board except "White House Farm," which has existed since the 4th of January (about 100 days), and averages over its lifetime 25 new posts per day.

We have put a lot of work into our OJ thread, and I'd love to see the messages moved, and soon expanded (hopefully) to a whole board!

Thanks again!

[limakey]

DS,

Thank you for the link because I couldn't find it! Have I missed something, but wasn't Hot H20 Cold H20 for awhile? Same person, just had the heat turned up?

[limakey]

For as long as I have been posting on this case, race has always been a major issue and a subject that no matter how each of us tries, we seem to miss each other's points.

IMO, if we agree on certain facts concerning race and this case, then perhaps that many of the posts that we be made on this issue will lose their sting and prevent any poster from being labeled something he or she isn't.

These are my points about race in this case.

1. The war of the covers of the news magazines really brought the issue of race into this trial. From the moment that happened, it was clear that when it comes to race and our justice system, whites and blacks had very different experiences and opinons.

2. Mark Fuhrman tried to get a disability pension and used race as a major factor on why he could no longer perform his job. That he was afraid he would become violent and whatever else he said.

3. After a two year investigation the shrink reports basically said he was liar, a cry baby and that he wanted the big bust to make his career. However, putting all that aside, he can report back to duty and if he doesn't report back to duty, he is fired.

4. After the prelim hearing, several people saw Fuhrman on TV and remembered their encounters with him and felt the need to contact the DA's office about it. When they got no response from the DA's, they then wrote to Judge Ito and to the defense.

5. Jeff Tobin writes a story for his magazine and clearly says that the defense feels the glove was planted and that Mark Fuhrman, the man who found the glove, tried to get a disabilty discharge and race was an issue.

6. Because of Fuhrman's own words and actions, the private citizens who came forward and the problem of where the glove was found, were issues that no judge could have ignored.

7. The history of the LAPD (and other police departments) have a long history of racial issues that have been going on for years and years - before most of us were even born. While attempts, IMO, were made to clean up the image, it is obvious that this issue is still very much a cancer in our police departments and our nation. Perhaps, many of us thought that all these issues were settled in the 1960's but it appears that laws were enacted years later to ensure that blacks and others were not kept off our juries simply because of their race. I believe Texas, in 2005, was mentioned as a state who was still struggling with this.

IMO, it was not the defense or the DA's who brought race into this case, it was the LAPD when they were more worried about giving a pension to a man, who perhaps really was disabled by what he saw and experienced and never should have been let back on the force.

IMO, I also believe the City of LA bears some of this as well, because once they let him back on the force, there was no way for them to say that they made a mistake and get him off the force. They left a bitter, bitter man on the force who did, time and time again, made other's police officer's lives miserable because there was no way to reprimand him without losing a lot of money and a lot of face.

For as much pain this issue has caused, I don't think I will ever forget the lessons of the trial when it comes to race. I like to think that I learned something very, very valuable and have been able to pass it on to my child.

Again, these are my opinons and I won't debate the issue any longer, there is no point because no one is going to move an inch on this subject. No one is going to change their mind on their subject but perhaps, we can stop with the blame game and realize this issue is far bigger then the Simpson case. That this case brought light to an issue that needed to be out in the open and that no matter how emotional it got and will get, that it at least needs to be out in the open.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


limakey

i agree with your post totally
rayraytwo

Would you PLEASE read Hotwater's requests to us for posting here.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey


Again, these are my opinons and I won't debate the issue any longer, there is no point because no one is going to move an inch on this subject. No one is going to change their mind on their subject but perhaps, we can stop with the blame game and realize this issue is far bigger then the Simpson case. That this case brought light to an issue that needed to be out in the open and that no matter how emotional it got and will get, that it at least needs to be out in the open.

limakey,

Unfortunately, your post reads as though you are still playing the blame game.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo

if it is accurate then it explains why most of white american businesses put oj on DO NOT USE to prevent him from making a living at his trade.

Pardon me, but the last time I looked I didn't see Black America lighting up the "We're using OJ" neon sign and offering up any business opportunities to him either.

If you are going to try to tell me that White America holds all of the power in business in this country, please refrain because we all are aware that is not true.

[Wukong]

Thanks so much Hotwater! Although this is currently only one thread I do hope it will eventually be fully opened again at some point after your ne software is installed.

Limakey,
Hotwater is the moderator for the Crime Library board. Coldwater is still the moderator for the main message board.

Thanks again Hh2O!

Wukong

[Wukong]

Diddley,

Here is a link to the last time EDTA was discussed. You need to read this again:

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread...highlight=EDTA

Here is some sample testimony from the link:

MR. MARTZ: It had less sensitivity, but sensitivity was not my problem. What I was asked to do was to determine whether or not the stains were EDTA-preserved or not preserved. I was able to answer that question in the negative ion mode very easily. These stains were not from preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: Well, we will talk about that later. When you ran the positive ion mode the next day, the more--the test that will detect the ions more sensitively than the one you did the day before, would you agree with that?
MR. MARTZ: It was more sensitive, but sensitivity was not an issue. Specificity was my issue. I wanted to determine whether or not EDTA was present and if it was I wanted to make sure I could identify it, and as I mentioned, it was not present.
MR. BLASIER: So you weren't concerned with whether it was there or not when you did the negative ion mode?
MR. MARTZ: No. I was asked to determine whether or not EDTA was present and it was very easy to do in the negative ion mode. I was able to determine on the first day that EDTA was not present on those particular stains and those stains did not come from preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: Were you able to determine with the negative mode that there wasn't EDTA on those stains?
MR. MARTZ: There was not EDTA present in the amount that you would find in preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: Agent--
MR. MARTZ: I proved that on the first day.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, please listen to my question. Were you able to determine with the negative ion mode that there was no EDTA on those stains?
MR. MARTZ: I was not able to identify any EDTA on those stains.
MR. BLASIER: Were you able to rule out the possibility that there was EDTA on those stains with your negative ion mode?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. In my opinion EDTA was not present on those stains.

Wukong

[Wukong]

Originally posted by limakey

Again, these are my opinons and I won't debate the issue any longer, there is no point because no one is going to move an inch on this subject.

I agree with this 100%. I purposely stay away from the race issue because it has been discussed adnauseum and nothing but fighting about this issue is ever resolved. The debate on the race issue has run it's course hundreds of times over on this board and it is just exhausting. This dead horse has been beaten way beyond recognition. I for one would not lose sleep if the race issue is never mentioned again.

Everyone here is free to post about whatever they feel is relevant to the case as long as it is not inflamitory. I just pray to all that is holy that the debate about race is over. This discussion was the reason the board was closed in the first place.

Wukong

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by Wukong


I agree with this 100%. I purposely stay away from the race issue because it has been discussed adnauseum and nothing but fighting about this issue is ever resolved. The debate on the race issue has run it's course hundreds of times over on this board and it is just exhausting. This dead horse has been beaten way beyond recognition. I for one would not lose sleep if the race issue is never mentioned again.

Everyone here is free to post about whatever they feel is relevant to the case as long as it is not inflamitory. I just pray to all that is holy that the debate about race is over. This discussion was the reason the board was closed in the first place.

Wukong

Wukong,

The debate regarding race will continue to go on because mostly it seems that the arguments I hear from those who believe OJ to be innocent are based soley on the theory of misconduct by the LAPD due to racial hatred.

Kate

[tazzybaby]

rayraytwo,

You keep talking about not knowing if the blood tested was what was collected. The degradation of the DNA helps us know that. Such as the blood from Nicole on Simpsons sock.

The blood was not switched or planted.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
*snip*
but furhman and all the other people that injected oj and nicoles color into their minds also wanted the black boy to pay for what they think he did.

Does that include the defense? Because they switched the pictures in his home.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
le and the da has been framing people to get cases in the solved section for years. they have not been all black either. i think there was a motive to get a high profile suspect and get him quick. but furhman and all the other people that injected oj and nicoles color into their minds also wanted the black boy to pay for what they think he did.

Sorry for the repeat but I'd posted it on the other thread before I realized no one was home. Took this as an excerpt (some snipping and numbering by me ) from http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/US/OJ/...ranscript.html
This evidence includes:
1. Mr. Simpson's blood leaving the scene of the murder at Nicole's condominium;
2. His blood dripping to the ground from the fingers of his left hand;
3. Mr. Simpson's blood on the glove he wore when he killed Ron and Nicole;
4. Mr. Simpson's blood in his car that he used to drive from Bundy to his home at Rockingham, five minutes away;
5. Mr. Simpson's blood on the driveway of his home;
6. Mr. Simpson's blood inside his home;
7. Ron's blood in Mr. Simpson's car;
8. Nicole's blood in Mr. Simpson's car;
9. Ron's blood on Mr. Simpson's glove;
10. Nicole's blood on Mr. Simpson's glove;
11. Nicole's blood on the socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom;
12. Mr. Simpson's own blood on his socks;
13. Mr. Simpson's size 12 shoe prints in the blood of Nicole, leaving the scene of the murder, exiting towards the back of the condominium;
14. Hair matching Mr. Simpson's hair in the knit cap he left behind at the scene of the murders;
15. Hair matching Mr. Simpson's hair on Ronald Goldman's shirt;
16. Strands of Nicole's hair and Ron's hair on the glove Mr. Simpson dropped on the side of his house, trying to get onto his property so no one would see him;
17. Carpet fibers, rare carpet fibers from Mr. Simpson's Bronco found in the knit cap that he left at the scene of the murders;
18. Matching blue-black cotton fibers found on Ronald Goldman's shirt;
19. The glove at Rockingham and Mr. Simpson's socks in the bedroom, tying all three together.
20. Cuts and bruises to Mr. Simpson's left hand during his brief but violent attacks on Ron and Nicole;
21. Cuts to this day that Mr. Simpson cannot and will not explain.
22. Mr. Simpson has no alibi during the time when the murders were committed. He cannot identify a single person who can account for his whereabouts during the time of the murders. Not one person will take this stand and testify that he or she was with Mr. Simpson or spoke to Mr. Simpson during the time of these murders.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Does that include the defense? Because they switched the pictures in his home.

This is an excellent point Tazzy.

Why did they remove all of the pictures of OJ's white friends and family and replace them all with pictures of his black friends and family?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by socaldiva


According to Petrocelli's book, when Jason Simpson was deposed he acknowledged that at some point his had "suspicions" about his Dad's guilt. Why would his SON even think that? for even a minute?

I was struck by that as well.

I believe that Jason said that while he would not want to see his father lose the case he had also formed a suspicion that his father was guilty of the crime.

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I was struck by that as well.

I believe that Jason said that while he would not want to see his father lose the case he had also formed a suspicion that his father was guilty of the crime.

AC testified that when he first heard of the murders, he also thought that OJ done it. Denise Brown thought OJ had done it.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo



lawyers instructions.

because at this point with most of white america saying he was guilty, oj realized that it was time to be and act like who he was.
take down a few pictures and put up a few others.
but his close white friends (fays ex)etc and others did not cease to be his friends they saw nothing irregular about this.

LOL -- okay story telling time is over. How about we discuss the items I listed as why I think OJ is guilty?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo



lawyers instructions.

because at this point with most of white america saying he was guilty, oj realized that it was time to be and act like who he was.
take down a few pictures and put up a few others.
but his close white friends (fays ex)etc and others did not cease to be his friends they saw nothing irregular about this.

But, this was a misrepresentation.

[weezer]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


But, this was a misrepresentation.

It was more than a misrepresentation. It reflected OJ -- all lies.

[audpaud]

Hi All!

Was an avid viewer of the OJ Simpson Trial and have read several of the "follow-up" books.

Wondering how many of you agree that had Sydney and Justin come outside at the "wrong" time, OJ would have slaughtered his kids just like Nicole & Ron?

I've often thanked God that the kids slept through the butchery, for they surely would have ended up like Poor Kimberley & Kristen MacDonald!

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by audpaud
Hi All!

Was an avid viewer of the OJ Simpson Trial and have read several of the "follow-up" books.

Wondering how many of you agree that had Sydney and Justin come outside at the "wrong" time, OJ would have slaughtered his kids just like Nicole & Ron?

I've often thanked God that the kids slept through the butchery, for they surely would have ended up like Poor Kimberley & Kristen MacDonald!

Hi audpaud,

Welcome!

I have wondered the same thing! I am very glad that they slept thru.

Tazzy

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


would you please follow the instructions of the moderator

Rayray,

Please. We are trying to get another board open. Please don't include the whole post in your reply. Even if you are trying to make a point. It takes up band width. Plus, if we are going to carry on like this then I don't see why they would let us have another board.

[weezer]

Some more 'what abouts' from the CNN site I posted earlier:
Now, the physical evidence in the
1. The Bronco was found parked on -- on Rockingham when the police arrived in the wee hours of the morning. It was locked and it was parked right near this curb where it said 360. . . Right where Alan Park drove by and did not see a Bronco.
2. It had blood, little stain of blood on the outside of the door near the door handle, driver side door and it also had some stains of blood down at the bottom of the door. And officers will testify, detectives will testify, detective Lange, Detective Phillips, Detective Vannatter, Detective Gonzalez and others that they could see inside the Bronco through the windows and saw blood inside as well.
3. When the Bronco was towed the next day to the LA print shed and then opened the following day, it had to be opened with a slim jim.
4. Blood was found in various places inside on the steering wheel, on the instrument panel, on the seats, on the center console, and on the driver side door panel, in the area where there's a little well, where you open up the door to get out. The handle is as though one a left hand or left finger was bleeding when they tried to open up the handle to get out, right in that area, there was blood found.
5. There was also blood found on the carpet of the driver side in the shape of a shoe print.
6. Now, at Rockingham itself, 360 north Rockingham, there is evidence found both outside the house and inside the house.
7. Outside the house, there were blood drops outside the Bronco on the ground and there were blood drops then up the driveway.
8. There were blood drops found inside the foyer of Mr. Smpson's house. When you open up the front door, there's low a foyer
there were blood drops found on that floor.
9. There were blood drops found in Mr. Simpson's bathroom on the floor.
10. Outside the house, on the side of the house were Kato Kaelin heard the notices, there was a leather glove found for the right hand. The leather glove found at Bundy was for the left hand. This leather glove matched the glove at Bundy, one was right, one was left, both brown leather gloves.
11. It had blood stains on it.
12. It had strands of hair and it had fiber on it.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


would you please follow the instructions of the moderator

I apolgize for posting such long posts but there are posters on this board that make up stuff to argue about -- I was hoping to generate some real debate.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


weezer

do you believe oj cut his hand while at bundy killing nicole or ron, IF SO TELL ME EXACTLY HOW THIS HAPPENED.

The knife that he used to butcher Nicole and Ron. What's so difficult about that to understand? My understanding from reading crime stories/files is that that is a very, very common injury to the perpetrator during a knifing.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


misrepresentaiton of a what. i have pictures of white people in my house. so sometimes i talk all of them down and put up all art work.

LOL -- did you go to the doctor like I suggested?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


misrepresentaiton of a what. i have pictures of white people in my house. so sometimes i talk all of them down and put up all art work.

Okay, that literally made me laugh out loud.

Do you usually do that right before a jury walks through your house while you are on trial for murder? And, do you use other peoples art work?

And, while I'm asking why do you only take the pictures of the white people down and replace it with art?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I apolgize for posting such long posts but there are posters on this board that make up stuff to argue about -- I was hoping to generate some real debate.

Please don't apologize.

When you are trying to get points across from various different areas of a webpage, simply providing a link is not always that useful and therefore your post ends up having to be lengthy.

Kate

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


much too general

was oj facing ron. behind fron, was ron standing, kneeling was ron sitting. exactly when was the wound inflicted to ojs hand and how.

You are asking the impossible -- only OJ knows how he cut his hand that night. Petrocelli's suppostion was, "the physical evidence that I've described so far at Bundy will indicate that the killer had cuts or gouges on his left hand, evidenced by the blood drops that fell to the left of the bloody shoe print. Also, we know the left glove came off, because it was dropped there, and that's probably how the left hand got injured." Want to give us your version?

[weezer]

*Snipped

Originally posted by rayraytwo
you think oj stabbed nicole and then turned to ron face to face. BUT ron put up a big he man fight with his killer. he was no easy kill. he had defensive wounds on his fingers and hands 0J HAD NONE ON HIS HANDS OR FACE.

as did OJ: "Also, Mr. Simpson sustained injuries to his left hand in the nature of cuts and gouges. Dr. Spitz has examined photographs of these injuries and he will testify that these are very likely, gouges caused by the finger nails of either Ron or Nicole digging into Mr. Simpson's hand in order to try to get free."

Also, the theory is that because there was no female screaming, Nicole was unconscious during the attack on Ron. I believe it was Lange who remarked about how very small the area where Ron was murdered was. That he would have been trapped against the fence and a tree.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped as did OJ: "Also, Mr. Simpson sustained injuries to his left hand in the nature of cuts and gouges. Dr. Spitz has examined photographs of these injuries and he will testify that these are very likely, gouges caused by the finger nails of either Ron or Nicole digging into Mr. Simpson's hand in order to try to get free."

Also, the theory is that because there was no female screaming, Nicole was unconscious during the attack on Ron. I believe it was Lange who remarked about how very small the area where Ron was murdered was. That he would have been trapped against the fence and a tree.

In addition, the autopsy shows a large contusion to the back of her head. It also shows that she appeared to have been unconscious at the time her throat was cut.

Based on that, it would be possible to conclude that it's possible that he attacked Nicole and stabbed her several times in her neck (I believe she was stabbed there 7 times) and when Ron approached that he hit her hard enough on the head to render her knocked out and down while he dealt with Ron.

No one will ever be able to say difinitively what transpired.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


no i am asking if you konw what the experts testified to specifically as to how ron got cut and stabbed. you need to see which one you agree with. Petrocelli said PROBABLY. did you make up your mind on PROBABLY??

No, I don't need to decide anything on how ron got cut and stabbed -- because unless you were there, no one can know as a certainty. I agree with Dr. Spitz's testimony that Ron did try to fight valiantly, but he was killed quickly. He was pinned in the small caged area, taken by surprise and he did not have room to maneuver, to defend himself or to fight back. The area was very small. If you try to throw a punch or get your arms up, there's not much you could do except ward off the knife blows that were being delivered one after the other and that is why there were cuts on Ron's hands. One of the early wounds to Ron, severed the aorta in the abdominal area, the abdominal cavity. This caused an instant loss of blood pressure, and an immense internal bleeding to the surrounding tissue. After this wound, Ron was rendered totally defenseless. Dr. Spitz will testified that Ron could have struggled about 60 seconds before collapsing to his death. taken by surprise (This is a different conclusion to the criminal trial where Baden testified that Ron slowly bled to death and continued to fight for 15 - 30 minutes)

Originally posted by Wukong
Here is a link to the last time EDTA was discussed. You need to read this again:

Wukong, I've read that before. I saw the testimony live. I've seen it replayed. And I've seen it discussed since. It is now known and acknowledged that the human body does not manufacture EDTA. Blood in the bloodstream does not contain EDTA. It is not "naturally" found in anyone's blood.

EDTA could have been in the blood found on the socks only - only! - if the EDTA had come from laundry soap residue left in the socks themselves. But the socks tested negative for EDTA. The chemical preservative was found only in the blood on the sock.

Would you want to stand trial for your life and not challenge evidence like that?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


Did you check out the ctv case of frank jude. the blue wall of silence is in effect.

Hi rayray,

Yes, I checked it out. Did you get my responses??

[weezer]

*Snipped

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
Would you want to stand trial for your life and not challenge evidence like that?

Not sure what your implying about the EDTA being in blood. The FBI expert testified about the minute EDTA that was recorded in the blood samples as coming from residue in the testing equipment. I'm not sure what you believe the amount of EDTA in the blood was but it has been proven that for the blood to have come from the purple tube, the EDTA would have high concentrations and not the miniscule amount.

Originally posted by socaldiva
....It seems to be their reason for LE going after OJ...

I can speak only for myself, and not for anyone else with a similar opinion. Race was a factor where Mark Fuhrman was concerned. That, I hope, is not disputed by anyone.

But I do not say it is the whole reason for law enforcement pinning the crimes on OJ. And I have never said that. The rest of the detectives, lab techies, and other LE personnel, regardless of tolerance or prejudice, are not going to want to jump in and point a finger at Fuhrman. They'd rather believe him. Not because he's white, but because he's got his LAPD badge.

But that's not to say it didn't come close. At one point in the Fuhrman/Vannatter book, it's revealed that Vannatter himself had suspicions about the placement of the glove and possibly also about Fuhrman. Now Vannatter didn't know Fuhrman before that night. He'd never met him and hadn't heard of his reputation. But he still found the location of the glove and the timing of its discovery slighly odd, to say the least. I can find that quote in the book if you give me some time.

And there was suspicion also in the office of the DA. That suspicion was such that they asked for officers at the scene to submit hair samples for comparison to a caucasian hair found on evidence taken from either the Bundy or Rockingham crime scene. You can't get DNA from a hair strand - only from the root - so there's no such thing as a "hair match." But Fuhrman was not excluded as having been the source of that hair.

The fact that Fuhrman was "not excluded" means nothing by itself. What's important is that there was enough suspicion in the prosecutor's office to result in a request for those hair samples in the first place.

Originally posted by fbgweezer
....The FBI expert testified about the minute EDTA that was recorded in the blood samples as coming from residue in the testing equipment....

And isn't that an acknowledgement of contamination in the lab?

[weezer]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
And isn't that an acknowledgement of contamination in the lab?

There was no contamination in the lab and Dr Lee had to change his testimony to backtrack his statement "sumting wong' -- Posters continue to regurgitate the defense argument about this but there has never been one ounce of proof that any of what the defense alledged had happened. When questioned during the civil trial, Dr Lee made quick time to recant his earlier assertions.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
weezer you seem to be lost so here is a site that can give you the information
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/river.htm

Oh please -- the day I start turning to wagner for explanations, is the day I come to your house to see if you still have my picture hanging.