truTV: Not Reality. Actuality.

2L8 4A D8 · #1 08-27-2006, 08:19 PM

Since the Timeline that was posted by Wukong so many months ago has been deleted, I found this under "The OJ Simpson Murder Case." How accurate it is, is anybody's guess. Maybe some of our more illustrious posters can decipher what is accurate and what is not.

http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/sim.../timeline.html

limakey · #2 08-27-2006, 11:27 PM

IMO,

The timeline is truly the only neutral evidence there was in this case. It was critical, yet the DA's had a few witnesses who could have really narrowed it down, but didn't.

They didn't use two eyewitnesses. They didn't use the children. They used the dog's "wailing" but not the "barking".

And Mr. August, you are wrong. When Steven Swab took the dog home, he gave it some water and then tried to have the dog lead him back to his "home". The dog lead him to the corner of the street and started barking and refused to go any further. When the other couple took the dog, the dog was pacing back and forth, going by the door. When they reached the very same corner, less then an hour later, the dog was basically dragging them not only to the condo but to Nicole's body.

The cops who saw Steven Swab said they would call animal control, when he realized they weren't called, that is when he tried to lead the dog "home". The dog wouldn't do it.

OJ knew that Sydney had a friend staying over and her parents picked her up after the phone call. Dr. Jennifer Ameli said that she called Nicole that night---that is when Nicole told her that OJ was mad and that there was no way that OJ would let her get away with what she did that night--it was Dr. Ameli who said she suggested that Nicole come and have a friend sit with her until OJ's plane left or until she knew he was gone.

That is two people who gave statements to the police who went out of their way to try to explain why Ron Goldman was there that night. Faye Resnick and Dr. Ameli. Why would they do that? Why wasn't Cora surprised that Nicole was not killed alone and why did she know that if it wasn't Ron Goldman, it had to be another waiter?

Mr. August, so not only did the DA's refuse to use two eyewitnesses, but they also refused to use a Doctor who said she called Nicole that night and that Nicole told her OJ was going to get her that night. When I read that, I was even more baffled why this "trigger" wasn't used. Certainly this trigger carried more weight then the b.s. ones the DA's and the Plaintiff's came up with. So now Nicole is telling a witness that she knows that OJ is going to get her that night, and she doesn't testify?

2L8 4A D8 · #3 08-28-2006, 02:35 AM

Limakey: I don't think that your post was what I had in mind for this Thread. I thought that it could be used as a reference tool, if anything. It should really be just a Sticky!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust · #4 08-28-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by limakey
IMO,

The timeline is truly the only neutral evidence there was in this case. It was critical, yet the DA's had a few witnesses who could have really narrowed it down, but didn't.

They didn't use two eyewitnesses. They didn't use the children. They used the dog's "wailing" but not the "barking".

And Mr. August, you are wrong. When Steven Swab took the dog home, he gave it some water and then tried to have the dog lead him back to his "home". The dog lead him to the corner of the street and started barking and refused to go any further. When the other couple took the dog, the dog was pacing back and forth, going by the door. When they reached the very same corner, less then an hour later, the dog was basically dragging them not only to the condo but to Nicole's body.

The cops who saw Steven Swab said they would call animal control, when he realized they weren't called, that is when he tried to lead the dog "home". The dog wouldn't do it.

OJ knew that Sydney had a friend staying over and her parents picked her up after the phone call. Dr. Jennifer Ameli said that she called Nicole that night---that is when Nicole told her that OJ was mad and that there was no way that OJ would let her get away with what she did that night--it was Dr. Ameli who said she suggested that Nicole come and have a friend sit with her until OJ's plane left or until she knew he was gone.

That is two people who gave statements to the police who went out of their way to try to explain why Ron Goldman was there that night. Faye Resnick and Dr. Ameli. Why would they do that? Why wasn't Cora surprised that Nicole was not killed alone and why did she know that if it wasn't Ron Goldman, it had to be another waiter?

Mr. August, so not only did the DA's refuse to use two eyewitnesses, but they also refused to use a Doctor who said she called Nicole that night and that Nicole told her OJ was going to get her that night. When I read that, I was even more baffled why this "trigger" wasn't used. Certainly this trigger carried more weight then the b.s. ones the DA's and the Plaintiff's came up with. So now Nicole is telling a witness that she knows that OJ is going to get her that night, and she doesn't testify?

limakey, there you go again basing your opinions only on what happened in the criminal trial. When is it going to dawn on you how much more information there is to learn after the criminal trial that you know nothing about?

The time line of the murders was established by Robert Heidstra, Jill Shively, Kato Kaelin, and Allan Park.

No, I'm not wrong when I said that the dog followed Schwab home. I was responding to your ridiculous statement that the if the dog refused to lead Schwab back to his home than that somehow means Simpson is innocent. I thought you were referring to when Schwab first encountered the Akita. And even later when Schwab attempted to walk the dog back to Bundy and it kept pulling away has absolutely nothing to do with Simpson's innocence.

You say the parents of Sydney's friend picked her up after that telephone call. What telephone call? Are you saying that it was after Simpson called at about 9:00? And if you are what evidence do you know that tells you that?

We know why Ron Goldman was at Bundy that night, to drop off Juditha Brown's eyeglasses.

In his book Petrocelli wrote about Dr. Amelli and the meetings he had with her. He was able to substantiate a lot of what she said but in the end even though he put her on his witness list he decided not to call her.

Petrocelli wrote,
"Whether or not she was telling the truth, we could not allow her testimony to turn the proceedings into the trial of Jennifer Amelli. The defense would have loved that: If Jennifer Amelli is not telling the truth; then O.J. Simpson is innocent. If she's a nitwit, you must acquit. This was not acceptable. We had a better case against Simpson than we did defending Amelli.
Nevertheless, if Amelli is telling the truth, what happened is far more horrific than we realized, and Marcus Allen is at the center of it. Simpson found out Nicole was seeing Allen. She called the Sojurn battered women's shelter on June 7, looking for help. He was beating her again."

I agree that the prosecutors may have had a stronger case if they had possibly called Dr. Amelli. I have no idea what they knew about her, or what she was saying, or if they ever considered using her as a witness. Armelli's name was not mentioned at all in Clark's book.

.The "trigger" that gave Simpson the opportunity that night was Gigi's telephone call she made to him at 8:00 PM. If Gigi had never called Simpson and had returned to Rockingham that Sunday night as she had planned to do, then the murders would never have happened that night.

bobaugust

nettathirty · #5 08-28-2006, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

The time line of the murders was established by Robert Heidstra, Jill Shively, Kato Kaelin, and Allan Park.

bobaugust

August,

Shively contradicts Kato..
Park contradicts himself..
The evidence at Bundy contradicts Heidstra..

limakey · #6 08-28-2006, 10:22 PM

Mr. August,

Neither Dr. Ameli or Faye Resnick knew anything about Ron being there to drop off glasses---unless of course, you believe Nicole cooked up the plan for her mother to lose her glasses and that is how she was going to lure Ron into bed.

The more you post that you, clearly, in your posts believe Jill is telling the truth only weakens your "case". Because if she was so crucial in the timeline, then she would have been called as a witness. Not even Petrocelli would touch her---why?

If you use any part of the Dog's "testimony" for your timeline, then you can't ignore his behavior or only accept the parts that work for you and then refuse to consider the rest of it. IMO.

Ever since you have been here on this board, you have made it clear how you felt about the criminal trial jury. To continue to post about "new evidence" is not only too funny for words, it is par for your course. Tell me Mr. August, what "new evidence" in the civil trial was really "new"?

Nice try with Petrocelli and Ameli, I noticed that you did not mention that she was approached and told to stop talking about Ron Goldman, why? If OJ was behind the murders, then why the warning to stop talking about Ron?

bobaugust · #7 08-29-2006, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Neither Dr. Ameli or Faye Resnick knew anything about Ron being there to drop off glasses---unless of course, you believe Nicole cooked up the plan for her mother to lose her glasses and that is how she was going to lure Ron into bed.

The more you post that you, clearly, in your posts believe Jill is telling the truth only weakens your "case". Because if she was so crucial in the timeline, then she would have been called as a witness. Not even Petrocelli would touch her---why?

If you use any part of the Dog's "testimony" for your timeline, then you can't ignore his behavior or only accept the parts that work for you and then refuse to consider the rest of it. IMO.

Ever since you have been here on this board, you have made it clear how you felt about the criminal trial jury. To continue to post about "new evidence" is not only too funny for words, it is par for your course. Tell me Mr. August, what "new evidence" in the civil trial was really "new"?

Nice try with Petrocelli and Ameli, I noticed that you did not mention that she was approached and told to stop talking about Ron Goldman, why? If OJ was behind the murders, then why the warning to stop talking about Ron?

limakey, what makes you think Resnick or Amelli should have known about Juditha Brown's eyeglasses? Nicole found out about her mother's eyeglasses and then talked to Ron at the Mezzaluna Restaurant about ten minutes before he left the restaurant that night. Nicole and Ron were killed less than an hour later.

The facts that Jill Shively testified to were never disputed or contradicted by anyone. Clark made a bad decision to drop Shively. If you read Wagner's article about this you would learn that Clark was misled with false information into making that decision. Petrocelli never mention's Shively. I agree with Wagner's opinion that "Petrocelli apparently considers that Shively's reputation has been so thoroughly ruined that he does not even mention her."

Your comments about using part of the dogs behavior doesn't make any sense. We know when the Akita started it's unusual non stop barking from Robert Heidstra. We know that Karpf saw the barking Akita in the street when he got home about 10:45. We know that shortly after that Schwab encountered the Akita and it followed him home. Schwab testified he got home about 11:00. So tell me what do you think the dog did that somehow contradicts the time of the murders?

New evidence in the civil trial:
Over thirty photographs from two different photographers show Simpson wearing the exact same shoes that left the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. Bruno Magli Lorenzo Style with Silga soles.
New test results presented by Dr. Robin Cotton proving that Nicole's blood found on Simpson's sock could not have come from her autopsy sample.
New information that Paula Barbieri dumped Simpson the day of the murders in a message she left on his cell phone at 7:00 AM the morning of June 12, 1994.
Simpson's telephone records that prove Simpson called his message center, forwarded that message from his cell phone and listened to it two times on his home telephone. The first time at 6:56 PM and then again at 8:55 PM.
Dr. Lenore Walker's notes that Simpson told her he called his message center and call forwarded Paula's message.
Simpson called Nicole's condo at 9:00 PM the night of the murders.
Leslie Gardner testified that the sweat suits she bought for Simpson were left at his house after the completion of the exercise video.
Simpson testified. Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and lies confirmed his guilt

Petrocelli never wrote anything about Amelli being approached and told to stop talking about Ron Goldman If she was approached, who approached her and told her that, and what does that have to do with all the evidence that proves Simpson was the killer?

bobaugust

nettathirty · #8 08-29-2006, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by socaldiva

I think you are confused again.

Socal

Show me how I'm confused...

Shively said she saw OJ at 10:45p and also saw his arm.
Kato said OJ was in a long sleeve shirt and someone banged on his wall at 10:45p...

Heidstra claim the gate at Nicoles condo was slammed shut.. Yet when the bodies were found the gate was WIDE OPEN..

Alan Park, guessed OJs weight and height from across a dark driveway, and had never met OJ prior to that night.. Yet, Park believed he saw a second car parked behind the Bentley and he didn't recall seeing the Bronco as he left the Rockingham gate..

nettathirty · #9 08-29-2006, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped

New evidence in the civil trial:
Over thirty photographs from two different photographers show Simpson wearing the exact same shoes that left the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. Bruno Magli Lorenzo Style with Silga soles.

bobaugust

August,

Using the headline "New Evidence" to describe some 3 years undeveloped pictures is insulting.. If you believe for 1 second that these guys didn't know long before the Criminal Trial stated, what the content of that film was, you are SERIOUSLY IN DENIAL..

The Prosecution knew as well, everything was price to sell to the HIGHEST bidders.. For example, not implying anything about the Browns, just as a reference.. They sold Nicole's wedding photos among other things. You cannot convince me these photographers cared more for Nicole's memory than her own family..

That last part was not an attack on the Brown family or their character.. I merely used them and that act as an example to drive my point home!

bobaugust · #10 08-29-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nettathirty

Socal

Show me how I'm confused...

Shively said she saw OJ at 10:45p and also saw his arm.
Kato said OJ was in a long sleeve shirt and someone banged on his wall at 10:45p...

Heidstra claim the gate at Nicoles condo was slammed shut.. Yet when the bodies were found the gate was WIDE OPEN..

nettathirty, you're confused because you're quoting estimated times. Estimated times are not real times and do not tell us when an event actually happened, only approximately when it happened.

The order events happened in tell us what Simpson did that night.

The only known real times we know of are times that are supported by telephone records. Park saw Kaelin come from around Simpson's house with a flashlight after he heard the thumps on his wall. Almost simultaneously Park saw Simpson walk from the driveway into the light from the front entrance of his house, enter the door, and lights came on downstairs in the house. Park was talking on the phone at the time so we know that time to be about 10:55 PM.

It took both Kaelin and Simpson about three to four minutes to get to the front of the house after Kaelin heard the thumps each going their own way. That means Simpson fell against that wall, jumping from the top of his fence to the narrow south path, at about 10:51, 10:52 PM.

After Shively encountered and identified Simpson at the intersection of San Vicente and Bundy, Simpson continued to speed back home, parked his Bronco, quickly wiped up any blood he saw on the Bronco center console, and then walked along his neighbors property to his fence behind Kaelin's room.

A couple of minutes before Shively encountered Simpson, Heidstra saw a white jeep like vehicle (Simpson's Bronco) speed away form Bundy.

About five minuets before that Heidstra heard two male voices yelling at each other coming from Nicole's condo (Ron had arrived at Bundy and yelled at Simpson. Simpson yelled back) Heidstra said he then heard Nicole's front gate slam. Heidstra never said he heard the gate slammed SHUT. That's only something you made up because you can't comprehend the reality that a metal gate that is slammed hard may not latch and bounce back open.

bobaugust

nettathirty · #11 08-29-2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

(Ron had arrived at Bundy and yelled at Simpson. Simpson yelled back)

Heidstra said he then heard Nicole's front gate slam. Heidstra never said he heard the gate slammed SHUT. That's only something you made up because you can't comprehend the reality that a metal gate that is slammed hard may not latch and bounce back open.

bobaugust

August,

The more you argue this, the more ridiculous you sound...

bobaugust · #12 08-29-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

The more you argue this, the more ridiculous you sound...

nettathirty, that's funny. It may sound ridiculous to you but it doesn't sound ridiculous to any person who is familiar with metal gates. People like Judge Ito and Carl Douglas.

I'm sorry to say that your limited life experience handicaps your ability to comprehend realities that people with greater life experience than you understand perfectly.

bobaugust

limakey · #13 08-30-2006, 01:03 AM

Mr. August,

What time did Dr. Ameli call Nicole? When was the last time Nicole saw Dr. Ameli?

What did Dr. Ameli know about Nicole's plans that night where she felt the need to call her? Why make the suggestion to have someone stay with her that night, of all nights?

And when did Dr. Ameli last see Ron Goldman, did she try to call him that night? And if she did, why?

bobaugust · #14 08-30-2006, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Using the headline "New Evidence" to describe some 3 years undeveloped pictures is insulting.. If you believe for 1 second that these guys didn't know long before the Criminal Trial stated, what the content of that film was, you are SERIOUSLY IN DENIAL..

The Prosecution knew as well, everything was price to sell to the HIGHEST bidders.. For example, not implying anything about the Browns, just as a reference.. They sold Nicole's wedding photos among other things. You cannot convince me these photographers cared more for Nicole's memory than her own family..

That last part was not an attack on the Brown family or their character.. I merely used them and that act as an example to drive my point home!

nettathirty, you're confused again.

Yes the over thirty photographs were new evidence presented in the civil trial that were not known at the time of the criminal trial.

If you had read Flammer's testimony in the civil trial you would know that your comments have no basis in fact. You have a great track record, nettathirty, of offering ridiculous false opinions about things you know nothing about.

Good job.

bobaugust

bobaugust · #15 08-30-2006, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

What time did Dr. Ameli call Nicole? When was the last time Nicole saw Dr. Ameli?

What did Dr. Ameli know about Nicole's plans that night where she felt the need to call her? Why make the suggestion to have someone stay with her that night, of all nights?

And when did Dr. Ameli last see Ron Goldman, did she try to call him that night? And if she did, why?

limakey, why are you asking me these questions about Dr. Ameli? You're the one who made these claims not me, it's up to you to support them.

The only thing I know about Dr. Ameli is what Petrocelli wrote in his book based on what she told him. She said she had treated Ron Goldman beginning in October 1993 and into 1994. Ron had introduced Ameli to Nicole whom she saw more regularly up to and including three days before she died. She gave Petrocelli several documents including her notes and bills. Most of the notes were pertaining to Simpson and what he did and said to her.

Selected portions of what Petrocelli wrote,
"I had never heard of Dr. Ameli, but when we began investigating we found the LAPD had a large file on her. She had not come forward in the criminal trial until three months after the murders, September 19994, when she reported a break in at her office. The police arrived to find file drawers open, papers strewn around, a real mess - and some notes from her files on Ron and Nicole lying on the floor. At that point, although she claims she was coerced into revealing this, she told the police someone was trying to shut her up because she had evidence that would bury Simpson.

The police looked into Dr. Ameli's information long and hard and concluded that there was just wasn't enough for them to feel comfortable with. There was a sense that the break in might have been staged. When they basically wrote her off, she disappeared from the landscape.

Nor did she level with us at first.. When we met with her in February and asked to be told everything, she gave us some information; when we met with her a second time we were presented with more information, new information began to emerge, new notes she hadn't mentioned at our first meeting.

As our meetings with Dr. Ameli and her witnesses increased in frequency, so did her story increase in drama. The kicker came when she told us for the first time that she had called Nicole form a pay phone at a Persian restaurant on Santa Monica Boulevard on the night of the murders. She knew Nicole had been going to see Sydney dance, she said, and that Simpson might be there. According to Ameli, she told Nicole, "I was worried about you. How did your recital and dance go with the family?" Nicole told her, "I told him to 'f' off today" -- the doctor was not a natural user of profanity -- "and I am relieved. I am happy on one hand, but I'm frightened. He's not going to let me get away with it."

If she had presented this story to us at our first meeting, I don't know how I would have reacted. To hear such important evidence so late in the game was too much to accept.

To expose that she was a fraud, the defense subpoenaed her for deposition. Ameli needed legal representation, and I referred her to Peter Lesser, an attorney I respected. I asked him to do his own investigation and decide for himself if she was real or not. The last thing I wanted was to vouch for a witness who was not genuine.

Lesser got back to me. "Dan," he said, "I have now verified this whole story with at least eight people."

My ultimate decision wa not to use her at trial. Neither the Goldman's nor the Brown's believed her, there was no evidence of payment, but there was nothing about her story I could flatly contradict - nothing I knew was absolutely false - only the way it was delivered was completely incredible. Plus, even if Dr. Ameli were telling the truth about everything, as devastating as this evidence was, she would have been subjected to three or four days of cross-examination. Baker would have hammered her. She didn't give the police her information immediately, she didn't tell anybody immediately; then there was the question of where the break in was staged, and the fact that her story came out in evolutionary stages.

Whether or not she was telling the truth, we could not allow her testimony to turn the proceedings into the trial of Jenniefer Ameli."

bobaugust

nettathirty · #16 08-30-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobaugust

. Estimated times are not real times and do not tell us when an event actually happened, only approximately when it happened.

The order events happened in tell us what Simpson did that night.

bobaugust

August,

Based on this logic, Heidstra timeline can NOT be trusted..

weezer · #17 08-30-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Based on this logic, Heidstra timeline can NOT be trusted..

Oh geez! Heidstra's timeline is corroborated by other testimony and evidence.

bobaugust · #18 08-30-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Based on this logic, Heidstra timeline can NOT be trusted..

nettathirty, wrong. It seems you're confused again.

Estimated times do not contradict what witnesses saw and heard. Estimated times only tell us approximately when events happened. Some estimated times may be closer to actual real times than others but that's not the point.

To say something could not happen based only on an estimated time using minutes, like you've tried to do, is not a credible or relevant argument in a situation like this where all the events happened in such a short period of time.

bobaugust

nettathirty · #19 08-30-2006, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

To say something could not happen based only on an estimated time using minutes, like you've tried to do, is not a credible or relevant argument in a situation like this where all the events happened in such a short period of time.

bobaugust

August,

I'm talking about when he heard and saw what he claimed..

nettathirty · #20 08-30-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Oh geez! Heidstra's timeline is corroborated by other testimony and evidence.

fbg,

Heidstra testimony is corroborated by what evidence, and the testimony in question deals with "ESTIMATED TIMES", not real times.. So even though he my have heard and saw what he claim, it's quite possible the time in which the event took place my differ considerably..

weezer · #21 08-30-2006, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nettathirty

fbg,

Heidstra testimony is corroborated by what evidence, and the testimony in question deals with "ESTIMATED TIMES", not real times.. So even though he my have heard and saw what he claim, it's quite possible the time in which the event took place my differ considerably..

Anything is possible EXCEPT Orenthal being innocent of the murders. Your fantasy about Orenthal NOT murdering Nicole and Ron is just that -- fantasy. You have refused to acknowledge the proof of this case and it is making you appear to be quite ignorant of the facts.

nettathirty · #22 08-30-2006, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Anything is possible EXCEPT Orenthal being innocent of the murders. Your fantasy about Orenthal NOT murdering Nicole and Ron is just that -- fantasy. You have refused to acknowledge the proof of this case and it is making you appear to be quite ignorant of the facts.

fbg,

What evidence supports Heidstra testimony?
I said there was a bloody BM shoe print?
I said OJ bled beside his bloody shoe print!
I even said OJ owned the gloves, at Bundy!

What more do you want, what else do you want from me?

bobaugust · #23 08-30-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nettathirty

fbg,

Heidstra testimony is corroborated by what evidence, and the testimony in question deals with "ESTIMATED TIMES", not real times.. So even though he my have heard and saw what he claim, it's quite possible the time in which the event took place my differ considerably..

nettathirty, no you're wrong.

The fact is that Heidstra's estimated times were not to the minute. He estimated time ranges.

The first event in the sequence of events that establish the time line is when Nicole's Akita started it's unusual non stop barking. Heidstra estimated the time that happened at about 10:30, 10:35.

Mandel and Aaronson walked by Nicole's condo shortly before 10:30 and there was no dog, and no barking. Denise Pilnak and Judy Telander were outside just down the street from Nicole's condo before 10:30 and they never heard any barking. After Telander left, Pilnak went back into her house and called her mother. Her telephone records show that call ended at 10:28. After hanging up the phone Pilnak went to her bathroom. She said when she was drying her hands she heard a dog start to bark. She said she retimed those activities and believes the dog started barking at about 10:33 or between 10:30 and 10:35.

bobaugust

nettathirty · #24 08-31-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

Heidstra estimated the time that happened at about 10:30, 10:35.

bobaugust

August,

That was Heidstra estimated Civil Trial timeline, in the Criminal Trial he said it was 10:40, 10:45..

bobaugust · #25 08-31-2006, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

That was Heidstra estimated Civil Trial timeline, in the Criminal Trial he said it was 10:40, 10:45..

nettathirty, that's funny. Try reading all of Heidstra's criminal trial testimony I posted for you and see for yourself how long he said it took him after hearing the gate slam to walk to Dorothy Street before he saw the white jeep like vehicle. Not his time estimate but the amount of time it took him.

That's why I posted the civil trial testimony because Petrocelli asked Heidstra more specific questions about that.

It was about five minutes, not seconds like you claimed

Once again it seems you can't admit to being wrong.

Good job, nettathirty

bobaugust

nettathirty · #26 08-31-2006, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

Once again it seems you can't admit to being wrong.

Good job, nettathirty

bobaugust

August,

I said 10:40, 10:45 wouldn't that be a 5 minute difference!

bobaugust · #27 09-01-2006, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

I said 10:40, 10:45 wouldn't that be a 5 minute difference!

nettathirty, yes 10:45 would be a five minute difference between when Heidstra said he heard the gate slam and when he saw the white jeep like vehicle. I'm glad that you now realize that you were mistaken when you previously said that it was only seconds. And you were also mistaken when you said that Heidstra's civil trial testimony was different than his criminal trial testimony.

It seems you haven't the integrity to actually admit to either of these false claims you made, so I said it for you.

bobaugust

nettathirty · #28 09-02-2006, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, yes 10:45 would be a five minute difference between when Heidstra said he heard the gate slam and when he saw the white jeep like vehicle. I'm glad that you now realize that you were mistaken when you previously said that it was only seconds. And you were also mistaken when you said that Heidstra's civil trial testimony was different than his criminal trial testimony.

It seems you haven't the integrity to actually admit to either of these false claims you made, so I said it for you.

bobaugust

August,

In your ear, the point is estimated times.. So, even though Petrocelli coached Heidstra based on his Criminal Trial testimony, and your integrity won't allow you to admit that.. Heidstra based on your own logic could still be off in his times of 3 minutes and even 4mins 55sec ....

bobaugust · #29 09-02-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

In your ear, the point is estimated times.. So, even though Petrocelli coached Heidstra based on his Criminal Trial testimony, and your integrity won't allow you to admit that.. Heidstra based on your own logic could still be off in his times of 3 minutes and even 4mins 55sec ....

nettathirty, you're the one who claimed Heidstra testified that he saw the white jeep like vehicle seconds after he heard the gate slam. Your claim was proven wrong.

You're the one who claimed that Heidstra's civil trial testimony was different then his criminal trial testimony. Your claim was proven wrong.

And you still haven't admitted you were wrong about these proven wrong claims. Is it that hard for you to admit to your mistakes?

Did Petrocelli interview Heidstra before Heidstra testified in the civil trial? Of course. Did Petrocelli coach Heidstra to say something different than what he testified to in the criminal trial? Of course not. He didn't have to. Petrocelli called Heidstra as his witness based on what Heidstra testified to in the criminal trial and Heidstra testified to the same facts in the civil trial.

I said that estimated times were not real times. The could be minutes off or they could be only seconds off. The first event in the time line is when Heidstra heard Nicole's dog start to bark. Heidstra estimated that time as about 10;30, 10:35. Heidstra's time estimate was supported by Denise Pilnak's testimony as to the time she estimated she heard the dog start to bark. Between 10:30 and 10:35. Pilnak's time estimate was supported by her telephone records.

bobaugust

jotun · #30 09-02-2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
Since the Timeline that was posted by Wukong so many months ago has been deleted, I found this under "The OJ Simpson Murder Case." How accurate it is, is anybody's guess. Maybe some of our more illustrious posters can decipher what is accurate and what is not.

http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/sim.../timeline.html

Think this is what
Wukong posted:

http://www.
geocities.com/
CapitolHill/1472/
analysis.html

an another from the same site:

http://members.
fortunecity.com/
schreck/time0002.
html

If it doesn't work as per usual for me
here.Could someone
fix it??
jotun

weezer · #31 09-02-2006, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by socaldiva

2L8 4A D8 · #32 09-03-2006, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jotun

Think this is what
Wukong posted:

http://www.
geocities.com/
CapitolHill/1472/
analysis.html

<snipped>

If it doesn't work as per usual for me
here.Could someone
fix it??
jotun

Sorry, you think wrong. The above is NOT the timeline that Wukong posted. It was posted on the original OJ Simpson Board that was deleted many, many, many months ago. Wukong worked long and hard on this timeline, only to have it deleted without so much as a "How Do You Do?"

You need to fix your links yourself, or learn how. We do not live on these Boards 24/7 to be at your beck and call that's for sure!

JMO and MOO!!

jotun · #33 09-04-2006, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Sorry, you think wrong. The above is NOT the timeline that Wukong posted.

You need to fix your links yourself, or learn how. We do not live on these Boards 24/7 to be at your beck and call that's for sure!

JMO and MOO!!

All

Was just trying to share 2 excellent links.

jotun

cami · #34 09-12-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jotun

Think this is what
Wukong posted:

http://wwwgeocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/analysis.html

an another from the same site:

http://members.fortunecity.com/schreck/time0002.html

If it doesn't work as per usual for me
here.Could someone
fix it??
jotun

http://wwwgeocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/analysis.html

http://members.fortunecity.com/schreck/time0002.html

martin II · #35 09-18-2006, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

The more you argue this, the more ridiculous you sound...

nette

bob wishes the gate did not slam closed so he can try to have a excuse of how the dog got out. it is really funny.
martin II

weezer · #36 09-18-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by martin II

nette

bob wishes the gate did not slam closed so he can try to have a excuse of how the dog got out. it is really funny.
martin II

how did the dog get out?

nettathirty · #37 09-18-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fbgweezer
how did the dog get out?

fbg,

The real question is, when did the dog come outside the condo?

bobaugust · #38 09-18-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by martin II

nette

bob wishes the gate did not slam closed so he can try to have a excuse of how the dog got out. it is really funny.
martin II

martin II, no, what's funny is you're still trying talk about things you don't know anything about.

I never said the dog went out the gate after Heidstra heard the gate slam. The fact is that Heidstra testified he heard the Akita start to bark when the dog was already in the street about five minutes or so before he heard the gate slam.

bobaugust

weezer · #39 09-18-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nettathirty

fbg,

The real question is, when did the dog come outside the condo?

Why would that be the question? Obviously the dog was outside in time to witness the attack on Nicole - hence he started barking.

nettathirty · #40 09-18-2006, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Why would that be the question? Obviously the dog was outside in time to witness the attack on Nicole - hence he started barking.

fbg,

How can that be, when you just as many witnesses claiming the barking started shortly before 10:15p, while some believe it was shortly after 10:03p...