Complete Criminal Trial on video???

[MRINTENTIONAL99]

Hello, I was wondering if anyone knows where i can get Complete video of the trial that was aired on tv? Thank You.
I thought i would be able to find it on ebat but have not been sucessful.

David

[weezer]

Originally posted by MRINTENTIONAL99
Hello, I was wondering if anyone knows where i can get Complete video of the trial that was aired on tv? Thank You.
I thought i would be able to find it on ebat but have not been sucessful.

David

I believe one of the posters on this board, William Anthony, boasted about having every minute of the trial on tape. And maybe Holly also? It might be worth you emailing/pming them.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I believe one of the posters on this board, William Anthony, boasted about having every minute of the trial on tape. And maybe Holly also? It might be worth you emailing/pming them.

fbg
holly has made it clear that she did not tape any of the trials so why are you offering her as a possible source for the tapes?

martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
holly has made it clear that she did not tape any of the trials so why are you offering her as a possible source for the tapes?

martin II

Ahh, I just read her post on the other thread where she stated she didn't. I guess I thought maybe since she 'watched every minute' that she possibly taped it. My bad.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by MRINTENTIONAL99
Hello, I was wondering if anyone knows where i can get Complete video of the trial that was aired on tv? Thank You.
I thought i would be able to find it on ebat but have not been sucessful.

David

David, I did not boast, but I do have the complete trial on VCR tape. I do not know if any have been damaged by the recorder when I tried to replay them, possibly one or two. In any event, what is your thougt process on this. I am in college and may be moving soon. I have moved some stuff to the new location. I cannot say exactly when I will have time to locate them, although I believe most of them are in boxes in the attic.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Ahh, I just read her post on the other thread where she stated she didn't. I guess I thought maybe since she 'watched every minute' that she possibly taped it. My bad.

fbg
i also watched all of the trial daily and made some tapes that are
on the shelf with other tapes but i have not looked at them since the trial. when oj was found not guilty of the murders i had no reason to view them again.
martin ii

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
i also watched all of the trial daily and made some tapes that are
on the shelf with other tapes but i have not looked at them since the trial. when oj was found not guilty of the murders i had no reason to view them again.
martin ii

I only watched what was re-shown at night since my work place did not have TV access. I did go online and read transcripts as soon as they were available which means they ran about 24 to 48 hours behind the happenings. That may be why it was easier for me to come to terms with Orenthal's guilt -- no dramatics, no personalities.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I only watched what was re-shown at night since my work place did not have TV access. I did go online and read transcripts as soon as they were available which means they ran about 24 to 48 hours behind the happenings. That may be why it was easier for me to come to terms with Orenthal's guilt -- no dramatics, no personalities.

FBG
If you had watched the trial on tv daily you would have been able to see most of what the jury saw when witnesses testified.

watching the expressions , manner and attitudes of witnesses is always much better then reading it on paper.

example. you missed the arrogance of mf furhman when he took the stand and his expressions when bailey caught him.everyone knew he was telling a lie.

you missed how confused kato looked and seemed when he testified.

you missed how frantic m clarke and c darden seemed as they realized they were loosing the case.

there was much more to learn from watching the trial on tv.

however since you believe that reading about the trial was better than viewing it, i understand that could be the root cause for your confusion about the case. i have often wondered how one could be so uninformed. now i know.imo
martin II

[weezer]

*Snipped*

Originally posted by martin II
however since you believe that reading about the trial was better than viewing it, i understand that could be the root cause for your confusion about the case. i have often wondered how one could be so uninformed. now i know.imo

So you think your interpretation of someone's expression or attitude is better than what was actually testified to?

Fuhrman is still comes across as arrogant and Kato still confused. So what?

The transcripts and books offered indepth information that a TV viewer could never have gotten. Because regardless of what someone looked like, acted like, or spoke like, the evidence they were giving was bland. No theatrics, no dramatics, no lies. The proof was that Orenthal left his blood, size 12 pigeon-toed footprints, hair and fiber at the murder scene. Nothing you saw anyone do on TV can change that.

[martin II]

your post
So you think your interpretation of someone's expression or attitude is better than what was actually testified to?


i never said that at all.

watching the manner of the person testifying is always better than reading remarks on paper.

since you are having such a hard time with this i will give you another example

the juror sitting closest to the witness box observed m furhman pushing his feet with force against the front of the jury box during his testimnony. she looked at his expression and decided this guy is telling lies. and she was right.

obviously you missed this kind of action that happened every day in court.

additionally i am not surprised that you have major confusion on the case if you watched SELECTED media reruns of the case later in the day. like 7 pm news.

[martin II]

fbg

is it that difficult to understand that all of the books written about the case were written by people looking to cash in on the case and that they were full of personal faulty opinions depending on who wrote the book. like mf, vanhatter and other talking heads.
all had some juicy points to make to insure the sale of the books.

so if you believe these books gave a better understanding than the live telecast then there is no hope for your understanding of the case.imo

martin II

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by MRINTENTIONAL99
Hello, I was wondering if anyone knows where i can get Complete video of the trial that was aired on tv? Thank You.
I thought i would be able to find it on ebat but have not been sucessful.

David

Hi David,

You can purchase the tapes via Court TV (some of them). And, you can also do a search and they have those available. There use to be a link on this thread with the site that sold every single tape.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II

however since you believe that reading about the trial was better than viewing it, i understand that could be the root cause for your confusion about the case. i have often wondered how one could be so uninformed. now i know.imo
martin II

I believe that statement is somewhat insulting and quite misinformed. I did not have to live through or fight in World War II to be extremely knowledgeable and educated regarding it.

Based on your statement, it would appear that you are stating that anyone who did not watch the trial daily is not as informed or educated as an individual that did view the trial on a daily basis.

That's quite unfortunate.

Kate

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I believe that statement is somewhat insulting and quite misinformed. I did not have to live through or fight in World War II to be extremely knowledgeable and educated regarding it.

Based on your statement, it would appear that you are stating that anyone who did not watch the trial daily is not as informed or educated as an individual that did view the trial on a daily basis.

That's quite unfortunate.

Kate

kate

World War II and the oj case were two different events.

NO. Reading about the war in no way allows you to have a equal
education/ knowledge of what it was like. Even the films don't tell the story. As the soldiers often said. You would have to be there to understand.

In the oj case as is the case in many jury trials, the jury has the front seat to examine the demeanor, expressions and the general
way a witness testifies and is crossexamined.

Transcripts or books donot convey these important observations.imo


If you take my post as insulting, i guess you will just have to deal with your feelings. imo

martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


kate

World War II and the oj case were two different events.

NO. Reading about the war in no way allows you to have a equal
education/ knowledge of what it was like. Even the films don't tell the story. As the soldiers often said. You would have to be there to understand.

In the oj case as is the case in many jury trials, the jury has the front seat to examine the demeanor, expressions and the general
way a witness testifies and is crossexamined.

Transcripts or books donot convey these important observations.imo


If you take my post as insulting, i guess you will just have to deal with your feelings. imo

martin II

You were not physically in the courtroom everyday, or at all, were you?

Thus, you have served to reinforce my point. All you did, in essence, is watch a "film" of the trial on television everyday. I am sorry to inform you that that makes you no more knowledgeable about the case than someone who read the transcripts everyday.

As is the same in any life situation facts are facts and if they don't add up then they don't, and if they do add up then they do ... and no facial expression is going to change that.

Kate

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


You were not physically in the courtroom everyday, or at all, were you?

Thus, you have served to reinforce my point. All you did, in essence, is watch a "film" of the trial on television everyday. I am sorry to inform you that that makes you no more knowledgeable about the case than someone who read the transcripts everyday.

As is the same in any life situation facts are facts and if they don't add up then they don't, and if they do add up then they do ... and no facial expression is going to change that.

Kate

kate

I did not watch a "film" of the trial, I as did many others, watched the trial LIVE ON TV. Looked directly at the witnesses as they testified.

you do know that the trial was televised LIVE everyday. did you watch it?

the purpose of the jury being in the court room is to hear and SEE the person giving the the actual testimnony. The demeaner of the witness is very important. At least the court system thinks so.

martin II

[limakey]

Kate,

I believe that Martin has made an important point about watching the trial on TV. While Martin and I and some others, believe that it was not only Fuhrman's denials that sank his crediblity but it was his arrogrance. IMO, it was like he knew he was lying, the judge knew he was lying, the DA's knew he was lying, the defense knew he was lying, the jurors knew he was lying and he knew they knew he was lying but he just kept it up and then when he said that anyone who said anything different would be a liar, well, he had no one to blame to himself.

However, in the beginning of the trial, Marcia Clark really went to the wall for him. She said that he was an important witness that the defense was just trying ruin, etc.....The jurors remembered this, they remembered how she was with him on the stand, then in her closing arguments, she said that he never should have been a cop in the first place and that he was a racist, in fact, we, as a people, don't even want him or the likes of him on our planet. What was the jury suppose to think then?

Now, others have posted they only saw a cop who was too embarrased to cop it. It all depends on how you see it.

Another perfect example is Kato. I was very, very surprised that jurors in both trials thought he knew more then what he was saying and was holding back. They never said what they thought he was holding back but one juror thought he was on drugs--why? She felt his eyes were the evidence.

I think it is all on how you see it. I totally agree with you that by reading about cases you can educate yourself, but you have to remember is that every author has an opinon and it will be written toward that opinon. IMO.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
I think it is all on how you see it. I totally agree with you that by reading about cases you can educate yourself, but you have to remember is that every author has an opinon and it will be written toward that opinon. IMO.

Transcripts are not "authored", nor do they contain opinion.

[martin II]

limakey

Another example was when furhman was testifying.

The joror sitting closest to furhman on the stand said in her book that she noticed that when he was answering certain quesitons he was pushing his feet against the witness stand in a unusual manner. she said she looked at his face and decided that he was not telling the truth. imo
Reading the transcripts of his testimony one does not get this personal picture of his demenor.imo

One could only understand Kato and his confusaion about the knocks by seeing him testify. imo

Many have stated here that it was R.KS facial expressions that led them to believe he was surprised at the verdict.imo
martin ii

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey
Kate,
I think it is all on how you see it. I totally agree with you that by reading about cases you can educate yourself, but you have to remember is that every author has an opinon and it will be written toward that opinon. IMO.

I'm not talking about reading books about the case, as I posted I am talking about reading the transcripts.

I disagree with both yourself and martin. I own the complete trial on VCR tapes and I have watched it from beginning to end ... no facial expression I saw changed the facts of the case.

Kate

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I'm not talking about reading books about the case, as I posted I am talking about reading the transcripts.

I disagree with both yourself and martin. I own the complete trial on VCR tapes and I have watched it from beginning to end ... no facial expression I saw changed the facts of the case.

Kate

kate

I think the demeanor of some witnesses helped the jury to decide if they were telling the truth or not. all testimony was not truthful and there would not be any way to evaluate the witness unless one was looking at him/her.

At any rate the court system requires the jury to be present to hear and SEE witnesses. other wise the jury would not have to be present during testimnony. They could be called to the deliberation room and given transcripts to make a decision. imo

martin II

[limakey]

Martin,

Do you know who I think was one of the most deceptive witness and I'm not taking about lying, but there just something about him and the way he testified really got me curious about him.

That was the bartender, Stewart Tanner, have you ever read his testimony?

[martin II]

Originally posted by limakey
Martin,

Do you know who I think was one of the most deceptive witness and I'm not taking about lying, but there just something about him and the way he testified really got me curious about him.

That was the bartender, Stewart Tanner, have you ever read his testimony?

limakey

no i did not read his testimony, but i will
martin II

[limakey]

Kate,

IMO, when you look or read the "facts" in this case, then you also have to concede to other "facts". Yes, blood on the back gate is a fact in the case, however, it is also a fact that it was not collected until weeks later. It is also a fact that how and when this "error" was discovered has been as clear as mud.

It is a fact that Nicole's and OJ's blood was found on the sock. However, it is also a fact that that a reporter, who took the stand in the trial to stand by her story, said that she was told the results of the tests---even before they were sent out for testing.
It is also a fact that the defense had a witness who testified on why he believed the blood on the sock was planted. The DA's could only offer up a meek possibility, that Nicole reached up and grab his ankle.

It is also a fact that there the same type of fibers found on Ron's shirt, glove and I can't remember what else. However, it is a fact that these fibers were never, ever compared to any type of sweat suit at all. In fact there was no testimony from any expert witness about this. Doug Deedrick only said he believed they came from the same material. He did not mention it was a material that sweat suits are made of.

It is a fact that Kato testified he believed what OJ Simpson was wearing that night. It is also a fact that he said he was wearing the same sweat suit when he left for the airport.

It it is a fact that OJ Simpson did have cuts on his hands that night. It is a fact he was bleeding, as he said in his interview. However, it is NOT a fact that OJ Simpson broke a glass and used it trace his cut so the cops would never know how he cut it.

IMO, he knew no one noticed his hands on the way to Chicago--so why not turn his hand into hamburger, there by eliminating any chance of those cuts being identified as knife cuts?

IMO, there are facts in this case and taken at face value, they look OK, but the problem is when the evidence ages finer then wine. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


You were not physically in the courtroom everyday, or at all, were you?

Thus, you have served to reinforce my point. All you did, in essence, is watch a "film" of the trial on television everyday. I am sorry to inform you that that makes you no more knowledgeable about the case than someone who read the transcripts everyday.

As is the same in any life situation facts are facts and if they don't add up then they don't, and if they do add up then they do ... and no facial expression is going to change that.

Kate

If I might, the whole process of having a witness testify in person rather than to read their testimony into a trial is to enable the jury to determine the credibilityof the witness and the evidence intoduced by that witness through direct and cross ecaminations. If the court system thought that it was equally as informative to have the testimony read without the witness being present, then there would be no need for live witnesses. The reading of transcripts cannot reflect the spirit in which the words were spoken. The whole concept of a person's right to confront the witness agains him is to have a jury or judge test the credibility of the witness so that they can reach an informed opinion as to who is more accurate or telling the truth.

[martin II]

Originally posted by William Anthony


If I might, the whole process of having a witness testify in person rather than to read their testimony into a trial is to enable the jury to determine the credibilityof the witness and the evidence intoduced by that witness through direct and cross ecaminations. If the court system thought that it was equally as informative to have the testimony read without the witness being present, then there would be no need for live witnesses. The reading of transcripts cannot reflect the spirit in which the words were spoken. The whole concept of a person's right to confront the witness agains him is to have a jury or judge test the credibility of the witness so that they can reach an informed opinion as to who is more accurate or telling the truth.

martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


If I might, the whole process of having a witness testify in person rather than to read their testimony into a trial is to enable the jury to determine the credibilityof the witness and the evidence intoduced by that witness through direct and cross ecaminations. If the court system thought that it was equally as informative to have the testimony read without the witness being present, then there would be no need for live witnesses. The reading of transcripts cannot reflect the spirit in which the words were spoken. The whole concept of a person's right to confront the witness agains him is to have a jury or judge test the credibility of the witness so that they can reach an informed opinion as to who is more accurate or telling the truth.

The transcripts tell us the actual words that were said, not the words some posters here think was said.

That's why you and other posters here who offer your opinions about the evidence in this case relying only on your memories are continually shown those opinions are based on false and misinformation.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust




The transcripts tell us the actual words that were said, not the words some posters here think was said.

That's why you and other posters here who offer your opinions about the evidence in this case relying only on your memories are continually shown those opinions are based on false and misinformation.

bobaugust

If you read that William Anthony said that Bobaugust is a great guy, without knowing anything about any relationship beteween you and me, could you tell if I truly meant it or being facetious? We were only discussing whether or not transcripts were better than observation of the testimony, not memory and my comments were offered as a peace offering to Kate and Martin.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


If you read that William Anthony said that Bobaugust is a great guy, without knowing anything about any relationship beteween you and me, could you tell if I truly meant it or being facetious? We were only discussing whether or not transcripts were better than observation of the testimony, not memory and my comments were offered as a peace offering to Kate and Martin.

And my comments were made to make it clear how important the transcripts are when someone is offering opinions about the evidence in this case based only on their memory.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




And my comments were made to make it clear how important the transcripts are when someone is offering opinions about the evidence in this case based only on their memory.

bobaugust

Most of the posters here have the transcripts or can review them.

The people that saw the trial live on tv were able to determine
if they belives a witness by viewing that witnesses demeanor
on the stand in person as they listened to the direct and cross.

A person picking up the transcripts two years later does not get the beneift of this live witnesses expression, directness and manner of responding to the questions.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


Most of the posters here have the transcripts or can review them.

The people that saw the trial live on tv were able to determine
if they belives a witness by viewing that witnesses demeanor
on the stand in person as they listened to the direct and cross.

A person picking up the transcripts two years later does not get the beneift of this live witnesses expression, directness and manner of responding to the questions.imo
martin II

martin II, A witness may look like he's lying to someone observing him but it takes evidence to make the determination if the witness is actually lying.

bobaugust

[weezer]

*Snipped*

Originally posted by William Anthony
The whole concept of a person's right to confront the witness agains him is to have a jury or judge test the credibility of the witness so that they can reach an informed opinion as to who is more accurate or telling the truth.

and you believe that the truth can be determined by a person's appearance and/or demeanor? Hmmm.......you probably need to retake that class that dealt with witnesses in the courtroom. IMO

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


Most of the posters here have the transcripts or can review them.

The people that saw the trial live on tv were able to determine
if they belives a witness by viewing that witnesses demeanor
on the stand in person as they listened to the direct and cross.

A person picking up the transcripts two years later does not get the beneift of this live witnesses expression, directness and manner of responding to the questions.imo
martin II

This is ridiculous -- do you honestly believe that anyone testifying in this trial wasn't under stress? Would you have been able to walk into that courtroom and testify without appearing to speak and act different than you normally would?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
This is ridiculous -- do you honestly believe that anyone testifying in this trial wasn't under stress? Would you have been able to walk into that courtroom and testify without appearing to speak and act different than you normally would?

fbg

Most of the time good lawyers tell witnesses to JUST TELL THE TRUTH.imo
martinii

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* and you believe that the truth can be determined by a person's appearance and/or demeanor? Hmmm.......you probably need to retake that class that dealt with witnesses in the courtroom. IMO

fbg
wiser people than you determined long ago that the accused must be tried by a jury or a judge in a effort to reach the truth in the trial.

Otherwise, the jury could stay at home not viewing the trial like you did and just come to the deliberaitons where they would be given all the transcripts and asked to render a verdict.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, A witness may look like he's lying to someone observing him but it takes evidence to make the determination if the witness is actually lying.

bobaugust

bob
one witness said that she looked at furhman closely and based on his demeanor etc she knew THEN he was telling a lie. It turns out that she was right.imo
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
one witness said that she looked at furhman closely and based on his demeanor etc she knew THEN he was telling a lie. It turns out that she was right.imo
martin II

was this one of the jurors who said she was watching orenthal and that he was lying when he said the gloves didn't fit?

[jotun]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
one witness said that she looked at furhman closely and based on his demeanor etc she knew THEN he was telling a lie. It turns out that she was right.imo
martin II

Martin,
MOST of the police were testilying.I was shocked back then.It wasn't WHAT [in transcripts] they said but the way [live] they said it.Remember the best, Vanatter?? He would purse his lips and turn bright RED.
jotun

[weezer]

Originally posted by jotun


Martin,
MOST of the police were testilying.I was shocked back then.It wasn't WHAT [in transcripts] they said but the way [live] they said it.Remember the best, Vanatter?? He would purse his lips and turn bright RED.
jotun

And you interpret that to mean what?

[jotun]

Originally posted by martin II


FBG
watching the expressions , manner and attitudes of witnesses is always much better then reading it on paper.

there was much more to learn from watching the trial on tv.

i have often wondered how one could be so uninformed. now i know.imo
martin II

Martin,
Let's SEE a movie tonight.fbg and others, would rather stay home and read a old SCRIPT.

I watched and taped all the trial.Read many transcripts, and all the depos.

SEEING is Believing.
Case in point:
During the prelim as Boztepe was relaying the events of discovering Nicole's body.The CAMERA WAS ON O.J. He listened & watched so intently. When Dr.Golden went thru the injuries.
The CAMERA WAS ON O.J. He quietly cried thru most of it about Nicole.O.J. winced when the Dr. told of the stab wound to Ron's abdomen. None of THAT is in any tanscript.
O.J.'s REACTIONS showed his INNOCENCE.
Beg, borrow, or buy those segements.And maybe see this case in another light.As Jarret of ctv said this may tell us how this will come out.
DID!!!
jotun