Anybody know about this?

[Beebee]

This is from OJ's civil trial.... does anyone know about this pendant, and why it was not booked as evidence for 10 weeks?

28 Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Where was that?
 Thomas Lange - Cross - Vol. 7 - 11/1/96 69

1 A. The pendant was in the -- approximately
2 the driveway area, I believe, adjacent to the garage
3 door.
4 Q. Now, when was that item -- strike that.
5 That was an item of evidence?
6 A. It was ultimately booked evidence. It
7 wasn't initially, but ultimately I did book it.
8 Q. Well, it was -- that's the ruler of
9 Mr. Rokahr, the photographer, that he put down beside
10 that, done on June 13, 1994?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. That item was booked as evidence August
13 26, 1994, ten weeks later?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What happened to it between the 13th and
16 the 26th, Mr. Lange?
17 A. I collected it, Mr. Baker. It was in
18 my --
19 Q. What did you do with it?
20 A. -- It was in my desk drawer for that
21 amount of time.
22 Q. It was in your desk drawer?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. For ten weeks.
25 MR. MEDVENE: Objection.
26 THE WITNESS: Yes.

from: http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civ...ranscript.html

[martin II]

Originally Posted by Beebee

This is from OJ's civil trial.... does anyone know about this pendant, and why it was not booked as evidence for 10 weeks?



from: http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civ...ranscript.html

beebee
i did not know this, i woinder what else was left at thew crime scene or held back from evidence.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

beebee
i did not know this, i woinder what else was left at thew crime scene or held back from evidence.
martin II

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Beebee]

Hi Martin,

I never heard of this pendant found. I wonder if it was determined to be Nicoles?

I wonder why Lange held on to it? Could it be one of those situations where LE holds back certain info from the public for investigative purposes?

[Beebee]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Well do you know anything about it??

[socaldiva]

Yesterday the coroners were on trial here & now it's a mysterious pendant

Here is more from the link:

THE WITNESS: Would you like me to explain,
2 Mr. Baker?
3 Q. BY MR. BAKER: Now, did you, personally,
4 take any other evidence and have it in your custody
5 and control without booking it?
6 A. I'm not aware of any evidence that wasn't
7 booked.
8 Q. Well, you're suppose to book things as
9 soon as practical, true?
10 A. That's the key word, "practical." It was
11 not practical to book this item at that particular
12 time.
13 Q. It wasn't practical to book that piece of
14 evidence for ten weeks while it sat in your drawer?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Okay. So your drawer, and in the area
17 where you can book evidence, what is it; two floors
18 away?
19 A. More like two miles.
20 Q. So couldn't book it for the ten weeks?
21 A. No. It's not that I couldn't.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. I didn't want to. I specifically
24 withheld that particular item for a purpose.
25 Q. Oh, okay. Did you with hold any other
26 evidence, Mr. Lange?
27 A. No.

[Beebee]

Socaldiva,

I'm not calling it "mysterious".... I'm wondering if it was Nicoles, and why it was found at the crime scene. Do you have any idea?

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by Beebee

Socaldiva,

I'm not calling it "mysterious".... I'm wondering if it was Nicoles, and why it was found at the crime scene. Do you have any idea?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you were referring to it as mysterious. No, offhand I can't recall anything about this item.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by socaldiva

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you were referring to it as mysterious. No, offhand I can't recall anything about this item.

wasn't it found by Nicole's car door that was partially open?

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

wasn't it found by Nicole's car door that was partially open?

Could very well be. I do recall the door being ajar & something relative to coins being scattered, but I don't remember if that was by her car or where the Bronco would have been. I think when you've got small kids, stuff drops out of the car all the time.

[Beebee]

From what I read, it was found by her Jeep.... but a blood drop was mentioned also in the same area.
Lange kept the pendant for ten weeks before booking it as evidence, so he must have thought it had some significance.... I'm trying to figure out what it was.

I don't remember reading the door to the jeep was ajar.

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by Beebee

From what I read, it was found by her Jeep.... but a blood drop was mentioned also in the same area.
Lange kept the pendant for ten weeks before booking it as evidence, so he must have thought it had some significance.... I'm trying to figure out what it was.

I don't remember reading the door to the jeep was ajar.

Hi BeeBee

I didn't know about it..why would Lange keep it for 10 weeks?....something is not right..hmmm

[martin II]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

Hi BeeBee

I didn't know about it..why would Lange keep it for 10 weeks?....something is not right..hmmm

You got that right. SOMETHING WRONG again.

So it seems that the detectives were able to include some evidence found and keep sone evidence out of the trial until THEY felt it should be included.

Maby there should be some rule that requires the detectives desk to be searched and for them to have to empty their pockets when they leave a crime scene.

This means that Lang did not tell Fung of his find.

martin II

[Beebee]

Martin,

Lange had to have a reason for keeping it..... what could it be?

I don't think the pendant proves anything one way or the other, I'm just curious as to why he kept it, and what significance it may have had. Was Nicole wearing it that night?

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by martin II

You got that right. SOMETHING WRONG again.

So it seems that the detectives were able to include some evidence found and keep sone evidence out of the trial until THEY felt it should be included.

Maby there should be some rule that requires the detectives desk to be searched and for them to have to empty their pockets when they leave a crime scene.

This means that Lang did not tell Fung of his find.

martin II

I wish they would make it a rule to videotape police searches of crime scenes..the collecting of evidence..had they done that, IMO, both gloves would have been found at Bundy...!

[tv]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

I wish they would make it a rule to videotape police searches of crime scenes..the collecting of evidence..had they done that, IMO, both gloves would have been found at Bundy...!

That would be a great rule. IMO, it would have proven that only ONE glove was found at Bundy.

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

That would be a great rule. IMO, it would have proven that only ONE glove was found at Bundy.

But it they had that rule we wouldn't be debating the glove..!!

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by Beebee

Martin,

Lange had to have a reason for keeping it..... what could it be?

I don't think the pendant proves anything one way or the other, I'm just curious as to why he kept it, and what significance it may have had. Was Nicole wearing it that night?

Exactly..I don't think we will ever know whether or not that pendant proves anything or not..UNFORTUNATELY!

ETA..is there a picture of Nicole that was taken that day..as far as I remember, there was a school event that she attended and someone videotaped it....!

[Beebee]

Are the exhibits from the civil trial available anywhere online? The pendant was exhibit 859.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

Exactly..I don't think we will ever know whether or not that pendant proves anything or not..UNFORTUNATELY!

ETA..is there a picture of Nicole that was taken that day..as far as I remember, there was a school event that she attended and someone videotaped it....!

imo - arnelle was wearing the pendant that night.

[Beebee]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

imo - arnelle was wearing the pendant that night.

Is this your way of saying you know nothing about the pendant or why Lang kept it in his desk for ten weeks?

If so, you don't need to mock people wondering about it. It WAS eventually booked as evidence. If you don't know, you don't know.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

wasn't it found by Nicole's car door that was partially open?

weezer
did you read this someplace? If so where?
martin II

[weezer]

Originally Posted by Beebee

Is this your way of saying you know nothing about the pendant or why Lang kept it in his desk for ten weeks?

If so, you don't need to mock people wondering about it. It WAS eventually booked as evidence. If you don't know, you don't know.

boy -- are you spoiling for a fight or what? You posted the testimony where he said he kept it for a reason. Obviously the pendant turned out not to be important to either the prosecution or the defense. imo

[martin II]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

But it they had that rule we wouldn't be debating the glove..!!

I agree

If they turned furhmans pockets inside out they may have looked blood red.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

boy -- are you spoiling for a fight or what? You posted the testimony where he said he kept it for a reason. Obviously the pendant turned out not to be important to either the prosecution or the defense. imo

so why the ARNELL comment??
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

That would be a great rule. IMO, it would have proven that only ONE glove was found at Bundy.

it may show furhman standing in the background at the back gate stuffing a glove in his pocket.

imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by martin II

it may show furhman standing in the background at the back gate stuffing a glove in his pocket.

imo
martin II

Pure fantasy on your part

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by martin II

I agree

If they turned furhmans pockets inside out they may have looked blood red.imo
martin II

There is nothing to support this fantasy, except your imagination

[Beebee]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

boy -- are you spoiling for a fight or what? You posted the testimony where he said he kept it for a reason. Obviously the pendant turned out not to be important to either the prosecution or the defense. imo

No fight.... I guess you were just trying to be funny. The thing is, I'm curious as to why Lang would keep it. I'm wondering what his reason was. It could be perfectly legit.... I still want to know. He must have considered it evidence of some kind. Was Nicole wearing it? Did the killer take it off?? Did it even belong to Nicole? There was blood nearby where it was found...

The officer who found it only testified at the civil trial that I can tell.

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by Beebee

*snip*
Was Nicole wearing it? Did the killer take it off?? Did it even belong to Nicole?

The murder didn't take place back there & there was no indication that there was any altercation in that area. If it had been taken off by the killer, I imagine it would have torn her dress.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by Beebee

No fight.... I guess you were just trying to be funny. The thing is, I'm curious as to why Lang would keep it. I'm wondering what his reason was. It could be perfectly legit.... I still want to know. He must have considered it evidence of some kind. Was Nicole wearing it? Did the killer take it off?? Did it even belong to Nicole? There was blood nearby where it was found...

The officer who found it only testified at the civil trial that I can tell.

beebee
thank for this link.
could this mean that Nicole came out her back door and was attacked there and dropped it and made to go to the front yard? Was there another woman in that back way and she dropped it.

I thought that D Fung was responsible for collecting everything at the crime scene? Why would a seasoned detective collect a piece of evidence and keep it in his desk drawer for 10 weeks? That is the quesiton.

I wonder if anything else was keep out of evidence for 10 weeks? We will never know.
imo
martin II

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

*Snipped* . . .Was there another woman in that back way and she dropped it.

maybe orenthal was telling the truth in his book when he said he stripped down naked and then he had arnelle go get the sweat suit from Bundy and wash it at Rockingham with her clothes? imo

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by martin II

beebee
thank for this link.
could this mean that Nicole came out her back door and was attacked there and dropped it and made to go to the front yard? Was there another woman in that back way and she dropped it.

I thought that D Fung was responsible for collecting everything at the crime scene? Why would a seasoned detective collect a piece of evidence and keep it in his desk drawer for 10 weeks? That is the quesiton.

I wonder if anything else was keep out of evidence for 10 weeks? We will never know.
imo
martin II

Martin,

Didn't Vanatter place Simpson's blood in his desk drawer for a while? Perhaps, he had a reason to do that too.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

maybe orenthal was telling the truth in his book when he said he stripped down naked and then he had arnelle go get the sweat suit from Bundy and wash it at Rockingham with her clothes? imo

If MF did smear evidence inside the Bronco, what does this mean he was smearing? If MF did do the smearing, I am willing to guess, imhotaac, that he is thoroughly irate now.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

Martin,

Didn't Vanatter place Simpson's blood in his desk drawer for a while? Perhaps, he had a reason to do that too.

william'

I am not too sure but the original missing sheet from Fungs evidence sheets was found in someones desk.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally Posted by martin II

william'

I am not too sure but the original missing sheet from Fungs evidence sheets was found in someones desk.imo
martin II

martin II, just out of curiosity why do you post remarks like this when you really don't know what you are talking about? There was no missing page and it wasn't found in anyone's desk.

Scheck falsely accused Fung of lying about the time he received Simpson's blood sample simply because page 4 of the crime scene reports the defense was given was a photocopy of a blank page, not the original. Before Fung had turned the original forms over to the defense he had made a set of photocopies and when he put the forms back together he accidentally replaced a photocopy of page 4 for the original. When court recessed Goldberg and Fung checked Fung's notebook that contained the photocopies and found the original page 4. When they returned to court with the original blank page 4 Fung continued his testimony comparing the staple holes in the original page 4 to the photocopy of page 4 making it clear what had happened . This incident clearly showed the depths to which the defense sank in making totally groundless, irresponsible allegations against good people.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally Posted by bobaugust

martin II, just out of curiosity why do you post remarks like this when you really don't know what you are talking about? There was no missing page and it wasn't found in anyone's desk.

Scheck falsely accused Fung of lying about the time he received Simpson's blood sample simply because page 4 of the crime scene reports the defense was given was a photocopy of a blank page, not the original. Before Fung had turned the original forms over to the defense he had made a set of photocopies and when he put the forms back together he accidentally replaced a photocopy of page 4 for the original. When court recessed Goldberg and Fung checked Fung's notebook that contained the photocopies and found the original page 4. When they returned to court with the original blank page 4 Fung continued his testimony comparing the staple holes in the original page 4 to the photocopy of page 4 making it clear what had happened . This incident clearly showed the depths to which the defense sank in making totally groundless, irresponsible allegations against good people.

bobaugust

based on your post Fung needed a copier that colates. Surprised he did not have one.

martinii

[sassylassy]

hi all.

I hope everyone is doing well.

I just wanted to comment in this pendant, this is the first I ever heard about it....do we know what it looks like or has anyone from Nicoles family claimed it to be hers ?

I find it strange it was sitting in a desk for 10 wks, it should have been booked!

imo

c-ya

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by martin II

william'

I am not too sure but the original missing sheet from Fungs evidence sheets was found in someones desk.imo
martin II

Martin,

As I recall, Vanatter went to his office, drank some coffee or something, and placed the blood vial in his desk drawer before going to Bundy. I wonder what all is in those desk drawers. You think there could have been an empty top vial with a top other than the color purple and a needle?

[martin II]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

Martin,

As I recall, Vanatter went to his office, drank some coffee or something, and placed the blood vial in his desk drawer before going to Bundy. I wonder what all is in those desk drawers. You think there could have been an empty top vial with a top other than the color purple and a needle?

william
i think that the nurse used a SYRINGE to draw the blood from oj instead of a butterfly and vacutainer because the vaccutainer had edta in it. The use of the syringe would allow a person to transfer blood from the syringe into a vile with no edta( for possible mixing and planting) and to one that had edta.(the official vile) imo
The possibility is there.
martin II