Telephone Evidence

[pearyb]

A haunting question has gone unanswered to me, "Was there ever evidence relating to the Denise Brown phone records"?

[socaldiva]

IIRC Denise Brown lived at her parent's home at the time of the murders & I doubt that she had a mobile phone in those days. What records specifically are you referring to?

[pearyb]

I had read a few years ago that O.J. wanted to sue AT&T for damages as their failure to produce phone records of Denise Brown. It was in a small article in the L.A. Times. The company evidently wasn't forced to release as Denise refused to release the records. I don't think it went anywhere as I never heard any more about it.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by pearyb

I had read a few years ago that O.J. wanted to sue AT&T for damages as their failure to produce phone records of Denise Brown. It was in a small article in the L.A. Times. The company evidently wasn't forced to release as Denise refused to release the records. I don't think it went anywhere as I never heard any more about it.

I don't believe you have the facts right. IIRC, the phone records for the Browns were part of the criminal trial evidence -- much of it stipulated to by both sides. I don't know what Denise would have to do with it.

[weezer]

I did find this:

NATIONAL DESK
National News Briefs; Simpson Sues Company Over Telephone Records
O J Simpson sues GTE Corp, holding company refuses to turn over phone records he holds show he could not have killed Nicole Brown Simpson
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...tml?offset=60&

[weezer]

and this:

O.J. Back in Court
FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 25, 1998 12:00 AM EDT

By Stephen M. Silverman


A Los Angeles judge has dismissed O.J. Simpson's lawsuit to seek telephone records that he says would clear him of the charge of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. "I think your lawsuit here borders on being frivolous," U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson told Simpson's lawyer, Doug McCann, on Monday. Simpson claimed that the records would show that Nicole called her mother at 11 p.m. on June 12, 1994, the night she and Goldman were killed outside her Brentwood condo. According to testimony in Simpson's criminal trial, the call was made at 9:37 p.m. O.J. was already in an airport limo by 11, headed for a flight to Chicago.
http://www.people.com/people/article...617717,00.html

[jotun]

Originally Posted by pearyb

I had read a few years ago that O.J. wanted to sue AT&T for damages as their failure to produce phone records of Denise Brown. It was in a small article in the L.A. Times. The company evidently wasn't forced to release as Denise refused to release the records. I don't think it went anywhere as I never heard any more about it.

pearyb

Think you might find what you are looking for on this site by the man behind the phone records:
Dr.Johnson M.D. There is a book also.
www.ojcoverup.com

IMO

jotun

[martin II]

JOTUN

wonder if the judge would have ruled the same if the prosecution requested the records for their case.

I have always wondered what the big deal was for not allowing the records to come out. If oj was wrong it would then be known that he was wrong.
If he had been right, boy what a mess.imo
martin II

[pearyb]

It would seem difficult to sue over evidence which didn't exist. Trying to taint the community with reasonable doubt after an acquittal doesn't seem too bright. Therefore I would say another of evidentuary error that further upsets the case.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by pearyb

It would seem difficult to sue over evidence which didn't exist. Trying to taint the community with reasonable doubt after an acquittal doesn't seem too bright. Therefore I would say another of evidentuary error that further upsets the case.

Pearyb

I think it was a poster BIG BEN that posted a lot on this subject on one of the oj threads. That may be helpful to you.
MARTIN ii

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by pearyb

It would seem difficult to sue over evidence which didn't exist. Trying to taint the community with reasonable doubt after an acquittal doesn't seem too bright. Therefore I would say another of evidentuary error that further upsets the case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZfbCRZvoyo

The above YouTube link may help to answer some of your questions, Pearyb or it may befuddle you even more. However the phone records are still concealed as a result of the last judge Larry Feidler's ruling. U.S. Judge Pregerson was simply posturing re: "frivolous action" he told Doug McCann to go back and make the State Court replace the records, before it would become "ripe" for Federal Court.

[tazzybaby]

I wonder why they didn't persue this during the trial? And, how can they try and say this is true when it couldn't be? The dog was found before the so-called call was "suppose" to have happened.

Smoke and mirrors, people. That's why the judge called it frivilous.

[Big Ben]

I wonder why they didn't persue this during the trial? And, how can they try and say this is true when it couldn't be? The dog was found before the so-called call was "suppose" to have happened.

Tazzy,
FYI, "the dog", Nicole's Akita, was initially stated to be found at 11:15 PM in an early morning statement of 06/13/94 by Steven Schwab. OJ would have been in the back seat of the LAX bound limousine. Schwab later received an epiphany that the time was closer to 10:45 PM rather than 11:15 PM.

I think it was around the same time that Lou Brown received his epiphany, on 06/20/94, that Nicole was not talking to mom at 11:00 PM but more like 9:30 -10:00PM.

Juditha has never cited officially when she had an epiphany, therefore her initial remarks to Shapiro and defense investigators has been unchanged that she was talking to Nicole at approximately 11:00 PM.

This information was known well before the trial ever started and if it were not concealed there never would have been a "trial of the century". The continuous recantations associated with "time" is, I speculate, what is going to make this ordeal unravel.

Caution: Don't say "it couldn't be" when it comes to government officials and media misrepresenting the facts. The last 4 years of the Bush Administration should give you or anyone else pause to say "it just couldn't be".

Neither you nor the jury, in either trial, has been given access to the actual telephone records and thus, this makes Johnnie Cochran's remarks even more bizarre,( in the YouTube link) when making a prejudical argument about denying the jury the bloody photos, he inadvertently implies that the telephone records could prejudice the jury, if shown to them.



Smoke and mirrors, people. That's why the judge called it frivilous.[/quote]

Taz, the only thing that you can say for sure is that certain Cal. officials decided to have a one of a kind, historically unique, show trial.

The federal judge's remark of "bordering on frivolous" was for public consumption and gave the defendant (GTE) Attys something rather than nothing at all. They were asking $30K under FRCP, Rule 11, for Simpson filing what they alleged to be a frivolous action, the judge didn't grant their motion.

[tazzybaby]

Hi Big Ben,

Schwab said that he found the dog at 10:55 because of the show he was watching. And, the dogs had already been barking. All Schwab did was become more accurate. He had already phoned the police to tell them that before testifying. What evidence do you have or know of that makes you believe that he would lie?

The defense accepted the phone records. They understood. The phone records that the defense didn't want in were OJ's (cell). And, they didn't come in. OJ made many, many calls on his way home from Chicago from what I've heard.

I don't have access to the records but the defense did. Why didn't they produce them when TRYING to "impeach" Schwab? Because they would not have succeeded at creating a "smoke and mirrors" type of doubt if they introduced the truth.

And, I'm sure the Brown's were extremely upset when they gave their statements. Very understandable if they weren't sure or needed to clarify. The records introduced showed the actual time of the call.

I don't automatically take whatever the police or media say as gospel. But, I also don't take everything that OJ says as gospel either. The defense accepted the records at the time and that means that there is NO REASON to dispute them. Both sides accepted them.

Taz, the only thing that you can say for sure is that certain Cal. officials decided to have a one of a kind, historically unique, show trial.

The federal judge's remark of "bordering on frivolous" was for public consumption and gave the defendant (GTE) Attys something rather than nothing at all. They were asking $30K under FRCP, Rule 11, for Simpson filing what they alleged to be a frivolous action, the judge didn't grant their motion.

The only thing I can say for sure is that OJ had a cut and was bleeding before he left on the same night that two people were murdered and he is a proven liar. His blood was found at the crime scene and at his home mixed with the victims blood. The insinuations that LE framed him are only that. The same logic that you use to insinuate that he is innocent is the same logic you should use when looking at LE's actions.

You don't know that the judge's remarks was for public consumption. That's your opinion. My opinion is backed up by what the judge said on the record that it was bordering on frivilous.

Why isn't OJ shouting this at the top of his lungs? Each time he gives an interview he should be saying this. Someone...please look at the phone records, they will clear me?

[martin II]

Originally Posted by tazzybaby

Hi Big Ben,

Schwab said that he found the dog at 10:55 because of the show he was watching. And, the dogs had already been barking. All Schwab did was become more accurate. He had already phoned the police to tell them that before testifying. What evidence do you have or know of that makes you believe that he would lie?

The defense accepted the phone records. They understood. The phone records that the defense didn't want in were OJ's (cell). And, they didn't come in. OJ made many, many calls on his way home from Chicago from what I've heard.

I don't have access to the records but the defense did. Why didn't they produce them when TRYING to "impeach" Schwab? Because they would not have succeeded at creating a "smoke and mirrors" type of doubt if they introduced the truth.

And, I'm sure the Brown's were extremely upset when they gave their statements. Very understandable if they weren't sure or needed to clarify. The records introduced showed the actual time of the call.

I don't automatically take whatever the police or media say as gospel. But, I also don't take everything that OJ says as gospel either. The defense accepted the records at the time and that means that there is NO REASON to dispute them. Both sides accepted them.

Taz, the only thing that you can say for sure is that certain Cal. officials decided to have a one of a kind, historically unique, show trial.

The federal judge's remark of "bordering on frivolous" was for public consumption and gave the defendant (GTE) Attys something rather than nothing at all. They were asking $30K under FRCP, Rule 11, for Simpson filing what they alleged to be a frivolous action, the judge didn't grant their motion.

The only thing I can say for sure is that OJ had a cut and was bleeding before he left on the same night that two people were murdered and he is a proven liar. His blood was found at the crime scene and at his home mixed with the victims blood. The insinuations that LE framed him are only that. The same logic that you use to insinuate that he is innocent is the same logic you should use when looking at LE's actions.

You don't know that the judge's remarks was for public consumption. That's your opinion. My opinion is backed up by what the judge said on the record that it was bordering on frivilous.

Why isn't OJ shouting this at the top of his lungs? Each time he gives an interview he should be saying this. Someone...please look at the phone records, they will clear me?

tazzy hi
the phone records of GTE were never released to anyone. is that correct?
I don't know the answer.
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Originally Posted by martin II

tazzy hi
the phone records of GTE were never released to anyone. is that correct?
I don't know the answer.
martin II

Martin,

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/phonebill.htm

Yes, they were released.

[martin II]

tazzy hi
the original poster asked about Denise's phone records.
martin II

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by tazzybaby

Hi Big Ben,

Schwab said that he found the dog at 10:55 because of the show he was watching. And, the dogs had already been barking. All Schwab did was become more accurate. He had already phoned the police to tell them that before testifying. What evidence do you have or know of that makes you believe that he would lie?

The problem is that we have approximately 10 conflicting remarks by key individuals associated with this case that are recantations of original statements re: time. All I'm saying is that it is a strange coincidence that all these people seem to have similiar epiphanies regarding what they first stated relative to time.

The defense accepted the phone records. They understood. The phone records that the defense didn't want in were OJ's (cell). And, they didn't come in. OJ made many, many calls on his way home from Chicago from what I've heard.

Taz, as an outside member of an independent investigation we have the privilege of holding not only the prosecution but the defense culpable for malfeasance too.

Also,we're only concerned with EX. 35 "The Juditha Brown Phone Records"

I don't automatically take whatever the police or media say as gospel. But, I also don't take everything that OJ says as gospel either. The defense accepted the records at the time and that means that there is NO REASON to dispute them. Both sides accepted them.

Taz, we at OMIG disagree, only the jury (trier of fact) has the right to determine and/or accept after examination evidence that is, according to the Uniform Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Evidence, in dispute, or requires authentication, etc. not lawyers behind closed doors.

However, Cal. Law, BAJI 1.02, allows lawyers in California to stipulate to facts which are not universal. The sun rises in the east, the sun sets in the west is considered a universal fact,the Juditha Brown telephone call between mother and daughter Nicole is not. When Shapiro offered 10:17 PM as the initial time for stipulation on 07/08/94 in Judge Powell's chambers the time issue again was placed in contradiction and dispute.

It is a violation of the English common law rules that certainly govern all civil trials in the U.S. under the 7th Amend. U.S. Const. that all crucial evidence must be examined by the "trier of fact"; the jury.

You don't know that the judge's remarks was for public consumption. That's your opinion. My opinion is backed up by what the judge said on the record that it was bordering on frivilous.'s

It's true, Taz, that it is my opinion, judges have to each lunch with all of these people, he doesn't need to make enemies downtown. However, as I indicated, the only thing that had OMIG/Simpson's atty, D. McCann, inmidated was O'Melveny & Myers P.A.'s prior demand that the court issue a penalty for Federal Rule 11 sanction of $30K be awarded by the court.

It almost derailed attorney McCann out of fear until doc's legal advisor explained to McCann that the "frivolous charge " by O'Melveny & Myers was, as you say, "smoke and mirrors" and that the legal action was a "declaratory judgment" action and that anyone, including Simpson, has the right to ask the court to issue a declaratory judgment determining the constitutionality of a plaintiff's charges.

A Declaratory Judment request is purposesly submitted with the intent of preventing costly legal actions. Judge Pregerson could certainly have been more damaging, therefore, "bordering frivoulous" is like shooting the squirrel's fluffy tail, for me at least. It certainly didn't injure anyone, and now you are made aware of an issue that was previously concealed from you.

Why isn't OJ shouting this at the top of his lungs? Each time he gives an interview he should be saying this. Someone...please look at the phone records, they will clear me?

Taz, I don't know why OJ does so many backwards things, I hesitate to speculate, he's not a stupid man. However I've always felt that whatever his reasons for distancing himself from OMIG, and whoever he's been involved with in the past could be related to fatal consequences for his young children if he were to continue. Again I'm simply doing something that I hesitate to do, speculate. However, even though we hadn't interviewed him in 3 years OJ did acknowledge Dr. Johnson's pursuit of the phone records in his 2004 NBC interview with Katie Couric.

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by tazzybaby

Martin,

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/phonebill.htm

Yes, they were released.

Taz, I can tell you right now that the document that is displayed by Wagner on his website, purporting to be the Juditha Brown Phone Records, has some very serious problems. We laughed when Gloria Alred showed them on FOX News while trying to pull a fast one, and covering up vital irregularities. In fact I have the first copy that Brown faxed over to our office, right here. It's got serious problems, Taz!

No Taz, as we told Lou Brown, we would like for the records to come from the GTE/Verizon archive dept. in San Angelo, TX where the hard disk had been previously removed by GTE (California).

This record came after Brown badgered Hodgman for 6 weeks. We offered to receive them but had cautioned Brown initially that we could not and would not accept them as being the certified documents purported to be the Juditha Brown Phone Records that Hodgman had surrepticiously removed by ex parte court order from Simpson's file.

Till this day, we still firmly believe that GTE as an unbiased 3rd party should provide those records by ordering and punching a computer key in San Angelo, TX.

Again, you should explore the depths of your own mind if you are prepared to accept someone else's call that justice has been served because they say so, without calling for a complete examination of all crucial evidence in a legal matter as profound as this "the trial of the century".

[tazzybaby]

Hi Big Ben,

First, I want to say thank you for disagreeing with me in a very civil way. I know that we (many posters) have went round and round with this issue several times on this board. I get what you are saying. I see the things you are talking about. But, I've come to a different conclusion than you. That's okay. I actually wish you luck on retaining the records that could lay this issue to rest one way or the other. I know that you see deceiving actions in them not providing these records (I do not) and that's one reason why I wish this issue could be layed to rest.

I would like to ask though, if you are an outside member of an independent investigation what is your drive? Did someone hire you? Did you take it upon yourself?

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by tazzybaby

Hi Big Ben,

First, I want to say thank you for disagreeing with me in a very civil way. I know that we (many posters) have went round and round with this issue several times on this board. I get what you are saying. I see the things you are talking about. But, I've come to a different conclusion than you........

The truth must come forward, Tazzy. If "In God We Trust" is to have any real meaning for the American people then the insitutional rules that were the foundational blocks of this nation must not be violated, usurped, nor abrogated, by any man, regardless of race, creed or color. Patience is a never ending virtue when dealing with what appears to be a cooperative between unscrupulous officers of the court and national media.

I would like to ask though, if you are an outside member of an independent investigation what is your drive? Did someone hire you? Did you take it upon yourself?

I was called into California and compensated by Dr. Johnson and his staff, who know how I've conducted prior research/investigative matters. You can not do an investigation unless you are willing to examine all participants. That is what I believed then and now, and that is why I remain loyal to his organization, OMIG.

Though Dr. Johnson's revelations of the knife exit wounds, and travel time discrepancies, were extremely compelling by themselves, the fact that Doc's people in California had not done a criminal background check on Ron Goldman, nor asked the court for a copy of the phone records, didn't make sense to me. So I was compelled by a determination not to accept continued mediocrity regarding crucial evidence as an excuse for Simpson's guilt or a pretext to OMIG making unfounded allegations.

Once I felt the backlash of public officials determined to denigrate and intentionally deny access, I told Doc he doesn't have to pay another dime. Exposure of such mediocrity, of public servants relative to public records in our U.S. justice system, will be and has been compensation enough for me. I would simply encourage you to demand a full accounting of the evidence no matter how you emotionally feel about the subject.

[pearyb]

I always like the one where Johnnie Cochran has got the hat on and says some thing like, "I am O.J. Simpson, and I've got a big head, I am still O.J. Simpson, I just happen to have a hat on". Once you've been a victim of the criminal justice system you realize that just because a prosecutor says something, this does not make it so. Mark F. has already answered questions about his racism and planting evidence. And he answered those questions for money. I think Mark F. brought disgrace to one of the best law enforcement agencies in the world. The case brought the world to the doorstep of just what the politics of crime can do, and enlightened the way for better crime scene investiagtion.

Originally Posted by tazzybaby

Hi Big Ben,

Schwab said that he found the dog at 10:55 because of the show he was watching. And, the dogs had already been barking. All Schwab did was become more accurate. He had already phoned the police to tell them that before testifying. What evidence do you have or know of that makes you believe that he would lie?

The defense accepted the phone records. They understood. The phone records that the defense didn't want in were OJ's (cell). And, they didn't come in. OJ made many, many calls on his way home from Chicago from what I've heard.

I don't have access to the records but the defense did. Why didn't they produce them when TRYING to "impeach" Schwab? Because they would not have succeeded at creating a "smoke and mirrors" type of doubt if they introduced the truth.

And, I'm sure the Brown's were extremely upset when they gave their statements. Very understandable if they weren't sure or needed to clarify. The records introduced showed the actual time of the call.

I don't automatically take whatever the police or media say as gospel. But, I also don't take everything that OJ says as gospel either. The defense accepted the records at the time and that means that there is NO REASON to dispute them. Both sides accepted them.

Taz, the only thing that you can say for sure is that certain Cal. officials decided to have a one of a kind, historically unique, show trial.

The federal judge's remark of "bordering on frivolous" was for public consumption and gave the defendant (GTE) Attys something rather than nothing at all. They were asking $30K under FRCP, Rule 11, for Simpson filing what they alleged to be a frivolous action, the judge didn't grant their motion.

The only thing I can say for sure is that OJ had a cut and was bleeding before he left on the same night that two people were murdered and he is a proven liar. His blood was found at the crime scene and at his home mixed with the victims blood. The insinuations that LE framed him are only that. The same logic that you use to insinuate that he is innocent is the same logic you should use when looking at LE's actions.

You don't know that the judge's remarks was for public consumption. That's your opinion. My opinion is backed up by what the judge said on the record that it was bordering on frivilous.

Why isn't OJ shouting this at the top of his lungs? Each time he gives an interview he should be saying this. Someone...please look at the phone records, they will clear me?

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by pearyb

I think Mark F. brought disgrace to one of the best law enforcement agencies in the world. The case brought the world to the doorstep of just what the politics of crime can do, and enlightened the way for better crime scene investiagtion.

Mark F. was so far down on the totem pole of this conspiracy that he is hardly worthy of mention except for the fact that he uttered racial epitaths and was at the location of where the Bloody glove was found.

Why not ask, "Who is the grand dragon or mighty wizard that could sanction this chirade going forward, with all of its serious flaws and irregularities.

1.) The time discrepancy and hidden phone records.

2.) The original M.E. citing of exit wounds indication two distinctive types of knives used, the killer of Nicole more than likely left handed.

3.) The FBI agent Bodziak that fails to mention that the shoe sole on the Bruno Magli is found on 19 other shoe brands world wide.

And in reference to Simpson's "big Head", and other remarks about his "big hands", both of which we know to be the case. Does it make sense that his feet would not be categorized as big also. Never the less, the shoe prints in the crime photos indicate shoes that fit neatly inside of an 11 and one half inch square side walk tile at 875 So. Bundy. That's rather small, certainly not befitting of a man of Simpson's proportions.

[bobaugust]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

Mark F. was so far down on the totem pole of this conspiracy that he is hardly worthy of mention except for the fact that he uttered racial epitaths and was at the location of where the Bloody glove was found.

Why not ask, "Who is the grand dragon or mighty wizard that could sanction this chirade going forward, with all of its serious flaws and irregularities.

1.) The time discrepancy and hidden phone records.

2.) The original M.E. citing of exit wounds indication two distinctive types of knives used, the killer of Nicole more than likely left handed.

3.) The FBI agent Bodziak that fails to mention that the shoe sole on the Bruno Magli is found on 19 other shoe brands world wide.

And in reference to Simpson's "big Head", and other remarks about his "big hands", both of which we know to be the case. Does it make sense that his feet would not be categorized as big also. Never the less, the shoe prints in the crime photos indicate shoes that fit neatly inside of an 11 and one half inch square side walk tile at 875 So. Bundy. That's rather small, certainly not befitting of a man of Simpson's proportions.

Big Ben, there was no time discrepancy, only a mistaken estimate from a grieving mother whose daughter had just been viciously killed that was later corrected. The telephone records were not hidden they were presented in court and given to Simpson's defense. An enlarged photocopy of the portion of the telephone records documenting the time telephone calls were made on the day and night of the murders was used in a prosecution exhibit.

Dr. Golden, Dr. Lakshmanan, Dr. Baden, and Dr. Spitz all testified that one knife could have caused all the wounds on both victims. No one ever opined that the killer was left handed.

The fact that other shoes around the world may have used Silga soles doesn't change the fact that over 30 authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers nine months before the murders show Simpson wearing shoes that had the exact Silga sole that left the shoe prints at Bundy.

The shoe prints at Bundy were made by size 12 shoes, the same size Simpson wore. The fact is that there were many partial shoe prints found on the walkway at Bundy. The size of the pattern and the heel made in the bloody shoe prints were used to determine the size of the shoe that made the partial shoe prints.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Bobaugust, you will continue to be perpetually in the dark because you have not performed any independent discovery of your own. You are simply regirgitating false facts based upon lies that have been given to individuals like you to disseminate. You do this eagerly, for what purpose one can only speculate, though I know that you know that their chirade is sinking fast. Remember, I last referred to you as the man with his finger in the dike, attempting to hold back the truth.

The time descrepancy is becoming more valid everyday. We now know that the I-405 was under heavy construction for 15 miles, courtesy of documents from supportive CalTrans employees, where the Browns had to travel. We know that given those conditions their journey, as stated by your own favorites, Lang and Vannatter, was at least a one and a half to two hour journey the night of 06/12/94. Therefore anytime that the Browns would have left the Brentwood, Mezzaluna Restaurant, would have gotten them home well beyond their alleged 9:37PM phone call time back to the restaurant.

Those phone records that you so majestically tout, are equally ridiculous, anyone would question the image distortion of the time in question, font differences, amongst other sordid irregularities. Those records came, not from an unbiased 3rd party, GTE, but from an unscrupulous scoundrel who secretly removed them from Simpson's file under a cloak of deceit, Wm. Hodgman.

30 photos, Hogwash! Those photos showed up not during the time of the FBIs testimony during the criminal trial but a year and a half after the criminal trial had ended. The highly questionable photos just conveniently appeared, I presume, at a time necessary to hide the intentional malfeasance of that particular FBI agent, the fabricator, William Bodziack. Since he knew of the 19 different shoe brands that the U2887 Silga sole was on, imagine the impact that it would have had had he mentioned it in the criminal trial, as he should have. His failure to do so, further undermines the credibility of the so called Bruno Magli photographs with Simpson.

Your other comments are simply too weak for me to desire rendering a response, Bob.

[bobaugust]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

Bobaugust, you will continue to be perpetually in the dark because you have not performed any independent discovery of your own. You are simply regirgitating false facts based upon lies that have been given to individuals like you to disseminate. You do this eagerly, for what purpose one can only speculate, though I know that you know that their chirade is sinking fast. Remember, I last referred to you as the man with his finger in the dike, attempting to hold back the truth.

The time descrepancy is becoming more valid everyday. We now know that the I-405 was under heavy construction for 15 miles, courtesy of documents from supportive CalTrans employees, where the Browns had to travel. We know that given those conditions their journey, as stated by your own favorites, Lang and Vannatter, was at least a one and a half to two hour journey the night of 06/12/94. Therefore anytime that the Browns would have left the Brentwood, Mezzaluna Restaurant, would have gotten them home well beyond their alleged 9:37PM phone call time back to the restaurant.

Those phone records that you so majestically tout, are equally ridiculous, anyone would question the image distortion of the time in question, font differences, amongst other sordid irregularities. Those records came, not from an unbiased 3rd party, GTE, but from an unscrupulous scoundrel who secretly removed them from Simpson's file under a cloak of deceit, Wm. Hodgman.

30 photos, Hogwash! Those photos showed up not during the time of the FBIs testimony during the criminal trial but a year and a half after the criminal trial had ended. The highly questionable photos just conveniently appeared, I presume, at a time necessary to hide the intentional malfeasance of that particular FBI agent, the fabricator, William Bodziack. Since he knew of the 19 different shoe brands that the U2887 Silga sole was on, imagine the impact that it would have had had he mentioned it in the criminal trial, as he should have. His failure to do so, further undermines the credibility of the so called Bruno Magli photographs with Simpson.

Your other comments are simply too weak for me to desire rendering a response, Bob.

Big Ben, the evidence presented in this case tell us what happened. You may have conducted a so called independent investigation but what you found does not change the reality of what happened that night.

Juditha Brown testified that when they left the restaurant after dinner she realized her eyeglasses were missing. She said she didn't think she had them in the restaurant with her so they looked in their Jeep put they didn't find them. She testified that by that time is was 8:30 P.M. and she was concerned about the small children with them getting to bed so they started their drive home to Orange County. Juditha testified that when they got home she called the Mezzaluna Restaurant to ask if they had seen her eyeglasses.

Karen Crawford testified in the grand jury on June 21, 1994 that she received that call from Juditha Brown between 9:30 and 9:45 and found the eyeglasses saw them in the street where the Brown's Jeep had been parked. Crawford told Juditha she would hold the eyeglasses for pick up and put them in an envelope writing Nicole's name on the envelope

Juditha Brown testified that after she spoke with Karen Crawford she called Nicole and told her about her conversation with Crawford. Nicole then called the restaurant, spoke with Crawford and then spoke with her friend Ron Goldman, a waiter at the restaurant. Crawford testified that she received Nicole's call about five minutes after speaking with Juditha Brown. Crawford testified she gave the envelope containing the eyeglasses to Ron. Crawford and other employees testified Ron left the restaurant about ten minutes to ten.

Based on the testimony of Robert Heidstra, Ron arrived at Bundy shortly after 10:30 that night. When the police arrived at Bundy they saw the envelope with Juditha Brown's eyeglasses in it near Ron's Body.

There have been many people who have duplicated the drive the Brown's made from the Mezzaluna Restaurant to their home on a Sunday night and found that it could be done in the time the Brown's said they did it in even with time to spare.

The Brown's telephone records were obtained from GTE on July 4. 1994, brought to court and given to Simpson's attorneys. The telephone records documented the actual time of the telephone calls Juditha Brown made that night. They document her call to the Mezzaluna Restaurant as 9::37 P.M. and Juditha Brown's call to Nicole as 9::40 P.M. In the criminal trial both Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran made and agreed to stipulations regarding the telephone records saying they were accurate and depicted the time the call came into the restaurant. 9:37 P.M.

That's the documented evidence in this case whether or not you want to believe it or not. Your claim about image distortion relates to the prosecution exhibit showing an enlarged photocopy of the portion of the Brown's telephone bill showing the calls made on June 12. The distortions are normal when something is blown up to many times it's size. Any printed document that looks perfectly normal in it's original size will show distortions the more it is enlarged. There are always tiny discrepancies in the type and spacing in any printed document that that can't be seen in it's normal size but become apparent the more the document is enlarged.

The over thirty authenticated photographs did not surface until December 1996 when one of the plaintiffs attorneys, John Kelly, following a lead flew from New York to Buffalo and met with the Buffalo Bill's information director, Denny Lynch who put him in touch with a photographer named E.J. Flammer, who put him in touch with his son, E.J. Flammer Jr. who had shown him the pictures. Flammer had taken over thirty photographs of Simpson posing with members of the Monday Morning Quarterback Club as well as Bill Munson and Denny Lynch from the Buffalo Bills at a Buffalo Bills football game on September 26, 1993. The Monday Morning Quarterback Club had hired Flammer to take the photographs that day because they were honoring Simpson on the anniversary of his record run. Flammer's father was the president of the club. All of the photographs Flammer took of Simpson show him wearing the same clothing and the same shoes that the Scull photograph taken the same day showed. One of Flammer's photographs was published in a monthly publication of the Buffalo Bills Report in November 1993.

As to my other comments about the bloody shoe prints I understand why you have no desire to respond since you measured a partial shoe print shown in a photograph and then claimed it was too small for Simpson to have made. You should be embarrassed.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by bobaugust

*snip*
Big Ben, the evidence presented in this case tell us what happened. You may have conducted a so called independent investigation but what you found does not change the reality of what happened that night.

I agree. IIRC $19 million dollars was spent in the criminal trial & a good amount was spent in the civil trial, yet someone here thinks they have better resources to conduct an independent investigation? That's funny.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, the evidence presented in this case tell us what happened. You may have conducted a so called independent investigation but what you found does not change the reality of what happened that night.

Juditha Brown testified that when they left the restaurant after dinner she realized her eyeglasses were missing. She said she didn't think she had them in the restaurant with her so they looked in their Jeep put they didn't find them. She testified that by that time is was 8:30 P.M. and she was concerned about the small children with them getting to bed so they started their drive home to Orange County. Juditha testified that when they got home she called the Mezzaluna Restaurant to ask if they had seen her eyeglasses.

Karen Crawford testified in the grand jury on June 21, 1994 that she received that call from Juditha Brown between 9:30 and 9:45 and found the eyeglasses saw them in the street where the Brown's Jeep had been parked. Crawford told Juditha she would hold the eyeglasses for pick up and put them in an envelope writing Nicole's name on the envelope

Juditha Brown testified that after she spoke with Karen Crawford she called Nicole and told her about her conversation with Crawford. Nicole then called the restaurant, spoke with Crawford and then spoke with her friend Ron Goldman, a waiter at the restaurant. Crawford testified that she received Nicole's call about five minutes after speaking with Juditha Brown. Crawford testified she gave the envelope containing the eyeglasses to Ron. Crawford and other employees testified Ron left the restaurant about ten minutes to ten.

Based on the testimony of Robert Heidstra, Ron arrived at Bundy shortly after 10:30 that night. When the police arrived at Bundy they saw the envelope with Juditha Brown's eyeglasses in it near Ron's Body.

There have been many people who have duplicated the drive the Brown's made from the Mezzaluna Restaurant to their home on a Sunday night and found that it could be done in the time the Brown's said they did it in even with time to spare.

The Brown's telephone records were obtained from GTE on July 4. 1994, brought to court and given to Simpson's attorneys. The telephone records documented the actual time of the telephone calls Juditha Brown made that night. They document her call to the Mezzaluna Restaurant as 9::37 P.M. and Juditha Brown's call to Nicole as 9::40 P.M. In the criminal trial both Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran made and agreed to stipulations regarding the telephone records saying they were accurate and depicted the time the call came into the restaurant. 9:37 P.M.

That's the documented evidence in this case whether or not you want to believe it or not. Your claim about image distortion relates to the prosecution exhibit showing an enlarged photocopy of the portion of the Brown's telephone bill showing the calls made on June 12. The distortions are normal when something is blown up to many times it's size. Any printed document that looks perfectly normal in it's original size will show distortions the more it is enlarged. There are always tiny discrepancies in the type and spacing in any printed document that that can't be seen in it's normal size but become apparent the more the document is enlarged.

The over thirty authenticated photographs did not surface until December 1996 when one of the plaintiffs attorneys, John Kelly, following a lead flew from New York to Buffalo and met with the Buffalo Bill's information director, Denny Lynch who put him in touch with a photographer named E.J. Flammer, who put him in touch with his son, E.J. Flammer Jr. who had shown him the pictures. Flammer had taken over thirty photographs of Simpson posing with members of the Monday Morning Quarterback Club as well as Bill Munson and Denny Lynch from the Buffalo Bills at a Buffalo Bills football game on September 26, 1993. The Monday Morning Quarterback Club had hired Flammer to take the photographs that day because they were honoring Simpson on the anniversary of his record run. Flammer's father was the president of the club. All of the photographs Flammer took of Simpson show him wearing the same clothing and the same shoes that the Scull photograph taken the same day showed. One of Flammer's photographs was published in a monthly publication of the Buffalo Bills Report in November 1993.

As to my other comments about the bloody shoe prints I understand why you have no desire to respond since you measured a partial shoe print shown in a photograph and then claimed it was too small for Simpson to have made. You should be embarrassed.

bobaugust

bob
heidstra's testimony indicated that someone Maby ron. arrived at bundy at 10: 40 not some time not some time shortly after 10;30 pm


martin II

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by martin II

bob
heidstra's testimony indicated that someone Maby ron. arrived at bundy at 10: 40 not some time not some time shortly after 10;30 pm


martin II

Heidra's testmony did not indicate that Ron or anyone else arrived at Bundy at 10:40 IIRC. I believe you are wrong about this.

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, the evidence presented in this case tell us what happened. You may have conducted a so called independent investigation but what you found does not change the reality of what happened that night.

(CLOWNISH REMARK):THERE IS NOTHING "SO CALLED" REGARDING THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION THAT DR. HENRY S. JOHNSON AND OUR O.M.I.G. INVESTIGATIVE GROUP CONDUCTED, BOB. YOU ARE NOT THE FINAL ARBITOR TO DECIDE WHAT OUR INVESTIGATION WILL OR WILL NOT CHANGE. YOU APPEAR TO BE A COUNTER INTELLIGENCE FACTOR. I'VE KNOWN YOUR POSITION FOR APPROX. 10 YEARS NOW, BUT I SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT SUCH OUTDATED THOUGHTS AS YOURS ARE SINKING IN LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE THAT (OMIG) AND OTHERS ARE REVEALING REGARDING THE HIDDEN TRUTHS OF THIS CASE.

Juditha Brown testified that by that time is was 8:30 P.M. and she was concerned about the small children with them getting to bed so they started their drive home to Orange County.

(UNACCEPTABLE AND DUBIOUS RESPONSE):STRANGE THAT JUDITHA DIDN'T GIVE THIS TESTIMONY ANYTIME DURING THE CRIMINAL TRIAL, EVEN THOUGH SHE COULD WALK, AND TALK (WITH THE MEDIA), AND WAS OFTEN IN THE COURTROOM DURING SIMPSON'S CRIMINAL TRIAL. VERY SUSPICIOUS!
THE INITIAL TESTIMONY IN THE POLICE REPORT GIVEN BY THE MEZZALUNA MNGR. WAS THAT THEY DEPARTED AT 9:00 PM ON 06/13/94. EVEN DURING TRIAL THE WAITRESS TIA GAVIN PEGGED THE DEPARTURE AT APPROX. 8:45 PM. JUDITHA'S TESTIMONY OCCURRED 15 MONTHS AFTER THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ENDED AND WAS DURING EARLY DECEMBER 1996 IN THE CIVIL TRIAL. PLENTY OF TIME TO GET HER STORY STRUCTURED, I'D SAY! BOB YOU LIKE TO DISMISS INITIAL CONTRADICTORY REMARKS, I DON'T AND WILL NOT. THIS IS WHY ALL EVIDENCE THAT O.M.I.G. ASKS FOR SHOULD BE PRODUCED.

Karen Crawford testified in the grand jury on June 21, 1994 that she received that call from Juditha Brown between 9:30 and 9:45 and found the eyeglasses saw them in the street where the Brown's Jeep had been parked. Crawford told Juditha she would hold the eyeglasses for pick up and put them in an envelope writing Nicole's name on the envelope.......

(HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE):CRAWFORD'S NERVOUS AND SEEMINGLY FORCED TESTIMONY RAISE QUESTIONS OF THE ISSUE OF THE VORACITY OF HER REMARKS. IT IS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL AS WELL THAT ALL OF THE PROCEDURES AND/OR PHYSICAL ACTIONS THAT WERE REQUIRED DURING THE EXPLORATION AND/OR SEARCH FOR THE EYE GLASSES BY CRAWFORD COULD HAVE OCCURRED DURING THE THREE MINUTE INTERVAL BETWEEN 9:37 PM AND 9:40 PM AS SHOWN ON THE EXHIBIT 35 POSTERBOARD., WHICH ALSO INCLUDED THE INITIAL CONVERSATION WITH JUDITHA, THE CONFIRMING CONVERSATION WITH JUDITHA, JUDITHA'S CALL TO NICOLE, AND NICOLE'S RETURN CALL TO THE RESTAURANT BY 9:40 PM. HIGHLY DOUBTFUL!

Based on the testimony of Robert Heidstra, Ron arrived at Bundy shortly after 10:30 that night. When the police arrived at Bundy they saw the envelope with Juditha Brown's eyeglasses in it near Ron's Body.

(HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE): GIVEN ALL OF THE CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE DISCOVERED BY O.M.I.G. IT IS PROBABLE THAT RON'S DEPARTURE FROM THE RESTAURANT WAS AFTER 10:33 PM IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIA GAVIN'S FIRST STATEMENT THAT THE MEZZALUNA TIME CLOCKS HAD NOT BEEN ADJUSTED FOR DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME. THIS ASSERTION IS MADE MORE PLAUSIBLE DUE TO THE FACT THAT MANAGEMENT DID NOT BOTHER TO CHANGE OTHER IMPORTANT TIME DEVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE RESTAURANT.

There have been many people who have duplicated the drive the Brown's made from the Mezzaluna Restaurant to their home on a Sunday night and found that it could be done in the time the Brown's said they did it in even with time to spare.

(UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE):ALL SUCH DRIVES OCCURRED AFTER SIMPSON ALLOWED O.M.I.G TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO PURSUE THE ACQUISITION OF THE BROWN TELEPHONE RECORDS IN 1999. THE CONDITIONS OF THE ALLEGED DRIVES DID NOT DUPLICATE THE DRIVING CONDITIONS OF 06/12/94. BY THAT TIME THE LANES HAD BEEN INCREASED ON THE I-405 AND ALL HEAVY CONSTRUCTION TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LANES, THAT SLOWED SPEEDS DOWN TO AS LOW AS 29 MPH THROUGH A 15 MILE STRETCH, HAD ENDED.

In the criminal trial both Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran made and agreed to stipulations regarding the telephone records saying they were accurate and depicted the time the call came into the restaurant. 9:37 P.M.

(UNDOCUMENTED AND CONTRADICTED RESPONSE):YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THE ACTUAL RECORDS, THEY WERE NEVER EXPOSED IN COURT, AND NEITHER HAS THE JURY OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC. YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE FACTS THAT ROBERT SHAPIRO INITIALLY OFFERED TO STIPULATE TO 10:17 PM AS THE TIME TO WHEN THE INITIAL PHONE CALL CAME INTO THE RESTAURANT IN JUDGE K.K. POWELL'S COURT CHAMBERS ON JULY 8, 1994. SHE SEALED THE RECORD. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS DEPT. FOR THE L.A. SUPERIOR COURT THAT THE JUDITHA BROWN PHONE RECORDS WERE EVER DELIVERED TO THEM. JOHNNIE COCHRAN SLIPPED AND IMPLIED THAT THE TELEPHONE RECORDS HAD BEEN INTENTIONALLY KEPT FROM THE JURY BECAUSE THEY COULD PREJUDICE THE JURY ON JULY 6, 1995. HIS INADVERTENT FAUX PAS MAY HAVE CAUSED HIS UNTIMELY DEATH.

Your claim about image distortion related to the prosecution exhibit showing an enlarged photocopy of the portion of the Brown's telephone bill showing the calls made on June 12. The distortions are normal .......

(UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE): ABSURD! THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST CRUCIAL PIECES OF POTENTIALLY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. YOUR RESPONSE IS TOTALLY ABSURD! UNACCEPTABLE FROM AN INVESTIGATORS VIEWPOINT. THAT IS WHY O.M.I.G. TOLD BROWN THAT WE WANTED A COPY OF THE RECORDS TO COME DIRECTLY FROM THE GTE ARCHIVES IN SAN ANGELO, TX. YOU MAKE MY FINGERS TIRED WITH YOUR ABSURD COMMENTARY, BOB!

The over thirty authenticated photographs did not surface until December 1996 when one of the plaintiffs attorneys, John Kelly, following a lead flew from New York to Buffalo and met with the Buffalo Bill's information director,

(UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE):THOSE PHOTOS WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE A YEAR AND A HALF EARLIER DURING THE MOST CELEBRATED TRIAL IN HISTORY;TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE. THE FACT THAT THE SO CALLED TRUE PHOTOS TRAVELED HALF WAY AROUND THE WORLD BEFORE MYSTERIOUSLY COMING BACK TO THE U.S.; MAKE THEM SUSPECT. THE FACT THAT THEY WERE, IN MY OPINION, THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED BY A PHOTO EXPERT (THE ONLY ONE, MIND YOU, TO PASS ALL TEST QUESTIONS AS A JFK PHOTO EXPERT) WAS ENOUGH FOR ME. THE BENEFIT OF THE PHOTOS WAS, IN MY OPINION, NECESSARY TO SAVE THE FBI FROM TOTAL DISCREDITATION WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT FBI AGENT BODZIACK FAILED TO TELL THE JURY/TELEVISION VIEWERS THAT THE U2887 SILGA SOLE WAS FOUND ON 19 OTHER SHOE BRANDS AROUND THE WORLD.

As to my other comments about the bloody shoe prints I understand why you have no desire to respond since you measured a partial shoe print shown in a photograph and then claimed it was too small for Simpson to have made. You should be embarrassed.bobaugust

(IN REPLY TO YOUR RESPONSE): OUR MEASUREMENTS PROMPTED O.M.I.G. TO ACQUIRE U2887 SIZE 46 SOLES FROM SILGA IN 2002 AND THEY ARE 3/4 INCHES SHORTER THAN SIMPSON'S FOOT. FBI AGENT BODZIACK MISREPRESENTED THE TRUTH ABOUT A NONSENSICAL "SIZE 12" SHOE KNOWING THAT THERE IS NO STANDARD "SIZE 12", VARIANCES EXIST ALL OVER THE WORLD FOR SO CALLED "SIZE 12" SHOES, EVEN BETWEEN ENGLISH SPEAKING COUNTRIES AS U.S. AND GREAT BRITAIN. HE KNEW THAT SIMPSON'S FOOT WAS MUCH LONGER THAN THE SHOES THAT MADE THE PRINTS AT 875 SO. BUNDY DRIVE AND WE HAVE TOLD YOU THAT BEFORE. NO EMBARASSMENT, I'M SIMPLY ATTEMPTING TO LIMIT FOOLISH COMMENTARY.

[martin II]

Heidstra testified that he was standing east of nicoles condo at 10:40 when he heard hey hey hey and a gate slam. Many believe that it was ron that yelled and slamed the gate at this time.If true then it was ron that arrived at the gate at 10:40 pm on 6/12/. If not then someone else yelled and slammed the gate.
imo
martin II

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by martin II

Heidstra testified that he was standing east of nicoles condo at 10:40 when he heard hey hey hey and a gate slam. Many believe that it was ron that yelled and slamed the gate at this time.If true then it was ron that arrived at the gate at 10:40 pm on 6/12/. If not then someone else yelled and slammed the gate.
imo martin II

We just don't know! I highly doubt it, being a proponent of the time clock being not adjusted for daylight savings at the Mezzaluna, which would have had Ron's punch out at 10:33 PM and his leaving closer to 10:50 PM instead of 9:33 PM and 9:50 PM, which is the standard line. 10:50 PM would be more in line with the time it would have taken the Brown family to travel down the I-405 on the night of 06/12/94 and would make the approx. 11:00 PM phone conversation initially stated by Nicole's father, Lou, to the 06/13/94 coroner's investigator and Nicole's mother, Juditha's, initial statement to defense investigators about an 11:00 PM phone conversation with daughter Nicole more plausible.

What and who Heidra allegedly heard, we simply don't know. It could have been a continuation of the alleged argument that dog walker, Thomas Lange (no relationship to the detective) claimed that he witnessed about that time between a woman who looked like Nicole and two men at the front gate of 875 So. Bundy and caused him to divert his walk from the immediate path of the argument, where the woman was crying, he said. Suspiciously, they never let him testify. Nicole, it is known, had been dating some very dubious characters after her divorce. One fellow she was allegedly dating, a contractor who had worked on a painting crew for her condo, turned out to be a confidential informant for federal and L.A. narcotics officers, turns out that he was also a serial killer, on death row in Florida, for killing 3 women in 3 states within 3 weeks time.

[weezer]

wow -- talk about needing to take meds!

[tv]

Scary...very scary. This doesn't deserve a response.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

Scary...very scary. This doesn't deserve a response.

tvdinner
if the state paid $19 million to investigate the case i can understand oj when he said he could not afford a investigation to find the murder.

imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by martin II

tvdinner
if the state paid $19 million to investigate the case i can understand oj when he said he could not afford a investigation to find the murder.

imo
martin II

It looks like you are confused. The state didn't spend $19 million. IIRC $19 million was the TOTAL spent by the state & the defense team. $10 million by Orenthal & $9 million by the state.

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

*snip*
What difference does the dollar amount make if you never intended to reveal the facts but simply slant them in the direction that you wanted the case to go.

$10 million dollars of that amount was spent by the defense. Are you saying that they "never intended to reveal the facts but simply slant them in the direction that you wanted the case to go"?

As for the balance of your post, I think most reasonable people here can judge who/what is absurd, hateful, without common sense reasoning.

Perhaps you should hop on a chartered jet & get your findings to Orenthal A.S.AP. I'm sure he would be eternally grateful that you've proved his innocence with your findings. Perhaps he'll include it in his next interview or book.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

skullduggery? donkeys? dike pluggers? Oh my. . . . .

wonder why orenthal didn't use the opportunity of his book to give some of this information to the public rather than saying "I Did It" imo

WEEZER
maby because he wanted to tell his love story of 17 years with Nicole so you would have the opportunity to read it if you baught the book. His book was 'IF IDID IT" BUT it may be that you will change his words right?

IMO
MARTIN ii

[tv]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

skullduggery? donkeys? dike pluggers? Oh my. . . . .

wonder why orenthal didn't use the opportunity of his book to give some of this information to the public rather than saying "I Did It" imo

Excellent point! I don't have a problem with someone stating their opinion but it's been my experience that when someone starts name calling they don't really have a valid argument.

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

Excellent point! I don't have a problem with someone stating their opinion but it's been my experience that when someone starts name calling they don't really have a valid argument.

I'm beginning to wonder if Orenthal has borrowed a dictionary & has learned to use the Internet Who else would be that venomous? How does he profess to know how old I am & that I have high blood pressure? I'm not old & my blood pressure is on the low side. I guess his crystal ball needs a tune-up. lol.