Key Testimony in the Civil Trial

[weezer]

HARRY SCULL, free-lance photographer: (VT-RT) Took head-to-toe picture of Simpson in September 1993. Nov. 7, 1996:

DR. ROBERT HUIZENGA, former Los Angeles Raiders physician: Examined Simpson twice the week after killings, noted three cuts and seven abrasions on left hand; estimated wounds were five to seven days old, which would include date of killings; Simpson had arthritis and other football-related problems.

KENNETH BERRIS, Chicago police detective: (RT) Saw what appeared to be blood spots on sheets and pillowcase in Simpson's hotel room; found broken glass in bathroom sink, glass shards on bathroom counter; saw no blood on glass. Nov. 8, 1996:

DR. WERNER SPITZ, forensic pathologist, former Detroit coroner: Ms. Simpson died in about 15 seconds, Goldman about a minute; killings committed by one attacker with one knife; Simpson's hand injuries could have been caused by victims' fingernails as they struggled; all wounds inflicted in way that killer would have very little blood on him; raked his own arm with fingernails, drawing no blood, to show how Goldman could have torn at killer; Ms. Simpson punched near mouth. Nov. 12, 1996:

DOUGLAS DEEDRICK, special agent for FBI: Hair matching Simpson's found on Goldman's shirt, entwined in knit cap; hair matching both victims found on right glove; limb hair from unidentified black person found on right glove; Ms. Simpson's hair found on Goldman's shirt, on glove and hat found near bodies; carpet fibers matching samples taken from Simpson's 1994 Bronco found inside cap and on glove at Simpson's - such carpet was installed in 72,000 Ford Broncos, vans and trucks made after May 1993; Goldman's shirt had hair fragment that could have been Simpson's and cashmere strands that could have come from glove linings; glove found at Simpson home yielded a hair from Ms. Simpson, hairs from Goldman, limb hair from black person, bloody fibers from Goldman's shirt, carpet fiber and mysterious blue-black cotton strand; other blue-black strands found on Goldman's shirt and on socks from Simpson's bedroom; negroid hairs not belonging to Simpson found in cap.

ROBIN COTTON, director Cellmark Diagnostics: Simpson's genetic markers match those found in blood drops near bodies and in foyer of house; chances 1 in 170 million that someone else's type would match blood drop near bodies; less-sophisticated testing on four other blood drops gave better chance blood could have been someone else's, but calculations still overwhelmingly against him; unlikely Ms. Simpson's test tube blood was planted on socks because test results on samples so different - DNA in Ms. Simpson's blood vial degraded more than DNA in sock blood sample. Nov. 14-15, 1996:

GARY SIMS, biochemist for California Department of Justice: Conducted DNA tests confirming many Cellmark findings; chances of 1 in 57 billion to 1 in 150 billion that blood on back gate was not Simpson's. Nov. 18, 1996:

[weezer]

O.J. SIMPSON: Allegations he killed victims "absolutely not true"; never battered ex-wife, she lied when she said he hit her; she started lot of their fights but he responsible for New Year's 1989 battle; denied Paula Barbieri romance ended night of killings and said he never got phone message to that effect despite seemingly contradictory phone records; phoned ex-wife about 9 p.m. night of killings and asked to speak with daughter, congratulated her on dance recital; no person saw him during critical 80 minutes on killing night.

Couldn't explain cut hand; didn't know how his blood or victims' blood got into Bronco or how his blood and Ms. Simpson's blood got on socks; never owned shoes matching those linked to killings, photo showing him wearing such shoes "is a fraud"; had no fingernail gouges from victims; might have been cut while "rassling" with son; was hooked to polygraph to see how device worked but never took test; offered to take polygraph for police but they never pursued.

Had passport and fake mustache and goatee in bag during Bronco chase, in which he was heading for ex-wife's grave; "suicide" letter expressed no sorrow over killing, but "I felt the whole letter went to my sorrow"; did not ask Kaelin about thumps during call on flight from Chicago; did not try to contact security company, police or daughter on flight back; doesn't remember, when Barbieri visited him in jail, asking her about message he left on her answering machine shortly before slayings; he and Ms. Simpson had "few ups and downs"; accepted responsibility for 1989 fight because "didn't think Nicole and I should be in a courtroom explaining to the public what happened." Dec. 3, 1996:

[weezer]

AL "A.C." COWLINGS, Simpson's best friend: Took Ms. Simpson to hospital after 1989 fight; she told him Simpson hit her.

INDIA ALLEN, 1988 Playboy Playmate of the Year, dog groomer: Recounted 1980s fight between Simpsons in parking lot of veterinary office.

ALBERT AGUILERA, pharmacist: Saw Simpson strike wife in Laguna Beach shortly before July 4th weekend, 1986. Dec. 4, 1996:

NANCY N. NEY, volunteer at Sojourn House, battered women's shelter: Took call from woman identified as Nicole five days before killings; caller said famous ex-husband was stalking her, had beaten her and threatened to kill her if he caught her with another man.

[weezer]

DR. RONALD FISCHMAN, longtime Simpson friend: Simpson was "tired, fatigued and slightly withdrawn" at dance recital; never saw Simpson that way before.

PAULA BARBIERI, model, Simpson's ex-girlfriend: (VT, RT) Left message on Simpson's answering system morning of killings saying relationship was over; messages he left later led her to believe he got message.

LESLIE GARDNER, exercise video wardrobe stylist: At Simpson's request, purchased a black cashmere designer sweatsuit; he told her he'd had one in past but it wore out; clothes weren't returned and she believed Simpson kept them.

JOSEPHINE "GIGI" GUARIN, Simpson housekeeper: Away from house night of killings; saw fake goatee and beard on Simpson's desk week before killings; dog Chachi never ran off the property.

RANDALL PETEE, private investigator: Test trip times between estate and condo ranged from 6 minutes, 37 seconds, at speed limit, to 4 minutes, 2 seconds, if speeding; followed instructions given by plaintiffs; could probably made trip faster going his own way. Dec. 5, 1996:

DR. LENORE WALKER, psychiatrist retained by Simpson defense: (RT) Spent 60 hours interviewing Simpson in jail; her notes suggested Simpson did retrieve Barbieri's "Dear John" message.

[weezer]

JUDITHA BROWN, Ms. Simpson's mother: Sobbed in describing daughter's final days; saw Simpson leaning over coffin, kissing her and saying, "I'm so sorry, Nicki. I'm so sorry"; Simpson was angry, in foul mood at recital; three weeks before killing, Simpson told her: "I'll tell you, the first time when she left me, I took the blame - it was my fault. The second time, it's going to hurt."

[weezer]

Jan. 14, 1997:

E.J. FLAMMER, free-lance photographer: Took 30 pictures of Simpson on Sept. 26, 1993, at Buffalo Bills-Miami Dolphins game; photos to promote 20th anniversary of Simpson's 2,003-yard rushing season; found pictures recently in basement darkroom and gave to plaintiffs; hired lawyer and agent and sold pictures to TV networks.

GERALD RICHARDS, former FBI photo analyst: Refuted Groden's claims that Scull picture was phony - photo not altered in any way; blue lines on negative were scratches from camera mechanism, frame not larger than other negatives, reddish tint was reflection of red football field, false edge on negative was start of film roll. Jan. 15, 1997

RICHARDS (continuing): Scull photo "100% not a fake"; backlighting created halo effect around shoes; in photo of crime-scene glove, what looked like hole was optical illusion created by debris.

GREGORY MATHESON, crime lab supervisor: Debris marred glove in picture; blood on glove matched Goldman's; Bronco console was smeared with blood in Sept. 1, 1994, photos, but appeared clean in pictures three weeks later.

DENNIS FUNG: Recanted testimony about hole in glove; no longer believes evidence glove different from one he collected near bodies; denied he was pressured to change story.

RICHARD FOX, private criminalist: Rebutted defense experts about microscopic balls of blood inside sock; blood could have transferred during testing or when wearer took socks off; defense theory that blood was smeared on sock in lab unlikely. Jan. 16, 1997

BRAD POPOVICH, chemical molecular geneticist: No evidence of contamination in DNA samples; results accurate, reliable; was paid $30,000 by criminal trial prosecutors but never called to testify.

GERALD RICHARDS (recalled): Flammer's 30 photos authentic, no signs of alteration or substitution of negatives; someone with motivation, time, equipment, money and talent could fake pictures.

WILLIAM BODZIAK: Shoes seen on Simpson's feet in Flammer's pictures are Lorenzo-style Bruno Maglis.

By The Associated Press

[weezer]

Day of denials for Simpson
SANTA MONICA, Calif. - O.J. Simpson responded with a string of denials Monday when confronted with his statements, lie detector test results and key evidence at his civil trial.

But the most stunning moment in Simpson's second day of testimony: plaintiffs' lawyer Daniel Petrocelli's revelation to jurors that Simpson had failed a lie detector test.

At first, Simpson denied taking a lie-detector test. Then he said he only had a test run the week after the June 12, 1994, murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

"They wired me up to something, and they got to where they explained to me how it works," Simpson said.

But Petrocelli said Simpson took the test and had a "minus-22" score. He asked if Simpson realized that represented "extreme deception." Simpson said he didn't know.

Simpson has said he did not kill his ex-wife and Goldman.

Also Monday:

Simpson denied he had a series of small, fingernail-shaped cuts on his hands the day after the murders despite police photos to the contrary.
Simpson said he had no idea how his blood and that of the victims got into his house, his Bronco or the murder scene.
Simpson called a "fraud" photos of him in shoes like those linked to the murders.
Shown pictures of him wearing gloves similar to those found at the murder scene, he denied they were his.
Shown pictures of him wearing a dark sweatsuit for an exercise video, he denied it was his. Fibers from such a suit were found on the bodies.
He again denied picking up a "Dear John" phone message on the day of the murders by ex-girlfriend Paula Barbieri. The families believe the call was the emotional trigger for Nicole's murder.
The denial conflicted with phone records and statements to police and domestic violence expert Lenore Walker, all cited by Petrocelli.

The Goldman and Brown families want Simpson held liable for the murders. He denies any involvement and was acquitted in a criminal trial.

By Jonathan T. Lovitt and Gale Holland, USA TODAY

[weezer]

10/18/96 - 07:41 PM ET - Excerpts from O.J. Simpson's deposition transcript

Excerpts from the deposition of O.J. Simpson, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press.

Alibi.

"When you were in the bedroom around 10:35 (p.m.) or so and you looked at the clock, what were doing in the bedroom?" asked lawyer Daniel Petrocelli.

"Sitting on my bed, kind of sitting, half laying, sitting on the pillows on my bed."

"How long had you been doing that?"

"Ten, 15 minutes."

"... And then you - when you saw the time, you got up?"

"Yes."

"And what did you do at that point?"

"Went (to the bathroom)."

"How long did that take?"

"I don't recall."

"Then what did you do?"

"Jumped in the shower."

"How long did that take?"

"I don't recall."

"Then what did you do?"

"Got out of the shower."

"Then what did you do?"

"Dried off."

"Then what?"

"Started to get dressed."

"Then what?"

"Started finishing packing my suitcase."

"... Was the limo driver there - "

"Yes."

"- when you finished dressing?"

"Yes."

"Was he there when you got out of the shower."

"Yes."

"How do you know?"

"Because I heard my phone continuing to ring."

"And you didn't answer it?"

"No."

Night golf around time of killings.

"From what location in your Rockingham property did you hit those golf balls?" asked Petrocelli.

"My front yard."

"On the grass?"

"Yes."

"Did you tee them up?"

"No."

"You just put them on the grass?"

"Just dropped them on the grass."

"Did you take full swings?"

"Once or twice I did, yes."

"... Did it hit anything?"

"No."

First cut on left hand, while getting ready to leave for Chicago.

"Where did you see the blood?" asked Petrocelli.

"On - just a drop really on the counter by my sink (in the kitchen), and then on this side of my hand."

"Now, for the record, you are referring to the outside of your left pinkie?"

"Yeah, sort of the fingernail area."

"... Did you have any idea how that happened?"

"No."

"Do you now know how it happened?"

"No."

"As you sit here now, you have no idea what caused that finger to produce a little blood?"

"If it produced blood, no."

"You don't even know if it came from that finger?"

"Correct."

"You think you might have touched something that was bloody?"

"I have no idea."

"Do you know if the blood that you saw was your blood?"

"No."

"You don't know?"

"No."

"Did you see anyone else bleeding that evening?"

"No."

Second cut on left hand, while getting ready to leave a Chicago hotel room after hearing of ex-wife's death.

"I was trying to scoop the (broken) glass into the sink with some toilet paper and I believe a towel ... I don't know (how the glass got broken). I was out of it, and I was doing a few things and the glass broke, and I was going back and forth to the phone, and maybe I slammed it down. Maybe I knocked it over. I really don't know."

Third cuts on left hand, at some point after Simpson was questioned by police the morning after the killings.

"Now, are you saying that you got some of the cuts that we have seen in these photographs (taken June 15) after you got back from Chicago?" asked Petrocelli.

"Obviously, yes. ... They weren't there when I came back from Chicago and was at the police station, and since I didn't leave town from that point until Wednesday when they took pictures of it, I obviously, you know, got it after I came back from Chicago."

"Tell me where you got the cut and how you got the cut above the joint on the middle?"

"I don't know."

Paula Barbieri's "Dear John" phone call the morning of the killings.

"I don't believe I ever retrieved any messages from her that day."

Telling Gretchen Stockdale, later that evening, that he was "totally unattached."

"Well, Paula and I was trying to get back together. I don't - I didn't consider Paula and I an attachment or unattachment. ... I don't think I was really thinking about Paula at that time."

Call to Nicole Brown Simpson's house less than two hours before slayings.

"What did you say when she answered?" asked Petrocelli.

"I need to speak to Sydney."

"Did you say hello to her?"

"I don't recall."

"Did she saying anything to you?"

"No."

"Did you say, 'This is O.J.?"'

"No."

"... You were angry with her, right?"

"No."

"You got into an argument on this call, didn't you?"

"No."

"And you made her cry, didn't you?"

"No."

Ms. Simpson's emotional state in the weeks before the slayings.

"She was just not herself. She was a different person every time I talked to her. When I was in Puerto Rico, she seemed to be having a nervous breakdown; she even said she was, and I suspected it was drinking. I had hoped it wasn't pills or drugs, which I knew her friends were involved in, and I was hoping and still hope to this day that she wasn't involved in that."

Ms. Simpson's drug use.

"You said that Nicole told you that she had used some drugs, illegal drugs, when was that?" Petrocelli asked.

"In January."

"Of what year?"

"'94."

Keith Zlomsowitch.

"That ass----."

Ms. Simpson's fling with Zlomsowitch.

"I'm mad today when I think about it."

Suicidal thoughts during slow-speed chase.

"I felt at peace that I was going to stop feeling the way I was feeling."

"... And what was the cause of that pain?"

"Losing Nicole."

By The Associated Press

[weezer]

10/18/96 - 07:41 PM ET - Click reload often for latest version
Friend of Nicole's tells of O.J.'s threats
NEW YORK - A close friend of Nicole Brown Simpson who has remained loyal to O.J. Simpson said in a deposition that Ms. Simpson once told her of a threat by her former husband.

Cora Fishman quoted Ms. Simpson as saying that Simpson warned, "If I ever see you with another man, I'll kill you," the New York Daily News said Thursday, citing unidentified sources.

Fishman, 41, was questioned privately by attorneys this week in preparation for the trial of a wrongful death suit against Simpson.

Fishman also said Simpson told her in the weeks before the June 12, 1994, killings of Ms. Simpson and friend Ronald Goldman that he was upset at his former wife "because she wouldn't make a commitment to him."

Fishman, who is separated, said she and Simpson are close friends and she brings her daughter to his home to play with his daughter, according to the sources. It was Fishman's husband, Ron, who took videos of Simpson at daughter Sydney's dance recital the day of the killings.

Sources told the News that Simpson, who attended Fishman's deposition, became agitated when she was questioned about reports linking her romantically to Simpson.

Fishman acknowledged accompanying Simpson on an overnight trip to Santa Barbara but said there was no romance. She also denied that hours before the killings she had a falling-out with Ms. Simpson.

A jury acquitted Simpson of murder charges last year in a criminal trial. The civil lawsuit on behalf of the stabbing victims seeks to hold him liable for their deaths.

By The Associated Press

[weezer]

10/18/96 - 07:41 PM ET -
Sources say Simpson called Nicole night of murder
LOS ANGELES - Less than two hours before Nicole Brown Simpson was slashed to death, O.J. Simpson telephoned her and demanded to speak to their daughter, according to sources who recounted Simpson's deposition.

Simpson testified last week that he talked with his daughter Sydney about her dance recital earlier that evening and avoided talking to his ex-wife, sources told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The call from Simpson's mansion, never disclosed during his trial, was made between one and two hours before the time prosecutors contend Ms. Simpson and her friend were killed, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Simpson testified that all he said to his ex-wife was, "Let me speak to Sydney." He said he was trying to avoid talking to Ms. Simpson because he - not she - had broken off their relationship a month earlier.

Simpson was acquitted Oct. 3 in the June 1994 killings of Ms. Simpson and Ron Goldman. The parents of the victims have filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Simpson, forcing him to testify under oath about the case for the first time.

Lawyers for both sides have refused to comment on the details of the closed-door sessions, which are to resume later this month after the release of Simpson's mail-order video.

Simpson testified for five days, answering questions from lawyer Daniel Petrocelli, who represents Goldman's father.

Simpson's phone call shortly before the slayings was his second to Ms. Simpson that day. He had made an earlier call from his cellular phone, prosecutors have said, to make arrangements to attend the dance recital.

During his trial, Simpson house guest Brian "Kato" Kaelin testified that Simpson appeared upset when he arrived home from the recital because Ms. Simpson wouldn't let Simpson see their daughter at the event.

After giving conflicting testimony about the timing of the second call, Simpson settled on saying that it was probably placed before going to McDonald's with Kaelin about 9:10 p.m. that night, the sources said.

Prosecutors have suggested that the killings happened as early as 10:15 p.m. or 10:20 p.m., meaning that under their timeline Simpson's second call, if made before the McDonald's run, would have been made less than two hours before the slayings.

Simpson also testified during the deposition that he cut his hand twice in the hours surrounding the slayings: once when he hurt his little finger before leaving for Chicago, and again when he pushed a broken glass into the sink in his Chicago hotel room, the sources said.

Simpson said he didn't know how the glass had been broken, they said. The explanation contradicts Simpson's lawyers, who have said he broke the glass in anger after hearing about his ex-wife's death.

Prosecutors contended Simpson cut his hand while committing the crimes.

In other testimony, Simpson said he called Kaelin after hearing about the killings, and that the pair discussed the wall thumps that Kaelin heard around 10:40 p.m., sources said.

Simpson "drew some association" between the thumps and the killings, but didn't discuss it much more with Kaelin, according to one source. Kaelin had told Simpson about the thumps as Simpson was preparing to leave for Chicago.

Prosecutors contended that the thumps were caused by Simpson crashing into a wall air conditioner behind Kaelin's room while trying to stash a bloody glove, which was later found below the air conditioner.

Simpson, in an excerpt from his upcoming video, ridiculed the notion that he would be so clumsy.

By The Associated Press

[tv]

Bravo, weezer. Thanks for posting these facts from the civil trial.

[tv]

Originally Posted by Joseph Bell

Agree 100%. It's time other posters revisited the truth.

Unfortunately some of them haven't visited the truth the first time.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

Unfortunately some of them haven't visited the truth the first time.

A learned observation on your part, since many of the posts come from newspaper reports or articles and include hearsay from sources. I think that the truth lies in what was the actual testimony from the civil trial and not a report from a source. Again, I would like to offer youpraise on your recognition, although I understand the desires of some to be willing to accept the assessment of others who agree with their assessment.

[tv]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

A learned observation on your part, since many of the posts come from newspaper reports or articles and include hearsay from sources. I think that the truth lies in what was the actual testimony from the civil trial and not a report from a source. Again, I would like to offer youpraise on your recognition, although I understand the desires of some to be willing to accept the assessment of others who agree with their assessment.

I hope you're having a lovely evening.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

I hope you're having a lovely evening.

I always do when I engage in intelligent and truthful discussions and I hope that you will find a way to make yours enjoyable.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by Joseph Bell

Hi. An enjoyable post and I agree about the intelligent and truthful discussion. Let me ask you this question and you can choose whether or not to answer. Why did the jury, IYO, in the civil trial, find Simpson liable for the deaths of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman? Your opinion, if you have formed one, based on the trial accounts. I would be very interested to know.

Thank You. I have stated that the civil trial was in my opinion a political production. I said this, because I believe that the result was predetermined as a result of the outrage over the criminal verdict. I did not follow the civil trial and my limited knowledge of it was gained through the posters in this community and the little reading I did of the transcripts from the trial. There were some posts about what was included in the civil trial and what was left out, as a result of the judge's rulings. There were statements that were posted that the judge said to the jury; one was that they could Still find Simpson liable even though he had been found not guilty of murdering Ronald and Nicole (paraphrasing) and that "Basically, this is a civil murder trial."
When I read those statements my opinion of the trial was reinforced. I have stated that I accepted their verdict. I accept it, because I believe that based on the evidence they were allowed to hear and the lesser standard the plaintiffs were required to prove the jury reached the expected verdict. I find no fault with this jury but have question some of their statements that were posted. I cannot second guess their decision and believe that the verdict was correct based on how the trial was conducted.

[William Anthony]

[quote=Joseph Bell;9102125]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

Thank You. I have stated that the civil trial was in my opinion a political production.

OK. There are a few statements in your post that I don't agree with but you are honest enough to admit that you aren't up to speed with the civil trial. Fair enough. Perhaps you should read Weezer's posts that began this forum. These are factual recounts and worthwhile reading.

Why and how was the civil trial 'a political production?' By 'political' do you mean LA County, the State of California or the US Govt?

No, what I mean is that the plaintiffs had the legal right to bring the cause of actions against Simpson. However, I believe the judge was responding to political pressure and allowed and excluded evidence based on that pressure. When I read the posts on what the judge said, my opinion was reinforced. Most of America wanted to find Simpson guilty of murder, rightly or wrongly. There is no such thing as a civil murder trial and the judge was well aware of that, imho. I also have some disagreement with his allocation of the burden of proof in some instances.

[William Anthony]

There seems to be a defect in the board as to who posted what. I hope the problem will soon be remedied.

[William Anthony]

[quote=Joseph Bell;9102128]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

OK William. What political pressure do you know that the judge in the civil trial was responding to and who was applying this pressure? I would really like to know.

The political pressure I was speaking of was the vast amount of public outcry over the verdict. I think, if you read what I originally posted, if you are able to pull it up, and there have been several occasions that I have stated the civil trial was a political production, imho. I do not think it is necessary to say that it is a poster's opinion, once he has stated it and it is common knowledge. However, the judge's statements evidence my opinion. I want to thank you for directing me to fbg's first post. I will respond to a portion of that post to you in a moment, after I make sure that my initial research is true.

[William Anthony]

This from the cross of Spitz on November 12th

"Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now is it your view then, that the assailant that had one knife that was single, single sharp-sided knife that made all five of those wounds in very rapid succession, the four underneath the left ear and the slash that ultimately severed the carotid?

A. It is my opinion that all the wounds were inflicted with a knife, consistent or compatible with a single-edged sharp knife.

Q. Didn't ask you that question. Maybe it was a poor one, I apologize.

Is it your testimony that those four wounds underneath the left ear were made with this compatible single-edge knife and they were a precursor, they were made all in rapid succession just prior to the lashing wounds from left to right across Ms. Brown Simpson's neck that turned out to be fatal?

A. You mean all five wounds?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the one directly under Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson's ear has -- the blunt part of that wound is vertical and towards the ear lobe, true?

A. No.

Q. Did you look at the diagrams drawn by doctor --

A. I've -- I have looked at the diagram. If you like me to I'll be glad to explain to you why I'm saying, no.

Q. Your view of the photographs, you believe, is better evidence of the angle of the cuts than the diagram of the autopsy surgeon who made the diagram, correct?

A. Please, let me explain to you why I'm saying that.

Q. Can you answer my question for a change?

A. No. I'm not. I'm not in agreement with you because what you're doing is misleading.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court --

THE WITNESS: I would like the opportunity, sir.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) No. No, have you --

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, there's no need for Mr. Baker to behave like this.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) He's here to answer questions. He's not here to give a speech.

MR. MEDVENE: There's no reason for Mr. Baker to talk like this or behave like this, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ask your question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your view then, Dr. Spitz, is that you're looking at -- a photograph is more reliable than the drawing made by the autopsy surgeon at the time he did the autopsy, correct?

A. My view is that I need to explain it.

THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked.

THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor, of course.

THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it.

THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question.

I have never heard a judge say move on to the next question after the witness said he could answer the question.

[weezer]

seems logical and right that the court would say 'move on to the next question' when the witness says there is not a yes or no answer without an explanation but the defense attorney doesn't want the explanation. imo

[William Anthony]

The court told the witness that he could agree or disagree. He chose to do neither and the court did not instruct the witness to follow the court's ruling. Instead, the court ordered the defense to move on. In fact the court changed its ruling and offered the witness an out by annexing to its prior ruling by saying or just say you can't answer.

[weezer]

"THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it.

THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question."

[William Anthony]

THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked.

THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor, of course.

THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it.

THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question.

The judge's annexation is a clear instruction to the witness on how to answer the question, imho.

[William Anthony]

Thank you Joseph Bell. I will continue to look at the first post on this thread, if you would like, so that both sides of a witness' testimony can be placed on the board and not what the media may want to say was the testimony. I hope my most recent posts help to explain why I refer to the civil trial as a political production.

[William Anthony]

I wonder if the witness had some legal training or had been a judge as he is informing the judge to a legal conclusion, which is that the question is misleading. I think most judges would have admonished the witness at that point that it was not the witness' job to inform the jury as to what the law is but that it was the judge's.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

I wonder if the witness had some legal training or had been a judge as he is informing the judge to a legal conclusion, which is that the question is misleading. I think most judges would have admonished the witness at that point that it was not the witness' job to inform the jury as to what the law is but that it was the judge's.

william

The witness showed his bias for the prosecution in his refusal to answer.
He knew the results of his requested answer but because of who he thought he was, he dicided to assume the judges position. This was a biased plaintiffs witness.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by martin II

william

The witness showed his bias for the prosecution in his refusal to answer.
He knew the results of his requested answer but because of who he thought he was, he dicided to assume the judges position. This was a biased plaintiffs witness.

I agree totally and the judge showed his bias, imho.

[William Anthony]

[quote=Joseph Bell;9102176][quote=William Anthony;9102129]

Originally Posted by Joseph Bell

The political pressure I was speaking of was the vast amount of public outcry over the verdict.

Over the criminal trial outcome. I understand. Where does this amount to political pressure on the judge of the civil trial? If I'm following your reasoning then surely the judge would have been leaning towards Simpson's side, given that Simpson had been found not guilty in a criminal trial. The excerpts that you highlight as being evidence of the judge favouring the plaintiffs seem, whichever way I read them, to be sensible directions in the course of proceedings.

Did you forget how Ito was criticized? Most of America believed Simpson was guilty, the verdict was wrong and Simpson got away with murder. This amounted to the political pressure that the judge was under to find him guilty, which explains his statements that the jury could still find him liable even though he had been acquitted for murder and that Basically, this is a civil murder trial. You may not like the term political and I am willing to change it to social. When a judge instructs a witness to answer, he expects and answer, i.e. to agree or disagree. The witness did not answer and made a legal conclusion. The judge should have sternly admonished him, imho. Instead, the judge offered the witness a way out and in doing so informed the witness how to answer the question, imho. This was not the first time the witness testified and was familiar with how to answer questions and what is allowed in a trial, imho.

[martin II]

[quote=William Anthony;9102179][quote=Joseph Bell;9102176]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

Did you forget how Ito was criticized? Most of America believed Simpson was guilty, the verdict was wrong and Simpson got away with murder. This amounted to the political pressure that the judge was under to find him guilty, which explains his statements that the jury could still find him liable even though he had been acquitted for murder and that Basically, this is a civil murder trial. You may not like the term political and I am willing to change it to social. When a judge instructs a witness to answer, he expects and answer, i.e. to agree or disagree. The witness did not answer and made a legal conclusion. The judge should have sternly admonished him, imho. Instead, the judge offered the witness a way out and in doing so informed the witness how to answer the question, imho. This was not the first time the witness testified and was familiar with how to answer questions and what is allowed in a trial, imho.

William
my menory is cloudy on this issue but i remember that prior to the civil trial there was some special meeting of the ca legislators that passed a special piece of legistration to allow some evidence or testimony in favor of the plaintiffe and against oj simpson. Does anyone have that . I will look for it.

[William Anthony]

[quote=Joseph Bell;9102183][quote=William Anthony;9102126]

Originally Posted by Joseph Bell

There is no such thing as a civil murder trial


That is not your opintion a few posts on.

What??? if you are saying that is not my opinion, then you are correct. The judge in the civil trial said, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial", as reflected in the civil trial transcripts. It is a fact that there is no such thing as a civil murder trial. There are basically (pun intended) only 3 types of trials that I know about, Criminal for crimes such as murder, civil to address torts, such as wrongful death, divorce, negligence, contract disputes, etc.and equity, seeking injunctions to stop or to make a person do something.

[William Anthony]

[quote=martin II;9102189][quote=William Anthony;9102179]

Originally Posted by Joseph Bell

William
my menory is cloudy on this issue but i remember that prior to the civil trial there was some special meeting of the ca legislators that passed a special piece of legistration to allow some evidence or testimony in favor of the plaintiffe and against oj simpson. Does anyone have that . I will look for it.

I think something was posted about something the California legislature passed. I don't remember the specifics. I am interested in finding out, also.

[martin II]

the post seem to be mixed again.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally Posted by martin II

william

The witness showed his bias for the prosecution in his refusal to answer.
He knew the results of his requested answer but because of who he thought he was, he dicided to assume the judges position. This was a biased plaintiffs witness.

What I believe the witness showed was a respect for his profession that would not allow him to anwer as asked and a refusal to be bullied.

Excellent job on his part in my opinion.

Kate

[William Anthony]

The witness was not a stranger to the courtroom and could have disagreed or agreed as the judge instructed him, or he could have said he couldn't answer it as asked, as the judge later annexed. What this knowledgeable witness on testifying did was to state a legal conclusion, which the judge did not admonish him for doing and punished the defense, imho, by telling them to move on and ask another question. I am sure that you are aware that the plaintiffs had a chance to rehabilitate the witness by asking him to further explain his answer.

[weezer]

THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out.
THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked.

THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor, of course.

THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it.

THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question.

[William Anthony]

THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out.
THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked.

THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor, of course.

THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it.

THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question.

As you will see the court modified its options allowed the witness to make a legal conclusion in front of the jury and then instructed the defense to move on.

[weezer]

I guess we need to notify someone that keeps track of historic firsts that according to william: no witness had ever said they couldn't answer yes or no to a question and no judge ever said move on.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out.
THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked.

THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor, of course.

THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it.

THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question.

As you will see the court modified its options allowed the witness to make a legal conclusion in front of the jury and then instructed the defense to move on.

so why do you think baker was so adamant about not letting the witness explain the answer?

[William Anthony]

Of course, a witness has answered he can't answer but it is odd that a judge would instruct the witness to agree or disagree and then. when the witness stated a legal conclusion to the jury, change his instruction, telling the witness how to answer, and then tell the defense to move on. Maybe, some review of courtroom rules may be in order.