General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD

[martin II]

If one follows the bloody paw prints, one can decide if Kato followed anyone to the back gate or if he went out the front gate.
matin II

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by nettathirty


What this mean is, the dog was not outside when the killer was attacking the 2 victims. The dog came after both victims were dead, tracked in the blood and then exited the front gate!

Or it means the dog was outside when OJ was comitting the
murders, but was too afraid to follow him out the back
gate. As I said, a dog that just witnessed what he did,
would be frightened and confused since, one assumes,
it was the first time he'd witnessed his master butchering
two people. Perhaps he figured staying away from OJ seemed like a real good idea.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Mr August (unbelievable)

If the dog was outside while Nicole was being attacked, and knew the killer. Wouldn't that same dog have followed the killer out to the back gate or aleast to the gate? (geesh this is not that difficult!)


nettathirty, not it's not that difficult. It's strange you're having such a hard time with it.

Yes the dog was outside the gate and in the street when it started to bark. The dog probably was able to enter the gate when Ron Goldman opened it. The front gate was found open when the bodies were discovered.

Could the dog have followed it's master, Simpson, to the rear gate? Possibly. But Simpson closed that gate behind him, so if the dog had followed him it would have gone back to the front of the house and went out the front gate after stepping in blood.

The bloody paw prints tell us when the dog went out the front gate it turned and went towards Dorothy St. The dog could very well have been going towards Simpson's Bronco that stopped at the intersection of Dorothy St. and Bundy before turning on Bundy and speeding away. That could also be the reason Simpson turned right on Bundy to get away from his dog coming towards him.

The key point here is that the dog never attacked the killer, and the killer never killed the dog. That should clue you in that the dog knew the killer well.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II

bob
they came from some piece of clothing, what piece of clothing and exactly what type no one knows. you are guessing and saying proberbly and most likely. as you ofteh do.
martin II



martin II, what part of the same blue black cotton fibers were found on Simpson's socks can't you understand?

All of the blue black cotton fibers found were the same. It's not that difficult to understand they all came from the same clothing. Based on the fact they many of them were found on Ron Goldman's shirt, and the killer's glove it's not that far a stretch to understand they came from the killer's clothing.

The fact that they were also found on Simpson's socks, most likely being transferred there from the clothing Simpson was wearing, it's not that difficult to understand that again this evidence points to Simpson as the killer.

I say most likely because that is most likely what happened. Of course anyone can imagine other unrealistic, and unsupported possibilities like the fibers came from the clothing aliens from outer space were wearing, but those possibilities are not "most likely" to have happened. Does that make sense to you?

bobaugust

[martin II]

netta

when Nicole opened the front door to go out,, the dog was aware of this from his upstairs sleeping spot. sleeping with one ear listening to hear the front door close and Nicoles footsteps back in the house.
After maby 5 minutes he did not hear these sounds he went to the front door to see where she was.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


The blood tracked by the dog went out the front gate, not the rear. The bloody foot print leads us to believe the source was exiting the rear gate.

What this mean is, the dog was not outside when the killer was attacking the 2 victims. The dog came after both victims were dead, tracked in the blood and then exited the front gate!



nettathirty, no it doesn't mean that.

The dog could very well have been inside the gate staying away from the fighting while it barked.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



2 socks were collected, yet only 1 sock had the fiber on it!



nettathirty, where did you get that information from? That's not what Deedrick testified to.

June 30, 1995 Douglas Deedrick

MS. CLARK: Can you please tell us from which items you found such fibers?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the socks from the Defendant's bedroom.

***

MS. CLARK: What opinion, sir, do you have as to the relationship of the blue black cotton fibers you found on the
Defendant's socks, the Rockingham glove and Ron Goldman's shirt?
MR. DEEDRICK: I had previously stated that persistence is a phenomena that is very important here as well as how fibers can be transferred. The fibers that you find on a particular item of clothing often reflect--reflect last contacts. If all three items have--have fibers that are alike microscopically, that would suggest that all three items had last physical contact with an item of clothing that had exactly the same fibers in it. It could be one item, I'm not saying it is, but it could be one item of clothing.

bobaugust

[martin II]

BOB

The dog did not go TOWARDS Dorothy St.as you say, He went INTO Dorothy St next to Stofers house and walked down the block tracking blood towards the west alley.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Mr August- This makes NO sense, and I think you know it!

The dog never attacked the killer, does not mean the dog knows the killer. It means the dog wasn't outside while the killing took place. The dog came outside, laid beside Nicole and then for some reason went out the open front gate!



nettathirty, it makes perfect sense, what you are saying makes no sense.

You're fantasy is contradicted by the facts. The dog was continuously barking while the murders were committed.

The scenario that the victims were killed earlier than 10:30 is contradicted by the facts that several witnesses testified to and plain old common sense. That's why your unsupported scenario is irrelevant and wrong.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob



"It could be one item, I'm not saying it is, but it could be one item of clothing"


even the witness is saying "I'm not saying it is",

martin II:shrug:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
BOB

The dog did not go TOWARDS Dorothy St.as you say, He went INTO Dorothy St next to Stofers house and walked down the block tracking blood towards the west alley.
martin II



martin II, that's funny.

Of course the dog went towards Dorothy St. How do you think he got to Dorothy St. if he didn't walk towards it?

bobaugust

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Based on your statement, 1 can assume you don't own a dog! The dog would not attack it's owner, but the dog would follow its owner! As the poster stated before!


NOT AFTER WITNESSING THE VIOLENCE KATO HAD WITNESSED.

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



This is true!

He was also OJs pet, which means he would have followed his master to the rear gate!

netta
especially if the dog was stressed, he would have followed someone he knew. i think when he went out to bundy and then to Dorothy he may have been following the scent of the killers that had just left by the front gate.
martin II

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The dog would have given us an indication that it witnessed someone exiting the rear gate. Just like the dog indicated something was wrong on the steps of the Condo!

Now you're watching too much Lassie. You think the dog
should have not only led the witnesses to Nicole's body,
but then "indicated" that the killer went out the back gate?
Yeah, then he should have spelled out OJ's name in the blood.
Get real!

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by nettathirty



1. We are not talking about your dogs!

2. Your dogs will at least follow you to the door!

One assumes her dogs have not witnessed her committing
a double murder just prior to following her to the door.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bandit's mom



NOT AFTER WITNESSING THE VIOLENCE KATO HAD WITNESSED.

bandit
do you mean witnessed the murders or the murder scene after the murders?
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob



"It could be one item, I'm not saying it is, but it could be one item of clothing"


even the witness is saying "I'm not saying it is",

martin II:shrug:



martin, II, Deedrick is a professional and qualified his statement. That doesn't mean the fibers came from any other clothing only that if there was evidence of other clothing it may have been possible.

Do you know of any evidence of other dark colored sweat suits?

The only reasonable explanation based on the facts and the evidence in this case, not unsupported, imagined possibilities, or fantasy evidence is that all of the same blue black cotton fibers found in this case all came from the same source. The killer's clothing.

All of the relevant physical evidence in this case points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. Anyone can dream up a wide variety of unrealistic and unsupported different explanations for every single piece of evidence like you try to do but that doesn't make even one your possibilities real or credible. Only lame excuses to deny the truth it all points to Simpson and no one else. Nothing eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by nettathirty



This from the same group of people who believe the dog had the wherewithall not to attack its owner dressed in disguise!

Apples and Oranges. Dogs can identify their owners primarily
by scent. What you are suggesting is that after Kato
went out onto the street and brought the witnesses back
to the scene, he then should have what ? Walked to the
rear gate and went into Pointer stance? Well, let's see. He
wasn't a pointer so I guess that's out. Do you have any
idea how absurd your arguments are on this?

Kato was obviously frightened and confused. Certainly a dog
would know something horrible had happened, the smell
of blood would have told him that, if nothing else. He'd
just seen his master in a frenzy murdering two people, one
of which he loved. So was supposed to bring help and
then start dropping clues? Dogs are smart, they aren't
human.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nettathirty
[B]

Mr August- This makes NO sense, and I think you know it!


Funny, it appears to make sense to everyone but you
and your little friend.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


Now you're watching too much Lassie. You think the dog
should have not only led the witnesses to Nicole's body,
but then "indicated" that the killer went out the back gate?
Yeah, then he should have spelled out OJ's name in the blood.
Get real!

i think if the dog was present when the murders took place and oj was the killer, the dog would have followed him to the back gate but we know he did not go to the back gate at all
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nettathirty
[B]

Mr August- This makes NO sense, and I think you know it!


Funny, it appears to make sense to everyone but you
and your little friend.

The parrot.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August,

Nope, the murders happened before 10:30p!


nettathirty, you're right the murders did happen before 10:30 and they were committed by aliens from outer space who put a force field around Nicole's condo so no one would know that until they left removing the force field.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


i think if the dog was present when the murders took place and oj was the killer, the dog would have followed him to the back gate but we know he did not go to the back gate at all
martin II


martin II, and just how do we know that?

bobaugust

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by martin II


bandit
do you mean witnessed the murders or the murder scene after the murders?
martin II

I mean he witnessed OJ kill Ron and Nicole. Which is why he
WOULD NOT follow OJ directly after witnessing that level
of violence. I don't care what you and Netta say, it's obvious
neither of you are dog owners. The poor dog would have
been confused and terrified by watching OJ kill Nicole. Confused
because he no doubt loved OJ too, and would not understand
what was happening. Which is why he WOULDN'T have
attacked OJ. That said, he could very well have been too
afraid to follow closely after OJ right after witnessing his
level of violence. I would see it much more likely that his
instinct would tell him to stay clear of OJ at that time.

[bobaugust]

OJ Simpson and Carol Platt Liebau

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/oj-simpson-and-carol-plat_b_22036.html

bobaugust

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by martin II


i think if the dog was present when the murders took place and oj was the killer, the dog would have followed him to the back gate but we know he did not go to the back gate at all
martin II

Well, again, obviously you don't own dogs. But, even if,
by some stretch, you are correct and he did follow
OJ, all that proves is he hadn't stepped in the blood yet.
But, having had a dog in my life since the day
I was born, I still think after witnessing that level
of violence from OJ, he would not have been likely to
immediately follow him anywhere. Dogs have pretty
good instincts.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August

Prior to the Simpson Case, what was, if any your understanding of DNA, sir?



nettathirty, probably the same as any other reasonably informed person who is not a scientist.

Just a basic understanding that DNA is the chemical substance of genes and unique to every human being.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty
[B]


Mr August,

The writer and most of the posters seem to be of the mindset that the Simpson case is, either he did it or he was framed!



nettathirty, where in that article did you read where the author say Simpson did it or he was framed?

He wrote,
"The only way I could begin to understand the acquittal was that the jury was using the occasion of the Simpson trial to object to the injustice that jurors believed had historically been meted out to other African Americans, far less privileged than OJ Simpson, by the LAPD and the criminal justice system."

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


Well, again, obviously you don't own dogs. But, even if,
by some stretch, you are correct and he did follow
OJ, all that proves is he hadn't stepped in the blood yet.
But, having had a dog in my life since the day
I was born, I still think after witnessing that level
of violence from OJ, he would not have been likely to
immediately follow him anywhere. Dogs have pretty
good instincts.

The dog came out the front door after the murders, tracked in the blood and went out the front gate to Dorothy St. barking some times and not barking at other times.
ps. your dog/s were not the Akita that resided at bundy and rockingham. i am sure you know your dogs, but you did not know this dog. imo.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August,

The author believes OJ is guilty, that is clear!

My question, how does he know what the jury was thinking?



nettathirty, my question was where in that article did you read where the author say Simpson did it or he was framed?

You ask me questions all of the time and I answer them. You not only ignored my question but then you asked me another question. Why don't you answer my question?

bobaugust

[weepy willa]

The news channel MSNBC,will probably show a their special on the murders. I noticed that when they show footage from the news helicopter,of O.J.'s Bronco coming back to his house . Kato the dog runs along with the Bronco barking, knowing what O.J. did though ,he sits behind a bush and watches the car.

[weepy willa]

Originally posted by socaldiva


No blood was found on the sweat suit because Orenthal or Arnelle WASHED IT.

The fibers from Bundy were on Simpson's socks. Explain THAT.

Is the only time a man does the wash ,is after they have killed his wife?(Scott Peterson,O.J.):shrug:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by weepy willa
The news channel MSNBC,will probably show a their special on the murders. I noticed that when they show footage from the news helicopter,of O.J.'s Bronco coming back to his house . Kato the dog runs along with the Bronco barking, knowing what O.J. did though ,he sits behind a bush and watches the car.

OJ and Nicole had 2 Akitas. Chachi (sp?) and Kato. Kato went with Nicole and Chachi stayed with OJ. Thus, are you sure that it wasn't Chachi that we all saw from up above because I thought that Kato immediately went to the Brown's, along with Sydney and Justin. I could be wrong though and I stand corrected if I am.

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

You say that you have owned dogs, yet you don't seem to understand that one of the senses they use most is their sense of SMELL. Of course the dog would know it was Orenthal, even if he were wearing a dress, heels & a wig. :rolleyes:

:lol: :lol:

Girlfriend, U R Hysterical! Thank God I didn't take a drink of my Pepsi because I'd be cleaning up a big mess right now!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August,

My apology: From what I read the poster said those that believed in the verdict, could only do so if they believed the Cops framed OJ!


nettathirty, no that's not what the author said.

Kaplan wrote,
"When a criminal jury acquitted OJ Simpson of murder, I couldn't figure out how they could let him walk. I didn't buy the argument that Johnnie Cochran had made the LAPD seem so incompetent that jurors were left with a reasonable doubt about Simpson's guilt. Nor did I see it as a classic case of jury nullification: there's nothing immoral about the law holding someone accountable for premeditated murder, and there was nothing immoral about applying that law to Simpson.

The only way I could begin to understand the acquittal was that the jury was using the occasion of the Simpson trial to object to the injustice that jurors believed had historically been meted out to other African Americans, far less privileged than OJ Simpson, by the LAPD and the criminal justice system.

But hearing this argument enraged me. I could see any number of responses to the racial inequities of the justice system -- abolishing the death penalty, hiring and promoting more cops of color, putting teeth into the oversight process, and dozens of other reforms proposed by blue ribbon panels -- but I couldn't see acquitting OJ Simpson as a legitimate vehicle for registering this protest."

What quickly became apparent to me was the gulf betweeen people who thought as I did, and people who defended the jury along these lines. I had never before encountered such a disconnect, such an inability to communicate across a chasm. Vietnam, abortion, and every other social/political debate I had previously encountered or participated in seemed at least to start from a place of mutual comprehension; however passionate the polar positions taken, it wasn't impossible to fathom the opposing values that led the other side to come down where they did. But in the OJ Simpson acquittal, I sensed for the first time that each side thought the other side was suffering not from a different value system, but from some kind of brain defect, a wiring error, an inability to process information. It was like trying to have a decent argument with an otter: both sides seemed to feel that this was, by very definition, impossible.

And that's where Carol Platt Liebau comes in. I'm impressed by the way a number of the commenters on her recent HuffPost about Haditha attempt to challenge her analysis and contest the elements of her argument. But I don't think that tack has a chance of working. It's like arguing with someone who acquitted OJ; it's like reasoning with a rutabaga. The whole enterprise is misbegotten.

bobaugust

[martin II]

netta

Considering that many Americans considered oj guilty before the criminal trial started and since many gs have attacked the mostly
black jury's verdict as being r******* motivated or an attack on lapd as payback, what would their feelings have been if a all white criminal trial jury in Santa Monica had come to the same not guilty verdict?
martin II

[alien]

Hey, is our board dying out? Have seen very many postings. I am still waiting to see if anyone has an answer about the two Akitas and if the one on the video was the one who lived with OJ.

Happy Monday to you all.

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I would think they were morons.

Amen to that, Sister!!!

[alien]

Hey, martin...

Where are you? You usually post pretty early in the mornings.

[MooMoo]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, no that's not what the author said.

Kaplan wrote,
"When a criminal jury acquitted OJ Simpson of murder, I couldn't figure out how they could let him walk. I didn't buy the argument that Johnnie Cochran had made the LAPD seem so incompetent that jurors were left with a reasonable doubt about Simpson's guilt. Nor did I see it as a classic case of jury nullification: there's nothing immoral about the law holding someone accountable for premeditated murder, and there was nothing immoral about applying that law to Simpson.

The only way I could begin to understand the acquittal was that the jury was using the occasion of the Simpson trial to object to the injustice that jurors believed had historically been meted out to other African Americans, far less privileged than OJ Simpson, by the LAPD and the criminal justice system.

But hearing this argument enraged me. I could see any number of responses to the racial inequities of the justice system -- abolishing the death penalty, hiring and promoting more cops of color, putting teeth into the oversight process, and dozens of other reforms proposed by blue ribbon panels -- but I couldn't see acquitting OJ Simpson as a legitimate vehicle for registering this protest."

What quickly became apparent to me was the gulf betweeen people who thought as I did, and people who defended the jury along these lines. I had never before encountered such a disconnect, such an inability to communicate across a chasm. Vietnam, abortion, and every other social/political debate I had previously encountered or participated in seemed at least to start from a place of mutual comprehension; however passionate the polar positions taken, it wasn't impossible to fathom the opposing values that led the other side to come down where they did. But in the OJ Simpson acquittal, I sensed for the first time that each side thought the other side was suffering not from a different value system, but from some kind of brain defect, a wiring error, an inability to process information. It was like trying to have a decent argument with an otter: both sides seemed to feel that this was, by very definition, impossible.

And that's where Carol Platt Liebau comes in. I'm impressed by the way a number of the commenters on her recent HuffPost about Haditha attempt to challenge her analysis and contest the elements of her argument. But I don't think that tack has a chance of working. It's like arguing with someone who acquitted OJ; it's like reasoning with a rutabaga. The whole enterprise is misbegotten.

bobaugust

First, I have alway believed OJ to be guilty.
My mother and I decided to not listen to the new, read the newspapers, or any media on the OJ Simpson Trial. Since it was televised we watched everyday, or taped and watched later. If you are on the jury what was on TV is all you knew. We watched and some of the things that happend left questions in my mind. If you follow the law, I believed if you had doubt you had to equitt. Taking the blood to the crime scene after being taken for OJ Simpson was something that really shocked everyone. Not to mention it exchanged hands while at the crime scene. This has always stuck in my mind, because all they had to do was take the blood across the street to the lab. My mother and I decided that this alone brought in doubt. I have always believed that the bloody glove was planted by the lying detective Mark F. It was proven he lied. This also brought doubt. Bash away, like I said I thought he was guilty but I can see how the jury aquitted him. The investigation wasn't handled properly, so he walked, jimoo.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by MooMoo


First, I have alway believed OJ to be guilty.
My mother and I decided to not listen to the new, read the newspapers, or any media on the OJ Simpson Trial. Since it was televised we watched everyday, or taped and watched later. If you are on the jury what was on TV is all you knew. We watched and some of the things that happend left questions in my mind. If you follow the law, I believed if you had doubt you had to equitt. Taking the blood to the crime scene after being taken for OJ Simpson was something that really shocked everyone. Not to mention it exchanged hands while at the crime scene. This has always stuck in my mind, because all they had to do was take the blood across the street to the lab. My mother and I decided that this alone brought in doubt. I have always believed that the bloody glove was planted by the lying detective Mark F. It was proven he lied. This also brought doubt. Bash away, like I said I thought he was guilty but I can see how the jury aquitted him. The investigation wasn't handled properly, so he walked, jimoo. So you disregarded Orenthal's footprints, cap, glove, fibers and blood at the murder scene?

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by MooMoo
Bash away, like I said I thought he was guilty but I can see how the jury aquitted him. The investigation wasn't handled properly, so he walked, jimoo. Welcome to the board. You're just up the road a ways from me - beautiful area up there.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
FBG time to bring out the Hoover.....:D ;)

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


PM box is full...... I took the Hoover to it -- good to go.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by martin II


. i am sure you know your dogs, but you did not know this dog. imo.
martin II


But you did?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Based on his posts, I'd say he doesn't know anything about any dogs. :tongue: no answers -- must be at the doctor's. . . .one bump too many to the head.:D

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Must have been a BIG bump. No posts since early morning of 6/03. Thank goodness for urgent care. :tongue: I'm going to think positive. Maybe he got a job!

[fbgweezer]

I cannot find a thing about which dog that was at Rockingham running alongside the bronco. Guess that shows its importance. LOL

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by MooMoo


First, I have alway believed OJ to be guilty.
My mother and I decided to not listen to the new, read the newspapers, or any media on the OJ Simpson Trial. Since it was televised we watched everyday, or taped and watched later. If you are on the jury what was on TV is all you knew. We watched and some of the things that happend left questions in my mind. If you follow the law, I believed if you had doubt you had to equitt. Taking the blood to the crime scene after being taken for OJ Simpson was something that really shocked everyone. Not to mention it exchanged hands while at the crime scene. This has always stuck in my mind, because all they had to do was take the blood across the street to the lab. My mother and I decided that this alone brought in doubt. I have always believed that the bloody glove was planted by the lying detective Mark F. It was proven he lied. This also brought doubt. Bash away, like I said I thought he was guilty but I can see how the jury aquitted him. The investigation wasn't handled properly, so he walked, jimoo.


MooMoo, I'm glad you understand that Simpson was the killer. There is no doubt about that. Vannatter taking Simpson's blood sample to Rockingham and handing it over to Dennis Fung to book it with the other evidence is no shock if you learn the facts about it.

Vannatter and Fung were both part of the chain of custody of the evidence. Vannatter left his office at about 4:30 PM and drove directly to Rockingham. Television cameras recorded his arrival at 5:17 PM carrying a gray evidence envelope that contained Simpson's blood sample. Television cameras recorded Vannatter handing the evidence envelope to Fung at 5:20 PM. At that time all of the blood samples were already collected from both crime scenes, Bundy and Rockingham. At 5:42 PM television cameras recorded Andrea Mazzola leaving the residence carrying a black trash bag containing evidence that was collected including the evidence envelope containing Simpson's blood sample.

Your belief that Mark Fuhrman planed the glove is false. There is not one single shred of evidence that could possibly have or did happen. Mark Fuhrman never planted any evidence in this case let alone the glove found at Rockingham. Phillips and Fuhrman were the sixteen and seventeenth police officers to arrive at Bundy. No one who was there before them ever saw a second glove Fuhrman had neither the means, the opportunity, nor the motive to commit the crime the defense tried to claim he did.

All of the blood and trace evidence found on that glove tell us only the killer, Simpson, handled that glove. No one else. When Simpson left Bundy and speeding back home he nearly caused an accident when he ran a red light at San Vicente and Bundy. The driver of the car Simpson nearly hit recognized and identified him. When Simpson made it back home he saw that the limousine to take him to the airport was already there parked at his Ashford gate. Simpson was forced to park his Bronco at outside his locked Rockingham gate and then had to find another way onto his property. Simpson walked his neighbor's property to his fence behind his guest house. That's were his fence was at it's lowest point. He scaled his fence and when he jumped from the top of it to the narrow path behind the guest house he slammed against the wall and unknowing dropped his glove onto the dark path. Simpson hit that back wall with enough force to cause a picture on the other side to tilt. That was the back wall of Kaelin's room. Kaelin was sitting on his bed with his back to that wall talking on the phone and testified how he heard those noises and felt the vibrations that tilted the picture.

If you want to read the testimony about this, and learn the evidence that supports this you can click on these links
http://www.bobaugust.com/smokinggun.htm
http://www.bobaugust.com/mystery.htm

bobaugust

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust
[B]




Your belief that Mark Fuhrman planed the glove is false. There is not one single shred of evidence that could possibly have or did happen. Mark Fuhrman never planted any evidence in this case let alone the glove found at Rockingham.


But it just goes to show what a job the defense did with their
lies and innuendos. That people actually even believe it
was possible for him to plant that glove is amazing.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
Page 109 of Jeffrey Toobin's book confirms that it was Kato near the Bronco when it returned from the "chase". Jason later renamed him Satchmo. :rolleyes: Dog was pretty old to take on a new name don't you think? First the murder and then the name change -- poor doggie!

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Uh oh, I don't remember how old the dog was. Next we're going to have to research that :tongue:

I just got a dog at the shelter in April & she's only three, but I kept the name she was given, even though I don't particularly care for it.

I think Satchmo is just such a goofy name.

I don't think the dog could have been very old at the time.
He just died in the last couple of years, and very large
dogs like that, sadly, don't generally live much more than
12 or 14 years. A fact I'm all too aware of with a 12 year
old Collie!

I'm with you on the goofy name and both of my dogs are
rescues, but I didn't change either name. I figure
after shelter life they've been through enough changes!

[martin II]

"Satchmo" was the nickname of Louis Armstrong.
Martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



MooMoo, I'm glad you understand that Simpson was the killer. There is no doubt about that. Vannatter taking Simpson's blood sample to Rockingham and handing it over to Dennis Fung to book it with the other evidence is no shock if you learn the facts about it.

Vannatter and Fung were both part of the chain of custody of the evidence. Vannatter left his office at about 4:30 PM and drove directly to Rockingham. Television cameras recorded his arrival at 5:17 PM carrying a gray evidence envelope that contained Simpson's blood sample. Television cameras recorded Vannatter handing the evidence envelope to Fung at 5:20 PM. At that time all of the blood samples were already collected from both crime scenes, Bundy and Rockingham. At 5:42 PM television cameras recorded Andrea Mazzola leaving the residence carrying a black trash bag containing evidence that was collected including the evidence envelope containing Simpson's blood sample.

Your belief that Mark Fuhrman planed the glove is false. There is not one single shred of evidence that could possibly have or did happen. Mark Fuhrman never planted any evidence in this case let alone the glove found at Rockingham. Phillips and Fuhrman were the sixteen and seventeenth police officers to arrive at Bundy. No one who was there before them ever saw a second glove Fuhrman had neither the means, the opportunity, nor the motive to commit the crime the defense tried to claim he did.

All of the blood and trace evidence found on that glove tell us only the killer, Simpson, handled that glove. No one else. When Simpson left Bundy and speeding back home he nearly caused an accident when he ran a red light at San Vicente and Bundy. The driver of the car Simpson nearly hit recognized and identified him. When Simpson made it back home he saw that the limousine to take him to the airport was already there parked at his Ashford gate. Simpson was forced to park his Bronco at outside his locked Rockingham gate and then had to find another way onto his property. Simpson walked his neighbor's property to his fence behind his guest house. That's were his fence was at it's lowest point. He scaled his fence and when he jumped from the top of it to the narrow path behind the guest house he slammed against the wall and unknowing dropped his glove onto the dark path. Simpson hit that back wall with enough force to cause a picture on the other side to tilt. That was the back wall of Kaelin's room. Kaelin was sitting on his bed with his back to that wall talking on the phone and testified how he heard those noises and felt the vibrations that tilted the picture.

If you want to read the testimony about this, and learn the evidence that supports this you can click on these links
http://www.bobaugust.com/smokinggun.htm
http://www.bobaugust.com/mystery.htm

bobaugust

bob
you and that web site of yours.

garbage in garbage out.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bandit's mom



But you did?

you seem to be the dog expert here. right?

Kato walked out of the house, tracked in blood and went directly our the front gate to Bundy and Dorothy St. Period.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
you and that web site of yours.

garbage in garbage out.
martin II



martin II, the only garbage around here is coming from you and your lame excuses.

When you call testimony and facts garbage it's no wonder nothing you try to argue about these murders has any credibility.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


you seem to be the dog expert here. right?

Kato walked out of the house, tracked in blood and went directly our the front gate to Bundy and Dorothy St. Period.
martin II



martin II, what evidence do you know of that tells you the Akita walked out of the house and then "tracked in blood?"

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, what evidence do you know of that tells you the Akita walked out of the house and then "tracked in blood?"

bobaugust
bob
it is based on a assumption that the dog was in the house at some point on the night of 6/12 and that people head him barkling in the street and he tracked bloody paw prints on Dorothy st. i also assume that the dog was walking.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Sex tape allegedly starring OJ Simpson leaked

June 5, 2006

A sex tape allegedly starring OJ Simpson has been leaked onto the
Internet.

The home movie features a man with more than a passing resemblance to the star and two women.

However, Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, has branded the tape fake.

He told America's New York Daily News newspaper "While my client may appear fully clothed in portions of the tape, the man having sex is an impostor.

"This tape is garbage and we can prove it. OJ wouldn't do anything like this."

The man selling the film, David Hans Schmidt, stands by the claim that it is the sporting legend in the movie.

He said: "OJ is welcome to say that's not him on the tape, just like he said he didn't murder Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman but there's no question in my mind the real OJ is having sex on this tape.

"When the tape comes out, people can make their own judgment."

The release of the 25-minute adult movie comes almost 12 years to the day after the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

OJ - who was accused of the killings - was later cleared of all charges.

http://www.tonight.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3278082

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by alien
Hey, martin...

Where are you? You usually post pretty early in the mornings.
alien

i was up at 4 am this morning catching up on a back log of work and worked at it all day. Plus i had a lot of communicaitons to catch up with.
how was your weekend?
Martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II

bob
it is based on a assumption that the dog was in the house at some point on the night of 6/12 and that people head him barkling in the street and he tracked bloody paw prints on Dorothy st. i also assume that the dog was walking.
martin II



martin II, the way you wrote your assumption is that the dog came out of the house and then walked through blood.

There is no evidence that happened. We know the dog walked through blood after the murders were committed. There is no evidence that the dog was in the house when the murders were committed. Just the opposite. The witness testimony is that the dog was in the street barking before the murders were committed.

bobaugust

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by martin II


you seem to be the dog expert here. right?

Kato walked out of the house, tracked in blood and went directly our the front gate to Bundy and Dorothy St. Period.
martin II

Right. Because you obviously know, you were there and
witnessed all the events of that night right?

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust
[B]Sex tape allegedly starring OJ Simpson leaked

The tape is garbage and we can prove it. OJ wouldn't do anything like this."


You gotta love the lawyers outrage. "OJ wouldn't do anything
like this". Hey, so he butchered two people, it's not like
he'd make a sex tape or anything. Geez.

[goatgirl]

Originally posted by bobaugust
Sex tape allegedly starring OJ Simpson leaked

June 5, 2006

A sex tape allegedly starring OJ Simpson has been leaked onto the
Internet.

bobaugust

snip

Personally I have no desire too see OJ in a sex video ever!

I think the whole thing is just plain gross!

imo

GoatGirl

[martin II]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


Right. Because you obviously know, you were there and
witnessed all the events of that night right?

no i was not there but the dog left evidence of where he traveled
on 6/12. house to muder scene out the gate to bundy. unless you want to ignore Heidstra and the bloody paw prints.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by alien
Hey, is our board dying out? Have seen very many postings. I am still waiting to see if anyone has an answer about the two Akitas and if the one on the video was the one who lived with OJ.

Happy Monday to you all.

Unfortunately, IMO, it is. I am sure that it will be just a matter of time before Hotwater gets rid of this Thread. No one is posting anymore. You can go a whole weekend with not one post on this Thread. Very boring.

:shrug: JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by MooMoo

First, I have alway believed OJ to be guilty.

<snipped>

OMG! Just when you thought..................

:rolleyes:

[martin II]

bob

on the oj video, did you see anyone from this thread in it?
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, the way you wrote your assumption is that the dog came out of the house and then walked through blood.

There is no evidence that happened. We know the dog walked through blood after the murders were committed. There is no evidence that the dog was in the house when the murders were committed. Just the opposite. The witness testimony is that the dog was in the street barking before the murders were committed.

bobaugust
bob
if no murders were being commited when the dog was in the street barking i guess the dog was in the street barking because he was hungry
martin II

[limakey]

Martin II,

Here are a couple of things about the dog. First and foremost, please remember, if you give the dog the ability (as many G's have) to mourn and wail over Nicole's death, then they must acknowledge and recognize the dog's ability to sense danger in the area and that is why he refused to go any further then the street corner the first time Steve S. tried to lead him home. It can't be because he was thristy because he was given H-20 by both couples.

Also, the blood on the underbelly of the dog. How did he get blood on his underbelly, was he held down? Did he take a nap in the blood?

Again, please note that in several DA themed books, they went out of their way to say how docile the dog was but ace detective Fuhrman thought the dog took a chunk or two out of the killer.

Also, here is something to think about the cut on OJ's hand. The G's theory is really wild because if OJ Simpson knew he was cut on his hand and that it would be a dead give away when he got back to LA, why not punch the living hell out of his hand so there would be no way to tell when he injured it? Why not make it look like ground hamburger? To think he was able to break the glass and do a perfect "re-cut" on his finger is more then desperate and bizarre, IMO.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II

bob
if no murders were being commited when the dog was in the street barking i guess the dog was in the street barking because he was hungry
martin II


martin II, no the dog wasn't barking because it was hungry, it was most likely barking because his two masters were fighting before Ron Goldman showed up.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

on the oj video, did you see anyone from this thread in it?
martin II


martin II, that's one of the weirdest questions I've ever been asked.

I have no idea what any poster on this message board looks like.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, that's one of the weirdest questions I've ever been asked.

I have no idea what any poster on this message board looks like.

bobaugust

bob
just a joke to you since you seem to be interested in posting tabloid like trash.( a little out of character for you) i looked at the videos over the weekend and could not find oj s face in any of the 'ACTION" shots. if you did see his face let me know which video it was on.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, no the dog wasn't barking because it was hungry, it was most likely barking because his two masters were fighting before Ron Goldman showed up.

bobaugust
bob
there was no fight. the killer hit nicole on the head and she was out. if you are saying that the dog went out to bundy and back in the scene and out to bundy and dorothy then this leads me to think the murders happened before 10:30p
martin II

[fbgweezer]

*Snip* Originally posted by bobaugust
Sex tape allegedly starring OJ Simpson leaked Eeeewwwww

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
just a joke to you since you seem to be interested in posting tabloid like trash.( a little out of character for you) i looked at the videos over the weekend and could not find oj s face in any of the 'ACTION" shots. if you did see his face let me know which video it was on.
martin II LOL -- how did I know you would have watched the video..!? LOL

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
LOL -- how did I know you would have watched the video..!? LOL

fbg
i agree it was pretty raunchy and nasty. however my interest was to see if the video showed what the web site clained. It did not show oj's face in any of the 'ACTIVE' scenes which leads me to agree with the lawyer that it was a fake video made to make a few bucks using ojs name. if you are sensitive to this type stuff i would suggest that you not view it.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

*Snip*Originally posted by martin II
. . .my interest was to see if the video showed what the web site clained. How comeyou didn't just accept Orenthal's/his attorney's word that it wasn't him?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* How comeyou didn't just accept Orenthal's/his attorney's word that it wasn't him?

fbg
i guess curiosity got the best of me. But my hunch that it was a fake proved to be true. What did you think about it?

martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
just a joke to you since you seem to be interested in posting tabloid like trash.( a little out of character for you) i looked at the videos over the weekend and could not find oj s face in any of the 'ACTION" shots. if you did see his face let me know which video it was on.
martin II



martin II, I posted a legitimate article referring to Simpson that yahoo notified me about, not tabloid like trash. It's posted on my Updated Simpson News. I've never seen the video tape in question. Since you've evidently searched it out how about posting a link to the video tape you found.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
fbg
i guess curiosity got the best of me. But my hunch that it was a fake proved to be true. What did you think about it? martin II IF I had to put money down on it, I'd bet it's probably the double murderer hoping for a little airtime. Giving up the limelight has shown to be hard for him.

LOL -- unlike you, my obsession is with the murder case -- not the murderer. And the last thing I want to see is an old, fat ex-anything in a sex tape. LOL

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II

bob
there was no fight. the killer hit nicole on the head and she was out. if you are saying that the dog went out to bundy and back in the scene and out to bundy and dorothy then this leads me to think the murders happened before 10:30p
martin II


martin II, if there was no fight, how do you think Nicole received the defensive cuts on her hands?

You seem to be stuck not understanding the many possibilities that may have happened.

Simpson may have let the dog out the front gate after first encountering Nicole. As Simpson and Nicole's encounter escalated to a physical confrontation the dog started to bark outside the gate. When Ron Goldman arrived he opened the gate yelling at Simpson who may have been standing over his exwife lying unconscious on the ground. The dog may very well have come back in with Goldman continuing to bark while SImpson attacked and killed Ron. All of this would have happened after 10:30.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, I posted a legitimate article referring to Simpson that yahoo notified me about, not tabloid like trash. It's posted on my Updated Simpson News. I've never seen the video tape in question. Since you've evidently searched it out how about posting a link to the video tape you found.

bobaugust

bob
the article was in the friday or saturday n.y. daily news with the address of the site. if you like i will pm it to you.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, I posted a legitimate article referring to Simpson that yahoo notified me about, not tabloid like trash. It's posted on my Updated Simpson News. I've never seen the video tape in question. Since you've evidently searched it out how about posting a link to the video tape you found.

bobaugust
bob
i sent the address to your pm
martin II

[fbgweezer]

and the ridiculous keep perpetuating -- This is from the Susan Polk trial where she is accusing LE of framing her:

"Polk has accused officers of pouring water on her dead husband's head to make the bloody scene appear bloodier, and stealing a shoe from her closet, dipping it in blood, and stamping her prints around the body.

"Susan, I ..." Clark paused. He appeared uncomfortable with her questioning. "Can a scene be tampered with? Of course it can. If officers wanted to do something like that, it would be reprehensible."

"Haven't there been trials where it's been established that that was done?" Polk asked.

"I can't remember a trial like that," Clark said.

"The O.J. Simpson trial?" Polk shot back."

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Unfortunately, IMO, it is. I am sure that it will be just a matter of time before Hotwater gets rid of this Thread. No one is posting anymore. You can go a whole weekend with not one post on this Thread. Very boring.

:shrug: JMO and MOO!!

I do agree.

In speaking for myself only, I can share that the reason why I am seldom here is that the thread seems little more than an opportunity to fling insults out at one another.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I do agree.

In speaking for myself only, I can share that the reason why I am seldom here is that the thread seems little more than an opportunity to fling insults out at one another. It does seem like that sometimes but I have to say that I've picked up good info and had some questions answered. In fact, I even changed an opinion/assumption based on info from this site. Not that that is so earth shattering, but . . . .

I do wish more people would offer topics for discussion. I found discussing the gates (what kind of locks, did they open in or out) interesting. Small details of a bigger case but you know, they say the devil is in the details.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
and the ridiculous keep perpetuating -- This is from the Susan Polk trial where she is accusing LE of framing her:

"Polk has accused officers of pouring water on her dead husband's head to make the bloody scene appear bloodier, and stealing a shoe from her closet, dipping it in blood, and stamping her prints around the body.

"Susan, I ..." Clark paused. He appeared uncomfortable with her questioning. "Can a scene be tampered with? Of course it can. If officers wanted to do something like that, it would be reprehensible."

"Haven't there been trials where it's been established that that was done?" Polk asked.

"I can't remember a trial like that," Clark said.

"The O.J. Simpson trial?" Polk shot back."

All right !!! susan
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
It does seem like that sometimes but I have to say that I've picked up good info and had some questions answered. In fact, I even changed an opinion/assumption based on info from this site. Not that that is so earth shattering, but . . . .

I do wish more people would offer topics for discussion. I found discussing the gates (what kind of locks, did they open in or out) interesting. Small details of a bigger case but you know, they say the devil is in the details.

It's not that information can't be found throughout this thread, it's more the frustration of having to sift through the pages of insults to find it.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
It does seem like that sometimes but I have to say that I've picked up good info and had some questions answered. In fact, I even changed an opinion/assumption based on info from this site. Not that that is so earth shattering, but . . . .

I do wish more people would offer topics for discussion. I found discussing the gates (what kind of locks, did they open in or out) interesting. Small details of a bigger case but you know, they say the devil is in the details.


hahahaha

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


It's not that information can't be found throughout this thread, it's more the frustration of having to sift through the pages of insults to find it. I guess rather than compound the problem by complaining, how about we come up with a topic for discussion? Any suggestions?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II



hahahaha :confused: "Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit"

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I guess rather than compound the problem by complaining, how about we come up with a topic for discussion? Any suggestions?

Interesting response. I gather that says it all unfortunately.

However, I'll move ahead with that. I'd like to talk about defense manipulation in the criminal trial. One example is in reagrds to the defense introducing an "unidentified officer" roaming willy nilly throughout the crime scene. The defense presented this photo at trial with the argument that all evidence was tainted because there were obviously random police officers milling around.

Upon investigation, it was found that the "unidentified officer" was roaming freely after the crime scene had already been broken down, at which time anyone at all is able to enter and do whatever they'd like.

I do believe that the defense team was well aware of this, but simply ignored the innocent part and presented only the portion that appeared damning at first glance. To me, that goes beyond ethical.

[fbgweezer]

*Snip* Originally posted by Kate Sachel
Interesting response. I gather that says it all unfortunately.

. . . I'd like to talk about defense manipulation in the criminal trial. I apologize if I sounded like I was insulting you -- I had no intention of doing that. Your post about the board was right on and rather than see it shut down, I was hoping to read some interesting conversations.

I did not remember the specific incident you cited about people walking around the crime scene BUT among the slimey things pulled by the defense in the trial, I'm not surprised.

Wonder why Ito let defense get by with such? He acted like he was in awe of Cochran.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* Eeeewwwww

Exactly. Just the thought of it makes me ill.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I guess delusional posters is out :tongue: :lol:

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


My guess is two fold:

1) He wanted to make sure the case wasn't subject to appeal, so he bent over backwards. We should change his name to Ben Dover. lol.

2) He was too preoccupied by the media attention & it went to his head He really made a mockery of his office. I don't think the Fuhrman tapes would have made it in except his wife was mentioned in them.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* I apologize if I sounded like I was insulting you -- I had no intention of doing that. Your post about the board was right on and rather than see it shut down, I was hoping to read some interesting conversations.

I did not remember the specific incident you cited about people walking around the crime scene BUT among the slimey things pulled by the defense in the trial, I'm not surprised.

Wonder why Ito let defense get by with such? He acted like he was in awe of Cochran.

I was disappointed by your initial response since I consider you to be a wonderful source of information and you are always ready to research in order to find answers. I thank you for clarifying that for me.

I agree with Socal's notion of why Ito let such things slide. I do believe he was in awe of the celebrity aspect, and wanted to ensure there was no room for appeal on the case if OJ were to be found guilty. Unfortunately, what he overlooked is the fact that an appeal will rarely see the light of day as long as the court case was conducted in accordance with the law. Take the civil trial and his appeal. It was denied with no big fanfare, in fact most people do not even realize that is was appealed. There were no big scandals involved because Judge Fujisaki maintained his courtroom accordingly.

[fbgweezer]

Blake, Edward

DNA Expert and member of Simpson team. He was dropped from witness list March 29th to protect defense strategy. In doing so, Blake cannot be required to turn over records of his research. The prosecution tried to subpoena Blake as a witness, but Ito rejected the motion

Anyone ever hear if his research turned up anywhere after the trial?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Blake, Edward

DNA Expert and member of Simpson team. He was dropped from witness list March 29th to protect defense strategy. In doing so, Blake cannot be required to turn over records of his research. The prosecution tried to subpoena Blake as a witness, but Ito rejected the motion

Anyone ever hear if his research turned up anywhere after the trial? This was the only thing I could find linking Blake with the Simpson trial.

Blake, Edward T., Guest Panelist, Is Something Wrong? Judge for Yourself: An Interactive Panel Discussion on the O.J. Simpson Case. Presented at the 90th Semiannual Seminar of the California Association of Criminalists, October 8-11, 1997.

Anyone have any info on what the defense didn't want to use of Blake research?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Blake, Edward

DNA Expert and member of Simpson team. He was dropped from witness list March 29th to protect defense strategy. In doing so, Blake cannot be required to turn over records of his research. The prosecution tried to subpoena Blake as a witness, but Ito rejected the motion

Anyone ever hear if his research turned up anywhere after the trial?

The only thing I recall about Edward Blake is that he made an interesting statement regarding the fact that the defense could not argue with the scientific findings of the DNA and therefore had to attack the manner in which it was collected and interpreted.

He also made the statement that a lawyer's opinion isn't worth very much because they believe that under the umbrella of advocacy they can lie through their teeth.

[Kate Sachel]

I believe that is why Edward Blake was dropped from the defense witness list. Originally the defense was going to argue against allowing DNA to even be introduced into trial, stating that it had yet to win general acceptance from scientists.

However, Edward Blake who is one of the nation's most respected scientists apparently advised that DNA is reliable science and that the DNA in the Simpson case could not be argued with. The defense chose not to call him and dropped entirely their argument against allowing DNA evidence into trial.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, if there was no fight, how do you think Nicole received the defensive cuts on her hands?

You seem to be stuck not understanding the many possibilities that may have happened.

Simpson may have let the dog out the front gate after first encountering Nicole. As Simpson and Nicole's encounter escalated to a physical confrontation the dog started to bark outside the gate. When Ron Goldman arrived he opened the gate yelling at Simpson who may have been standing over his exwife lying unconscious on the ground. The dog may very well have come back in with Goldman continuing to bark while SImpson attacked and killed Ron. All of this would have happened after 10:30.

bobaugust

bob
i agree there are many possibilities of what may have happened.
What the dog did and when he did it gives insight into the time the murders took place.

If one belives Wagners study of Rons possible time line from work to nicoles gate. then Ron would have arrived at about 10:09 10:14pm

martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Why wasn't he called by Petrocelli during the Civil Trial?

Because it was not necessary in the civil trial since the defense was not attempting to present an argument to exclude DNA evidence from the trial.

Without such an argument from the defense, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to refute.

[martin II]

bob

Many people have posted about how spooked Nicole was supposed to be about harm comming to her at the hands of oj in the days before she was murdered.

This tells me that she would have been at the least alert to situaitons that appeared to be dangerous to her.

To belive that she came out of the house with the dog and saw oj in the front yard, stood there while he put the dog out the gate and closed it and then had some kind of conversation with him without fleeing back into her open front door, just a few feet away, just seems a little far fetched and unbelievable. especially since he was supposed to have been dressed to kill.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Martin II

Goldman was said to have been in and out of his apartment just long enough to shower and change. In his borrowed car he proceeded to Bundy which was less than 5 mins away!

which would have put him at the bundy gate at about 10:09. 10:14 if he took a shower.
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

Many people have posted about how spooked Nicole was supposed to be about harm comming to her at the hands of oj in the days before she was murdered.

This tells me that she would have been at the least alert to situaitons that appeared to be dangerous to her.

To belive that she came out of the house with the dog and saw oj in the front yard, stood there while he put the dog out the gate and closed it and then had some kind of conversation with him without fleeing back into her open front door, just a few feet away, just seems a little far fetched and unbelievable. especially since he was supposed to have been dressed to kill.
martin II

Unless you have spent 17 years in confrontation with the very man that you have grown to fear.

Nicole was known not to be intimidated and it is feasible, at least to me, to understand why she would have a confrontation with him that evening.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August:

Fact - A dog was barking


Assumption - It was the Akita (possibly could have been)
- It was in the Street
- The murders were being committed!


nettathirty, no it wasn't an assumption. Heidstra knew the dog and recognized it. He also could tell where that the dog was in the street, not behind the gate. Heidstra said the loud, strange, nonstop barking started about 10;30, 10:35. The barking does not mean the murders were committed at that time only that something was going on that greatly disturbed the dog.

Fact: the barking dog was Nicole's Akita Many witnesses confirm that fact.

October 25, 1996 Robert Heidstra

Q. Okay. Do you now know that building to be the building where Nicole Brown Simpson lived?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you ever seen a dog on her property behind the gate?
A. Yes, behind the gate, a big Akita.
Q. A big Akita?
A. Yeah.
Q. And would you walk your dogs past the gate area?
A. Mostly on the opposite side of the street.
Q. Opposite side of the street?
A. Yeah. Most of the time, yeah.
Q. When you would walk your dogs past her condominium on the opposite side of the street, you could see her Akita?
A. Yeah, behind a gate.
Q. Did you ever hear it barking?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you familiar with the barking of that Akita?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a small dog or big dog?
A. Big dog.

***

Q. What happened? Anything in particular happen when you got down near the Bundy area?
A. Well, when I was walking down Gorham. It was a very quiet Sunday night, no sounds whatsoever, until I reached the corner of Bundy and Gorham. I was almost in Bundy when all of a sudden, the Akita start to barking like crazy, and he stayed barking, like he was confused and panicky.
Q. Now, the Akita that you started to hear barking like crazy, did you recognize that to be Nicole's?
A. Yeah, immediately. There was no other dog like that in that stretch of the street.
Q. Okay.
A. I recognize the barking.
Q. When you heard the dog barking like crazy, what did you do?
A. I was immediately alerted, because it's a big dog and I didn't want any fight with any dogs or something. He sounded like he was on the street. So I stopped immediately and turned around, and said we can't go further.
Q. When you heard the dog barking?
A. Yeah.
Q. Nicole's Akita barking, you -- from the sounds of the barking, you thought it was in the street and not behind the gate?
A. Yeah. It sounds like so close, so close.
Q. Okay. And you did not want to go by the house?
A. No, because I didn't want to risk for my dogs to have a fight or anything.

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Just asking, I was thinking his finding could have been equally damaging for both defense and the prosecution!

I believe that his only purpose was to testify on whether or not DNA is scientifically reliable. I don't believe that he had anything to do with studying the actual test results.

Good question though!

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Unless you have spent 17 years in confrontation with the very man that you have grown to fear.

Nicole was known not to be intimidated and it is feasible, at least to me, to understand why she would have a confrontation with him that evening.

it has been said that oj just flipped out from the paula call. Went into some kind of rage and drove to bundy filled with rage and intent to murder. I don't think when Nicole first saw him dressed in black with a cap pulled over his head after 10;00 pm unexpected, that she would have held a conversation. She, more than enyone else would be able to judge his mood.
Whoever killed he caught her by surprise when she walked down the front steps of her condo. imo
It was said that the encounter escalated into a confrontation.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II



If one belives Wagners study of Rons possible time line from work to nicoles gate. then Ron would have arrived at about 10:09 10:14pm

martin II


martin II, just because it was possible for Ron to arrive at 10:09 based on Wagner's assumptions doesn't mean that actually happened since there is no evidence to support that claim.

Just the reverse, all of the known evidence tells us Ron arrived after 10:30. Wagner created a lot of imagined possibilities to create his unsupported imagined scenario. He than ignored or changed witness testimony that contradicted his fantasy. Wagner's scenario has as much support as the scenario that aliens from outer space committed these murders. None.

Why you continue to bring his meaningless fantasy up is the real question since you these points have been explained to you before. It seems again you only argue to argue. You have nothing to support your original beliefs that Simpson wasn't even at Bundy so now you are still looking for any excuse to you can think up to deny the truth of these murders.

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


it has been said that oj just flipped out from the paula call. Went into some kind of rage and drove to bundy filled with rage and intent to murder. I don't think when Nicole first saw him dressed in black with a cap pulled over his head after 10;00 pm unexpected, that she would have held a conversation. She, more than enyone else would be able to judge his mood.
Whoever killed he caught her by surprise when she walked down the front steps of her condo. imo
it was said that she may have had a CONVERSATION with him. after he put the dog out.
martin II

However, it is my post that you are quoting and I don't happen to believe that he flipped in a rage from Paula's message. I think her message was simply another in the line of not so good things that were piling up on him that day.

I think Nicole was beyond caring what mood he was in at that time. I think her own anger reached the boiling point on June 12, 1994.

I don't necessarily believe that she even had a confrontation with him. I believe it's possible that she was taken by surprise. Which leads me to this question ... was the coroner able to judge if the stab wounds to her neck occurred before or after the contusion that rendered her unconsious?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Martin II

Goldman was said to have been in and out of his apartment just long enough to shower and change. In his borrowed car he proceeded to Bundy which was less than 5 mins away!


nettathirty, there is no evidence of that. No one knows exactly when and what Goldman did after he left the Mezzaluna Restaurant. Based on Heidstra's testimony we know Ron arrived at Bundy after 10:30.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Nicole has a knife on her counter top and OJ is snooping around her place with a cap, gloves, a wet suit, knife and dress shoes with a jogging suit!

netta
very good point

i have never understood why oj would have put on knit cap, cloth sweat suite to go murder someone and then decide to top it off with a pair of expensive DRESS SHOES. especially since he had a closet full of smeakers.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

*Snip* Originally posted by martin II
Many people have posted about how spooked Nicole was supposed to be about harm comming to her at the hands of oj in the days before she was murdered.

This tells me that she would have been at the least alert to situaitons that appeared to be dangerous to her. What makes you think she was not? I think that is what the knife laying out on the counter was about.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Nicole has a knife on her counter top and OJ is snooping around her place with a cap, gloves, a wet suit, knife and dress shoes with a jogging suit! LOL - you are so full of it. He didn't wear his wet suit that night!

[fbgweezer]

*Snip* Originally posted by martin II
i have never understood why oj would have put on knit cap, cloth sweat suite to go murder someone and then decide to top it off with a pair of expensive DRESS SHOES. I think if you look at the things Orenthal wore that night, you can see that it was stuff that were old (cap), didn't fit (gloves), had been given to him and were used (sweat suit) and he did not care for (ugly azzed shoes)

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

Many people have posted about how spooked Nicole was supposed to be about harm comming to her at the hands of oj in the days before she was murdered.

This tells me that she would have been at the least alert to situaitons that appeared to be dangerous to her.

To belive that she came out of the house with the dog and saw oj in the front yard, stood there while he put the dog out the gate and closed it and then had some kind of conversation with him without fleeing back into her open front door, just a few feet away, just seems a little far fetched and unbelievable. especially since he was supposed to have been dressed to kill.
martin II



martin II, no one knows how supposedly spooked Nicole was. She knew Simpson a long time and could have just as easily acted like she wasn't concerned with him. She would have not known Simpson's intentions or the fact that he was armed with a knife when he first encountered her, only that he arrived unexpectedly and he was strangely dressed.

I'm sure there came a time when she realized something was very wrong and tried to fight back but it was too late by then.

I don't find this possibility farfetched or unbelievable at all. First you argue that Simpson wasn't even at Bundy. Then you try to argue that Simpson was there but wasn't the killer, then you argue the murders happened at a time that is contradicted by every witness who testified. You're many excuses and consistent denial of the truth of these murders shows your opinions are what's unbelievable.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


However, it is my post that you are quoting and I don't happen to believe that he flipped in a rage from Paula's message. I think her message was simply another in the line of not so good things that were piling up on him that day.

I think Nicole was beyond caring what mood he was in at that time. I think her own anger reached the boiling point on June 12, 1994.

I don't necessarily believe that she even had a confrontation with him. I believe it's possible that she was taken by surprise. Which leads me to this question ... was the coroner able to judge if the stab wounds to her neck occurred before or after the contusion that rendered her unconsious?

no
i have referred to other posters not you about his mood after the paula message. i am referring to bob when he said the encounter escalated into a confrontation.

some experts testified that she was hit on the head first. knocked out . this theory allows for the killer to turn his attention to ron. after ron was dead the killer then cut her. this theory is also offered to support the one killer theory as it would have been impossible for one killer to attack and cut both of them at the same time.
If one rejects the theory that she was knocked out then one would be inclined to lean towards the two killer theory.


martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


netta
very good point

i have never understood why oj would have put on knit cap, cloth sweat suite to go murder someone and then decide to top it off with a pair of expensive DRESS SHOES. especially since he had a closet full of smeakers.
martin II


martin II, the Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes were not expensive dress shoes. You should know that based on your supposed experience with shoes. They were glorified hush puppies.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* I think if you look at the things Orenthal wore that night, you can see that it was stuff that were old (cap), didn't fit (gloves), had been given to him and were used (sweat suit) and he did not care for (ugly azzed shoes)

fbg
atheletic activity, murder fight, does not equal expensive ugly azz
dress shoes. it would require reebok sneakers of which he had several dozen in his closet.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
atheletic activity, murder fight, does not equal expensive ugly azz
dress shoes. it would require reebok sneakers of which he had several dozen in his closet.
martin II But that's the point -- he said the shoes were ugly and he wouldn't have worn them. I guess he meant he would wear them to a football game but not to a crime scene.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Unless you have spent 17 years in confrontation with the very man that you have grown to fear.

Nicole was known not to be intimidated and it is feasible, at least to me, to understand why she would have a confrontation with him that evening.

I agree. I also believe, and have stated before, that while
she feared violence from OJ, as in hitting, it's another thing altogether to believe that a man you spent years with, the
father of your children, is actually there to MURDER you.
Especially when he's spied on you in the past. I think
it far more likely she would assume he was there to
snoop than to kill.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
But that's the point -- he said the shoes were ugly and he wouldn't have worn them. I guess he meant he would wear them to a football game but not to a crime scene.

you guessed wrong

bloomingdales said he never baught those shoes and the salesman said he would NOT have sold oj those shoes for the weather in Buffalo n.y.
so

no proof that he ever owned the shoes
no proof that he ever owned the gloves
only assumptions
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

<snipped>

it would require reebok sneakers of which he had several dozen in his closet.
martin II

And you know this.....how?

:rolleyes:

[martin II]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


I agree. I also believe, and have stated before, that while
she feared violence from OJ, as in hitting, it's another thing altogether to believe that a man you spent years with, the
father of your children, is actually there to MURDER you.
Especially when he's spied on you in the past. I think
it far more likely she would assume he was there to
snoop than to kill.

if he had a knife she may not have seen it, but she sure would have known that he was not there to ask if the kids were ok. don't think she would chanced having a rumble with him in the front yard at 10 pm
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


And you know this.....how?

:rolleyes:
oj said that he got lots of free sneakers from reebok to promote the product.not unusual at all. vanhatter took one pair from his house and tossed them in the back seat of his (vanhatters) car.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



You caught that! It was another poster about a year or so ago. Saying the reason OJ managed to killed the victims and not get any blood on himself was, he wore a wet suit!

LOL

the wet suite was supposed to be from some movie he was in.
martin II

[martin II]

natta

what about a earlier post that said m furhman, in his book said he thought that the Akita bit the killer.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

Maybe Martin II was Orenthal's fashion consultant :D

:lol: Note to Martin: Don't quit your day job (if you have one). As has been stated, OJ was not going over to Bundy that night to make a fashion statement. If he really hated those ugly azz shoes, now was definitely the time to get rid of them (sorry, no disrespect to Nicole or Ron intended)!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

"OJ said" :rolleyes:

Need we say more Socal? LOL!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

the wet suite was supposed to be from some movie he was in.
martin II

God Almighty, it's not "suite as in sweet, but suit as in lawsuit!"

:rolleyes:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II
natta

what about a earlier post that said m furhman, in his book said he thought that the Akita bit the killer.
martin II

I've never seen a post about Kato biting OJ and the key word here from MF's book is "he thought." That's making an assumption on your part and is just more of your BS to waste bandwidth!

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
atheletic activity, murder fight, does not equal expensive ugly azz
dress shoes. it would require reebok sneakers of which he had several dozen in his closet.
martin II


martin II, Simpson never anticipated that he would have to kill anyone but Nicole. He didn't wear white Reeboks because he was dressed in all dark colored clothing for concealment in the dark.

Simpson was following the camouflage and concealment techniques that Frogmen use. He picked old dark colored shoes that he no longer wore and could be disposed of.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Martin II

There was TV crew at that Bills game in 1993. There was a moment in the ceremony were OJ ran on the field and the shoes he wore was dress style loafer and not a boot!



nettathirty, that's not correct.

Simpson wore Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes with Silga soles to that football game and that's what he was photographed wearing when he was on the football field. They were not dress loafers.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II




no proof that he ever owned the shoes
no proof that he ever owned the gloves
only assumptions
martin II


martin II, no you're wrong. There was photographic proof that Simpson wore Aris Isotoner gloves and Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes with Silga soles.

Those are not assumptions, those are facts.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


:lol: Note to Martin: Don't quit your day job (if you have one). As has been stated, OJ was not going over to Bundy that night to make a fashion statement. If he really hated those ugly azz shoes, now was definitely the time to get rid of them (sorry, no disrespect to Nicole or Ron intended)!

JMO and MOO!!

2l8
you seem to be very concerned about how i support my family as it relates to job.

From where i sit, my work is important and i have done it for years
and it does afford me a great living. Honestly i have very few complaints. If you are concerned about the time i spend posting here, i own every computer in this building and i can spend as much time on them as i wish. I punch my own clock.
thanks for your concern
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, Simpson never anticipated that he would have to kill anyone but Nicole. He didn't wear white Reeboks because he was dressed in all dark colored clothing for concealment in the dark.

Simpson was following the camouflage and concealment techniques that Frogmen use. He picked old dark colored shoes that he no longer wore and could be disposed of.

bobaugust

bob
the bm shoes shown in pictures were not DARK COLORED at all,
there were medium colored tan uppers. i think a picture is on your web site. most sneakers come in white, black and other colors
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


I've never seen a post about Kato biting OJ and the key word here from MF's book is "he thought." That's making an assumption on your part and is just more of your BS to waste bandwidth!

JMO and MOO!!

Try to get it right, the poster said that m furhman in his book stated that he thought that the dog took a bite out of the killer.
Read back a few pages.
martin II

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II

alien

i was up at 4 am this morning catching up on a back log of work and worked at it all day. Plus i had a lot of communicaitons to catch up with.
how was your weekend?
Martin II

I haven't posted much either. Thanks for asking about my weekend. It was busy. Went to a wedding dance and made sure that the Coors Brewing Company didn't go out of business :beer:

Not sure how pathetic this is, but I got a brand new carpet cleaner (first one I ever owned) and I went crazy cleaning my carpets. :lol:

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Socaldiva

I never posted any such thing, but if I had to guess MF book probably contained alot of speculation!

netta
if this comment is in fact in m furhmans book, i wonder why he put it in the book, knowing oj did not have any dog bites on his body.
martin II

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


OMG, when will he stop making a fool of himself? :lol:

Never is my guess. He's such a JERK.

OJ on a sex tape. Can I just say EWWW!!!!:eek:

[alien]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust
[B]Sex tape allegedly starring OJ Simpson leaked

The tape is garbage and we can prove it. OJ wouldn't do anything like this."


You gotta love the lawyers outrage. "OJ wouldn't do anything
like this". Hey, so he butchered two people, it's not like
he'd make a sex tape or anything. Geez.

And he has issues with road rage and paying for cable TV:no:

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

on the oj video, did you see anyone from this thread in it?
martin II

martin, that isn't very nice.

[martin II]

Originally posted by alien


martin, that isn't very nice.
it was a joke to bob. see my post to him
martin II

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


My guess is two fold:

1) He wanted to make sure the case wasn't subject to appeal, so he bent over backwards. We should change his name to Ben Dover. lol.

2) He was too preoccupied by the media attention & it went to his head

I so agree with you. It was a travesty how Ito acted. I wonder how he feels now a days with all the people who so believe that OJ was guilty? How does he feel about the verdict in the civil trial? How does he feel about the behaviour OJ has exhibited since the trail?

[alien]

It has been a few days since I posted so I have been answering some of the posts. If I have repeated what other people have said, my apologies for using up space.

[goatgirl]

Hey...

for anyone interested in seeing what Faye Resnick looks like now, click on this recent video clip:

http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1645258

GoatGirl

:seeya:

[goatgirl]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Thanks for the link. She sure doesn't look like a 46 yr old woman (I'm guessing she is the same age as Nicole). I thought she looked a bit like a hooker

You are welcome :)

I agree, she certainly doesnt look her age at all!

I am sure a little thing called botox has something to do with it ;)

here is another picture of Faye w/ Paris Hilton if your interested....

http://idontlikeyouinthatway.com/image_pages/phsl1.html

http://idontlikeyouinthatway.com/image_pages/phsl4.html

enjoy,

GoatGirl



:seeya:

[martin II]

Originally posted by alien


I so agree with you. It was a travesty how Ito acted. I wonder how he feels now a days with all the people who so believe that OJ was guilty? How does he feel about the verdict in the civil trial? How does he feel about the behaviour OJ has exhibited since the trail?

Alien

No judge should be concerned with what the public thinks about
a case. If a judge allowed the publics attitudes towards a defendant to enter into how he runs a trial, he could just take the publics temperature and make decisions based on that.

I think Ito gave both sides a lot of room to present their case. he did not handcuff either side with restrictive rulings.like the civil trial judge did.


It was just that the prosecution in their rush to judgement had a shabby case ( it looked like a mountain of evidence to some ) but they put everything including the kitchen sink into the case and
ended up giving the defense reasonable doubt. imo
Martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
the bm shoes shown in pictures were not DARK COLORED at all,
there were medium colored tan uppers. i think a picture is on your web site. most sneakers come in white, black and other colors
martin II



martin II, no I don't have a picture of the Bruno Magli Shoes on my web site, but I do have a JPEG image of Skull's photograph in my files showing Simpson wearing them on the football field in September 1993 and they are not tan, they are dark colored.

You're claim that Simpson should have worn sneakers is irrelevant. The fact is that he chose older dark colored shoes that he no longer wore and he could dispose of. It's ironic that he chose the exact shoes he wore nine months earlier at that Buffalo Bills football game where he was being honored for his running record. I don't doubt that if he had remembered that he was photographed so many times wearing them he would have chose another pair of shoes. But he didn't.

bobaugust

[alien]

So how about if we make a list, or something like that, about new things we want to discuss and go from there.

We learn a lot from bobaugust and I am sure there is so much more to learn. Maybe he wouldn't mind if we threw some new questions at him. Or just come up with some topics that haven't been discusses to death. I am sorry that I don't remember who posted the comment about the gate. That was something different and we learned a lot from that discussion.

And of course, there will be barbs being thrown back and forth. That is human nature, but hopefully if we keep it t"clean" so to speak Hotwater won't shut the board down. The OJ discussion will never die so I hope the board doesn't die. IMO the lack of posting on weekends is probably because it is summer and people are out doing things on the weekend (Saturday and Sunday being the norm). My weekends are a little different and I am sure so are others. But the majority of people work Monday thru Friday and use the weekend to enjoy family time. I typically go on this board when I am working the overnight shifts because work is calm and in the morning when I get home and am unwinding.

And having said that, I should probably come up with some questions. So ya'll give me some time to think of "stuff".




:lol:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Maybe you should read the book & get it right. MF knows that OJ is the murderer & he also knows OJ didn't have a dog bite, so obviously whoever posted it was mistaken. imo


socaldiva, the reference to a dog bite was in Fuhrman's notes he made when he first arrived at Bundy.

Item 13) At rear gate on n/s of resid. Two blood drops at bottom inside of gate. This area might have been where the dog was kept. Susp. ran through this area. Susp. possibly bitten by dog.

bobaugust

[alien]

Originally posted by goatgirl


You are welcome :)

I agree, she certainly doesnt look her age at all!

I am sure a little thing called botox has something to do with it ;)

here is another picture of Faye w/ Paris Hilton if your interested....

http://idontlikeyouinthatway.com/image_pages/phsl1.html

http://idontlikeyouinthatway.com/image_pages/phsl4.html

enjoy,


GoatGirl



:seeya:

Well, for the love of God, she is hanging out with Paris Hilton which to me means she has no standards. (sorry if any of you are Paris Hilton fans) And, were her lips always like that or did she go the way of plastic surgery hoping to look younger. I remember during the OJ issue and thinking she wasn't a bad looking woman

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



MF helped OJ out during the trial, I don't very seriously MF believes OJ is the killer!



nettathirty, wrong. Evidently you didn't read Fuhrman's book.

Your opinion about this is off the wall, but it is funny. If that's what you intended it to be you've succeeded.

bobaugust

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


Alien


It was just that the prosecution in their rush to judgement had a shabby case ( it looked like a mountain of evidence to some ) but they put everything including the kitchen sink into the case and
ended up giving the defense reasonable doubt. imo
Martin II

Please explain your comment about their rush to judgement. Thanks.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August

There was an HBO special "Study in Black and White", in it was video footage of the dashing Football legend running with a football to the Center of the field for a ceremony. OJ wore his #32 jersey over his shirt and tie, with gray slacks and black loafer style shoes. This was the same event of the flammer photos!


nettathirty, there was never any discussion or testimony that Simpson wore what you claim at the Buffalo Bills/Miami Dolphins football game on September 26, 1993.

You may be confusing it with some other game.

There was television video tape shown in the civil trial taken of Simpson at the September 26, 1993 game and he was wearing the same clothing he was shown wearing in all of the Skull and Flammer photographs.

All of the Skull and Flammer photographs show Simpson wearing the same clothing and the same shoes. Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes, not loafers.

bobaugust