General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
And MF was shown to be lying (using sworn testimony and evidence) -- the only dispute regarding him is whether he should have been questioned about his use of the 'n' word. Here's my take on this: I don't believe sightings, conversations, etc., have to be word for word. But if you and I both see a horse and martin sees a hog, then we're asked what color was the horse and you say black and I say dark, chances are what we saw was a horse and martin did not see a hog.

every witness is quesitoned about his/her past when they take the witness stand.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
This is the same night that Orenthal was complaining about it being so hot. You're grasping! LOL

that was after running around getting ready to leave, gathering bags and loaind them.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

you may be thinking about what YOU would do under those circumstances. she was not just answering the door. she had to go out to the gate to let Mr Berman in.remember.
martin II She had been out all evening in that dress -- recital, dinner, Ben & Jerry's......why would she put a robe on AFTER she got home?

[martin II]

i was wondering whos post were deleted by the moderator. we lost a lot of info. i think
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


that was after running around getting ready to leave, gathering bags and loaind them.
martin II I thought he said he'd been napping. Isn't that what he told Park and the detectives?

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
This is the same night that Orenthal was complaining about it being so hot. You're grasping! LOL


fbg

No, I'm not.. I was sleeping in my bed in Dallas, TX on the 12th of June 1994. Which technically was the 13th, because of the time difference CST to PST..

You might want stop asking yourself what would you have done, and how you would have done it. We're not these people, we cannot see their situation as ours, and how we would have done things differently!

jmo moo imo

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
i was wondering whos post were deleted by the moderator. we lost a lot of info. i think
martin II Yes, the moderator said we either learn to play nice or we lose the board.

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I thought he said he'd been napping. Isn't that what he told Park and the detectives?


NO! He didn't say, he'd overslept! Kato asked him, " what, did you oversleep", and OJ never answered!

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
She had been out all evening in that dress -- recital, dinner, Ben & Jerry's......why would she put a robe on AFTER she got home?

you are trying to use your idea of the impossibility of nicole wearing the white robe to say T Lang told a lie.
martin II

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva

*Snipped*

Orenthal's lies were directly related to the murders.


So, we agree people lie under oath!

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Yes, the moderator said we either learn to play nice or we lose the board.


so what post were deleted??

[fbgweezer]

*Snip* Originally posted by nettathirty
You might want stop asking yourself what would you have done, and how you would have done it. We're not these people, we cannot see their situation as ours, and how we would have done things differently! But you see, you have to draw on your own life experiences to assess the crediability and believability of evidence/testimony. In fact, if you read most jury instructions and/or closing statements by defense and prosecution, you will more often than not hear them tell the jury to do just that -- draw on their own experiences and use common sense.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



NO! He didn't say, he'd overslept! Kato asked him, " what, did you oversleep", and OJ never answered!
Park drove O.J. Simpson to the airport for a flight to Chicago the night of June 12. He testified that he arrived at 10:25 p.m., some 20 minutes early. Park rang the buzzer/intercom at the gate and got no answer. There were few or no lights on in the house. Soon after, Park said he spotted a black person wearing dark clothes walk into the house and turn on some lights. He rang the intercom again. This time Simpson answered. He explained that he had just gotten out of the shower after oversleeping and would be down in a few minutes. Simpson appeared five minutes later. Park testified nothing appeared unusual about Simpson, who upon arriving at the airport took his black duffel bags with him, rather than put them on a luggage cart.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


you are trying to use your idea of the impossibility of nicole wearing the white robe to say T Lang told a lie.
martin II No -- I am saying there is no other corroborating testimony evidence that what Lange 'said' he saw actually took place. In fact, everything that is corroborated proves exactly opposite it.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* But you see, you have to draw on your own life experiences to assess the crediability and believability of evidence/testimony. In fact, if you read most jury instructions and/or closing statements by defense and prosecution, you will more often than not hear them tell the jury to do just that -- draw on their own experiences and use common sense.


fbg

there may have been many things that nicole may have done as a normal daily activity that you would not do. so you cannot say what she would or would not have done since you never met or hung out with her personally.you do not know what was going on in her condo at say 9;15--10;05
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
No -- I am saying there is no other corroborating testimony evidence that what Lange 'said' he saw actually took place. In fact, everything that is corroborated proves exactly opposite it.

that sounds like a quote from bob. haha
martin II

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
No -- I am saying there is no other corroborating testimony evidence that what Lange 'said' he saw actually took place. In fact, everything that is corroborated proves exactly opposite it.


fbg,

Langes version of events took place at 10:05p, and everything that was entered in to evidence or testified to came upto 15 or 20 mins later! Except for the call OJ made to Paula B, at 10:03p! There is nothing to corroborate his testimony, and there is nothing to discredit it either!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Why? because they both make sense & sound intelligent? I agree :beer:


This is the kind of unrelated to the Simpson case post, that gets our board shut down! Please keep your sarcastic remarks to yourself, please.. For the sake of this board, I enjoy posting here!

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


that sounds like a quote from bob. haha
martin II Thank you.

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Excuse me, there was nothing sarcastic in my post :no:


Please, only post things and subject matter that is relative to the Simpson case.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



This is the kind of unrelated to the Simpson case post, that gets our board shut down! Please keep your sarcastic remarks to yourself, please.. For the sake of this board, I enjoy posting here! Then you need to speak to martin about his post that initiated socal response. Enough said.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Please, only post things and subject matter that is relative to the Simpson case. You mean like this: "fbg

No, I'm not.. I was sleeping in my bed in Dallas, TX on the 12th of June 1994. Which technically was the 13th, because of the time difference CST to PST..

You might want stop asking yourself what would you have done, and how you would have done it. We're not these people, we cannot see their situation as ours, and how we would have done things differently" --nettathirty

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
You mean like this: "fbg

*snipped*

No, I'm not.. I was sleeping in my bed in Dallas, TX on the 12th of June 1994. --nettathirty

Look at the date reference in my post, and ask yourself, " what does it have to do with the Simpson case"?

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



This is the kind of unrelated to the Simpson case post, that gets our board shut down! Please keep your sarcastic remarks to yourself, please.. For the sake of this board, I enjoy posting here!


correct, i agree.

And please stop trying to push peoples buttons with those nasty little digs and ALL the daily negative personal remarks to ngs.

spell checking and posting negative pictures that are referred to as posters. All of this keeps the discussion off track. it is very child like. from the moderators actions, this behavior is not acceptable.

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



This is the kind of unrelated to the Simpson case post, that gets our board shut down! Please keep your sarcastic remarks to yourself, please.. For the sake of this board, I enjoy posting here!
netta

i have had socaldiva on ignore for several months now so i am never tempted to respond to her offensive post as i never read them.

her post being deleted from this board does not effect me in any way but obviously they were offensive since they were deleted.
martinII

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
No -- I am saying there is no other corroborating testimony evidence that what Lange 'said' he saw actually took place. In fact, everything that is corroborated proves exactly opposite it.

fbg

Tom Lange (the neighbor), stood nothing to gain by lying, and he did exist! The E! show would not have mentioned (Lange) had there not being something credible about him. Unlike the other witnesses, he did not write a book, nor did he go on dozens of talk shows to have his story told.. Everybody else did!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

the father either talked to nicole for 15 minutes by phone or came to her condo and talked to her for 15 minutes. there are different reports of what happened.
martin II

First, you post the following:

Originally posted by martin II

is it more accurate to say the girl only stayed at nicoles 15 minutes. not the father.
martin II

Old Post 06-14-2006 01:14 PM

And then you post the above post. So which is it?

:shrug: :confused: :shrug:

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty


fbg

Tom Lange (the neighbor), stood nothing to gain by lying, and he did exist! The E! show would not have mentioned (Lange) had there not being something credible about him. Unlike the other witnesses, he did not write a book, nor did he go on dozens of talk shows to have his story told.. Everybody else did!

the unique thing about langs observations is that it fits other theories that there were other killers in front of nicoles condo after 10:05.lets say 10:10 --10:15/20 that would be exactly when Stofers say he heard the dog barking. hhhhmmmm
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
[b]

First, you post the following:

[b]

And then you post the above post. So which is it?

:shrug: :confused: :shrug:

it is very simple if you pay attention

tazzy posted some info on what the father did.His time line. i found a additional site that said the father arrived some time after 9- 9:10 and stayed about 15 minutes. these two pieces of informaiton is what led me to make my last post on the subject.
you got it?
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty


fbg

Tom Lange (the neighbor), stood nothing to gain by lying, and he did exist! The E! show would not have mentioned (Lange) had there not being something credible about him. Unlike the other witnesses, he did not write a book, nor did he go on dozens of talk shows to have his story told.. Everybody else did!

Tom Lang is just as credible as PALINKA(SP) Who claimed she heard the dog barking while she was in her bathroon from the next block from nicoles condo. imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II



hi tazzy

look at the skate boarder 8:45--

then the man that came to pick up his daughter about 9: 20--9:30

the people tom lang ( the neighbor) saw in front of the condo.10;05

the front of that condo was quite busy that night.

martin II


martin II, yep, just a regular neighborhood where many people lived, visited, and walked in.

bobaugust

[martin II]

netta

the defesne pushed the time line back to about or after 10;35 10;45
all along the prosecution tried to push the time line up to about 10:20, langs story fits with the prosecutions time line BUT it also
brings into play other people being at the scene at this time. pointing to multiple killers. so i guess the prosecution just did not want to put MR Lang on the stand.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, yep, just a regular neighborhood where many people lived, visited, and walked in.

bobaugust

and hid in the grass in front of nicoles condo. twice in one night.
hhhhmmmmm
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty


fbg

Tom Lange (the neighbor), stood nothing to gain by lying, and he did exist! The E! show would not have mentioned (Lange) had there not being something credible about him. Unlike the other witnesses, he did not write a book, nor did he go on dozens of talk shows to have his story told.. Everybody else did!

NO ONE saw heidstra standing in the alley at 10:40 either did they.
and he never saw a dog did he and the dog never saw him.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August, hold ur horses!

MF lied under oath after swearing to tell the truth. You like to believe witnesses who's version of that night, does not support your fantasy, "got it wrong or was mistaking". Yet when testimony supports your fantasy, then it's the gospel! I would wait before putting all my earnings into witness testimony, as you have said before, it's possible they could be mistaken!


nettathirty, we know when witnesses were mistaken based on cross examination that pointed out discrepancies and then witnesses responding to those discrepancies. Or we know when witnesses were mistaken when evidence was presented that proved what they thought happened couldn't have happened.

If you think you know of any information that some witness testified to and was never contradicted or showed to be wrong please inform us.

Rumors, and uncorroborated stories are not reliable. You seem to think these have more credibility than witnesses who testified under direct and cross examination. Your wrong and confusing yourself.

Fuhrman lied about something irrelevant to the murders, something that had nothing to do with Simpson's guilt or innocence.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Still doesn't make sense. Why slip your dress AND a robe on to answer the door?

And more importantly. Why would you be jumping into a bubble bath when you know that Rachel's Father is coming to get her? Doesn't make sense to me!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty





Keep in mind, I believe MF lied for the purpose of assuring OJ an aquittal. However, other witnesses may have just been mistaken, and not lying. Which is something Mr August likes to say when the witness testimony contradicts Mr August's fantasies about the Bundy murders!


nettathirty, maybe you should be a little more careful about what you call fantasies.

The fact that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole is a proven fact in a court of law, that's no fantasy. The proof is the relevant physical evidence, the witness testimony, and Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and lies.

If you're referring to my speculation about how Simpson committed the murders, there isn't one fact or piece of evidence I've ever read posted by you that contradicts my speculation. If you think there is please post it. If it is legitimate and does contradict what I've speculated than I will change my speculation.

On the other hand, you believe in fantasies. Fantasies that are not supported by any evidence, only imagination.

That's the difference between supported speculation and unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


And more importantly. Why would you be jumping into a bubble bath when you know that Rachel's Father is coming to get her? Doesn't make sense to me!


She probably was preparing her bath, then the phone rings and she's told, that Rachel would be picked up, and not be spending the night. She then puts her clothing back on, instead of putting on a new set of clothes.. She then put her robe on, and walked the Bermans to their car!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

nettathirty, maybe you should be a little more careful about what you call fantasies.

bobaugust


Mr August

Heidstra, claimed a gate slammed at Nicoles! We know for a fact that the front gate was still open after the bodies were discovered.

You have No proof of when the murders occured, and hanging your entire belief on a single (non-eye) witness is a FANTASY!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

so what post were deleted??

Give it Up for Gawd's Sake! Go ask Freshwater. S/he is the one who did it. Even if I knew, I would never tell you!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

This is the kind of unrelated to the Simpson case post, that gets our board shut down! Please keep your sarcastic remarks to yourself, please.. For the sake of this board, I enjoy posting here!

If we lose this Thread, it will be thanks to you and Martin II and no one else!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

Please, only post things and subject matter that is relative to the Simpson case.

I don't know about anyone else, but YOU are not going to tell me what to do.

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

it is very simple if you pay attention

tazzy posted some info on what the father did.His time line. i found a additional site that said the father arrived some time after 9- 9:10 and stayed about 15 minutes. these two pieces of informaiton is what led me to make my last post on the subject.
you got it?
martin II

Maybe you need to do better research before you run and post it. Get it?

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


fbg

Tom Lange (the neighbor), stood nothing to gain by lying, and he did exist! The E! show would not have mentioned (Lange) had there not being something credible about him. Unlike the other witnesses, he did not write a book, nor did he go on dozens of talk shows to have his story told.. Everybody else did!



nettathirty, I agree neighbor Lange had nothing to gain by lying, but how do you know what he said?

By reading something someone said someone told them what Lange supposedly said? Or by what someone said on television that Lange supposedly said?

This person was never called as a witness. What does that tell you? It tells me that nothing he actually said he saw or when he said he saw it had anything to do with the murders. The prosecution never called him. Simpson's attorneys never called him.

The fact that he never wrote a book is probably because there was nothing he had to contribute to the Simpson case that would warrant writing an article let along a book. Your faith in the material that an E show puts on is admirable. Gullible but admirable.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, yep, just a regular neighborhood where many people lived, visited, and walked in.

bobaugust

bob
on 6/12 bundy was quiet. no one out that much
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Maybe you need to do better research before you run and post it. Get it?

JMO and MOO!!

not really. at lease not in this instance.
martin II

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


If someone has already undressed to take a bath, they wouldn't need to put their clothes back on. They would simply put on their robe.


You and I probably wouldn't behave this way, but we can only speak for ourselves.

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


I don't know about anyone else, but YOU are not going to tell me what to do.

JMO and MOO!!

the moderator did. if you don't like it, take it up with her/him

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

not really. at lease not in this instance.
martin II

Yes, you do because you end up contradicting yourself. That's why you are not credible.

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

the moderator did. if you don't like it, take it up with her/him

First off, you have to ask me if I care! Secondly, Netta is not going to tell me what to do!

JMO and MOO!!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

nettathirty, I agree neighbor Lange had nothing to gain by lying, but how do you know what he said?

By reading something someone said someone told them what Lange supposedly said? Or by what someone said on television that Lange supposedly said?

bobaugust


Mr August:

Wouldn't this logic apply to Shively, and her mystery Gray Nissan driver!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by martin II


the moderator did. if you don't like it, take it up with her/him


Martin II

Do you believe Stoufer to be credible?

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by martin II


NO ONE saw heidstra standing in the alley at 10:40 either did they.
and he never saw a dog did he and the dog never saw him.
martin II

Not to mention Heidstra said the gate slam came from 875 Bundy, yet the gate at that address was found opened, how could that be?

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


First off, you have to ask me if I care! Secondly, Netta is not going to tell me what to do!

JMO and MOO!!

nettas suggesiton was a positive one for the sake of the board. it is up to you to consider moderating your behavior or ignore his suggestion.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Martin II

Do you believe Stoufer to be credible?

absolutely.

the reason is stofers had access to sounds on bundy and dorothy and the alley.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Not to mention Heidstra said the gate slam came from 875 Bundy, yet the gate at that address was found opened, how could that be?

well again you are correct. it could not have been open if heidstra heard it slam shut.
martin II

[goatgirl]

Originally posted by martin II


goat girl

that is a great observation.

If MR Robert berman came to nicoles shortly after 9pm and spent about 15 minutes inside her condo, I am asuming that he called her to tell her he was comming, unless he arrived without a call.

i will have to look for the time Tom Lang (the neighbor) saw nicole
at the car in front of her condo.
martin II



*snip 4 space*


Thanxs martin!

I could only assume that R.B called b4 picking up his daughter,
it was 9:00 or later, usually parents call when something happens or plans change....

I am also thinking R.B was inside Bundy, cuz there is a picture of 2 coffee mugs on the counter where the knife was found.

imo
Goatgirl
:seeya:

[jotun]

All--re the woman in the white robe/coat.Could have been Robin Greer.She was a known drug addict,and the only friend of Nicole's that O.J. refused to assosciate with.Maybe she was'Mommie's best-friend' that Sydney heard that night and why Nicole was crying.After all Robin was on the speed-dial while Faye Resnick was not. This was pointed out by Judge Ito.
jotun

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


the unique thing about langs observations is that it fits other theories that there were other killers in front of nicoles condo after 10:05.lets say 10:10 --10:15/20 that would be exactly when Stofers say he heard the dog barking. hhhhmmmm
martin II


martin II, pure rubbish. Nothing supports other killers. It's a neighborhood not a vacuum.

People come and people go. People who have nothing to do with Nicole. Nothing anyone said ties any of these reports about different people in the neighborhood to the murders. Nothing but imagination.

You're simply taking an uncorroborated story, changing the times and fantasizing. Exactly the same lame method Wagner used to create his fantasies. Funny. Good job.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


Tom Lang is just as credible as PALINKA(SP) Who claimed she heard the dog barking while she was in her bathroon from the next block from nicoles condo. imo
martin II


martin II, "Palinka?" Your inability to get her name straight after all of the postings you've made and read about her shows some kind of learning disability on your part. But it's funny, keep doing it.

Pilnak was a witness who testified under oath answering direct questioning and cross examination.

Tom Lange never testified and never even gave an interview. All you know about what he said is an uncorroborated story that someone told someone and was past on.

You too have a serious problem being able to tell what's credible and what's not.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


and hid in the grass in front of nicoles condo. twice in one night.
hhhhmmmmm
martin II



martin II, where did you hear that rumor, or are you just making things up again?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


NO ONE saw heidstra standing in the alley at 10:40 either did they.
and he never saw a dog did he and the dog never saw him.
martin II


martin II. Heidstra testified under oath answering direct questions and cross examination.

The facts Heidstra testified to established the time line of the murders that was also supported by Jill Shively, and Allan Park. As well as Mandel, Aaronson, Pilnak Telander, Karpf, and Schwab.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August

Heidstra, claimed a gate slammed at Nicoles! We know for a fact that the front gate was still open after the bodies were discovered.

You have No proof of when the murders occured, and hanging your entire belief on a single (non-eye) witness is a FANTASY!


nettathirty, Heidstra's testimony establish the time line and was supported by Jill Shively and Allan Park. Also supported by Mandel, Aaronson, Pilnak, Telander, Karpf, and Schwab.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August:

Wouldn't this logic apply to Shively, and her mystery Gray Nissan driver!



nettathirty, no.

Jill Shively made eye contact and recognized Simpson. That's the fact she testified to.

Neighbor Lange never testified anywhere.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


well again you are correct. it could not have been open if heidstra heard it slam shut.
martin II



martin II, wrong.

Heidstra did not say the gate slammed shut. He said he heard a gate slam. Pay attention to the facts.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

nettas suggesiton was a positive one for the sake of the board. it is up to you to consider moderating your behavior or ignore his suggestion.
martin II

Duh, I think my post was obvious!

[jotun]

All--Bob posts the same posts over & over & over again here,there & everywhere.Yes,Bob, we do GET all the evidence points to O.J. BUT HOW DID IT GET THERE??? That is the question.We know that Bronco never moved.It was seen by a few people on Rockingham.They were threatened by the D.A's because of illegal status.Surveillenge tapes from the neighbors were taken.IF that Bronco had moved we would have seen it in court.DIDN'T.Nor were there any victim hair or fiber inside.We know there were no blood drops at Bundy.And how do we know? Because there were none in Fuhrman's notes. Oh,I know he just couldn't see those BIG drops.Not there YET.Lange 'saw 'some with tails that disappeared before the photos were taken.Amazing huh? SWATCHES SWITCHED!!! If a key O.J.had fit those locks we would have seen it in court.DIDN'T.Or a sweatsuit.That Gigi said he didn't own. DIDN'T. Those panties, bras, and slips in the washer belonged to Arnelle.Bob says O.J. was seen by Shivley.She first said it was Marcus Allen.She also said on 'Hard Copy'that she ran with Nicole and heard all about O.J. on those runs.She looked to be 200lbs. She told a tabloid that Kato came to her house and voluteered
that he disposed of clothes.Kato sued the tabloid.Kato got a 3 million dollar settlement. Anyone believe her? Marcia certainly doubted. We should have seen the star witness in court. DIDN'T.Anything that pointed away was either IGNORED.
Blood "flowing like a river" when found. Meaning they were murdered well after 11. The 17unidenified,idenifiable prints.2 sets of shoe prints B.M.'s and K-mart deck shoes.These were faxed to E and shown. Ron's onx necklas torn off, somewhere other than the crime scene, and given to Fred. That
Ron was a suspected drug dealer.That Mezzaluna was a suspected front for drugs &porn.Or LOST. Evidence- the glove etc was sent to Henry Lee. Ito told the defence nothing had better happen to it.Henry found debris on the glove put it together in a bindle and sent it back. The D.A.'s said 'Sorry we LOST it' .Ito said 'ah that's o.k'.And MOST IMPORTANT.The bloody fingerprint on the back gate handle. LOST.The lens with the bloody imprint.LOST.And last and EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. The phone records that would prove Nicole was talking to her mother at 11 or after.LOST. D.A's moto
"IF IT DOESN'T FIT WE MUST LOSE IT!!!!!
jotun

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by jotun
All--Bob posts the same posts over & over & over again here,there & everywhere.Yes,Bob, we do GET all the evidence points to O.J.

<snipped>

Bob is very credible and an asset to this Board. You, my friend, are NOT!

11 Posts?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, wrong.

Heidstra did not say the gate slammed shut. He said he heard a gate slam. Pay attention to the facts.

bobaugust
bob

there is no evidence that shows that the gate would not 'CATCH' when slammed. Your suggestion that the gate slammed but did not catch is your faulty way of trying twist the facts to fit you fantasy story. you need to pay attention to the facts and stop ignoring them
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




nettathirty, no.

Jill Shively made eye contact and recognized Simpson. That's the fact she testified to.

Neighbor Lange never testified anywhere.

bobaugust

bob
you know it as well as anyone that after shively told her story m clarke decided she was not reliable and told her to get lost.
martijn II

[martin II]

netta

People have talked about ethical methods used by the defense but ignore it the same methods when used by the prosecution.
i was reading Heidstras testimony in the criminal trial where he stated that Darden asked him some questions about his immagration status that he felt were threatening when Darden came to his house to take his statement. it was obvious to him that Darden was trying to get him to tailor his comments to what darden wanted him to say. in other words he was trying to get Heidstra to lie. when cochran brought this subject up, darden tried his best to get the judge not to allow it.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Bob is very credible and an asset to this Board. You, my friend, are NOT!

11 Posts?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

JMO and MOO!!

2l8

a large number of post here do not mean that the poster is makeing truthful or valuable post. 11 post can have more truth than 6,571 post.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, where did you hear that rumor, or are you just making things up again?

bobaugust

1. the skate boarder
2. the people Lang saw in front of nicoles condo

= 2 in one night
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by goatgirl




*snip 4 space*


Thanxs martin!

I could only assume that R.B called b4 picking up his daughter,
it was 9:00 or later, usually parents call when something happens or plans change....

I am also thinking R.B was inside Bundy, cuz there is a picture of 2 coffee mugs on the counter where the knife was found.

imo
Goatgirl
:seeya:

goat girl
good point.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II

bob

there is no evidence that shows that the gate would not 'CATCH' when slammed. Your suggestion that the gate slammed but did not catch is your faulty way of trying twist the facts to fit you fantasy story. you need to pay attention to the facts and stop ignoring them
martin II


martin II, I only pay attention to the facts. The real facts. Not the ones you make up. What evidence do you know of that shows when the gate was slammed hard it would always catch?

You continually site false information based on your ignorance of the facts and I'm continually correcting you, and now you try to tell me I don't pay attention to the facts? That's funny.

I don't have a fantasy story. No one knows the exact details of what Simpson did that night when he murdered both Ron and Nicole. All we know is the evidence he left that proves him guilty and the lies he told that confirm his guilt. Yes, I have speculated possible scenarios of the murders based on the evidence we know but that doesn't mean that's the way it actually happened, only a possibility that it may have happened that way.

Fantasies are what you and other posters in denial of the truth try to argue that have no support at all, based only on imagination and wishful thinking. Learn the difference.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
you know it as well as anyone that after shively told her story m clarke decided she was not reliable and told her to get lost.
martijn II


martin II, and you should know that's not true.

You the great follower of Dick Wagner should read the articles he wrote about Jill Shively again and again and again. It seems you can't seem to comprehend what you read unless you read it several times. Keep reading them until you start to comprehend what Dick wrote and then you might realize why you're wrong.

Jill Shively was a credible witness who testified to facts that were never found to be untrue.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


1. the skate boarder
2. the people Lang saw in front of nicoles condo

= 2 in one night
martin II



martin II,

This reminds me of the game taught in school to learn about rumors where the first person would whisper something into the second person's ear and then the second person would whisper it to a third person and so on until when it got to the last person it was completely distorted and had no resemblance to what was originally said.

You've taken unreliable irrelevant information that has been past down person by person and added your own version to it. Your statement about people hiding in the grass in front of Nicole's condo is pure rubbish.

I guess this is your method of thinking outside the box. Funny.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
netta


i was reading Heidstras testimony in the criminal trial where he stated that Darden asked him some questions about his immagration status that he felt were threatening when Darden came to his house to take his statement. it was obvious to him that Darden was trying to get him to tailor his comments to what darden wanted him to say. in other words he was trying to get Heidstra to lie. when cochran brought this subject up, darden tried his best to get the judge not to allow it.
martin II


martin II, another useless observation by you.

The fact is that Heidstra was a defense witness who didn't tailor his comments to what you think Darden supposedly wanted, yet his testimony was devastating for Simpson.

The defense called Heidstra to testify to facts that established the real time of the murders to contradict Clark's incorrect time. That's why Heidstra was used as a plaintiff witness in the civil trial. Petrocelli was able to correct the prosecution's errors when presenting the truth of these murders.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, another useless observation by you.

The fact is that Heidstra was a defense witness who didn't tailor his comments to what you think Darden supposedly wanted, yet his testimony was devastating for Simpson.

The defense called Heidstra to testify to facts that established the real time of the murders to contradict Clark's incorrect time. That's why Heidstra was used as a plaintiff witness in the civil trial. Petrocelli was able to correct the prosecution's errors when presenting the truth of these murders.

bobaugust

bob
there you go again. ignoring the issue of my post with one of your blanket statements about your evidence.

did Heidstra say Darden asked him a lot of quesitons about his immagration status in the u.s. when darden and a couple of investigators came to Heidestras house or not?
martin II

[martin II]

netta
Mr Berman seems to be the last person to see nicole alive before she was killed. from the two coffee cups left on the table it seems that he and nicole had some coffee during the time he was at her condo to pick up his little girl.

i am wondering if the prosecution interviewed him and he told them that nicole was not upset, worried or afraid of anything. so they just decided not to call him to testify.
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II
netta
Mr Berman seems to be the last person to see nicole alive before she was killed. from the two coffee cups left on the table it seems that he and nicole had some coffee during the time he was at her condo to pick up his little girl.

i am wondering if the prosecution interviewed him and he told them that nicole was not upset, worried or afraid of anything. so they just decided not to call him to testify.
martin II

I don't think Nicole necessarily would have been afraid or worried at that point in time. I think Nicole was too angry that evening to worry about anything until, of course, the point when she realized that OJ was going to kill her.

Kate

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by jotun
We know that Bronco never moved.It was seen by a few people on Rockingham.They were threatened by the D.A's because of illegal status.Surveillenge tapes from the neighbors were taken.IF that Bronco had moved we would have seen it in court.DIDN'T.Nor were there any victim hair or fiber inside.We know there were no blood drops at Bundy.And how do we know? Because there were none in Fuhrman's notes. Oh,I know he just couldn't see those BIG drops.Not there YET.Lange 'saw 'some with tails that disappeared before the photos were taken.Amazing huh? SWATCHES SWITCHED!!! If a key O.J.had fit those locks we would have seen it in court.DIDN'T.Or a sweatsuit.That Gigi said he didn't own. DIDN'T. Those panties, bras, and slips in the washer belonged to Arnelle.Bob says O.J. was seen by Shivley.She first said it was Marcus Allen.She also said on 'Hard Copy'that she ran with Nicole and heard all about O.J. on those runs.She looked to be 200lbs. She told a tabloid that Kato came to her house and voluteered
that he disposed of clothes.Kato sued the tabloid.Kato got a 3 million dollar settlement. Anyone believe her? Marcia certainly doubted. We should have seen the star witness in court. DIDN'T.Anything that pointed away was either IGNORED.
Blood "flowing like a river" when found. Meaning they were murdered well after 11. The 17unidenified,idenifiable prints.2 sets of shoe prints B.M.'s and K-mart deck shoes.These were faxed to E and shown. Ron's onx necklas torn off, somewhere other than the crime scene, and given to Fred. That
Ron was a suspected drug dealer.That Mezzaluna was a suspected front for drugs &porn.Or LOST. Evidence- the glove etc was sent to Henry Lee. Ito told the defence nothing had better happen to it.Henry found debris on the glove put it together in a bindle and sent it back. The D.A.'s said 'Sorry we LOST it' .Ito said 'ah that's o.k'.And MOST IMPORTANT.The bloody fingerprint on the back gate handle. LOST.The lens with the bloody imprint.LOST.And last and EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. The phone records that would prove Nicole was talking to her mother at 11 or after.LOST. D.A's moto
"IF IT DOESN'T FIT WE MUST LOSE IT!!!!!
jotun



jotun, you are confusing yourself with false and misinformation.

The Bronco was not parked on Rockingham when Allan Park arrived at 10:25 PM. No witness ever saw it parked there at that time.

No hair or fiber evidence found in the Bronco means nothing. In this country we don't convict people on evidence that is not found, we convict them on evidence that is found.

The fact that Fuhrman didn't include the five blood drops in his notes does not mean they weren't there, only that he didn't write about them.

The fleshly washed sweat suit that was found in Simpson's washing machine was looked at for blood as well as the washing machine was looked at, and no blood was seen. The police at that time didn't know that Simpson had been wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night before. The sweat suit was never collected but it was video taped. A couple of weeks later the police realized their mistake of not collecting it and a second search warrant was issued to go back to Rockingham and get it. But it was gone.

Shively said when she first saw a large black man driving the Bronco her first impression was that it was Marcus Allen but when the driver leaned out the window to yell at the other car and turned and looked at Shively, she immediately recognized Simpson.

Your flowing blood and time of 11:00 is pure rubbish. All of the evidence tells us that Ron and Nicole were killed just after 10:30. Simpson's attorneys understood and argued that. Nicole's dog was found by a neighbor before 11:00 with blood on it's paws.

17 one of kind unidentified prints is normal for any house. Simpson was wearing gloves most of the time he was there. He didn't leave any fingerprints except for the possible fingerprint in blood on the rear gate that was never collected.

There was only one set of bloody shoe prints found at Bundy. All were made by Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes with Silga soles. Your information about a second set is untrue.

There was no evidence that Ron was a drug dealer.

There was nothing about any evidence of debris on the glove that was supposedly lost.

There was no bloody imprint on one of the eyeglass lens.

There has never been any telephone records that show Nicole was talking to her mother at 11:00. Pure rubbish.

Your rhymes are as bad as your false information.

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II

netta

i have had socaldiva on ignore for several months now so i am never tempted to respond to her offensive post as i never read them.

her post being deleted from this board does not effect me in any way but obviously they were offensive since they were deleted.
martinII

Are you aware that many of your insulting posts were deleted as well martinII? As were those of netta, just in case you are under the assumption that the message left by FW did not apply to you or anyone else other than socaldiva.

[fbgweezer]

*Snip* Originally posted by jotun
All--Bob posts the same posts over & over & over again here,there & everywhere.Yes,Bob, we do GET all the evidence points to O.J. Oh my goodness! Where do they come from? :eek:

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
netta

People have talked about ethical methods used by the defense but ignore it the same methods when used by the prosecution.
i was reading Heidstras testimony in the criminal trial where he stated that Darden asked him some questions about his immagration status that he felt were threatening when Darden came to his house to take his statement. it was obvious to him that Darden was trying to get him to tailor his comments to what darden wanted him to say. in other words he was trying to get Heidstra to lie. when cochran brought this subject up, darden tried his best to get the judge not to allow it.
martin II Link to Hedistra statement please.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
there you go again. ignoring the issue of my post with one of your blanket statements about your evidence.

did Heidstra say Darden asked him a lot of quesitons about his immagration status in the u.s. when darden and a couple of investigators came to Heidestras house or not?
martin II Link to Heidstra statement please

[fbgweezer]

*Snip* Originally posted by goatgirl
I am also thinking R.B was inside Bundy, cuz there is a picture of 2 coffee mugs on the counter where the knife was found.
I don't remember seeing any pictures with two coffee mugs shown on the counter with the knife. I don't remember ever hearing any testimony where there was any discussion about two coffee mugs being found on the kitchen counter with the knife. Please provide link to picture of two coffee mugs on the counter where the knife was found.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II





did Heidstra say Darden asked him a lot of quesitons about his immagration status in the u.s. when darden and a couple of investigators came to Heidestras house or not?
martin II



martin II, why don't your post that testimony please, so that we know what you are referring to. Include the date.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by jotun
All--re the woman in the white robe/coat.Could have been Robin Greer.She was a known drug addict,and the only friend of Nicole's that O.J. refused to assosciate with.Maybe she was'Mommie's best-friend' that Sydney heard that night and why Nicole was crying.After all Robin was on the speed-dial while Faye Resnick was not. This was pointed out by Judge Ito.
jotun :confused: WTH -- There's never been any evidence that Robin Greer was at Nicole's the night of the murders.

[fbgweezer]

*Snip* Originally posted by martin II
did Heidstra say Darden asked him a lot of quesitons about his immagration status in the u.s. when darden and a couple of investigators came to Heidestras house or not?
martin II And Bailey asked MF about the 'n' word. So what does either of these have to do with Orenthal's blood, footprints, hair, cap, glove and fibers being at the scene of the murders?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
netta
Mr Berman seems to be the last person to see nicole alive before she was killed. from the two coffee cups left on the table it seems that he and nicole had some coffee during the time he was at her condo to pick up his little girl.

i am wondering if the prosecution interviewed him and he told them that nicole was not upset, worried or afraid of anything. so they just decided not to call him to testify.
martin II Please provide link to your statement that Berman was in the condo having coffee with Nicole. :(

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Are you aware that many of your insulting posts were deleted as well martinII? As were those of netta, just in case you are under the assumption that the message left by FW did not apply to you or anyone else other than socaldiva.


:seeya:

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II



:seeya:

Of course.

In moving on with the discussion, why don't you go ahead and supply us with the links requested above by fbg and bobaugust so that we are able to respond to the information that you are citing as being factual.

[martin II]

fbg

here is a post i think by tazzy relative to berman being at the condo after 9 9;10

goat girl informed us that there were two coffee cups next to the knife on nicoles table. It was assumed that nicole and berman had used the cups. will look for goat girls info when i return
martin II

Except at 9:00 around 9:15, a Mr. Robert Berman came to
pick up Rachel Berman.

You recall I said Rachel Berman was Sydney's friend and apparently
plans had changed. Instead of spending the night at 875, she was going
home and she was picked up by her father. Her father talked to Nicole
for about 15 minutes."

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
fbg

here is a post i think by tazzy relative to berman being at the condo after 9 9;10

goat girl informed us that there were two coffee cups next to the knife on nicoles table. It was assumed that nicole and berman had used the cups. will look for goat girls info when i return
martin II

Except at 9:00 around 9:15, a Mr. Robert Berman came to
pick up Rachel Berman.

You recall I said Rachel Berman was Sydney's friend and apparently
plans had changed. Instead of spending the night at 875, she was going
home and she was picked up by her father. Her father talked to Nicole
for about 15 minutes." YOU made statements of fact about Berman being in the condo with Nicole on the night of the murders. YOU made statements of fact about coffee cups being on the counter with the knife. YOU need to provide links to support those statements.

YOU made statements of fact regarding Heidstra's police interview and his immigration status. YOU need to provide link(s) to support those statements.

[martin II]

fbg

if you need it i will look for goat girls comments about the coffee cups when i return
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
YOU made statements of fact about Berman being in the condo with Nicole on the night of the murders. YOU made statements of fact about coffee cups being on the counter with the knife. YOU need to provide links to support those statements.

YOU made statements of fact regarding Heidstra's police interview and his immigration status. YOU need to provide link(s) to support those statements.

i posted heidstras comments during his testimony before. criminal trial so i am not sure why you are asking for it again.

look just a few pages back goat girl made the observation about the coffee cups being on the table with th knife in a picture she had seen. so i am not sure why you are asking me to prove what her post stated
martin II

martin II

[martin II]

fbg


snip 4 space*


Thanxs martin!

I could only assume that R.B called b4 picking up his daughter,
it was 9:00 or later, usually parents call when something happens or plans change....

I am also thinking R.B was inside Bundy, cuz there is a picture of 2 coffee mugs on the counter where the knife was found.

imo
Goatgirl

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
fbg

if you need it i will look for goat girls comments about the coffee cups when i return
martin II I don't want goat girls comments. I've asked her to provide link(s) to her statements. YOU repeated the statements as fact so I assume you have proof that there is evidence to support the statements. Please provide link(s) to your statements concerning the coffee cups on the kitchen counter and Heidstra's statements regarding police/Darden interviewing him about his immigration status.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


i posted heidstras comments during his testimony before. criminal trial so i am not sure why you are asking for it again.

look just a few pages back goat girl made the observation about the coffee cups being on the table with th knife in a picture she had seen. so i am not sure why you are asking me to prove what her post stated
martin II

martin II You stated heidstra's comments as fact -- please provide link(s) to support your statement.

I do not need to re-read goat girls post. YOU made the statement also and I am asking you to provide proof of the coffee cups being on the kitchen counter.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

you may be thinking about what YOU would do under those circumstances. she was not just answering the door. she had to go out to the gate to let Mr Berman in.remember.
martin II

But she went out later (when she was murdered) with only her black dress on and no robe, so why put the robe on some hours earlier when it was even warmer outdoors? It's not as though she needed to cover herself up for Mr. Berman as this was the same dress she had worn to the recital.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by goatgirl

I am also thinking R.B was inside Bundy, cuz there is a picture of 2 coffee mugs on the counter where the knife was found.

imo
Goatgirl
:seeya:

What photo are you referring to? The ones that I have seen show no coffee mugs on the counter.

Further, after the defense objected to the introduction of pictures showing the knife lying on a kitchen counter, Marcia Clark argued that Nicole possibly retrieved the knife and only placed it on the counter upon Ronald Goldman's arrival. Clark said the photos were relevant to show that other than the knife on the counter, the kitchen was clean.

Judge Ito ruled the photos relevant because they showed an orderly, clean kitchen. This, the judge said, went to the issue of whether there was any intruder or assault inside the house.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


But she went out later (when she was murdered) with only her black dress on and no robe, so why put the robe on some hours earlier when it was even warmer outdoors? It's not as though she needed to cover herself up for Mr. Berman as this was the same dress she had worn to the recital. It doesn't have to make sense for the NG's to proffer as possible. According to the NG timeline for Berman, Nicole would have been in her robe about 40 minutes before the dog started barking. Makes no sense.

[Kate Sachel]

In reviewing Terri Baker's book (OJ's niece), I decided to make note of some of hercomments that I found interesting:

"If I had a latex glove on and tried to put another glove on top of that, it probably wouldn’t fit either...This was the glove that had grabbed Nicole’s hair, that she had bled on. Some of her hair was still embedded in it. This was the glove the murderer had worn...Why wasn’t anyone wondering about Uncle O. J.’s demeanor? Putting the gloves on didn’t seem to bother him...For him, there was no apparent emotionattached to doing it... "

"I kept looking at Uncle O. J. and thinking "Why isn’t he overcome with grief?"...I wondered why he was talking about himself, instead of talking about what might have happened, who might have killed Nicole."

"How many things can you write off to a conspiracy? This would have to be a really elaborate plot."

"Uncle O. J.’s testimony had so many holes in it...He was so used to people accepting whatever he said that he’d lost touch with how incredible this sounded."

The last one really rings bells with me. He seemed to have no understanding of how ludicrous many of his statements/explanations sounded.

[fbgweezer]

*Snip* Originally posted by Kate Sachel
"Uncle O. J.’s testimony had so many holes in it...He was so used to people accepting whatever he said that he’d lost touch with how incredible this sounded." He was use to being treated 'different' because he was the 'celebrity.' I've always felt that the fact that Nicole did not save him a seat at the recital is one of the things that pissed Mr. Celebrity off and helped to escalate the tension.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Could be. But don't you think he planned it prior to that evening, considering he had the disguise? Oh, I think this murder was 17 years in the making. Remember, he told police and Ron Shipp that he'd had thoughts -- weird thoughts. I believe that the escalation (IRS letter, don't use my maid as your sitter letter, missing Justin's graduation, snub at recital and dinner) culminated and the opportunity presented that night.

[fbgweezer]

*Snip* Originally posted by socaldiva
Well, I think he told Shipp about the "weird thoughts" as a way to get out of doing the lie detector test, or explaining failure should he do it. I just ordered Terri Baker's book. Either that or possibly to set up a "I don't remember" doing it -- "Must have been mentally out of it."

You'll have to let me know about Baker's book.

[martin II]

bob

Heidstras testimony about Darden and two others that cam to his house.

http://walraven.org/simpson/jul12.html



MR. COCHRAN: What did Mr. Darden ask you?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, hearsay.

MR. COCHRAN: I think I can link it up, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. What did Mr. Darden ask you?

MR. HEIDSTRA: What kind of work I did and if I was legally in this country.

MR. COCHRAN: He asked if you were legal?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: You are a legal citizen, aren't you?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Sure.

MR. COCHRAN: What else did he ask you?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, how were you treated by Mr. Darden and these men who came out to see you?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Pretty cruel, pretty--

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is irrelevant.

MR. COCHRAN: It is irrelevant, your Honor?

THE COURT: It is irrelevant.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. The conversation, can you describe for us the tone of the conversation between these three men as they asked you questions, specifically Mr. Darden?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Not very friendly.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you try to respond to them as they talked to you?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Sure.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you try to be friendly and cooperative?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Sure.

MR. COCHRAN: Did Mr. Darden's tone toward you ever become friendly at any time during the conversation?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Not--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is completely irrelevant.

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection to that particular question.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I will ask another one.

THE COURT: But we have established the tone.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Did that tone remain the same throughout?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Exactly.

MR. COCHRAN: Unfriendly tone?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Exactly.

MR. COCHRAN: How long were you with these three men on that date of memorial day of 1995?

MR. HEIDSTRA: About 25 minutes, something like that.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, yesterday in your testimony, you indicated to us that you had heard a gate clanging. Do you remember that?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And at the time you heard this gate clanging, you couldn't see which gate that was, could you?

MR. HEIDSTRA: No, no, no.

MR. COCHRAN: And although you described for us at first the dog that you believed was the Akita barking, were you ever able to see the Akita that night?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Never saw him.

MR. COCHRAN: But you thought that you recognized

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I don't want goat girls comments. I've asked her to provide link(s) to her statements. YOU repeated the statements as fact so I assume you have proof that there is evidence to support the statements. Please provide link(s) to your statements concerning the coffee cups on the kitchen counter and Heidstra's statements regarding police/Darden interviewing him about his immigration status.

fbg
goat girls statement will have to do for you.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
goat girls statement will have to do for you.
martin II Then without proof to either of your statements concerning the two coffee cups being on the kitchen counter, I will have to assume that you are both at best, intentionally misleading the posters on this board and at worst, lying .

[martin II]

fbg


IF you do believe that mr Berman came to nicoles house on 6/12

do you believe he went inside her condo?

what time do you believe he arrived?

what time do you believe he left?


martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Then without proof to either of your statements concerning the two coffee cups being on the kitchen counter, I will have to assume that you are both at best, intentionally misleading the posters on this board and at worst, lying .

fbg
i am sure that that is the conclusion you would come to. i doubt that goat girl would have reason to lie to you or anyone on this board and i am sure i don't. so you can assume what ever you like.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
YOU made statements of fact about Berman being in the condo with Nicole on the night of the murders. YOU made statements of fact about coffee cups being on the counter with the knife. YOU need to provide links to support those statements.

YOU made statements of fact regarding Heidstra's police interview and his immigration status. YOU need to provide link(s) to support those statements.

fbg

can you show me where i made a definative declarative statement
of fact, as you claim , about mr berman being at nicoles condo on 6/12/ and about the coffee cups at nicoles.
thanks
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Like this?


martin II
Member

Registered: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 969
netta
Mr Berman seems to be the last person to see nicole alive before she was killed. from the two coffee cups left on the table it seems that he and nicole had some coffee during the time he was at her condo to pick up his little girl. Thank you socal.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Thank you socal.

fbg

take out the word SEEMS and you will have a statement of fact.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

take out the word SEEMS and you will have a statement of fact.
martin II You took a lie and adopted it for your own. To try to distance yourself from your statement at this point is ludicrous. Just once, back up your ridiculous and implausible statements with fact.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
You took a lie and adopted it for your own. To try to distance yourself from your statement at this point is ludicrous. Just once, back up your ridiculous and implausible statements with fact.

SEEMS like you are calling goat girl a lie AGAIN.

my post stands as it is.
martin II

[martin II]

fbg


IF you do believe that mr Berman came to nicoles house on 6/12

do you believe he went inside her condo?

what time do you believe he arrived?

what time do you believe he left?


martin II

[fbgweezer]

Funny how the NG's accept as gospel Heidstra's statements about Darden's 'tone' being cruel but say there is no way he could know whether or not one of the voices he heard arguing that night was black.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


SEEMS like you are calling goat girl a lie AGAIN.

my post stands as it is.
martin II I'm not calling goat girl a "lie" -- I've asked her to supply us with a link to the proof of the coffee cups being on the counter with the knife. Still waiting.

You, on the other hand, have taken an unproven and highly doubtful statement and forwarded it as the truth with enhancements. That makes you dishonest.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I'm not calling goat girl a "lie" -- I've asked her to supply us with a link to the proof of the coffee cups being on the counter with the knife. Still waiting.

You, on the other hand, have taken an unproven and highly doubtful statement and forwarded it as the truth with enhancements. That makes you dishonest.

fbgweezer
Senior Member

Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Boerne, Texas
Posts: 1065

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by martin II


fbg
goat girls statement will have to do for you.
martin II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then without proof to either of your statements concerning the two coffee cups being on the kitchen counter, I will have to assume that you are both at best, intentionally misleading the posters on this board and at worst, lying .

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbgweezer
Senior Member

Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Boerne, Texas
Posts: 1065

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by martin II


fbg
goat girls statement will have to do for you.
martin II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then without proof to either of your statements concerning the two coffee cups being on the kitchen counter, I will have to assume that you are both at best, intentionally misleading the posters on this board and at worst, lying . So one of you needs to provide proof of the coffee cups on the kitchen counter. Which one of you came up with the fantasy that Berman went in the condo and had coffee with Nicole. Was that you or goat girl?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Funny how the NG's accept as gospel Heidstra's statements about Darden's 'tone' being cruel but say there is no way he could know whether or not one of the voices he heard arguing that night was black.

silly post.

i see you want to talk about race AGAIN.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
So one of you needs to provide proof of the coffee cups on the kitchen counter. Which one of you came up with the fantasy that Berman went in the condo and had coffee with Nicole. Was that you or goat girl?

you are the one that made the accusations about people telling lies, you figure it out.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


silly post.

i see you want to talk about race AGAIN. LOL -- this had nothing to do with race. We are discussing voices.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
LOL -- this had nothing to do with race. We are discussing voices.

you did read Heidstras statement about Darden asking him about his immagration status. right?
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
LOL -- this had nothing to do with race. We are discussing voices.

i have not discussed VOICES with you. where did that come from
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


you did read Heidstras statement about Darden asking him about his immagration status. right?
martin II Yes, I did read the 'immagration' statement by Heidstra which brought up the discussion about voices. He talked about the tone of voices when he was questioned as being cruel. I did not read anything that said 'threatening' but then maybe you can link that for us. He also talked about distinguishing the arguing male voices as one being younger and one being more mature. He also made the statement that one sounded black.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


i have not discussed VOICES with you. where did that come from
martin II LOL -- all from Heidstra's statements/testimony. You did read them didn't you?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


i posted heidstras comments during his testimony before. criminal trial so i am not sure why you are asking for it again.


martin II


martin II, no you never posted Heidstra's comments before. You posted your opinion as to what was said what you think Heidstra and Darden meant

That's not good enough especially coming from you. You say you read this in Heidstra's testimony, well then it shouldn't be that difficult for you to post the actual testimony and the date of the testimony so that we all can see what you are talking about.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

Heidstras testimony about Darden and two others that cam to his house.

http://walraven.org/simpson/jul12.html



MR. COCHRAN: What did Mr. Darden ask you?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, hearsay.

MR. COCHRAN: I think I can link it up, your Honor.





martin II, very good.

Now point out where Darden used unethical methods to question Heidstra or where it was obvious that Darden was trying to get Heidstra to tailor his comments, trying to get Heidstra to lie. Cochran wanted to ask questions about this but the Ito ruled it hearsay.

July 12, 1995
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you--did the subject of where you come from ever come up?
MR. HEIDSTRA: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Was anything said about that--may I approach, your Honor?
MR. COCHRAN: May we approach just a moment regarding this?
THE COURT: Sustained as hearsay.
MR. COCHRAN: May we approach with this?
THE COURT: No. Sustained as hearsay.


THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Mr. Cochran, where are you going with this?
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.
THE COURT: You've already gotten out that he was asked about his immigration status.
MR. COCHRAN: Right. But he also--what he would say is that this is an offer of proof of what he told me, but Darden asked where he was from and he says, "What are you doing here? Don't you want to go back there" or words to that effect. He took that has an indication that they are saying you should get lost or get out of here, and he was offended by that, so before I would ask that in front of the jury I wanted to at least preview that to you. That is what he indicated to me. So I wanted to ask him that question. And it would be improper if that happened. And I wasn't there, but that is what the witness says and he says they were unfriendly and nasty to him and asked about his immigration status. They had no interest at all in any of the events of what he had seen, but they just wanted to know about him and his job and that sort of thing and he felt they treated him badly as a citizen. That is what he felt. So before I asked that question, as I promised you, side bars, I promised you I would come up. And it goes to their whole stand and rush to judgment aspect.

MR. DARDEN: I'm extremely disappointed, your Honor, in Mr. Cochran, that he would resort to this type of character assassination of myself. In any event, that is completely irrelevant. And so that the record is clear, we had a talk about your Honor and France and I asked him when was the last time he had been home. I already knew that he was an American citizen because he had told me that he was. And I asked him where he was from because I heard that he was from France and we had a conversation with another French woman and I wanted to know if he spoke French and where he was from and that will become apparent I think as we go through the cross-examination. But you know, this is low. This is low.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, first of all, talking about low, they asked questions in front of a jury. I have the dignity and integrity to ask you before I say anything. I have an obligation to my client. If a witness tells me something, I have an obligation to come up here and ask you, not like they do in front of the jury. I'm telling what you the witness has indicated to me.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Cochran is desperate. None of that happened.
MR. COCHRAN: Desperate?
MR. DARDEN: I should indicate this as well. I was actually very ill that morning, but I know you don't care much about that.
THE COURT: I take it this is a 352 objection because what is said to him and what his impressions were as to what he meant is really not tremendously relevant at this point.

MR. COCHRAN: Relevant--isn't it? Well, your Honor--relevant, your Honor? Here is the reason it is relevant, and I will submit it after that. We hear all this talk about a search for truth. We find out there are all these witnesses that have come forward, who they know about, credible, who have information that was far different than what they have said. Truth according to the Prosecution, and then there is the truth, and so then if these people are all relevant and the witnesses are--who they don't want fit into their timeline are treated in a certain way. Isn't that relevant, your Honor?

THE COURT: It is relevant and these people come in through the Defense and testify.
MR. DARDEN: Mr. Heidstra does fit into our timeline.
THE COURT: But his reaction to something that was said, first of all, is hearsay. Secondly, I think there is a good 352 so I will sustain the objection.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
LOL -- all from Heidstra's statements/testimony. You did read them didn't you?

no. only the immigration question. i did not read his entire testimony today.

what about the questions about Mr Bermans visit to nicoles.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, very good.

Now point out where Darden used unethical methods to question Heidstra or where it was obvious that Darden was trying to get Heidstra to tailor his comments, trying to get Heidstra to lie. Cochran wanted to ask questions about this but the Ito ruled it hearsay.

July 12, 1995
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you--did the subject of where you come from ever come up?
MR. HEIDSTRA: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Was anything said about that--may I approach, your Honor?
MR. COCHRAN: May we approach just a moment regarding this?
THE COURT: Sustained as hearsay.
MR. COCHRAN: May we approach with this?
THE COURT: No. Sustained as hearsay.


THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Mr. Cochran, where are you going with this?
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.
THE COURT: You've already gotten out that he was asked about his immigration status.
MR. COCHRAN: Right. But he also--what he would say is that this is an offer of proof of what he told me, but Darden asked where he was from and he says, "What are you doing here? Don't you want to go back there" or words to that effect. He took that has an indication that they are saying you should get lost or get out of here, and he was offended by that, so before I would ask that in front of the jury I wanted to at least preview that to you. That is what he indicated to me. So I wanted to ask him that question. And it would be improper if that happened. And I wasn't there, but that is what the witness says and he says they were unfriendly and nasty to him and asked about his immigration status. They had no interest at all in any of the events of what he had seen, but they just wanted to know about him and his job and that sort of thing and he felt they treated him badly as a citizen. That is what he felt. So before I asked that question, as I promised you, side bars, I promised you I would come up. And it goes to their whole stand and rush to judgment aspect.

MR. DARDEN: I'm extremely disappointed, your Honor, in Mr. Cochran, that he would resort to this type of character assassination of myself. In any event, that is completely irrelevant. And so that the record is clear, we had a talk about your Honor and France and I asked him when was the last time he had been home. I already knew that he was an American citizen because he had told me that he was. And I asked him where he was from because I heard that he was from France and we had a conversation with another French woman and I wanted to know if he spoke French and where he was from and that will become apparent I think as we go through the cross-examination. But you know, this is low. This is low.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, first of all, talking about low, they asked questions in front of a jury. I have the dignity and integrity to ask you before I say anything. I have an obligation to my client. If a witness tells me something, I have an obligation to come up here and ask you, not like they do in front of the jury. I'm telling what you the witness has indicated to me.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Cochran is desperate. None of that happened.
MR. COCHRAN: Desperate?
MR. DARDEN: I should indicate this as well. I was actually very ill that morning, but I know you don't care much about that.
THE COURT: I take it this is a 352 objection because what is said to him and what his impressions were as to what he meant is really not tremendously relevant at this point.

MR. COCHRAN: Relevant--isn't it? Well, your Honor--relevant, your Honor? Here is the reason it is relevant, and I will submit it after that. We hear all this talk about a search for truth. We find out there are all these witnesses that have come forward, who they know about, credible, who have information that was far different than what they have said. Truth according to the Prosecution, and then there is the truth, and so then if these people are all relevant and the witnesses are--who they don't want fit into their timeline are treated in a certain way. Isn't that relevant, your Honor?

THE COURT: It is relevant and these people come in through the Defense and testify.
MR. DARDEN: Mr. Heidstra does fit into our timeline.
THE COURT: But his reaction to something that was said, first of all, is hearsay. Secondly, I think there is a good 352 so I will sustain the objection.

bobaugust

the post speaks for itself.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


the post speaks for itself.
martin II martin, please snip posts before answering. The post does speak for itself. There is nothing in it that shows Hedistra being coerced or blackmailed into testifying for the prosecution. Your interpretation of his testimony is wrong. It is obvious from cross-examination that he and Darden did not connect and that he considered Darden an azzhole -- although he denied calling him that. You really should read the testimony before posting.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, very good.

Now point out where Darden used unethical methods to question Heidstra or where it was obvious that Darden was trying to get Heidstra to tailor his comments, trying to get Heidstra to lie. Cochran wanted to ask questions about this but the Ito ruled it hearsay.

July 12, 1995
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you--did the subject of where you come from ever come up?
MR. HEIDSTRA: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Was anything said about that--may I approach, your Honor?
MR. COCHRAN: May we approach just a moment regarding this?
THE COURT: Sustained as hearsay.
MR. COCHRAN: May we approach with this?
THE COURT: No. Sustained as hearsay.


THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Mr. Cochran, where are you going with this?
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.
THE COURT: You've already gotten out that he was asked about his immigration status.
MR. COCHRAN: Right. But he also--what he would say is that this is an offer of proof of what he told me, but Darden asked where he was from and he says, "What are you doing here? Don't you want to go back there" or words to that effect. He took that has an indication that they are saying you should get lost or get out of here, and he was offended by that, so before I would ask that in front of the jury I wanted to at least preview that to you. That is what he indicated to me. So I wanted to ask him that question. And it would be improper if that happened. And I wasn't there, but that is what the witness says and he says they were unfriendly and nasty to him and asked about his immigration status. They had no interest at all in any of the events of what he had seen, but they just wanted to know about him and his job and that sort of thing and he felt they treated him badly as a citizen. That is what he felt. So before I asked that question, as I promised you, side bars, I promised you I would come up. And it goes to their whole stand and rush to judgment aspect.

MR. DARDEN: I'm extremely disappointed, your Honor, in Mr. Cochran, that he would resort to this type of character assassination of myself. In any event, that is completely irrelevant. And so that the record is clear, we had a talk about your Honor and France and I asked him when was the last time he had been home. I already knew that he was an American citizen because he had told me that he was. And I asked him where he was from because I heard that he was from France and we had a conversation with another French woman and I wanted to know if he spoke French and where he was from and that will become apparent I think as we go through the cross-examination. But you know, this is low. This is low.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, first of all, talking about low, they asked questions in front of a jury. I have the dignity and integrity to ask you before I say anything. I have an obligation to my client. If a witness tells me something, I have an obligation to come up here and ask you, not like they do in front of the jury. I'm telling what you the witness has indicated to me.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Cochran is desperate. None of that happened.
MR. COCHRAN: Desperate?
MR. DARDEN: I should indicate this as well. I was actually very ill that morning, but I know you don't care much about that.
THE COURT: I take it this is a 352 objection because what is said to him and what his impressions were as to what he meant is really not tremendously relevant at this point.

MR. COCHRAN: Relevant--isn't it? Well, your Honor--relevant, your Honor? Here is the reason it is relevant, and I will submit it after that. We hear all this talk about a search for truth. We find out there are all these witnesses that have come forward, who they know about, credible, who have information that was far different than what they have said. Truth according to the Prosecution, and then there is the truth, and so then if these people are all relevant and the witnesses are--who they don't want fit into their timeline are treated in a certain way. Isn't that relevant, your Honor?

THE COURT: It is relevant and these people come in through the Defense and testify.
MR. DARDEN: Mr. Heidstra does fit into our timeline.
THE COURT: But his reaction to something that was said, first of all, is hearsay. Secondly, I think there is a good 352 so I will sustain the objection.

bobaugust

it is unethical for darden to call this witness at 8 am then show up at his house at 10 am and quesiton this witness about his legal status in the tome and manner that heidstra said he did.
period
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


it is unethical for darden to call this witness at 8 am then show up at his house at 10 am and quesiton this witness about his legal status in the tome and manner that heidstra said he did.
period
martin II martin, please snip the long posts before answering.

There was absolutely nothing unethical about the visit. You did not believe anything else about Heidstra's testimony except he was questioned in a tone and manner that hurt his feelings. How did you decide this was the one part of his testimony that was believeable?

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, Heidstra's testimony establish the time line and was supported by Jill Shively and Allan Park. Also supported by Mandel, Aaronson, Pilnak, Telander, Karpf, and Schwab.

bobaugust


Mr August:

I disagree with this statement, both NBS and RG could have been dead long before Heidstra came on the scene! Heidstra testified that the gate slammed, shortly after the "hey hey hey" and mins later the SUV appeared. What gate, because the front gate was still Open?

The stride patterns left by the bloody footprint indicates this person slowly left the crime scene! From the time Heidstra heard what he heard, "gate and voice" it's only minutes from the SUV sighting. What you are inferring is not possible, the killing could not have happened in this amount of time.

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
martin, please snip the long posts before answering.

There was absolutely nothing unethical about the visit. You did not believe anything else about Heidstra's testimony except he was questioned in a tone and manner that hurt his feelings. How did you decide this was the one part of his testimony that was believeable?



The question should be, why was Darden so abusive towards this witness?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
martin, please snip posts before answering. The post does speak for itself. There is nothing in it that shows Hedistra being coerced or blackmailed into testifying for the prosecution. Your interpretation of his testimony is wrong. It is obvious from cross-examination that he and Darden did not connect and that he considered Darden an azzhole -- although he denied calling him that. You really should read the testimony before posting.

he treated the man badly while asking him about his legal status in the u.s. with two goons(detectives) standing by. just prior to asking him to repeat his story again.

Heidstra had just been interviewed by the da s office a week or two before darden came to his house.

make any kind of excuse you want but it is obvious what happened and what dardens intent was.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty




The question should be, why was Darden so abusive towards this witness?

at heidstras house with two detectives standing by. there was only one intent.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
martin, please snip posts before answering. The post does speak for itself. There is nothing in it that shows Hedistra being coerced or blackmailed into testifying for the prosecution. Your interpretation of his testimony is wrong. It is obvious from cross-examination that he and Darden did not connect and that he considered Darden an azzhole -- although he denied calling him that. You really should read the testimony before posting.

spin it in any way you like.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
martin, please snip posts before answering. The post does speak for itself. There is nothing in it that shows Hedistra being coerced or blackmailed into testifying for the prosecution. Your interpretation of his testimony is wrong. It is obvious from cross-examination that he and Darden did not connect and that he considered Darden an azzhole -- although he denied calling him that. You really should read the testimony before posting.

you should not read heidstras testimony and then try to put your spin on it and post it here. it is easy to see what you are trying to do.
martin II

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*snipped*

only pay attention to the facts. What evidence do you know of that shows when the gate was slammed hard it would always catch?


bobaugust


Mr August,

What evidence do you have, that the gate when slammed hard would not catch?

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

Jill Shively was a credible witness who testified to facts that were never found to be untrue.

bobaugust

Mr August

IIRC, Ms Shively claimed that the driver of the Bronco nearly hit another car! I think Clark released Shively because there was NO 3rd person to substantial Shively claims of evidence and or time!

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August,

What evidence do you have, that the gate when slammed hard would not catch?


none
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August:

I disagree with this statement, both NBS and RG could have been dead long before Heidstra came on the scene! Heidstra testified that the gate slammed, shortly after the "hey hey hey" and mins later the SUV appeared. What gate, because the front gate was still Open?

The stride patterns left by the bloody footprint indicates this person slowly left the crime scene! From the time Heidstra heard what he heard, "gate and voice" it's only minutes from the SUV sighting. What you are inferring is not possible, the killing could not have happened in this amount of time.



nettathirty, you're wrong.

Mandel and Aaronson walked by the front of Nicole's condo shortly before 10:30. They testified that nothing was out of the ordinary. No open gate, no bloody bodies, no bloody paw prints, no barking dog. The murders had not been committed at that time.

Simpson's defense attorneys understood this and presented the witnesses that testified to the facts that contradicted Clark's speculation.

Heidstra testified that he believed the gate he heard slam was Nicole's front gate. The fact that the gate was later found open means either the slamming gate did not close but bounced back open, or someone opened it after the murders. It seems to me that the former is more reasonable.

Read Heidstra's testimony again, the time between hearing the voices and the gate slam and when he saw the white jeep like vehicle speed away from Bundy was about five minutes.

Heidstra estimated that he got into the alley about 10:35. He stood and listened to the dog bark and heard the voices. He said he was in the alley about five minutes. He left the alley he walked up Dorothy street and stopped under a large oak tree and stood there for about a minute, a minute and a half before he saw the car. He said it must have been no later than about 10:45.

http://www.bobaugust.com/robert.htm

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August,

What evidence do you have, that the gate when slammed hard would not catch?



nettathirty, there is no evidence that happened, only a reasonable explanation based on the reality of what happens when a locked gate is slammed so hard that it does not latch.

We know Ron opened the gate and let himself in and then the gate slammed. The fact is that the gate was later found open. Either it bounced back open when it was slammed or someone opened the gate after the murders. I believe the former is more reasonable than the latter.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Mr August

IIRC, Ms Shively claimed that the driver of the Bronco nearly hit another car! I think Clark released Shively because there was NO 3rd person to substantial Shively claims of evidence and or time!


nettathirty, I suggest you read Wagner's articles again about this

Time of Jill's Statements

"It has sometimes been portrayed that Jill's story is "uncorroborated." Well, the circumstances of the incident were that there were not many other witness -- the young man in the gray Nissan is the only one known -- and we do not know his story, or whether he might not have a compelling reason to keep quiet. So, if the man in the Nissan chooses not to come forward (and there is no public record that he has chosen to come forward) and Simpson himself denies the incident (as he has a motive to do) then there do not appear to be any other opportunities for corroboration of the incident itself. (However, I have heard credible rumors that in those first few days the LAPD received calls from people who claimed to have seen the Shively/Simpson encounter -- one was the driver of the gray Nissan and another was a pedestrian at the gas station nearby. Before these contacts could be investigated, Marcia Clark had denounced Jill Shively, and there was no more purpose for prosecuting the case in looking into them. But a record of their original contacts is still in the LAPD files.)"

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

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust




nettathirty, you're wrong.

Mandel and Aaronson walked by the front of Nicole's condo shortly before 10:30. They testified that nothing was out of the ordinary. No open gate, no bloody bodies, no bloody paw prints, no barking dog. The murders had not been committed at that time.

Simpson's defense attorneys understood this and presented the witnesses that testified to the facts that contradicted Clark's speculation.

Heidstra testified that he believed the gate he heard slam was Nicole's front gate. The fact that the gate was later found open means either the slamming gate did not close but bounced back open, or someone opened it after the murders. It seems to me that the former is more reasonable.


bobaugust


Mr August

Mandel and Aaronson never testified about the gate.

The defenses job is to disprove the States case, not solve it!

The gate being open, could mean it was never slammed!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, I suggest you read Wagner's articles again about this

Time of Jill's Statements

bobaugust


Mr August

You're giving Wagner credibilty now? I thought you said his site was pure fantasy, and unsupported.. What's next?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August

Mandel and Aaronson never testified about the gate.

The defenses job is to disprove the States case, not solve it!

The gate being open, could mean it was never slammed!



nettathirty, that's correct Mandel and Aaronson never said anything about the gate or the bodies only that nothing was out of the ordinary, there was no bloody paw prints, and they never heard any dog barking.

Heidstra testified he believed the gate he heard slammed was Nicole's front gate.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August

You're giving Wagner credibilty now? I thought you said his site was pure fantasy, and unsupported.. What's next?



nettathirty, I've always given Wagner credit for the research he did into this case and the photographs he was able to obtain. It was only Dick's fantasy scenarios that had no credibility. Everything Dick found in his research always supported the fact that Simpson was the killer. He never found anything legitimate that eliminated Simpson.

I've always praised Dick's articles about Shively. His personal intervie