General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Tango2step
You so got THAT right. I think OJ and Scott Peterson should get their brains together to find the "real killers" of their spouces and others. Although Scott is not really in a position to go out looking, he can do the reseach/computer part of their search!!
:lol:

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by uplate
Well...who knows? That's all I'm saying. There prob were no other prints. Does Jason wear BM shoes? I don't know. I respect LE, but even my detective uncle will tell you there's corruption. It doesn't have to be a mass conspiracy either.

ALL I'm saying is that I know OJ was there, but I just don't think HE committed the murders. It's MO and unpopular and we will most likely never know the truth...just like with Laci's murder. Unlikely that we will ever know EXACTLY what happened. Everyone who paid attention to the evidence and facts in this case knows -- Orenthal James Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. There's not a 'probably' to there were no other prints. Had there have been, the defense would have been all over it -- as they tried with Henry Lee.

I'm sure there is corruption in LE as there is in politics (Delay, etc) and business (Enron, etc) but the facts and evidence of Orenthals' guilt are too many and too far-reaching. There is no evidence of anyone at the murder scene besides the two victims and the murderer. Orenthal's blood, hair, footprints, cap, glove and bronco fiber were at the murder scene.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by Tango2step
Is it just me or did anyone else feel that Kardashian was just as surprised as hopefully most of us were???????
[/B][/QUOTE] Yah -- too bad he didn't live long enough to tell us what was up with that. :rolleyes:

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by uplate
Refresh my memory about the shoe print(s). I remember there was a print in Nic's blood, so that's how they knew he walked in the house. But was that it? One BM shoe print?

If these were professional killers I'd guess they'd know not to step in blood. If it was Jason...he could have been the one who rang Nicole's bell, as OJ arrived, assaults her by hitting her over the head. Maybe that would have sufficed and asuaged his anger. But then Ron comes, says HEY HEY HEY, OJ instinctively grabs him to shut him up, and Jason who has knives (any chef will tell you they have their own knives, a set of 10 that they do not keep at the restaurant but bring back and forth), could have went on the attack. There was more than one kife used, yes? You were just pulling our leg earlier when you said you knew about this case weren't you?

There were multiple prints made when Orenthal stepped in Nicole's blood in his Bruno Maglis. All blood trail evidence moved away from the house -- there was no evidence inside the house that the altercations had occurred inside.

There were no professional kills. Jason didn't snap. LE didn't frame Orenthal. There was one controlling, abusing batterer that committed the murders of Nicole and Ron. He left behind his blood, hair, footprints, cap, glove and bronco fibers -- Orenthal James Simpson.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by uplate
It's tough relying on long-term memory for details! I believe what socal and bob are saying, but what is that? The paid testimony of an expert witness for the pros? Two knives wdn't work for the prosecution. So...if one knife can produce two different types of wounds...can two knives produce two diff types of wounds??? If you have paid experts on both sides contradicting each other, go to the evidence. Orenthal's blood, hair, footprints, cap, glove and bronco fiber at the murder scene. You can draw your own conclusions.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
Again, I've never heard anything about the killer going into the house. I've also never heard anything credible relative to someone visiting Nicole earlier that evening.

I believe Sydney overheard her Mom crying on the phone with Orenthal. Yes, I believe that children can drop into a deep sleep almost immediately. I've seen it happen many times.

As for the blood bath & your statement that there should have been more blood in the Bronco etc, Orenthal was behind the victims, so he was shielded from the marjority of the blood. Also, IIRC Nicole's fatal blow was delivered in her neck & she faced the pavement. Ron's fatal wound was a massive internal bleed.

The pools of blood were from them lying there, bleeding to death. Good post.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by uplate
He'll go down alone rather than bring his buddy or his son down too...and if it was the mob what is he going to do?

THAT is why I believe he was fleeing. He knew he was there and there was no way he could exonerate himself, so rather than go to jail he took his chances. The same buddy who took the battered wife to the hospital for treatment? The same son who took a baseball bat to a statue of Orenthal? The non-existent mob connection -- or as is sometimes known: the boogey man did it -- lol. Nah -- he sold his soul to the devil not to go to prison for these crimes and he would have screamed and hollered had he had any proof of anyone else committing the murders. Hell, he screamed and hollered anyway and ALL of the evidence proved his guilt.

He fled because he was caught -- not a hard concept to embrace.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by uplate
It's tough relying on long-term memory for details! I believe what socal and bob are saying, but what is that? The paid testimony of an expert witness for the pros? Two knives wdn't work for the prosecution. So...if one knife can produce two different types of wounds...can two knives produce two diff types of wounds???

Hi uplate,

In the civil trial, the defense's expert Michael Baden admitted on cross examination that there was "strong evidence" to indicate that there was only one killer.

If there was only one killer, it is doubtful that he used two knives. Additionally, one knife can make several different types of cuts. It can do this based on whether or not the victim is twisting and turning as the knife goes into the flesh. I apologize for the graphics there, but this was testified to by both the prosecution expert and the defense expert in the civil trial.

[tazzybaby]

Hey Wukong,

Every time I find the new site that Mario is posting at he seems to have been run off by the time I read up and am ready to post. UGH! Please let me know if you find another site. I know he will be posting blogs at the Unexplained-Mysteries.com. However, he needs something that he could get replies and etc.

Thanks!

:seeya:

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Nicole and OJ's relationship, there was NO evidence of physical abuse.. The Browns said so themselves, this case has nothing to do with domestic violence, nada!

Netta,

How many times do we have to go over this? The Browns originally said that Nicole was not battered before they found her diaries, and heard testimony from all of the people who actually witnessed physical abuse. They have since come out and said that they were wrong, and that they just were not aware. That is not uncommon. Woman who have been abused often times hide that fact from their family to avoid shame, embarassment, and judgment.

I personally think that the Browns were well aware of the abuse and simply chose to look the other way because they were financially dependent upon Simpson.

There are over a half a dozen people who saw the abuse at various points in time throughout their relationship.

You are seriously delusional if you can continue to deny the existence of abuse.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Nicole and OJ's relationship, there was NO evidence of physical abuse.. The Browns said so themselves, this case has nothing to do with domestic violence, nada! Nicole and Orenthal's relationship was all about physical abuse and emotional abuse and control. The Brown's made their statement before they were educated to what DV is and how to recognize it. Not so with Nicole -- she told the police and she wrote it in her diary.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by socaldiva
I don't know why Martin II insists on taking up the amount of bandwidth he does, just to post that Baden didn't have ANYTHING conclusive to say, one way or the other .

Never mind the fact that Baden testified differently in the civil trial and admitted that there was strong evidence to indicate only one killer.

As usual however, rayraytwo chooses only to post criminal trial testimony.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



And if it weren't for jurors like you, there wouldn't be a need for the "Innocense Projects" .. :no: don't start picking fights. Do you have multiple personalities or what? You've been posting with reasonable arguments and now the 'other' you is on the attack. Stop it! :punch:

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


The criminal trial was about whether oj would go to jail or not. (Deprived of his freedom). therefore the very high standard of proof required.

the civil trial was about whether oj would pay money to the plaintiffs therefore the much lower standard of proof required.
Martin II

rayraytwo,

It doesn't matter what punishment standard that either trial held.

The truth is the truth, irregardless of jail time.

Kate

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Then why was Denise heard yelling in the background, " OJ Did It" when Lange called to notify them of the murder? Then shortly after that she and the rest of the family was not aware of any abuse?

Secondly, Lange called the family instead of notifying them in person, why? Because she knew he had said he would and she knew Nicole was afraid of him. There was not a time when she withdrew her accusation and belief that Orenthal murdered Nicole and Ron.

I'm tryng to remember the circumstances for the notifications and can't -- anyone else remembering?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
criminal trial testimony
Dr M Baden
killers/knifes



DR. BADEN: The medical examiner can say that a single-edged knife was involved, but the medical examiner cannot say how many knives were involved and whether or not a number of the wounds were caused by double-edged blades, too. So the medical examiner cannot tell how many weapons and whether they were single and double-edged.



martin II, Baden was correct but the relevant fact that the defense wanted the jury to ignore is that even though the coroner could not say how many knifes were used, all of the cuts and wounds were consistent with only one knife being used.

There is no evidence of anyone else but one killer. Speculation and fantasies about other knives are irrelevant.

Dr. Golden July 8, 1994

Q Regarding the knife wounds, is it your finding that there were two types of knife wounds on both victims?

A There are two morphologically different types of stab wounds on the victims. Namely, some of the stab wounds on the victims are indicative of a single-edged blade for the reasons that I indicated. They have both a round or blunt end and a pointed end. And other -- some of the wounds have a characteristically double pointed or forked end,
which would indicate that they could be made by either a blunt end instrument, or knife, or a double sharp end instrument. In other words, a two-edged knife or a single-edged knife. And there's no way that my determinations can tell the difference between those, so there are two morphologically different types.

***
Dr. Lakshmanan June 6. 1995

MR. KELBERG: Did you form an opinion from your review of all of these materials as to whether a single single-edged knife could have caused all of the sharp force injuries received by Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: What is your opinion?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: My opinion is that a single-edged knife could have caused all the injuries in Miss Nicole Brown Simpson.
MR. KELBERG: And is that a single, that is one single-edged knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

***
Werner Spitz November 8. 1996

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether all of the injuries inflicted on Ms. Brown and Mr. Goldman could have been inflicted by one individual?
A. Yes. I'm of the opinion that all of the injuries of both victims could have been inflicted by one individual, by a single individual.

Q. Is there any evidence, in your judgment, that more than one knife was used?
A. No. The injuries are totally compatible with a single knife.
Q. Could all of the injuries be caused by a single edged knife?
A. Yes.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



No, not true.. They weren't bombarded with alot innuedo about abuse like the media did the rest of us! But I bet when they saw the pictures of bruises, busted lips, lumps on her head and read her diary, they knew without the media bombarding them.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I think it was because the parents lived in Orange County & LE wanted to tell the Browns before it was leaked by the media. I do remember something about the ME taking possession of Ron's body and SOPs required that they make the notification.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Martin II,

Who should this have gone to " me or socal"? I gave up on martin II and/or rayraytwo a long time ago -- it was meant for you netta.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


All the time.

I have never once heard of any Police Department having "other family members" make notification in their protocol.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Didn't Mr Brown take the photos of Nicole's bruises?

No, Denise Brown did at one point.

Hence my posting regarding the fact that I believe that the Browns were aware of the abuse that Nicole suffered and chose to turn a blind eye because they were financially dependent upon Simpson.

I think they treated their daughter as though she were a "throw away" child. They apparently didn't support her decisions each time she tried to leave him. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, they will have to live with the outcome for the rest of their lives.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Didn't Mr Brown take the photos of Nicole's bruises? :confused: Uh - no. The pictures were taken by the police.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


i never send anything to socal or read her post

look at you pm

Can we leave the "check your PM" notes off the board as requested by the Moderator please?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by nettathirty



My apology to Martin II for dragging him into that!
However, I wanted his impartial opinion of who deserved your reply more, me or the other poster?

Unfortunately rayraytwo is one of the least impartial people one can have the unsavory opportunity to deal with.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


All the time. LOL -- someone had to notify the family before the family could notify the family..........LOL

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



My apology to Martin II for dragging him into that!
However, I wanted his impartial opinion of who deserved your reply more, me or the other poster? So I was right -- you do have multiple personalities.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
I wonder why I keep thinking of the movie Dumb & Dumber?
I can't shake it for some reason today. :D Oh pick me -- I know why you are thinking that. :D

[tazzybaby]

I have heard many a mention of Brent Cantor being murdered in the same fashion as Nicole and Ron. However, I have never seen any type of article or proof other than articles from the defense books or some type of conspiracy site. Do any of the NG's (or anyone) have any type of article from a Major or local news source as to his murder and the circumstances?

[fbgweezer]

Mario? http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/that_would_be_s.html

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by tazzybaby
I have heard many a mention of Brent Cantor being murdered in the same fashion as Nicole and Ron. However, I have never seen any type of article or proof other than articles from the defense books or some type of conspiracy site. Do any of the NG's (or anyone) have any type of article from a Major or local news source as to his murder and the circumstances? Brett Cantor.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



1. How did the cut happen, all the experts Pros and Def said it wasn't a knife cut?

2. You believe OJ cut himself while in a struggle with Goldman, yet OJ's blood isn't on Goldman, how? 1. I've never given thought as to exactly how the finger was cut but it did look angry (red and swollen) that next day which is why I did not believe it to be a fresh cut that had happened just before he left chicago. IF I were to venture a theory, I'd guess that sometime during the struggle, the glove was pulled off and Orenthal's finger came in contact with the knife. All of the experts did not say it wasn't a knife cut. Orenthal said he'd cut it somehow and had bled at home and then had recut it in chicago on the broken glass in the bathroom.

2. As evidenced by the drops of blood left beside his footprints, Orenthal did not suffer a gushing wound and there was so much blood around Ron -- so, who said he didn't leave his blood on Ron?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


when the killer grabbed ron from BEHIND and wrapped his left arm around rons neck(for control) this would put the killers left gloved hand at about the right side of rons face about at the ear. how could ron reach the gloved hand and pull the glove off from a closed fist.when his jugler was being cut. visualize that.



martin II, the reality is that Ron was doing everything and anything he could to survive. His twisted clothing is evidence of that. Simpson most likely held onto Ron for about a minute while he continually stabbed and cut him. A minute is a long time in a struggle and an all out fight like this and there would have been many times when Simpson's grip changed.

There are a multitude of possibilities that may have happened in this killing. It's impossible to recreate them. All we know is what the evidence and the results were after it was over.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


CORRECT

But i think ron would be trying to 'WIGGLE' out of the arm lock the killer had on him. However a professional mob killer would know how hold him in a vise grip from behind and know exactly where to cut first to make him weak. the jugular vein.



martin II, as well an amateur killer would know that stabs in the neck would be very damaging.

This was not a professional killing. It was an amateur who didn't know what it took to kill someone so he just kept stabbing and cutting where ever he could. Random stabbing and cutting. The killing wound came early in the struggle, a stab to Goldman's left flank that cut his aorta. Goldman would have immediately weakened yet he sill continued to struggle as Simpson stabbed and cut him.

The fact is that there is absolutely not one shred of relevant physical evidence that points to anyone except Simpson as the killer. Not blood, not hair, not fiber evidence, not shoe prints, not fingerprints, not any other suspect. Professional killers are simply another fantasy by people who are looking for any excuse to avoid the truth of these murders.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


i think ron had been manhandeled down to a seating position with the killer holding him from behind in a bent over position making it almost impossible for him to do anything but kick his legs
and try to twist his body. But when the jugular vein was severed
he became very weak very quick and the killer could have his way with him.

when oj tried on the gloves and they were too small, people said
if he had just pulled them on a little more they would have fit because the gloves were a tight fit origionally.

but now they say, ron, in a arm lock with a cut neck, was able to just reach over and pull the gloves off of a closed fist.

Martin II



martin II, I see you have been swayed by Wagner's speculation.

That's okay except it's all pure speculation that is not any more persuasive than other speculation. I'll stick to the facts and the speculation by the real experts like Dr. Spitz.

Believe what ever scenario you want but fantasies of how the murders were committed do not change the facts or the evidence that was found. Fantasies of how the murders were committed in no way prove that other speculation is wrong.

The fact is that there is evidence of only three people being at Bundy during the murders, the two victims and Simpson.
The fact is that nothing points to any other killer except Simpson.
The fact is that nothing eliminates Simpson.

That's the simple truth of these murders.

If Goldman had managed to grab Simpson left hand fingers squeezing to hold onto them the glove could have been quickly pulled off Simpson's hand. If you want proof of that all you have to do is watch the end of the glove demonstration when Simpson did the exact same thing to snap the gloves of his hands in a fraction of a second.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Mario? http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/that_would_be_s.html

FBG,

Yes, that is Mario. Actually Mario posts on many sites for several reasons. One reason is to elicit responses in hopes of attaining new information, which is exactly what he did on the link you provided. If you read that link you will find Mario made contact with a woman who was on the defense team during the criminal trial. She worked on tracking down leads and one of them was the Limo company. She said that they never found Rocky Bateman working there, which is interesting because he certainly did.

The second reason is to keep himself protected from various people who would do him and his family harm. As long as he keeps actively posting out in the open it is dificult for anyone to go after him.

Mario does not have money to hire a dream team and is trying to get justice on his own, which can be very difficult but Mario is like a pitbull; he won't go away, much to the chagrin of many people. Mario has been chased away from many sites because he is quite aggressive and he has a very different writing style which makes him appear like a fringe lunatic at times. I have been reading Mario's writings for 2 years and at first thought the same thing. But after a while I found that, although his style is a bit unorthodox, the main points in his argument have remained consistent over time. He never changes his stories or the facts surrounding them. I have read rantings from many a lunatic and one thing is consistent, and that is constant change in their story. No matter who, or how many times, attacks Mario's posts he remains steadfast in what he says.

I have also spent a lot of time on the phone with Mario and now know he is not a nut. He is very normal, for a musician anyway, and firm in what he knows about this case. Mario is a devoted husband, father and grandfather who, outside this case, leads a very normal life. The LAPD tried to kill him once and he and his family have been threatened many times in the past 12 years. This is why he fights back anyway he can, with the internet being one arena.

This link is to Mario's latest, albeit probably temporary, home on the internet. It is a blog he just started and you can post a comment there which I'm sure he'll answer (I just tried it and it works, click on "comment" at the bottom of his post. You do have to sign up to post).

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=885&

Wukong/Brian

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


nope bob

from the way the cuts/stabs were inflicted ron was in one arm lock for the entire time until he became too weak to resist and the testing wounds were administered. imo



martin II, I agree that Simpson held Ron in a one arm lock the entire time only both of their positions continually changed as Ron twisted, turned, and fought for his life.

The testing speculation was that after Simpson dropped Goldman to he ground to bleed to death, he then went back to Nicole and sliced her throat. Simpson then returned to Goldman to supposedly test if he was dead by puncturing his neck with the end of the blade. If that was what really happened that's additional evidence that proves Ron was killed by an amateur who didn't know what it took to kill someone.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
ron was not squeezing on any gloved fist. he may have been trying to get out of the arm lock around his neck if anything because in this position he was just about helpless. imo
martin II



martin II, I see. So you don't think it was possible that sometime in that fight that Ron never tried to break Simpson's grip by grabbing Simpson's left hand and fingers with both of his hands, right?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


BOB
Nope
i think the testing wounds would be what a professional killer would know to do to make sure the victim was dead before he left. imo



martin II, I have no idea what your credentials are to make these statements but I'll stick to the opinion of credible experts.

John Douglas Journey Into Darkness

"By this point the offender has worked himself up into a frenzy. As soon as he's got Ron neutralized, which is not easy, he goes back to Nicole, lifts her head from behind, and cuts her throat, slicing right through her voice box,
nearly taking her head off.

The (killer) then goes back to Goldman because he has to make sure he finishes him off. We know he goes back because her blood is found on the bottom of one of Goldman's shoes. Now, this is very, very important, because it tells you that the offender is not a professional killer. This is not a hit man. He doesn't know exactly what it takes to kill this guy. He has to come back and check on him. He sees that Goldman is dying and he goes back and stabs him multiple times. In fact, he's actually stabbed more times than Brown, even though the personalized sort of attack is reserved for her. That's because even though she's the one he's out to punish, to revenge himself on, the male is the greater physical threat.

That's another reason we know the crimes were committed by a single offender. Two or more killers would have been able to control the situation better. You wouldn't have the evidence of such a struggle on Goldman's body."

bobaugust

[Wukong]

In my humble opinion a professional killer would not have to stab someone over 30 times. A professional would know exactly where to cut or stab to dispatch his victim quickly.

The evidence shows that Ron was first attacked from the front (the flank cut severing his aorta, stab to the front of the leg, defensive wounds on the hands). The killer then positioned himself to the rear and forced him to a seated position while slicing his neck, holding his head down over his thighs. This is evidenced by his shirt being pushed up in the back and the blood on the front of his pants. The blood on his shirt was only at the top and not running down the front, which it would have been had he been standing.

The glove could have been pulled off at any time during the struggle. I am sure the killer did not have his hand balled up into a fist the whole time.

My opinion

Wukong

[uplate]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Please provide a link to your claim that Orenthal was at the scene of the murders. I will look on Greta's site, hopefully it will be archived there. If not, I will email Greta and ask her to confirm.

To reitereate...there was a 2pt intrvw w/OJs longtime agent who discussed, among other things, that OJ finally admitted that he was there, but that he doesn't remember what happened (!). He then makes some kind of remark along the lines of "Well, I must've done if I was there, right?" I'm really surprised this didn't make a louder noise. This is not hearsay...I saw the videos myself. Now I will look for them....see ya later!

[uplate]

Originally posted by bobaugust
SNIP..>> uplate, you're making a false assumption that there was not enough blood. The question is why was there any blood from both victims and Simpson in his Bronco?Bec he was there. He may have committed the murders, I don't know, I only know that we was there and that at least wd explain that little bit of blood in the Bronco. I'm imagining OJ holding Ron w/his left arm while stabbing him from behind w/his right. As Martin posted, Ron had many cuts to his left side and had to have been bleeding all over OJ. Now I'm visualizing OJ getting into his Bronco...and IMO if he were the one doing the stabbing, I think more blood wd be evident. When I said not enough blood, I meant around OJ. IMO he wdve been dripping in it, if he did the stabbing. Rolling up his sleeves wd help but how much? jmo

And to 'weezer'...my contention is that SPeterson is guilty...although I did come up w/a scenario where he may not have been the actual killer (the curse of a fertile mind), but he still was responsible.

btw...doing a search on Greta's blog only took me to yahoo...so I emailed her and asked for confirmation. Greta's pretty good at answering her email, so I'll let you know!

[uplate]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Because the glove wasn't on his hand when the finger was cut? gee...why didn't I think of that??? Let's see...I think he wdve had a more serious or several more wounds if this happened during the struggle, assuming his glove got knocked off. PLUS...there wdve been a lot more of Ron's blood on his hand if the glove got knocked off.

One scenario I thought of was that OJ went to hire someone and then changed his mind. But the killer, lusting after the $$, wouldn't let OJ back out. He proceeded w/the murder, told OJ who went there to prevent it, Ron arrived at a v unfortuitous time. The killer cuts OJ so his blood is around, or OJ, arriving at the scene, not wearing gloves, got cut trying to take the knife away. Just some thoughts...

[uplate]

Originally posted by martin II
In william c. Dears book " oj is guilty but not of murder" he states:
1. it was said that on the night of the murders Jason was cooking for 200 patrons at jacksons resturant, when in fact there were only 40 patrons in the resturant that entire night.

2. according to jennifer green, jason's girlfriend and a worker, jason left the resturant...around 9;45 pm 45 minutes before the murders. about the time she says she and jason left the resturant. Also that jason had all of his knifes with him when he left the resturant. A common practice for chefs.<<SNIP This is the author I mentioned earlier...he was on CCrier last yr. I always suspected Jason, and he told a v compelling story against Jason. Anger mgmt, off his meds, being embarassed bec Nic said she was taking the family to his restrnt after the recital and he boasted then lost face...

There was a discrepancy in his story as contradicted by his gf, I remember. Dear mentioned Jason lawyered up imm, and CC said she had a written confirmation from LE that they did not intrvw Jason (he was uncoop).

My husband was a chef so I know they have their own set of knives that they take back/forth. They're expensive and WICKED sharp. If LE didn't even intrvw/interrogate Jason...then they obv didn't check out his knives.

Another scenario where OJ DIDN'T do it, but can't tell who did. JMO

[uplate]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Everyone who paid attention to the evidence and facts in this case knows -- Orenthal James Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. There's not a 'probably' to there were no other prints. Had there have been, the defense would have been all over it -- as they tried with Henry Lee.

I'm sure there is corruption in LE as there is in politics (Delay, etc) and business (Enron, etc) but the facts and evidence of Orenthals' guilt are too many and too far-reaching. There is no evidence of anyone at the murder scene besides the two victims and the murderer. Orenthal's blood, hair, footprints, cap, glove and bronco fiber were at the murder scene. Yes, bec he was there. I am just not so certain that he actually committed the murders. And if Jason did them, I don't believe OJ wd let the defense go there. And wdn't Jason's DNA match OJs?

Inasmuch as I'm just presenting some alternative theories in a reasonable manner, I will say that the tone of SOME is a little aggressive/dismissive. I'm here to debate, not tick anyone off. I realize it's an unpopular opinion that OJ didn't kill them. He may be completely innocent, or completely guilty, I don't know. But I believe it is v pompous of some to claim to KNOW he committed the murders, when he may have only witnessed them. jmo

[uplate]

Originally posted by martin II
criminal trial testimony Dr M Baden killers/knifes

MR. SHAPIRO: In your personal experience of coming to conclusions in other high-profile murder cases as to the number of killers involved, you have been called upon to reach conclusions; is that correct? DR. BADEN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And in this case can you tell, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many killers were involved in this case? DR. BADEN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: In your opinion can anybody tell how many killers were involved in this case? DR. BADEN: The medical examiner can't. The medical examiner from the nature of the injuries, the wounds and the crime scene, is not--cannot tell how many assailants there were.
MR. SHAPIRO: In your opinion can the medical examiner in this case tell whether or not the killings resulted from a single or double-edged knife? DR. BADEN: The medical examiner can say that a single-edged knife was involved, but the medical examiner cannot say how many knives were involved and whether or not a number of the wounds were caused by double-edged blades, too. So the medical examiner cannot tell how many weapons and whether they were single and double-edged. Very interesting. Kate's post says Dr Baden testified in the civil case a little differently, one knife/one killer. Why wd he contradict himself?

And common sense at least tells me that if one knife can make two different types of cuts, so can two knives...

[uplate]

Originally posted by bobaugust
SNIP>>Martin, The testing speculation was that after Simpson dropped Goldman to he ground to bleed to death, he then went back to Nicole and sliced her throat. Simpson then returned to Goldman to supposedly test if he was dead by puncturing his neck with the end of the blade. If that was what really happened that's additional evidence that proves Ron was killed by an amateur who didn't know what it took to kill someone. For argument's sake...perhaps it was a 'professional' who either, a) was not very experienced, or b) wasn't prepared for the unexpected. Hit men have to start somewhere, they're not all experienced.

If all these worlds collided...Ron arrives precisely at the time that Nic opens the door for the killer...killer knocks Nic out w/blow to head then attacks Ron who puts up an admirable fight. Ron's dying but still alive, Nic starts coming to and moans, alerting the killer. Rather than have her start screaming, he immediately heads back over to Nic, picks up her head and finishes her off. Then goes back to Ron...to make sure. Beter safe than sorry.

[uplate]

Originally posted by Wukong
In my humble opinion a professional killer would not have to stab someone over 30 times. A professional would know exactly where to cut or stab to dispatch his victim quickly.

The evidence shows that Ron was first attacked from the front (the flank cut severing his aorta, stab to the front of the leg, defensive wounds on the hands). The killer then positioned himself to the rear and forced him to a seated position while slicing his neck, holding his head down over his thighs. This is evidenced by his shirt being pushed up in the back and the blood on the front of his pants. The blood on his shirt was only at the top and not running down the front, which it would have been had he been standing.<<SNIPAgain...this 'pro' may have been a newbie. Everyone starts somewhere and while mentally practiced and prepared to kill Nic, he/she was prob totally blindsided when Ron appeared.

Tks Wukong for the details...but cdnt it be poss that an accomplice/driver observes Ron entering at a v inopp time, so enters the yard. While Perp1 attacks Ron from the front, Perp2 arrives and restrains Ron from behind. It cd be poss that Perp2 had Ron under control and Perp1 went bk to Nic to finish...then went back to Ron and made his test.

[uplate]

Originally posted by bobaugust
martin II, I see. So you don't think it was possible that sometime in that fight that Ron never tried to break Simpson's grip by grabbing Simpson's left hand and fingers with both of his hands, right?Ron's already in bad shape by the time the killer is behind him. Like Wukong noted, he was attacked face on. When one is grabbed from behind, the easiest thing to do is to use your weight and flip that person over your back. Unfortunately IMO by the time somebody got behind Ron he may have been too injured to put up any fight.

[Wukong]

Originally posted by uplate
*snipped*
Inasmuch as I'm just presenting some alternative theories in a reasonable manner, I will say that the tone of SOME is a little aggressive/dismissive. I'm here to debate, not tick anyone off. I realize it's an unpopular opinion that OJ didn't kill them. He may be completely innocent, or completely guilty, I don't know. But I believe it is v pompous of some to claim to KNOW he committed the murders, when he may have only witnessed them. jmo

I would have to agree with Uplate on this one. I noticed some of the posts have been a tad aggressive. I know everyone is trying to present information that will support their side in hopes of making the other side see their point. I would hope this can be accomplished in a more civil manner even though your frustration level may be high.

Wukong

[Wukong]

Originally posted by uplate
Again...this 'pro' may have been a newbie. Everyone starts somewhere and while mentally practiced and prepared to kill Nic, he/she was prob totally blindsided when Ron appeared.

Tks Wukong for the details...but cdnt it be poss that an accomplice/driver observes Ron entering at a v inopp time, so enters the yard. While Perp1 attacks Ron from the front, Perp2 arrives and restrains Ron from behind. It cd be poss that Perp2 had Ron under control and Perp1 went bk to Nic to finish...then went back to Ron and made his test.

Uplate,

Every scenario that fits the evidence is possible. While I don't believe there was more than one killer, your scenario is possible. Although the trace evidence left behind does not seem to support two killers; if the second killer's hat and gloves stayed on (assuming they were wearing them) and they didn't step in the blood pools, then this is also possible. The possibilities in this case are endless, which is the reason I continue to study it.

Wukong

[uplate]

Morning Wukong...can I pour you a cup of java? Thanks for yr post. There was a lot of acrimony on Laci's and Natalee's bds. Never quite understood the attitudes. If you're not family or 'close' to the case...what's the deal. I've always been on these bds for info exchange, that's it. This case always puzzled me. Did you read the book 'Killing Time'? It was very good and gave A LOT of info that I never heard anywhere else.

[uplate]

Yes Wu...the possibilities do seem to be endless and that's why I'm still interested. I don't know if you fllwd any others...but I still have unanswered ?s on Laci. As far as Natalee...I wish there to be closure but doubt if we will ever have any. Tons of theories and little evidence. This case though, yowza. Did you hear the rumor about the internet gambling?

[uplate]

Martin...I didn't realize you were up. Let me pour you a cup! LOL, I just remembered abt the internet gambling and asked Wu. Did you read 'Killing Time'?

I'll be around for about an hr and won't be bk till the wkend, but I will return! I'm enjoying the discussion....

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



This theory is contradicted by Witness testimony, " Hey Hey Hey" and the deeper voice reply. According to Heidstra in the Civil Trial this lasted about 15 seconds and then the gate slams, and shortly after that he sees the White Colored SUV with it's lights off..



nettathirty, you're confused.

The scenario I posted happened after Heidstra heard Ron Goldman yell "Hey, hey, hey!" After Heidstra heard Simpson yell back. After Heidstra heard a gate slam. Heidstra testified that about five or so minutes later he saw a white jeep like vehicle speed away from Bundy. A few minutes later Jill Shively encountered Simpson's speeding Bronco with it's lights off at the Bundy and San Vicente.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob


it was a professional job.
all my opinion
Martin II



martin II, okay where is the evidence that supports your belief?

What evidence do you know of that tells you there were other people at Bundy other than the two victims and Simpson?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by uplate

And common sense at least tells me that if one knife can make two different types of cuts, so can two knives...



uplate, you have things backwards. Common sense should tell you that the relevant fact here is that one knife is consistent with making all of the wounds on both victims.

Two, three, four, or more knives are irrelevant since there isn't one single shred of relevant physical evidence that anyone else was at Bundy except the two victims and one killer.

bobaugust

[uplate]

Martin--I think I stumbled upon that sight...was it Wagner and Sons? I printed out most of it and took it to the Carribean instead of a book, but that was yrs ago. The internet gambling theory made sense to me. Hertz had OJ golfing w/influential Fortune 100 leaders...w/big bucks. All he had to do was advise these highrollers of the website. Cutting edge back in the day. Nic remembers what happ to Pete Rose and says NO. If he got caught, there goes everything. I can totally imagine a scenario where he's telling the wiseguy's his 'wife won't let him', he starts b##ching abt her, they offer to whack her...he's ticked and says whatever. just a thought...

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by uplate
For argument's sake...perhaps it was a 'professional' who either, a) was not very experienced, or b) wasn't prepared for the unexpected. Hit men have to start somewhere, they're not all experienced.

I



uplate, I keep repeating this because you seem to keep ignoring it.

The fact is that there is not one shred of relevant physical evidence that anyone else was at Bundy that night except for the two victims and Simpson.

bobaugust

[uplate]

Coffee Bob? In Dr Baden's testi he states one can't tell if there was more than one knife. I believe my reasoning to be reasonable. If one knife can make two different types of cuts, so can two knives.

And if there was evidence that there were 2perps...Pros doesn't have to present it, since they have no clue who P2 is, and Def may have been instructed by OJ to not go there, for a variety of reasons. jmo oc

[Wukong]

Uplate,

It's a little late in the day for coffee, but thanks for the offer. I am in Taiwan which is 12 hours ahead of you. I'm getting ready to go out to dinner.

I have not read killing time in its entirety. I have followed other cases although not the Laci board here at CTV. I ventured into that board a few times and saw it was not worth trying to post anything there unless I wanted to get beat up. It didn't seem to matter what was posted, you were in for either way. I see pretty much the same thing with Natalee.

Wukong

[uplate]

Originally posted by bobaugust
uplate, I keep repeating this because you seem to keep ignoring it.

The fact is that there is not one shred of relevant physical evidence that anyone else was at Bundy that night except for the two victims and Simpson.Or so we've been told. I keep repeating that 2perps didn't work for Pros' case v OJ, so they don't introduce it. In all liklihood OJ told dream team what went down. Now whether the other or only perp was Jason, mob, hitman etc...this can't come out! So Defense doesn't intro evidence of another. And...if it were Jason, it cd be poss he wore his father's brand of shoes...same size. Martin says it's been said it looked liked the blood was smeared, almost like trying to erase footprints. I don't know the validity of that but ???

[uplate]

Originally posted by martin II
UPLATE I have not read killing time as yet
Martin II It's a great and quick read. Goes into lots of diff theories and really gets into the timeline.

[uplate]

Wu--enjoy yr dinner! I know abt the time diff...I dated a Japanese guy and when he was there I had to get accustomed to calls at odd hours. Are you native there or expat? I found Killing Time hard to put down. It changed my mind....Anyway, bye for now. I won't see you till the wkend. Cheers everyone!

[uplate]

Originally posted by martin II
uplate the smeared blood (wiped blood) is from wagner. he says these wipes can be seen in the bundy photos. I can see the photos in my head, even after all this time, and yes it does seem smeared. Hey, were you the bbq/caterer guy?

[Wukong]

Uplate,

I'm an expat, Irish American from New Yawk. I've been in Taiwan for 15 years though so I'm not sure what I am sometimes.

I have read enough about killing time to catch the main points. Even though some theories were presented it was not enough to change my mind. The more I learn about all the details of this case, on and off the record, the more I believe Oj killed Nicole and Ron. He may have had help cleaning up afterward by more than one person.

Wukong

[uplate]

Wu--we're almost identical, except for the Taiw and gender part! The weather has been lovely in NY. Do you ever come bk for a visit? The theories in Killing Time...I said changed my mind but more likely opened my mind. I can see OJ doing this in terms of means motive opp, but when presented w/all the other stuff that book offered...I started questioning, then in my head reenacted and there's just not enough blood outside the scene. OJ did not admit in fact denied being there. I have no reason to fabricate that I saw his agent intrvwd on Greta when he told her OJ confessed to BEING THERE. Now, that to me explains the blood ev as we heard in the trial. IMO there should have been a lot more blood outside the scene...IF OJ did the stabbings.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Brett Cantor.


LOL! I knew that. I don't know why I posted Brent....lol Long day I guess.

Thanks fbgweezer!

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


when the killer grabbed ron from BEHIND and wrapped his left arm around rons neck(for control) this would put the killers left gloved hand at about the right side of rons face about at the ear. how could ron reach the gloved hand and pull the glove off from a closed fist.when his jugler was being cut. visualize that. What makes you think it was a closed fist? Your speculation that it happened when Orenthal grabbed him from behind, is just that -- speculation. I can visualize a struggle where Ron was fighting for his life and the glove came off. IIRC, Orenthal slipped the glove right off during the demonstration in the trial -- didn't have a problem at all with it coming off.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Wouldn't you concentrate more on the hand with the knife in it, rather than the hand without the knife? Hmmm -- I'd be lashing out at everything trying to get away...........

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


CORRECT

But i think ron would be trying to 'WIGGLE' out of the arm lock the killer had on him. However a professional mob killer would know how hold him in a vise grip from behind and know exactly where to cut first to make him weak. the jugular vein. A professional mob killer would #1 have no reason to kill Ron or Nicole BUT if one did, it wouldn't have been so messy and/or so much work. Don't you watch TV? The "professional mob killers" don't leave their blood, footprints, cap, glove, hair and bronco fibers at the scene.

[fbgweezer]

QUOTE]Originally posted by martin II


i think ron had been manhandeled down to a seating position with the killer holding him from behind in a bent over position making it almost impossible for him to do anything but kick his legs
and try to twist his body. But when the jugular vein was severed
he became very weak very quick and the killer could have his way with him.

when oj tried on the gloves and they were too small, people said
if he had just pulled them on a little more they would have fit because the gloves were a tight fit origionally.

but now they say, ron, in a arm lock with a cut neck, was able to just reach over and pull the gloves off of a closed fist.

Martin II [/QUOTE] There is no evidence that Ron was in a seating position when he was murdered.

Orenthal had NO problem removing the gloves after the courtroom demonstration. He didn't have to wince or tug or nothing..........LOL

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by nettathirty



I found the story about Brett Cantor at the LA Times website and posted it on the other CTV OJ Board awhile back.

Okay, the only stories in the archives are where they mention the Brett Cantor murder in regards to the defense trying to tie these together. I'm looking for an article about the Brett Cantor murders. I mean, no one knows for sure anything about this murder except for what the defense put out there. There are a few tid bits that have come out. I want a real article though.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


nope bob

from the way the cuts/stabs were inflicted ron was in one arm lock for the entire time until he became too weak to resist and the testing wounds were administered. imo nope rayray

All of the evidence proves exactly opposite. You're wrong -- Again.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


netta

ron was flinging his arms and kicking his legs but the arm lock the killer had him in from behind around his neck did not allow him to do too much of anything but twist and try to get out of the lock.

anyone that has been in a tight arm lock knows this. Okay -- let's go with your scenario. Doesn't that make it all the more likely that the left hand of the murderer would be the hand injured?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by uplate
gee...why didn't I think of that??? Let's see...I think he wdve had a more serious or several more wounds if this happened during the struggle, assuming his glove got knocked off. PLUS...there wdve been a lot more of Ron's blood on his hand if the glove got knocked off.

One scenario I thought of was that OJ went to hire someone and then changed his mind. But the killer, lusting after the $$, wouldn't let OJ back out. He proceeded w/the murder, told OJ who went there to prevent it, Ron arrived at a v unfortuitous time. The killer cuts OJ so his blood is around, or OJ, arriving at the scene, not wearing gloves, got cut trying to take the knife away. Just some thoughts... That leaves Orenthal's cap and gloves and Orenthal's hair and bronco fibers on Ron's shirt-- how did they get there? Wouldn't there have been a struggle for the knife between the 'killer' and Orenthal?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by uplate
Yes, bec he was there. I am just not so certain that he actually committed the murders. And if Jason did them, I don't believe OJ wd let the defense go there. And wdn't Jason's DNA match OJs?

Inasmuch as I'm just presenting some alternative theories in a reasonable manner, I will say that the tone of SOME is a little aggressive/dismissive. I'm here to debate, not tick anyone off. I realize it's an unpopular opinion that OJ didn't kill them. He may be completely innocent, or completely guilty, I don't know. But I believe it is v pompous of some to claim to KNOW he committed the murders, when he may have only witnessed them. jmo I apologize for the tone of my posts if they offend you -- it is unintentional.

If Orenthal left evidence of being at the murder scene, why wouldn't there be evidence of Jason or anyone else? Only identical twins have the same DNA. Jason's DNA would have markers that match Orenthal's but would also have markers that matched Marguerite. The blood at the murder scene was proven by three independent labs to be Orenthal's -- no one else.

I probably do sound like I KNOW Orenthal murdered Nicole and Ron because there was no evidence presented then -- defense didn't -- and there has been no evidence in the 10+ years since to point to anyone else.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by uplate
Tks Wukong for the details...but cdnt it be poss that an accomplice/driver observes Ron entering at a v inopp time, so enters the yard. While Perp1 attacks Ron from the front, Perp2 arrives and restrains Ron from behind. It cd be poss that Perp2 had Ron under control and Perp1 went bk to Nic to finish...then went back to Ron and made his test. Then don't you think it would stand to reason that there would be evidence of someone other than Orenthal being there? It would have been Perp 2's hair and carpet fibers on Ron and not Orenthal's.

[Wukong]

Here is part of a long post about Brett Cantor on Iago:


"Although the LAPD case officers in charge, Det. Rick Jackson and Rich Aldahl of the elite Robber/Homicide Div both say they vigorously investigated the case, there has never been a prime suspect, and the case remains open."

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/_0506/00000044.htm

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II


i have looked but did not find a article by say la times ,cnn etc.

it has been reported that a mob guy by the name of Joe I. i cannot remember the spelling of his name now but he was the drug king pin around LA. That brett cantor was involved with him
or this business at his LA night spot.
If i find a article i will post it to you
Martin II

Thanks Martin,

But, remember, I am looking for a major news media or a local news media. And, not just in regards to the Bundy Murders. Not from the defense teams mouth. Or not from someone speculating. I want to see a real unbiased report of the murder.

Thanks so much!

:seeya:

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by Wukong
Here is part of a long post about Brett Cantor on Iago:


"Although the LAPD case officers in charge, Det. Rick Jackson and Rich Aldahl of the elite Robber/Homicide Div both say they vigorously investigated the case, there has never been a prime suspect, and the case remains open."

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/_0506/00000044.htm

I can't get into that for some reason. Some of their links aren't working right. However, I have read the posts regarding Cantor. I have just never seen an article that isn't from a Conspiracy type site or told through an article regarding the Bundy Murders. In my opinion that is not valid proof. It also says in their post that his family in no way thinks that the Cantor/Bundy murders are related. And, it says that they have some type of suspect that is in another country.

:shrug:

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Okay, the only stories in the archives are where they mention the Brett Cantor murder in regards to the defense trying to tie these together. I'm looking for an article about the Brett Cantor murders. I mean, no one knows for sure anything about this murder except for what the defense put out there. There are a few tid bits that have come out. I want a real article though. I would appreciate it if you would let me know when you find something -- I'd like to read up on it also.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


Nope

Martin II Why not?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob i don't have heidstras testimonty in fron tof me but i thought he said it was 1.5 to 2 minutes that it took him to walk to Dorothy st where he saw the white suv pulling away.
Martin II



martin II, after Heidstra heard the voices coming from Nicole's condo he said it was about four minutes before he got to the end of the alley. He said he went back on Dorothy Street and stood under a tree about a minute, a minute and a half, and then saw the white jeep like vehicle turn onto Bundy;.

October 25, 1996 Robert Heidstra

Q. Now, when you were sitting there, or standing there with your dogs at the alley opposite Nicole's condominium and you heard the dogs barking, did you then hear anything else?
A. Because -- yeah, but it was around about a minute there, all of a sudden, when the dogs keep barking, I heard the first voice, a clear voice, saying, "Hey, hey, hey," for three, four times.

***
Q. How many minutes after that were you at the other end of the alley?
A. Was a little more, because I stood there and listened to the dog regularly -- It's about two minutes, and we say about three, four, five minutes, something like that. Five minutes at the --
Q. Five minutes, at the outside?
A. Yeah, at the outside.
Q. You said three, four, five minutes; is that your testimony?
A. Yeah. Four minutes or something.

***
Q. Okay. And when you got to the other end of the alley, what then happened?
A. Okay. Out of the alley. And the dogs were still barking nonstop; it never stopped. And then I went east on Dorothy, back to my -- the direction of my apartment.

***
Q. So when you got to this alley here, you made a left on Dorothy, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. And then you walked a little bit up?
A. Yeah, about two houses. Two houses. About two, three, and listened to the noise.
Q. Let me stop you there. There's a tree?
A. There's a big oak tree or something.
Q. And you stopped under the tree?
A. I was under the tree, yes.

***
Q. And then what did you see or what happened?
A. So I stood there for a minute, I would say, a minute and a half or something, looking back to Dorothy and where the noise came from. And I -- there's a streetlight on the corner of Bundy and --
Q. Dorothy?
A. -- and Dorothy, yes.
Q. What did you see when you were looking down at the intersection
where the street lamp was?
A. I was looking down there. From nowhere, all of a sudden, then I saw from the west side of Dorothy, from Nicole's side, from out of dark, came in the light a white, jeep-like car.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by uplate
Coffee Bob? In Dr Baden's testi he states one can't tell if there was more than one knife. I believe my reasoning to be reasonable. If one knife can make two different types of cuts, so can two knives.





uplate, the point is there is no evidence of a second "perp."

There is only evidence of one killer and the fact that all of the wounds on both victims are consistent with being made with one knife. If there was testimony that all of the wounds were not consistent with one knife, that would mean there probably was more than one killer. But that's not the case, so the fact that two knives, three knives, or more could have made all of the wounds is irrelevant.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by uplate
Or so we've been told. I keep repeating that 2perps didn't work for Pros' case v OJ, so they don't introduce it. In all liklihood OJ told dream team what went down. Now whether the other or only perp was Jason, mob, hitman etc...this can't come out! So Defense doesn't intro evidence of another. And...if it were Jason, it cd be poss he wore his father's brand of shoes...same size. Martin says it's been said it looked liked the blood was smeared, almost like trying to erase footprints. I don't know the validity of that but ???



uplate, your speculation is unrealistic.

Two perps didn't work for the prosecution case because there was no evidence of two perps.

There is no likelihood that Simpson told his dream team anything that would implicate him in these murders. Simpson's attorneys may have used every trick in the book to deceive the jury but they would not have broken the law. The dream team consisted of many respected and honorable attorneys who were not going to blatantly break the law and ruin their reputations for Simpson. Although it turned out some of their reputations were affected. If Simpson had told them he was there they would never have told the jury that he wasn't.

I'm sorry but your unsupported speculation about Jason, and Bruno Magli shoes is irrelevant and contradicted by the known facts.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


UPLATE
Blood at the scene.
i read wagners investigation, experiement,
theory into BLOOD FLOW PATTERNS. It is very detailed so i had to read it several times to understand. pictures charts etc.

if this is true then there would not be enough blood in the blood pool next to nicole for oj to make the good bm prints if he had stepped into the blood while killing nicole and tracked them all the way out to the bronco. wagner says it would have taken about 7.5 minutes for this type blood pool to form next to her where oj could have stepped in it.

Which would suggest that oj was there after the murders.

again if this is true then the prosecutions time line is off.

all from wagners site

Martin II



martin II, the operative phrase is "if this is true"

Wagner did a lot of good research finding photographs in the Simpson case. His relationship with Jill Shively and the information he obtained from her was his best. But when it came to trying to support his ever changing fantasy using home experiments his methods and conclusions are for the most part worthless. Wagner created home experiments to support facts that he made up. Facts that were never testified to by the real experts.

Someone who wishes to avoid the simple truth of these murders and is looking for any excuse to argue can easily deceive themselves about Wagner's fantasies and experiments.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

"There is no likelihood that Simpson told his dream team anything that would -----

Is this pure speculation on your part???:beer:
Martin II



martin II, yes it is speculation based on the reputations of Simpson's attorneys.

Do you think that Simpson told his attorneys that he was involved in these killings or that he was at Bundy?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


I know for certain RKardashian knew about OJs visit to Bundy after the murders occured!
The rest were very likely told about OJs visit at Bundy after 10:35!



nettathirty, you say you know for certain that Kardashian knew that Simpson went to Bundy after the murders.

How do you know that?
What's your source?
And what exactly did Simpson say as to when he went Bundy and what he did there?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
BOB
We are both correct heidstra testified 2-3-4-5-minutes or something like that. hahaha
martin II



martin II, no you were not correct.

The fact is that Heidstra estimated it took him from two to five minutes to get to the end of the alley after he heard the voices coming from Nicole's condo. Heidstra then said he walked up Dorothy street and stood under a tree for about another minute to a minute and a half before he saw the white jeep like vehicle.

Keeping in mind these are only estimated times but the point of Heidstra's testimony is that there could have been about six or seven minutes between the time Heidstra heard Goldman arrive at Bundy and when he saw Simpson speeding away. That was the time it took Simpson to kill both Ron and Nicole and leave.

Just a word of advice. You really should try admitting you're wrong when you say something incorrect. It's not that hard to do and at the very least it doesn't continue to make you look foolish.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


Well if you can speculate then everyone else can also.

I have no idea what oj told his lawyers other than get me out of here.

martin II



martin II, everything I know about Shapiro, Dershowitz, Scheck, and Uelmen tells me that there is no way that they were told that Simpson was at Bundy.

If they had been told that that at the beginning they would never have made the arguments they made. If they had been told that during the trial after questioning witnesses in front of the jury, they would have made it known or immediately resigned.

As to Cochran and his partners, I doubt that they would be different except Cochran did walk a fine line between suggesting and lying more than a couple of times.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by bobaugust
martin II, everything I know about Shapiro, Dershowitz, Scheck, and Uelmen tells me that there is no way that they were told that Simpson was at Bundy.bobaugust You give them way more credit than I do. We know from reading their books and statements that the only person on that team that believed Orenthal innocent was Bailey. We also know from their books and statements that they conspired to divert the trial from their clients guilt to the prosecution of LAPD. To a man, I believe each of those individuals to be amoral. Otherwise, they could not have assassinated the character of the victims and witnesses. And I certainly don't believe the world lost much with the deaths of Kardashian or Cochran. MOO

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* You give them way more credit than I do. We know from reading their books and statements that the only person on that team that believed Orenthal innocent was Bailey. We also know from their books and statements that they conspired to divert the trial from their clients guilt to the prosecution of LAPD. To a man, I believe each of those individuals to be amoral. Otherwise, they could not have assassinated the character of the victims and witnesses. And I certainly don't believe the world lost much with the deaths of Kardashian or Cochran. MOO



fbgweezer, I agree but there's a difference between an attorney thinking his client is guilty and knowing he is guilty.

Attorneys argue cases based on the information they know and that's legal. If an attorney argues that his client didn't do something that his client told him he did do that's illegal and grounds for disbarment and even prison.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



OJs cell phone records.

58 calls made from his cell phone on the 12th while departing for Chicago! Remember in court OJs cell phone records were on display, yet all the calls after the 10:03p to Paula was blacked out!



nettathirty, talk about stretching a fantasy. You have a very vivid imagination and if this is the basis for your statement that you know Simpson told Kardashian he was Bundy then you're absolutely wrong.

The only telephone calls that were blocked were calls that were agreed to by the prosecutors and the defense that were irrelevant to the these murders.

July 6, 1995

MS. CLARK: The second would be stipulation concerning the admissibility of telephone records. These concern the phone bills for the home telephone of the Defendant and for Juditha Brown.

THE COURT: All right. This will be subject to our agreement that if at a subsequent time there are phone numbers that are not relevant to the case, those will be redacted.

MS. CLARK: Right. And even days--dates. At this time, it seems apparent that at least June 12th and 13th are relevant, but it may be that that's all that's relevant and the rest can be stricken. So neither side waives the opportunity to object on grounds of relevancy later on.

MR. COCHRAN: That is correct. That's my understanding, your Honor. Both sides reserve that right to object on relevancy and the fact that we want to maintain the privacy of these numbers if at all possible, and further, there are other people who may have made these phone calls other than the parties involved.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by bobaugust




fbgweezer, I agree but there's a difference between an attorney thinking his client is guilty and knowing he is guilty.

Attorneys argue cases based on the information they know and that's legal. If an attorney argues that his client didn't do something that his client told him he did do that's illegal and grounds for disbarment and even prison.

bobaugust I understand your reasoning -- I just believe that they did know he was guilty. First of all, there is no way that babbling idiot didn't tell them. Number 2, why reinstate Kardashian's license if there wasn't incriminating evidence against Orenthal? Number 3, Cochran said Orenthal was guilty before he became his lawyer.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I understand your reasoning -- I just believe that they did know he was guilty. First of all, there is no way that babbling idiot didn't tell them. Number 2, why reinstate Kardashian's license if there wasn't incriminating evidence against Orenthal? Number 3, Cochran said Orenthal was guilty before he became his lawyer.



fbgweezer, I agree that Cochran probably did believe Simpson guilty before taking his case, but an attorney has to put his personal beliefs aside and build and argue his case based on the facts. Again believing and knowing are two different things. That sometimes means an attorney doesn't want his client to tell him everything so he can intentionally play dumb, especially if he believes his client is guilty. And Cochran had to play dumb many times.

The move to make Kardashian part of Simpson's legal team was exactly as you said, to prevent Kardashian being called as a witness to events and conversations he had with Simpson before his arrest.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by socaldiva


It doesn't mean that the lawyer doesn't have the common sense to clearly see, based on evidence, that their client did it.



socaldiva, you're right and that's why a defense attorney doesn't want his client to tell him everything so he can play dumb and only argue his case based on what is only known by other witnesses, the police and the prosecutors.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by bobaugust




fbgweezer, I agree that Cochran probably did believe Simpson guilty before taking his case, but an attorney has to put his personal beliefs aside and build and argue his case based on the facts. Again believing and knowing are two different things. That sometimes means an attorney doesn't want his client to tell him everything so he can intentionally play dumb, especially if he believes his client is guilty. And Cochran had to play dumb many times.

The move to make Kardashian part of Simpson's legal team was exactly as you said, to prevent Kardashian being called as a witness to events and conversations he had with Simpson before his arrest.

bobaugust I wasn't trying to argue with you -- I respect your knowledge of this case and I believe you have excellent insight as to the events and people. They had to ignore evidence and fact in this case in order not to know he was guilty. Besides, they didn't argue his innocence -- they argued LAPD's guilt.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by bobaugust




socaldiva, you're right and that's why a defense attorney doesn't want his client to tell him everything so he can play dumb and only argue his case based on what is only known by other witnesses, the police and the prosecutors.

bobaugust Can you even imagine that bobbleheaded murderer keeping his mouth shut? Hell, he probably not only told them he did it, he probably wanted them to approve. MOO

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Not true, he could have inserted his 5th amendment right like AC and waive his right to testify... RK reinstalled for another reason! Please -- what other reason would he have had? He was not practicing law and had not in many years. He wanted to protect himself and Orenthal by hiding behind the very system that should have protected Nicole's and Ron's rights but didn't.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Bob,

I said RKardashians number was blacked out! Why are you validating my statement with the court transcript? BTW: Thnx

RKardashian reinstalled his Law License just before the trial. Early on in the prelim, the DA wanted to bring charges against OJ and his attorney, care to bet who that attorney was?



nettathirty, I validated your statement that some calls were redacted from the telephone records based on agreement between the prosecution and the defense. Calls that were irrelevant to the murders. But that has absolutely nothing to do with your statement that you know that Simpson told Kardasian that he was at Bundy.

You know no such thing. There is no evidence that Simpson admitted that to Kardashian or anyone else.

The fact is we all know that Simpson was at Bundy. I have no dispute with you over that, only Simpson does.

Kardashian became a member of Simpson's defense team for one reason and one reason only, so that he could not be a witness to the events and conversations he had with Simpson before his arrest.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Bob,
Calls made on the 12th and 13th all should have been revelant to the murders. RKardashian as Simpson legal council, his calls would be revelant but under the law would be considered "client/attorney" priviledge!



nettathirty, why do keep talking about telephone calls?

You made the statement that you "know for certain" Kardashian knew about Simpson's visit to Bundy after the murders occurred.

When I asked you how you knew, you said, Simpson's telephone records.

I'm sorry but not only don't you know what calls were made or by who, you have no knowledge what's so ever about what was discussed in those calls. The only thing it seems you know for certain is that you can create fantasies out of your imagination.

About the only thing you got right is that Simpson was at Bundy, but not just after the murders. He was also there just before the murders and during the murders. And as far as I know Simpson never told anyone that he was there, he has always steadfastly continued with his lying denials.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


BOB
I had a important quesiton to ask you but since you dismiss all of Wagners investigation and theories i will save my quesiton for someone that exhibits more openmindness.

Martin II



martin II, if you think your question is important by all means ask.

As to keeping an open mind, I believe I do except when it comes to claims that are based on only imagination or false and misinformation.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Originally posted by martin II
I was reading your post about Mario and you said "the LAPD tried to kill him" why was this. this must be a shock to people that belive that the lapd does not participate in illegal activities.

Martin II

Martin,

The fact that two LAPD officers tried to kill Mario is confirmation that what Mario knows, and was talking to the media about, was true and relevant to the the case. This also shows me that the police did not want what Mario knows to be made public. If what Mario says are just the rantings of a lunatic, with no basis in truth, then the LAPD would not care and certainly would not have tried to take him out.

I'm not sure if anyone can honestly say that the LAPD, or any other police department, never does anything illegal. I think there has been enough illegal activity, by the police, uncovered to prove there are some bad cops out there. In Suffolk county N.Y. where I grew up the police department was named the most corrupt in the nation in the '70s. I had a friend who was a SC cop and he told me the running joke in the department was: Q: "How many Suffolk county cops does it take to push a handcuffed suspect down the stairs? A: None, he tripped".

As for the other cases Mario has information on you need to ask him. The reason he is interested in those cases has to do with Det. Ron Ito who was the lead chaser in the OJ case and had contacted Mario several times. During Ito's conversations with Mario he lied to him and threatened him. Since then Mario has followed Ito to other cases and found that lying and threatening seem to be Ito's forte.

Contact Mario here if you have questions:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?automodule=blog

Wukong

[alien]

Welcome to this board. It has a wealth of information about the OJ trial. If you haven't started reading from the beginning, I would suggest that you do.

As far as the posters. The majority of us believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that OJ killed Nicole and Ron and only OJ killed Nicole and Ron. We base this belief on the evidence shown. OJ's blood, hair, glove and hat were at the scene. Ron and Nicoles blood was found at other sites than Bundy, etc.

Professional killers, even if they are novices, would never be totally stupid. There will always be other theories floating around. That is the name of the game.

bobaugust has a wealth of information based on research. Not just on his gut reaction. For those who think that OJ is innocent, they never can explain their beliefs. They use IMO and MOO, but never give any hard core evidence.

And if you ever feel that you are being attacked, don't take it too personally. Those of us who believe that OJ is as guilty as sin find it hard to believe that he got away with the horrible murder of his ex-wife and some poor dude that just happened to be at the scene at the wrong time. We are rabid in our beliefs and sometimes get exasperated with other scenarios that don't make sense based on the evidence.

Again, welcome to the board. On Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays I work an overnight shift and visit this board. If you ever want to chat, I will be available.

[alien]

Welcome to this board. It has a wealth of information about the OJ trial. If you haven't started reading from the beginning, I would suggest that you do.

As far as the posters. The majority of us believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that OJ killed Nicole and Ron and only OJ killed Nicole and Ron. We base this belief on the evidence shown. OJ's blood, hair, glove and hat were at the scene. Ron and Nicoles blood was found at other sites than Bundy, etc.

Professional killers, even if they are novices, would never be totally stupid. There will always be other theories floating around. That is the name of the game.

bobaugust has a wealth of information based on research. Not just on his gut reaction. For those who think that OJ is innocent, they never can explain their beliefs. They use IMO and MOO, but never give any hard core evidence.

And if you ever feel that you are being attacked, don't take it too personally. Those of us who believe that OJ is as guilty as sin find it hard to believe that he got away with the horrible murder of his ex-wife and some poor dude that just happened to be at the scene at the wrong time. We are rabid in our beliefs and sometimes get exasperated with other scenarios that don't make sense based on the evidence.

Again, welcome to the board. On Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays I work an overnight shift and visit this board. If you ever want to chat, I will be available.

[alien]

Okay I think that I am sleep walking. Ignore this one too.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Bob,

What time do you believe OJ arrived at Bundy?



nettathirty, about 10:30 PM. Shortly before the Akita started it's barking.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Bob,

I have seen you post previously that Kato the Akita started barking at 10:30. It has been a while since I have looked at this but I remember Fenjves, Stein and Storfer testified to earlier times, as early as 10:10 - 10:15. Is there a reason to discount their times? There may be, I just don't recall.

Wukong

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Wukong
Bob,

I have seen you post previously that Kato the Akita started barking at 10:30. It has been a while since I have looked at this but I remember Fenjves, Stein and Storfer testified to earlier times, as early as 10:10 - 10:15. Is there a reason to discount their times? There may be, I just don't recall.

Wukong


Brian, both Fenjves and Storfer were in their houses some distance away from the Akita and both estimated the barking started about 10:20 PM. Stein was in her house closer to the Akita but she was sleeping and didn't really know when the dog started to bark. She estimated between 10:15 to 10:45.

Both Fenjves and Storfer testified that the barking was loud and unusual and when the dog started barking it continued to bark continuously for a long time.

There were witnesses outside nearer to Nicole's condo before 10:30. Danny Mandel and Ellen Aaronson walked by the front of Nicole's condo shortly before 10:30. Neither saw anything out of the ordinary nor did they ever hear any dog barking.

Denise Pilnak and Judy Telander were outside Pilnak's house not far from Nicole's condo shortly before 10:30. Pilnak told how exceptionally quiet and still it was that night. Neither heard any dog baking. Telander left and drove her car to the intersection of Bundy and Dorothy to make a U turn. She said she had her window open and never heard any dog barking. Pilnak testified that she did hear the dog start to bark shortly after 10:30.

Robert Heidstra was the witness who was the closest to the Akita when if first started it's barking. He was walking his two dogs and as he approached Bundy he said the Akita started barking like crazy. He knew the dog and said that the Akita was in the street barking in front of Nicole's condo. Heidstra estimated that time as around 10:30, 10:35 PM.

Louis Karpf, Nicole's next door neighbor testified that he returned home from the airport at about 10:45. He said after parking his car in his garage he went through his apartment and out his front door to get his mail when he saw the Akita barking in the street.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Bob,

I was just looking at a map showing the locations of the witnesses homes. Pilnak's house is farthest away from Nicole's, Stein is right nextdoor overlooking Nicole's driveway, Fenjves is across the alley and a little NW and Storfer is across Dorothy from Nicole's.

I read a little testimony and in Fenjves testimony and he said the dog started barking between 10:15 - 10:20. He seemed pretty sure because he was watching the 10:00 news and 15 to 20 minutes into it he heard the dog.

Stein said she went to sleep at 10:00 and was awoken by barking. Her botfriend came home at 10:45 and she said she had been awake for about half an hour by that time.

Storfer heard the dog at 10:20. He had looked at the clock on his TV which said 10:28, but the TV clock was set 5 minutes fast which would make it 10:23. The dog had already been barking for 3 minutes before he looked at the clock.

All three said the barking sounded like it was coming from the corner of Dorothy and the alley behind Nicole's which would put Storfer closest to the barking. Isn't it possible the dog did start barking at 10:20? Also isn't it possible that the dog barked for a while then stopped for a few minutes, continued barking, possibly not barking when Aaronson and Pilnak were outside?

I am really trying to understand why you discount the first three witnesses, especially Storfer. He seemed real sure about the time. Are you contending these three were wrong about the time? Or maybe heard a different dog?

Wukong

Here is a link to the map:

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/storfer0.jpg

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Cowling plead the 5th? I thought he testified fully :confused: IIRC, AC refused to answer any questions dealing with the timeline of the bronco chase since he was under fire and was being investigated.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Was this during the deposition or on the witness stand? (my Petrocelli book is MIA & I hadn't gotten that far yet)

I thought on the witness stand, once you plead the 5th, you have to answer all subsequent questions by pleading the 5th as well. I don't remember AC being on the witness stand -- I am remembering his deposition transcript with Petrocelli and I believe he was 'instructed' by his attorney not to answer certain questions

[Wukong]

Al Cowlings gave a lengthy deposition and also testified in court during the civil trial (See Walraven transcripts). He never pleaded the 5th on the stand but I do remember something about his people trying to keep any testimony about the Bronco ride out. I believe there was some kind of hearing about this where AC did plead the 5th but I can't find it now. I'm sure someone will recall this.

Wukong

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Wukong
Al Cowlings gave a lengthy deposition and also testified in court during the civil trial (See Walraven transcripts). He never pleaded the 5th on the stand but I do remember something about his people trying to keep any testimony about the Bronco ride out. I believe there was some kind of hearing about this where AC did plead the 5th but I can't find it now. I'm sure someone will recall this.

Wukong Found this on Walraven's site:
TUESDAY, Dec. 3

Al Cowlings, lifelong Simpson friend

Cowlings and Simpson played football together in college and in the National Football League. He was driving Simpson's Bronco during the 60-mile freeway chase. He testified that he drove Nicole Brown Simpson to the hospital after the New Year's Eve incident. He said Nicole told him that O.J. Simpson had struck her.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Wukong
Bob,

I am really trying to understand why you discount the first three witnesses, especially Storfer. He seemed real sure about the time. Are you contending these three were wrong about the time? Or maybe heard a different dog?

Wukong

Here is a link to the map:

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/storfer0.jpg



Brain, lets start with Stein. She was right next door to Nicole but she was sleeping and estimated she heard dogs barking sometime between 10:15 and 10:45. She said she heard dog(s) barking. The only time there was more than one dog barking was when Heidstra was in the alley and the small dark dog was barking at the same time as the Akita and that was after 10:30.

The problem I have with Fenjves and Storfer is that they were both in their houses several doors away from Nicole's condo. Once again all times are only estimates and the times Fenjves and Storfer estimated they heard the dog barking is contradicted by other witnesses who were outside and nearer to the dog.

Both of these witnesses said that the barking was loud, unusual, strange, and continuous. Neither could tell where the dog was when it was barking. It seems to me the only way to know when the Akita started it's barking is to base it on what all of the witnesses agreed on not what they disagreed on. I also believe the witnesses who were outside nearer the dog are more reliable than then the witnesses inside their houses further away.

Mandel and Aaronson did not know the exact time they walked by the front of Nicole's condo but they believed it to be just before 10:30. They saw nothing unusual and heard nothing unusual. Considering the total time they were in hearing distance as they approached Bundy and after passing by the front of Nicole's that could have been at least a five minute or more window. They never heard any dog barking.

Pilnak and Telander were just down the street from Nicole. Pilnak said she looked at her clock at 10:18 and they both went outside and talked for a short time. Pilnak told how quiet and still the night was. Telander left about 10:21 and drove her car to the intersection of Dorothy and Bundy. She said the driver's side window was down. Neither heard any dog barking. Pilnak said she did hear the dog start to bark after she was back in her house sometime just after 10:30.

Elsie Tistaert lived across the street from Nicole. She testified that the barking continued for a long time.

Robert Heidstra is the key witness. He was outside and closest to the Akita. Heidstra said that as he approached Bundy he heard the Akita start to bark. He estimated that time as about 10:30, 10:35. Heidstra had left his house about 10:15 walking his two dogs going towards Bundy. Heidstra also said how very quiet it was that Sunday night, "no sounds whatsoever."

If the Akita had started barking about 10:20 with as both Fenjves and Storfer described, loud, wailing, persistent, then Heidstra most likely would have heard it as he was walking towards Bundy and if not him his two dogs sure would have. When Heidstra did hear the Akita start to bark he described the barking the same way as Fenjves and Storfer, "Barking like crazy" "Like he was confused and panicky" "It was very loud barking. I never heard a barking like this before. It was very strange. Very strange." "Confused, panicking, but not attacking" "It was panicking, high barking, high barking, and constantly nonstop barking. Very strange. Very strange."

The fact is that no witnesses ever said that once the Akita started barking it stopped for a while, which would have to have been about five to ten minutes, and then started again. They all said that once the barking started it continued.

Considering all of the witnesses I believe that Heidstra's time estimates were the more reliable.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
Akita Barking

All from Wagner

Martin II



martin II, yes Wagner never did want to address the fact that Stein said she heard dogs "a few dogs" barking not one dog.

Stein testified she was sleeping when she was awaken by dogs barking. She never looked at the time, she estimated it was about a half an hour before Louis Karpf got home. She thought the barking was coming from the intersection of Dorothy and Bundy. Heidstra tells us the Akita was in the street in front of Nicole's condo with it started it's barking. Stein was north of Nicole's condo, the Akita was in the street between her and the intersection so it probably did sound like the Akita was near the intersection of Dorothy and Bundy.

Wagner came to the conclusion that not only did the Akita start barking, stopped and then started again but he imagined the Akita was in the alley when it started to bark, because it fit his fanatasy scenerio better.

No witness ever testified that once the barking started it stopped and then started again. They all testified that once the barking started it was continuous.

No witness ever testified that the barking dog was in the alley. Wagner fabricated that just as he fabricated most the facts that he used to support his fantasies.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty
Bob,

The akita was it in the yard the entire time, or was the Akita upstairs with the children?



nettathirty, the Akita was in the street in front of Nicole's condo when Heidstra first heard it start to bark about 10:30.

The bloody paw prints tell us the Akita was in the yard after the murders and then went back out. Louis Karpf saw the barking Akita in the street about 10:45.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

in wagners web site i gave . there is a picture of stein testifying
and she points to the alley and dorothy st as the place she heard the Akita barking comming from. the time she heard this was 10:15.
anyone that wants the truth can look at the web site and see for themselves.

wagner gave the time each witness said they heard the Akita barking and a map from where they were. You have elected to give your narrative of events which is much less specific than his
presentation.

Martin II bobaugust's theory is based on facts -- known at the time and learned since -- and is, in fact, much more specific to the evidence and testimony in the case than wagner's. Although wagner did a lot of legwork and research, his tendency was to include only those things that fit his theory -- even when facts did not support it. MOO

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

I waited too long to add this comment.

it seems that you want to ignore FUENJVES,STEIN AND STORFER'S
times that they heard the Akita barking 10"15 to 10:20 because
these times effect the time the murders were supposed to have happened. This manipulation is exactly what wagner accused you of doing on this issue. martin II Did yu not read his post? he wasn't ignoring any evidence. Geez.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I think you are wrong on this one! I've checked Walraven's site and do not find in either the criminal or civil trials where AC testified. I know he gave a deposition for the civil trial.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
did bob tell you exactly what time stein said she heard the Akita bark in his reply??? Martin II Yes he did: "Brain, lets start with Stein. She was right next door to Nicole but she was sleeping and estimated she heard dogs barking sometime between 10:15 and 10:45. She said she heard dog(s) barking. The only time there was more than one dog barking was when Heidstra was in the alley and the small dark dog was barking at the same time as the Akita and that was after 10:30."

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

I waited too long to add this comment.

it seems that you want to ignore FUENJVES,STEIN AND STORFER'S
times that they heard the Akita barking 10"15 to 10:20 because
these times effect the time the murders were supposed to have happened. This manipulation is exactly what wagner accused you of doing on this issue.

martin II


martin II, no I don't do any manipulating like Wagner did. I believe the facts that Simpson's defense established using five witnesses who were outside near Bundy, not in their houses. Wagner ignored these witnesses because they contradicted his fantasy scenario.

I don't ignore Fenjves, Stein, or Storfer's times I just believe that the five defense witness's testimony who were outside near Bundy were more reliable as to what they heard or didn't hear.

Stein never looked at a clock. Storfer admitted his clock was not set correctly. Fenjves was recalling television programs. If you want to believe that these witnesses were correct and the five witnesses were not that's up to you.

The fact is that witnesses to the same event can and many times do contradict each other. To know what actually happened you have to listen to all of the witnesses who testified about this and look at what they all agree on, not what they contradict each other on.

All of the witnesses told how loud, unusual, and strange the barking was.
All of the witnesses told how once the barking started, it didn't stop. It was continuous.
The witnesses who were outside were in a better hearing range far longer time than the witnesses who were in their houses. The witnesses who were outside did not hear any barking at the time witnesses in their houses said the dog was barking.

There is no evidence that once the dog started barking it stopped for about five or so minutes and then started barking again.

I believe Simpson' defense got this right and proved that Clark's times relying on Fenjves's wailing dog testimony was wrong. The Akita was wailing, but at 10:30 when Heidstra and Pilnak heard it, not at 10:20 when no one who was outside near Bundy heard anything.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Why didn't Nicoles neighbors who were passing by at this time not see the akita or hear the dog barking? Mandel and Arenson(SP)



nettathirty, because Mandel and Aaronson walked by Nicole's condo before the Akita was put outside the gate.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

if you care to you can look up the witnesses testimony and see
what they testified to. Stein. Fuenjves and Storfer.

Wukong posted a map of areas in front and back (alleyway) of nicoles condo and the location of these witnesses houses and where they said the AKITA'S barking came from.

from this you can decided what to belive.

Martin II



martin II, good suggestion, maybe you should do the same thing.

The defense got this right and the prosecution was wrong.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


nope You crack me up....LOL....you dispute Orenthal's statements and now the defense's theory when they don't fit your fantasies but continue to insist he's not the murderer...........LOL

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
This is quite different from 'STEIN estimated she heard the Akita barking between 10:15 and 10:45.i think.martin II

Stein testified that she did not look at a clock -- thus bob's assertion that her timeline is an estimate. Makes sense to me.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


FBG

"you dispute Orenthal's statements" What time did oj say the Akita started barking?

Stay on subject if possible.

I am agreeing with Wukongs post and question to bob
and wagners investigation on the issue on the times the various witnesses say they heard the barking.
martin II be careful rayray, you know what happened last time you got ugly. I never stated that Orenthal said what time the dog started barking, although he would be the best witness for the timeline. I am saying that you contradict Orenthal's statements if they do not fit your fantasies -- whatever the current fantasy is. And, now, bob has agreed with the defense and because bob agreed with their theory, you are not agreeing with that.......you are funny. moo

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


Stein and her boyfriend knows what time he came home. she knew that she had been awake for 30 minutes before he came home.

She heard the barking at 10:15 PM
martin II Before you re-state Stein's testimony, you may want to go back and re-read it.........you are making yourself look foolish.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
I see Martin II is back to posting to himself again :D I thought the meds and name change were working :D

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


You forgot to account for the bumps ;) :lol: I'm not even sure what his argument is about --

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The Akita tracked blood into the alley behind NBS condo, i didn't know that? Oh Lord.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty
I thought the Akita went out the front gate of Bundy, and roamed up and down the street! Re-read wagner's statement that martin posted:
"akita at dorothy and the alley. bloody footprints
wagner
<