General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD [Archive] - Page 5

fbgweezer

05-08-2006, 08:52 AM

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

05-08-2006, 08:57 AM

fbgweezer

05-08-2006, 09:07 AM

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

05-08-2006, 09:14 AM

*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

05-08-2006, 09:28 AM

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

05-08-2006, 10:09 AM

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

05-08-2006, 02:14 PM

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

05-08-2006, 02:16 PM

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

05-08-2006, 02:16 PM

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

05-08-2006, 02:19 PM

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

05-08-2006, 02:28 PM

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

05-08-2006, 02:35 PM

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

05-08-2006, 02:36 PM

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

05-08-2006, 02:50 PM

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

05-08-2006, 02:55 PM

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

05-08-2006, 02:57 PM

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

05-08-2006, 02:59 PM

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

05-08-2006, 03:00 PM

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

05-08-2006, 03:01 PM

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

05-08-2006, 03:02 PM

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

05-08-2006, 03:03 PM

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

05-08-2006, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by martin II

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

fbgweezer

05-08-2006, 03:08 PM

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

05-08-2006, 03:11 PM

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

05-08-2006, 03:15 PM

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

05-08-2006, 03:25 PM

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

fbgweezer

05-08-2006, 03:25 PM

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

05-08-2006, 04:19 PM

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

05-08-2006, 05:49 PM

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

05-08-2006, 06:04 PM

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

05-08-2006, 06:20 PM

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

05-08-2006, 06:20 PM

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

05-08-2006, 06:27 PM

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

05-08-2006, 06:37 PM

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

05-08-2006, 06:43 PM

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

05-08-2006, 06:46 PM

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

05-08-2006, 11:41 PM

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

05-09-2006, 02:27 AM

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

05-09-2006, 02:55 AM

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

05-09-2006, 03:18 AM

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

05-09-2006, 03:38 AM

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

05-09-2006, 03:54 AM

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

05-09-2006, 04:34 AM

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

05-09-2006, 05:05 AM

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

05-09-2006, 05:15 AM

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

05-09-2006, 05:18 AM

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

05-09-2006, 05:31 AM

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

05-09-2006, 05:38 AM

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

05-09-2006, 05:50 AM

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

05-09-2006, 06:03 AM

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

05-09-2006, 06:05 AM

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

05-09-2006, 06:09 AM

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

05-09-2006, 06:16 AM

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

05-09-2006, 06:17 AM

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

05-09-2006, 06:20 AM

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

05-09-2006, 06:26 AM

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

05-09-2006, 06:32 AM

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

05-09-2006, 06:34 AM

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

05-09-2006, 06:37 AM

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

05-09-2006, 06:48 AM

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

05-09-2006, 06:52 AM

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

05-09-2006, 06:58 AM

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

05-09-2006, 07:06 AM

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

05-09-2006, 07:10 AM

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

05-09-2006, 07:12 AM

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

05-09-2006, 07:13 AM

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

05-09-2006, 07:16 AM

fbgweezer

05-09-2006, 07:18 AM

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

05-09-2006, 07:19 AM

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

05-09-2006, 07:20 AM

fbgweezer

05-09-2006, 07:30 AM

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

05-09-2006, 07:37 AM

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

05-09-2006, 07:43 AM

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

05-09-2006, 07:47 AM

*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

05-09-2006, 07:50 AM

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

05-09-2006, 07:57 AM

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

05-09-2006, 08:06 AM

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

05-09-2006, 08:25 AM

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

05-09-2006, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by martin II

Nope

Martin II Why not?

bobaugust

05-09-2006, 12:25 PM

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

05-09-2006, 01:29 PM

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

05-09-2006, 01:46 PM

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

05-09-2006, 02:01 PM

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

05-09-2006, 02:13 PM

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

05-09-2006, 02:49 PM

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

05-09-2006, 03:05 PM

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

05-09-2006, 03:17 PM

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

05-09-2006, 03:28 PM

*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

05-09-2006, 03:39 PM

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

05-09-2006, 03:51 PM

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

05-09-2006, 04:11 PM

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

05-09-2006, 04:23 PM

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

05-09-2006, 04:27 PM

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

05-09-2006, 04:39 PM

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

05-09-2006, 04:40 PM

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

05-09-2006, 04:43 PM

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

05-09-2006, 04:51 PM

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

05-09-2006, 05:25 PM

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

05-09-2006, 05:48 PM

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

05-09-2006, 06:12 PM

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

05-09-2006, 09:45 PM

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

05-09-2006, 10:59 PM

alien

05-09-2006, 11:00 PM

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

bobaugust

05-09-2006, 11:19 PM

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

05-09-2006, 11:27 PM

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

05-10-2006, 12:22 AM

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

05-10-2006, 04:04 AM

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

05-10-2006, 07:21 AM

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

05-10-2006, 10:32 AM

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

05-10-2006, 10:54 AM

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

05-10-2006, 11:29 AM

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

05-10-2006, 12:05 PM

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

05-10-2006, 01:45 PM

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

05-10-2006, 02:27 PM

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

05-10-2006, 02:41 PM

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

05-10-2006, 02:47 PM

fbgweezer

05-10-2006, 02:59 PM

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

05-10-2006, 03:04 PM

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

05-10-2006, 03:18 PM

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

05-10-2006, 03:21 PM

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

05-10-2006, 03:25 PM

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

05-10-2006, 03:47 PM

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

05-10-2006, 03:59 PM

*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

05-10-2006, 04:21 PM

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

05-10-2006, 04:23 PM

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

05-10-2006, 04:25 PM

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

05-10-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

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

fbgweezer

05-10-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

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

fbgweezer

05-10-2006, 04:40 PM

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

Finally, there is the matter of the bloody paw prints. These lead directly from the crime scene, down Bundy, then west on Dorothy almost to the alley before fading out. "

He doesn't say there was bloody paw prints in the alley.

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by martin II

this is from wukongs post

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.

she went to sleep at 10;00

boyfriend came home at 10;45

she had been awake for 30 minutes before that.(before he came home)

So she was awoken at 10:15 when she heard the Akita barking.
very specific.

This is quite different from 'STEIN estimated she heard the Akita barking between 10:15 and 10:45.

i think.
martin II

martin II, I see you didn't take your own advice and read the testimony.

Eva Stein
February 8, 1995

Q OKAY. NOW, DID YOU THEN TELL THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT SOMETIME BETWEEN 10:15 P.M. AND 10:45 P.M., YOU WERE AWAKENED BY WHAT YOU DESCRIBED AS, QUOTE, INTENSE BARKING BY A, QUOTE, A FEW DOGS?
A YES.

Eva Stein only estimated the time she heard dogs barking. She estimated a half an hour from the time she woke up. Estimated times are not real times.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Bob,

OJ arrived at Bundy at 10:30p:
For some reason the akita is let outside the Bundy gate at 10:30p:

This is what you believe?

nettathirty, yes I believe that Simpson put the Akita outside the gate after he arrived at Bundy.

You seem to be getting confused with estimated times.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by martin II
akita at dorothy and the alley. bloody footprints
wagner

Finally, there is the matter of the bloody paw prints. These lead directly from the crime scene, down Bundy, then west on Dorothy almost to the alley before fading out. Yet none of the witnesses to the Akita’s "late barking" (after 10:33) knew of the dog in any other place than the street of Bundy, and they say that once the dog started barking he barked continuously until Schwab led him away from the area. Thereby, when was the Akita supposed to have gone down to the alley? The only answer that matches all of the witness statements without ridiculous "adjustment" and denunciation is that the dog went immediately and silently from the murder scene at or shortly before 10:15 and started a 5-minute session of noise-making from the alley behind Nicole’s condo. This began as a "plaintive wail" as Fenjves heard and ended as "whining and yelping" as Storfer reported. It is likely that the dog began his noise-making behind the condo and migrated south to end at Dorothy Street before stopping under circumstances that caused him to "yelp and whine," before beginning his session of "late barking" at 10:33 at the south end of the Bundy/Gorham curve, when he was then "very close" to Heidstra.

Martin II

martin II, the bloody paw prints didn't go almost to the alley. No one said that. Riske and Phillips testified that the paw prints faded out on Dorothy Street going towards the alley.

Ronald Phillips February 15, 1995

Q BY MS. CLARK: THAT FRONT WALKWAY THAT LEADS DOWN TO THE SIDEWALK, YOU INDICATED EARLIER YOU SAW BLOOD IN IT. DID YOU SEE ANY PAW PRINTS?
A YES, I DID.
Q IN THAT WALKWAY?
A WELL, THEY WERE MORE TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE WALKWAY AND THEN LEADING DOWN THE SIDEWALK ON BUNDY IN A SOUTH DIRECTION TOWARDS DOROTHY.
Q AND HOW FAR DID YOU SEE THOSE PAW PRINTS CONTINUE?
A THEY CONTINUED DOWN DOROTHY IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION AND THEN THEY WENT WESTBOUND ON DOROTHY AND THEN FADED OUT.

Wagner's writings are all screwed up. He fabricated what the dog did trying to make it fit what some of the witnesses testified to only he never addressed the fact that these witnesses said once the dog started barking it didn't stop. Wagner had a habit of ignoring testimony that contradicted his fantasies while making up his own facts to support them.

Besides the fact the Akita made those paw prints about fifteen minutes after it started barking. It has nothing to do with the time the barking started. We know that after the murders the dog was running around the street. That's when Louis Karpf saw the barking Akita and later the dog followed Steven Schwab.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob

ok

did stein say that her boyfriend came home at10;45 and that she had been awake for 30 minutes before he came home.

if she DID NOT them wagner posted a lie on his web site.

I did note that you posted her testimony up to her answer yes not further.

martin II

Martin II, I posted only that part because you though it was different than her other testimony.

The fact that you can't seem to get past is that Stein's times were only estimates. Stein estimated the time based on a time estimate Louis Karpf told her he arrived home. She estimated she heard the barking dogs about a half an hour earlier. Estimated times are not real times.

And you keep ignoring the fact that Stein heard dog(s) barking not a dog. The only time more than one dog was barking was about 10:40 when Heidstra was in the alley across from Nicole's house and a dog in the yard he was near started to bark.

February 8, 1995 Eva Stein

BY MS. CLARK:
Q SO YOUR MOST ACCURATE STATEMENT OF TIME IS THAT YOU WERE AWAKE FOR HALF AN HOUR BY THE TIME LOUIS CAME HOME?
A YES, APPROXIMATELY HALF AN HOUR.
Q IT FELT LIKE THAT?
A IT FELT LIKE THAT.
Q AND YOU FEEL CERTAIN OF THAT?
A IT JUST FELT LIKE ABOUT HALF AN HOUR.

Q OKAY.
AND WHEN HE CAME HOME, THAT WAS HALF AN HOUR AFTER YOU HEARD THE DOG START BARKING?
A YES.
Q AND THEN YOU LEARNED THAT HE CAME HOME AT 10:45 APPROXIMATELY?
A YES.

MR. COCHRAN
Q AND THESE DOGS THAT YOU HEARD BARKING, IT'S YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION THAT THE SOUND OF THESE DOGS BARKING CAME SOMEWHERE SOUTH OF YOUR LOCATION NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
***
Q NOW, WHEN YOU HEARD THESE BARKING DOGS, THE INTENSE BARKING DOGS, YOU NEVER GOT UP AND LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW; IS THAT CORRECT?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q AND YOU NEVER SAW ANY OF THESE DOGS?
A NO.
Q YOU HAVE HEARD DOGS BARKING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE, BUT NOT TO THIS INTENSITY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A RIGHT.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by martin II

BUT Storfer that lives at the corner of Dorothy st and the alley
said she heard the Akita barking at 10;20P and the sound was comming from THAT corner. even though the paw prints faded before the alley, it is logical(maby) that the dog did continue on down Dorothy for the remainder of the block to the alley.

So i assume that the dog was not "Let out of the condo gate to bundy at 10:30p"

unless the dog ran up the alley into the condo back gate through the muder scene and out to bundy by 10:30 again.

WAGNER
martin II

martin II, no what Wagner is saying is not logical.

First of all it was Mark Storfer who testified not she.
Second the bloody paw prints were made after the murders were committed. Mandel and Aaronson walked by Nicole's front gate just before 10:30. They saw and heard nothing out of the ordinary. No bodies and no bloody paw prints.

This convoluted speculation doesn't make any sense because it ignores the facts that tell us the murders were committed after 10:30.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by martin II
BOB

Look at wagners quote. i don't think he said the prints went down dorothy TO the alley. He said the paw prints faded out before the alley.
martin II

martin II, that's funny read it yourself. It seems you're as confused as nettathirty.

Wagner wrote, "These lead directly from the crime scene, down Bundy, then west on Dorothy almost to the alley before fading out."

Almost to the alley.

In my response I said "the bloody paw prints didn't go almost to the alley. No one said that."

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by martin II

now bob that is funny
martin II

martin II, yes it is funny that nettathirty got confused about estimated times, but I doubt if he appreciates you laughing at him.

bobaugust

Wukong

05-10-2006, 07:02 PM

When I wrote my post with times of the barking by the three "indoor" witnesses I had not read Wagners site but had only gone there to get the map because I remembered he had one. I see that Martin is quoting quite a bit from Wagner and I prefer not to read Wagner's interpretation but rather witness testimony from the trial, which I did before posting.

I agree that Stein and Fenjves testimony can be discounted because they did not look at a clock. But Storfer's testimony seems legitimate to me because out of all the people that heard the dog he is the only one who looked at a clock. I notice that Bob has discounted his testimony because his clock was set wrong. Yes, it was set wrong, but he knew it was set 5 minutes fast. He looked at the clock right after he finished putting his son to bed, which during this time he heard the dog start to bark and was worried it would wake his son up, and the clock said 10:28. This is a specific time and when you subtract the 5 minutes it was off by and the 3 minutes (estimate) it took for him to look at the clock after putting his son to bed that makes the time right around 10:20. Worst case is that he heard the dog barking at 10:28 so I can say that the dog started barking between 10:20 and 10:28.

Q: DID YOU TAKE HIM OUT OF YOUR BED AND PUT HIM INTO HIS BED AT SOME POINT?
A: YES, I DID. AFTER HE FELL ASLEEP -- SHALL I PROCEED?
Q: GO AHEAD.
A: -- I BROUGHT HIM DOWNSTAIRS TO HIS ROOM, WHICH WAS ON THE LOWER LEVEL. OUR BEDROOM WAS ON THE UPPER LEVEL. AND AS I WAS TAKING HIM DOWNSTAIRS, I HEARD A DOG BARK.
Q: WHY DID THAT ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION?
A: I WAS CONCERNED THAT IT WOULD WAKE UP MY SON, IT WAS THAT LOUD AND PERSISTENT.
Q: HAVE YOU HEARD BARKING THAT LOUD AND PERSISTENT BEFORE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
A: NO, I HAD NOT.
Q: NOW, DID YOU SEE WHAT TIME IT WAS BEFORE YOU LEFT THE BEDROOM HOLDING YOUR SON?
A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU PUT YOUR SON BACK IN HIS BED AND THEN YOU WENT UPSTAIRS?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND YOU REMARKED SOMETHING TO YOUR WIFE ABOUT THE DOGS?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AT THAT POINT DID YOU LOOK TO SEE WHAT TIME IT WAS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: AND WHAT TIME WAS IT?
A: IT WAS 10:28 ON THE DIGITAL DISPLAY ON OUR T.V.
Q: NOW, IS THAT THE ACCURATE TIME, SIR?
A: WE TYPICALLY SET OUR CLOCKS ABOUT FIVE MINUTES FAST, SO I PRESUME IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FIVE MINUTES EARLIER.
Q: OKAY. 10:23?
A: CORRECT.
Q: AND AT THAT POINT IT WAS ALREADY, WHAT? GIVE US AN ESTIMATE HOW LONG AFTER YOU HEARD THE DOG BARKING?
A: PROBABLY A GOOD THREE MINUTES.
Q: SO WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU ESTIMATE YOU HAD FIRST HEARD THE DOG BARKING?
A: ABOUT 10:20 P.M.

http://walraven.org/simpson/mar06.html

Just to let you know I don't think there would be a problem with an earlier time and OJ comitting the murders. I can certainly speculate a multitude of scenarios where that can happen.

Wukong

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by martin II

NETTA
Good question

if you want to have a chuckle:

the Akita went from the bundy condo gate, down bundy to dorothy and some distance down dorothy because he was following the scent of the killer/s that left by the front condo gate on bundy.

martin II

martin II, it seems you're as confused at nettathirty. Let me help you guys out here.

This is what I believe could have happened based on the testimony from all of the witnesses.

Mandel and Aaronson walked past Nicole's condo shortly before 10:30 PM. They saw and heard nothing out of the ordinary.
Simpson arrived at Bundy about 10:30.
About the same time Nicole walked out her front door accompanied by her dog and unlatched the front gate.
Simpson made his way to the front of Nicole's condo encountering Nicole and their dog.
Simpson put the Akita outside the front gate and confronted Nicole.
The Akita in the street started to bark.
Robert Heidstra was about to turn onto Bundy when the he heard the Akita barking in the street in front of Nicole's condo so he turned around and went up the alley.

After the murders were committed Simpson closed the rear gate behind him. The Akita could not follow him so it went back to the front gate, walking through Nicole's pooling blood and turned towards Dorothy Street where Simpson's Bronco was after turning out of the alley. The dog was barking and continued down Dorothy St. Did the dog go into the alley? Maybe. Maybe not. The Akita went back to the street in front of the house.

Louis Karpf arrived home, parked in his garage walked through his house and out his front door to get his mail when he saw the Akita in the street barking, coming towards him.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob

the dog barking is the only issue that a time line can npossible be set. and that is all based on when a DOG was barking. the whole case.

so you finally agree with JOHNNY COCHRAN the r***** crook of a lawyer

:beer:

martin II

martin II, since you are new to this discussion group I guess you didn't know that in my past conversations I have always said that it was very ironic that the defense was forced to argue the correct time of the murders to contradict Clark's incorrect times.

Clark was mistaken when she used Fenjves's testimony about a wailing dog before 10:30 and speculating that's when the murders happened.

Cochran tried to deceive the criminal trial jury by using Dr. Baden's opinion, that he later changed, that it took the killer over twenty minutes just to kill Goldman. Cochran argued there wasn't enough time for Simpson to have done that and been back home when Allan Park saw him enter his house.

Petrocelli corrected Clark's mistakes in the civil trial using criminal trial defense witness Robert Heidstra as a witness for the plaintiffs. Petrocelli understood the murders were committed after 10:30.

Dr. Spitz corrected Baden's incorrect opinion telling how it only took a minute or less for Simpson to kill Goldman.

bobaugust

alien

05-10-2006, 07:37 PM

If this has been answered before, please forgive me. I need clarification about where the Akita was when the killing started. Was it in the yard and then let out the gate or let out of the gate before the killing started.

Who let it outside the gate?

Thanks for any input.

Wukong

05-10-2006, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by martin II
wukong

it is assumed that the Akita....

martin II

Martin,

Anything after this first part of your post is speculation. I could speculate theories all day, supported by the known evidence and testimony, but in the end it's still speculation.

Wukong

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Wukong

I agree that Stein and Fenjves testimony can be discounted because they did not look at a clock. But Storfer's testimony seems legitimate to me because out of all the people that heard the dog he is the only one who looked at a clock. I notice that Bob has discounted his testimony because his clock was set wrong. Yes, it was set wrong, but he knew it was set 5 minutes fast. He looked at the clock right after he finished putting his son to bed, which during this time he heard the dog start to bark and was worried it would wake his son up, and the clock said 10:28. This is a specific time and when you subtract the 5 minutes it was off by and the 3 minutes (estimate) it took for him to look at the clock after putting his son to bed that makes the time right around 10:20. Worst case is that he heard the dog barking at 10:28 so I can say that the dog started barking between 10:20 and 10:28.

Wukong

Brian, I agree Storfer's testimony does sound credible but again even though he said his digital clock was about five minutes fast that may not have been correct. He said the last time he set that clock was a couple of months earlier. The fact is that clock times may not be real times unless they are updated by an atomic clock.

As credible as Storfer sounds it still doesn't change the fact that five witnesses who were outside Bundy at that time didn't hear any dog barking.

Storfer said the baking was loud and persistent.
He also said he and his wife then went to bed but he slept lightly because the dog continued to bark.

Those facts support Robert Heidstra's testimony of when the dog started it's loud, continuos non stop barking.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

MartinII and Bob,

Bob, you know as well as I do Martin wasn't laughing at me..

Bob, why is it all the things estimated works to support your theory.

Blood Drawn from OJs.
Timeline for barking dog.

nettathirty, because that reality. That's life.

Estimated times are not real times. The order that events occurred tell us what happened, not estimated times.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by martin II

BOB

almost can be anywhere from 1 foot from the alley to 50 feet before the alley. almost if no exact measurement. the cop didn't give a exact distance either did he?

martin II

martin II, you keep missing the point. I was correcting your words. You really should try copying and pasting words that someone says or at least look at them before you make your comments. Your memory of what I said is not very good and not accurate.

It's not that the dog may have or may not have gone into the alley, it's that the dog didn't go there until after the murders were committed. Most likely when Simpson left Bundy about 10:45.

Wagner changed the known facts and made up his own facts to try and support his fantasy scenario that the murders happened shortly after 10:00. He was wrong.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by alien
If this has been answered before, please forgive me. I need clarification about where the Akita was when the killing started. Was it in the yard and then let out the gate or let out of the gate before the killing started.

Who let it outside the gate?

Thanks for any input.

alien, no one knows exactly what happened.

I believe that Simpson put his dog outside the gate and then confronted Nicole. They may have argued and then the argument escalated to a physical confrontation. That may be what caused the Akita to start it's loud, unusual barking.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Bob,

You cannot prove any of this and please spare me the evidence tells you so, it does NOT.. with all do respect Mr August, you shouldve put somewhere on this post ALL SPECULATIVE OPINION without a shred of evidence to support it..

nettathirty, that's funny. Read my posting again. I prefaced that list with,

"This is what I believe could have happened based on the testimony from all of the witnesses."

You asked me questions and I answered you. You and Martin seem to be confused as to what I was saying so I simply clarified my beliefs for you. I guess you got confused again, right?

bobaugust

alien

05-10-2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

alien, no one knows exactly what happened.

I believe that Simpson put his dog outside the gate and then confronted Nicole. They may have argued and then the argument escalated to a physical confrontation. That may be what caused the Akita to start it's loud, unusual barking.

bobaugust

bobaugust, I trust what you tell me or any comments you make on this board because you have done a lot of research and have something to back up what you say. IF I would have ever believed that OJ was innocent (not that I ever did), I would have changed my mind in a heart beat from what you have shown.

Thanks for your answer. So do you think that OJ put the dog outside and rang the door bell or did he hit Nicole and then put the dog outside the gate. And in your opinion, why would the dog go willingly or was he forced out? Also, wouldn't Ron have had to come through the gate? If so, wouldn't the dog have tried to come back in. I hope these questions don't some dumb. I am just trying to get some ideas here. I discuss this case with Mr Alien and other people and want to sound intellegant.

Thanks again for all your input and answers. I truly appreciate it.

Wukong

05-10-2006, 09:11 PM

Bob,

I'll need to go back and research this again (It has been several years). As I recall, Heidstra last looked at a clock (which I'm sure was not in sync with an atomic clock) at 10:15. All of his times were elicited based off that time and are estimates. I believe Storfer's time to be much closer. Again I believe Aaronson had not looked at a clock and his (their) time was an estimate. I also recall that Pilanker seemed to be a little too obsessed with clocks and I'll have to read her testimony again.

The clock above my TV (a wall clock) is 10 minutes fast. It has been this way for over a year. I know it's still 10 minutes fast because when I am waiting for a show I use the clock to gauge exactly when it will start. The clock always hits 10 minutes after the hour, exactly, when the show starts. If Storfer has this clock on his TV I'm sure he had a pretty good idea how much it was off by and whether it had changed since he set it in April of '94.

Wukong

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Bob, According to you

10:30p - OJ is at Bundy with a Cap on his head, gloves on his hand with a long thin knife? Nicole comes outside with the Akita and she's not questioning why OJ is dressed like this and carrying a knife?????? TEN MINUTES LATER

10:40p - RGoldman comes up says "hey hey hey" OJ mumbles something knocks out NBS. OJ then kills Goldman, goes over a slits Nicoles throat, goes back over to Goldman stabs him multiple times to assure he's dead.

10:45p - OJ exits the scene, stops turns toward the Bundy gate for some unknown reason. OJ then proceeds to the rear gate followed by the Akita. OJ slams the gate, goes to the Bronco were he is seen by Heidstra wth his lights off?

How am I doing?

nettathirty, you aren't doing very well.

Again only speculation.

By about 10:30 PM Nicole decided not to wait for Ron Goldman any longer. Her bath was ready and she was looking forward to relaxing after a long day. Nicole went out her front door accompanied by her dog and unlatched the front gate so Ron could let himself in.

On her way back she encountered Simpson wearing his knit hat and gloves. The knife he carried didn't have a long blade. It was most likely a Swiss Army knife with a 3 1/2" single edge lockblade. The size knife that would have fit in the empty Swiss Army Knife box later found on the edge of Simpson's bath tub in his master bathroom.

As Simpson and Nicole talked Simpson put his dog outside the gate. The talking may have become an argument and then escalated to a physical confrontation. That's when the Akita started it's loud, unusual barking in the street outside the front gate.

Simpson hit Nicole on her forehead, possibly with the blunt end of the knife knocking her down. As she fell she hit the back of her head on something hard, possibly the cement stairs and was knocked unconscious. As Simpson stood over his exwife while their dog was baking and howling loudly and continually Ron Goldman walked in. Simpson may never have heard Ron come up, until Ron yelled at him surprising him. Simpson yelled back and attacked Ron.

After dropping Ron to the ground Simpson went back to his exwife and sliced her throat nearly decapitating her.

Simpson walked back down the walkway to the rear gate with his dog possibly following him. Simpson got into his car, drove out of the alley and stopped at Dorothy Street. Heidstra never said if the Bronco lights were on or off. Meanwhile the Akita went back down the walkway walking through Nicole's pooling blood, out the front gate and turned towards Dorothy Street and Simpson's Bronco.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-10-2006, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Bob,

What verdict would you have rendered based on the evidence presentation by Clark and Darden in the Criminal Trial?

nettathirty, guilty.

Despite the mistakes. Despite the speculation. The fact is that all of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. Nothing points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates him.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-11-2006, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by alien

bobaugust, I trust what you tell me or any comments you make on this board because you have done a lot of research and have something to back up what you say. IF I would have ever believed that OJ was innocent (not that I ever did), I would have changed my mind in a heart beat from what you have shown.

Thanks for your answer. So do you think that OJ put the dog outside and rang the door bell or did he hit Nicole and then put the dog outside the gate. And in your opinion, why would the dog go willingly or was he forced out? Also, wouldn't Ron have had to come through the gate? If so, wouldn't the dog have tried to come back in. I hope these questions don't some dumb. I am just trying to get some ideas here. I discuss this case with Mr Alien and other people and want to sound intellegant.

Thanks again for all your input and answers. I truly appreciate it.

alien, my posting to nettathirty as to my speculation of what may have happened answers some of your questions.

I agree with socaldiva about the Akita. Remember the dog was Simpson's dog as well as Nicole's dog. The Akita, Kato, had grown up at Rockingham and did what all male dogs do when ever they have the opportunity, they run out of houses and gates.

At Bundy Simpson probably closed the gate to keep the dog from coming back in. Closed but still unlatched until Ron opened the gate and entered yelling at Simpson, surprising him.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

05-11-2006, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I gave up on martin II and/or rayraytwo a long time ago -- it was meant for you netta.

Please do not take offense because none is intended.

I beg of you on bended knee, quit answering his posts. Put him on Ignore. Do you honestly believe that Martin II and Rayraytwo are going to wake up one day and get religion? And also miraculously change their minds as to OJ's innocence? Give it up girlfriend. It ain't going to happen. People in he!! will get a glass of ice water first. Trust me!

Long before you came to the OJ Board, all of the major Posters with a lot of expertise and knowlege of the OJ case, hashed and rehashed the very same posts and questions that are being hashed and rehashed today. They will never get it and in order to have some place to go, they just keep on repeating their assinine theories and fantasy stories that defy logic and common sense. And we just keep on eating it up and are begging for more.

I don't care how many reincarnated nics they come off with and how many reincarnated Posters they bring in to plump up their numbers, they are going to go to their graves believing in OJ's innocence.

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

05-11-2006, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Martin II

Your right! Goldman reaches and grabs the (cap and glove), why not go for the eyes and face.. You stick your finger in somebodies eye, they'll release you in a heartbeat!

Excuse me? What is this now? The Three Stooges fantasy/theory? Just one more assinine fantasy/theory to add to the pot. GMAFB!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

05-11-2006, 02:40 AM

2L8 4A D8

05-11-2006, 03:01 AM

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

Please, I don't need any more alternative theories from the NG's. Again, this has been hashed and rehashed for months, so there's no need for debating this theory. It has been debated to death ~ ad nauseum.

You really need to go to the 10 Year OJ Board and start reading the Threads and all of the posts. If you did, then we wouldn't have to hash and rehash all this. I find it so tiring and all of the Posters' energies could be put to better use

Pompous? That's laughable! :lol:

JMO and MOO!!

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 07:53 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by bobaugust
By about 10:30 PM Nicole decided not to wait for Ron Goldman any longer. Her bath was ready and she was looking forward to relaxing after a long day. Nicole went out her front door accompanied by her dog and unlatched the front gate so Ron could let himself in. I don't think I agree with this part of your post. I bleieve that the earlier phone call that upset her was from Orenthal. She knew Orenthal had been stalking her and obviously their crisis had come to a head as evidenced by the IRS letter and her leasing a new place to live away from him. She was concerned that housekeys were missing. I don't believe she would have put a knife out on a kitchen counter and then unlocked gates for someone to let themselves in. MOO

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* I don't think I agree with this part of your post. I bleieve that the earlier phone call that upset her was from Orenthal. She knew Orenthal had been stalking her and obviously their crisis had come to a head as evidenced by the IRS letter and her leasing a new place to live away from him. She was concerned that housekeys were missing. I don't believe she would have put a knife out on a kitchen counter and then unlocked gates for someone to let themselves in. MOO Also, I would think it more likely that she'd decided Ron wasn't coming (we don't actually know what the agreement was for him to drop off the glasses), she and Orenthal had the big fight on the phone and then she decided to relax by taking a nice bath. MOO

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 08:17 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
Please do not take offense because none is intended.

I beg of you on bended knee, quit answering his posts. I know, I know -- you're right. It's just my nature to holler "Watch Out!" when I see someone standing too close to the edge.....

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by martin II

the resturant people said he was to take them to her and she told her mother he would bring them that night right.
martin II Her mother called the restaurant and told them that she would have her daughter retrieve her glasses. Nicole called the restaurant and spoke with Ron -- we do not know what the agreement was as to when he would drop the glasses off. Nicole did not call her mother back and tell her about the conversation with Ron. IIRC

Wukong

05-11-2006, 08:38 AM

Martin,

Eva Stein's boyfriend, Louis Karpf, testified right after she did. Stein fell asleep at about 10:00 and was woken up at some point by barking dogs. She stayed in bed but never fell back asleep. She thought she had been awake, after hearing the dogs, for about a half hour when Karpf came home. She asked Karpf the next day what time he came home and he thought it was around 10:45 based on what time his plane landed and how long it usually takes him to get home. This is pretty weak information and I have to discount her time estimate of 10:15 for when the dog(s) started barking. Karpf testified that when he got home he went out to the mail box and did encounter the Akita on Bundy. The dog was barking "profusely" and was coming toward him. At this point he went back inside his gate, slamming it shut. I think this is interesting; a gate being slammed at around 10:45 (if his time is correct).

Pablo Fenjves also estimated his time based on how long he thought the 10:00 news had been on when he first heard the barking. This is closer than Stein's time but it is still not very accurate.

Storfer based his time on the clock on his TV which said 10:28 but was about 5 minutes fast and it had been about 3 minutes after he heard the barking by the time he looked at the clock which puts his time around 10:20. This is still an estimate but it seems to be the closest from what I've read so far. He said he looked out two of his windows to see if he could locate the source of the barking. One window overlooked the alley that ran behind his house, across Dorothy and past the back of Nicole's. He looked down the alley and did not see anything. He looked out the other window, which faced Dorothy, and did not see a dog but thought the barking came from the area around the corner of Dorothy and Bundy.

Ellen Aaronson and Danny Mandel were on a date and had walked to Mezzaluna from Aaronson's apartment, a few blocks from Nicole, and back again after dinner. Their times are also estimates based on the time stamp on the receipt which was 9:55 (actually said 8:55 but the clock on the credit card machine was never reset for daylight savings time. This was determined during earlier testimony about Nicole's receipt from dinner at Mezzaluna). They stayed at Mezzaluna about 10-15 minutes after paying then walked back to her apartment. It took about 15 minutes to get to Nicole's and another 4 minutes to her apartment. To me if they had left 10 minutes after paying the bill that would put them at Nicole's at around 10:20. Given the approximations of time they could have been there just before the dog started barking.

I don't know what to make of Pilnak. One thing is for sure, I couldn't spend 5 minutes with this woman before she would drive me crazy. If I was at her house that night there might have been two crime scenes on Bundy. Her's some sample testimony with some Wukoments in parentheses:

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. What time was that that you looked at the clock?
MS. PILNAK: 10:18.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And are you sure it was that time?
MS. PILNAK: I am a stickler with time. I don't go anywhere without two watches when it's important.
(Huh?)

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. What happened at 10:18, please?
MS. PILNAK: Umm, Judy had been over all day and I noticed the digital time. I said--I said to her, "Judy, it's 10:18. You've been here all day and I'm going out of town in a couple days. You're going to have to leave." So--
MR. COCHRAN: Well, you said--let's see now. You said that she's a friend, right?
MS. PILNAK: She's a friend.
(Some friend!)

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And again, you're pretty sure about that time?
MS. PILNAK: Well, I retimed everything. My little speech to her took about 45 seconds and the printing out was a minute and 25 seconds for each three-page copy. So that's--that's right about 3 minutes.
(I like that; "My little speech")

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. All right. So how did you--did you escort her out or tell us what you did when Judy Telander was leaving?
MS. PILNAK: Whenever my girlfriends leave my home, I always turn off the porch light, stand on the porch, watch until they get in their car and take off. Then I make them call me when they get home just so we know they're safe.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, when you walked out and you're out on the porch with Judy Telander, can you describe for the jury the condition of Bundy drive that particular night, that Sunday evening?
MS. PILNAK: That Sunday evening, it was exceptionally quiet. As long as I've lived in that home, I never remember a night when it was absolutely still. There wasn't a sound to be heard.
("And the Oscar goes to.....")

MR. COCHRAN: And so that we're clear, you--have you had occasion to measure the distance from the corner there of Dorothy to your residence?
MS. PILNAK: It's about 75 yards.
(I can picture this woman on her hands and knees with a tape measure)

MR. COCHRAN: And after Judy Telander left, you then called your mom at some location; is that correct?
MS. PILNAK: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And what time was it that you called your mother?
MS. PILNAK: 10:25.
MR. COCHRAN: And you have provided us with a phone bill which I would like to show to counsel, mark it as our next exhibit.
(She's on the phone at 10:25. She was, according to her anal estimate, outside at 10:21. Could it have been 10:19?)

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And tell us then what happened after you placed this phone call to your mother.
MS. PILNAK: Well, actually while I was speaking with my mother--it was a portable phone--I washed four glasses and put them away, crystal glasses, and I washed my face, brushed my teeth, flossed, and--and then I went into the kitchen to bring a bunch of newspapers and reading material into my bedroom and put those in the bedroom and then I went back into the bathroom.
(Crystal glasses no less. And who brushes and flosses while they're on the phone?)

And finally:

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall what you said at that time to the police, if anything?
MS. PILNAK: Well, because of what had happened, I was in shock and I--they asked me about what time I thought I heard the dogs barking, and I remember saying something around 11:00, 11:30.

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You don't seem to understand that the blood ran under the gate & down the walkway. :rolleyes: The gate was open when the bodies were discovered -- that's how Nicole's body was seen from the sidewalk. There were paw prints around the body, on the walkway and on the sidewalk outside of the fenced area. Odd that all the barking that disturbed neighbors didn't wake her children up. I mean, if other people living a distance away could hear it over their tv's. . . . .

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
i assume that most think ron told nicole that he would drop them off that night because he did just that.
martin ii Hmmm......I always the assumed that until the questions about the dog being out of the gate came up. Now, I think I lean more towards, "If I get out of here on time, I'll drop them off tonight. If not, I'll do it tomorrow." Since Nicole had not made arrangements with her mother to get the glasses from Nicole to her mother, it probably didn't matter if it was that night or the next day. MOO

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I don't remember the gate being open. How did it remain open?
The barking dog not waking up the children doesn't surprise me. I've seen kids sleep through barking dogs many times. I doubt we heard any neighbors say they were sleeping & the dog woke them up. I'll go back :read: the testimony of the guy that found the bodies -- I thought I remembered him saying that when he peered up the walkway, he saw her body. I've never had dogs so I don't have any experience to draw on. I recall Nicole asking Orenthal to keep his voice down in the 911 call for fear he'd wake the children; the neighbor testified what a quiet night it was and that the barking was different because it was so loud and persistent; the front door was open so the sound would carry. Didn't the one neightbor (Stein) say she woke up to the dog(s) barking?

Wukong

05-11-2006, 10:02 AM

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 10:23 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by socaldiva
With dogs barking, it's probably hit or miss as to whether the kids would wake up, but I don't find it at all odd that they didn't. I don't think I did initially -- it wasn't until the posts about how long and loud and persistent the barking was. Then I thought about the door open for the sound to carry inside. I'm not looking for a boogey-man -- just think it's a little odd -- not necessarily sinister.

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 10:51 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by socaldiva
I just recalled the gate being the type that you could see through. Just to keep things clear for the NGs, found this. Cochran cross-examination of Boztepe:

"Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN YOU'VE DESCRIBED FOR US HOW YOU -- THE DOG PULLED YOU ALONG THE STREET AND YOU ENDED UP AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY, RIGHT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE PHOTOGRAPH -- WITHOUT PUTTING THAT PHOTOGRAPH BACK UP THERE, WHEN YOU STOPPED AND YOUR ATTENTION WAS TURNED TO YOUR RIGHT UP THIS WALKWAY, YOU SAW A LOT OF BLOOD FOR ONE THING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU SAW A GATE THAT WAS OPEN; WAS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DIDN'T SEE THE GATE.

Q: YOU DIDN'T SEE THE GATE, BUT YOU SAW THE BODY OF A WOMAN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

alien

05-11-2006, 01:13 PM

Sometimes I think I ask questions that may have already been answered and if that is the case, please forgive me.

An interesting question was asked earlier. If the Akita was out in the street barking wouldn't Ron have seen him?

Could it be that the dog didn't start barking until after the murders because possibly OJ and Nicole arguing wasn't something strange for the Akita to witness?

It is amazing how this whole dog thing can bring forth a lot of information.

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I don't think the Akita was out on the street barking prior to the murders. I think he might have just been out wandering around when Ron arrived & might not have seen him. I think he started barking after the murders because he knew that something was wrong & he was distraught. Here's my theory. Nicole hears something outside -- it's Orenthal having come through the front gate (would have wanted to make sure no one was with Nicole). He surprises her and she him -- remember, she would have been illuminated by the light from inside the house and would have been stepping out into the dark. He would have been in the dark looking toward the light. She would not have necessarily cried out -- the history shows that. He hit her and knocked her to the ground where she hit her head on the steps knocking her unconcious. At about that time, Ron walked up -- the gate is open and he sees Orenthal bent over Nicole. Ron calls out, "Hey, hey, hey." Orenthal answers something back as he moves toward Ron -- Ron is surprised to see who it is. I'm sure Ron must have recognized the attacker as Orenthal. The minute/minute and a half struggle ensues before Ron's aorta is severed and he bleeds to death. Orenthal walks back to Nicole's body and slits her throat. He then walks back to Ron's body and checks that he is dead. During the time he is checking Ron, Nicole is bleeding to death. When Orenthal starts back up the walk toward Nicole, he steps in her blood and leaves his trail of footprints. Evidence shows that he turned around and started back toward the front of the house -- possibly thinking of leaving the way he'd come? The Akita comes out as Orenthal is leaving the property and the dog stresses and begins barking. MOO

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I think your theory makes sense, but you think he parked behind the condo in the alley & walked around the corner to the front of Bundy? Hmmm.....I think he just may have but I don't necessarily believe he parked in the alley. Have you ever heard what he would do when he spied on her before? I don't think I have but I doubt he'd park where anyone would see his car and associate it with her house. I think he could have still left by the back gate (obviously) and that may also have been one of the things that incited the Akita......not being able to follow him through a gate so running out through the open gate down to the corner where he vehicle would have left the scene from.

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

OJ is wearing cap, gloves and carrying a knife? Yes -- as I've posted before, because of things learned on this board and researched in the testimony of both trials and in the books written about the murders, I do believe he went there to kill her. As far as him wearing the cap and gloves -- He knew that he'd been seen outside her home in the past. I don't think he meant it as any kind of a disguise that would not make him recognizable but I do believe he was dressed in a disguise that would make him blend into the shadows. He needed the knife to murder her.

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I'm pretty sure that the blood drops stopped at a given point where the property ends & the alley begins, leading some to believe he parked there. Otherwise, the blood drops would have continued. Also, IIRC there was some change dropped as though he fumbled for his keys (I hope I'm not hallucinating here lol). I don't think you're hallucinating -- lol. I remember the blood drops being close to the change that was dropped in the alley. I just don't necessarily believe that's where his truck was parked. He would have still been fumbling for his keys and lost the change -- the in and out of his pocket could have momentarily slowed the bleeding or he could have realized he was bleeding and stuck his hand in his pocket -- which is what I believe he did at the airport and on the plane. Don't you think that someone would have seen his truck back there if he had been parked directly behind the house?

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Whew...I was worried that I was following suit with some posters & beginning to make my own stuff up :D

I understand your point as to why would he park there & not worry about being seen. But, I would think the same would hold true to parking elsewhere & walking up the front of Bundy. LOL -- I was starting to think the same thing about me when I started to post my theory.

Wasn't the car Ron had driven over in parked around the corner and not identified for days? But I think that was what the dark workout suit and cap were to accomplish. If someone saw him walking down that sidewalk nothing would be thought of it as long as no one turned up dead that night but since no one saw him, it became a moot point.

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 04:00 PM

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
the front gate latch was broken and had to be opened from inside. that is why it is assumed that nicole went out to the gate to unlock it for ron. I understood that the automatic opener to the gate is what was broken -- I don't believe I've heard anyone say that the gate could not be opened with a key.

alien

05-11-2006, 04:02 PM

Hey Ya'll

Thanks for responding to my question about the Akita.

I absolutely have to get some sleep for my overnight shift and will respond tonight at work.

Everyone have a good rest of the day. :)

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by martin II

everyone in the neighborhood knew oj on sight and knew that white bronco was his. regardless of where it was parked.
martin II This is kind of a moot issue since most everyone would recognize Orenthal on sight although how many knew his vehicle is debatable. The Bronco was a 1994 and we don't know how long he'd had it or how many times he'd been around her house in it. In his deposition he talked about driving to the back to pick up and drop off kids. Did I read somewhere that there was no parking on Bundy?

So, now you believe that it was Orenthal that Shively recognized at the intersection that night?

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by martin II

FBG

If Stein next door neighbor or any of nicoles closeby neighbors had seen the white bronco pull up and a person in dark clothes get out, i think they would have said to themselves, 'OH THERE IS OJ AND HE HAS ON DARK CLOTHES"
martin II Exactly -- so what's your point? The point I was making is that had he been seen that night, no one would have thought anything of it (proven by him and Kato going for a burger while he was wearing the dark sweatsuit). That's why I believe he parked away from her house and was dressed in dark clothes. He had to have intended to do something or there would have been no reason for him to have on the fur lined gloves (that pictures show to be tight and short), old ski cap and BM (ugly azz) shoes.

Had he been seen before the murders, Nicole and Ron would have lived that night. MOO

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

According to this picture, Heidstra was terribly mistaken! (ie: Voices, Gate slam, and Barking) :confused:

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by martin II

he picked up or dropped of the kids frequently. as Pilanker said, that was a very small little community. everyone knew everyone.
everyone knew nicole simpson was oj ex wife and that she lived in the Bundy condo. Pilanker even knew who nicole jogged with 3-4 times a week.
martin II That was how the neighbors were able to identify him when he was seen outside of her house spying on her.

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by martin II

POINT
OJ would never have thought that he would not be seen unless he was forced to go there.
martin II That's silly -- we know from his own statement and the neighbors that he'd been he'd been seen spying on her. He thought if he went there under the cover of darkness and dressed not to be seen, that he could get away with it.

You've never told me how you think his blood, hair, footprints, cap, glove and bronco fiber got to the scene.

fbgweezer

05-11-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by martin II

POINT
OJ would never have thought that he would not be seen unless he was forced to go there.
martin II The only thing that forced Orenthal to Bundy that night was his insanity and controlling, abusive personality -- Nicole had finally walked away and nothing (not the IRS letter, not the threats that made her cry) was changing it. She'd snubbed him at the concert and excised him from the family. He must have been eat up with hate that night. MOO

Wukong

05-11-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by martin II

as Pilanker said, that was a very small little community. everyone knew everyone.
everyone knew nicole simpson was oj ex wife and that she lived in the Bundy condo. Pilanker even knew who nicole jogged with 3-4 times a week.
martin II

Pilanker testified that she had no idea Nicole even lived on Bundy, She only saw her jogging.

If OJ was so recognizable why did Nicole's neighbors call the police on him when he had been skulking around outside her condo at an earlier date. They later felt bad because they did not recognize it was OJ, whom they knew otherwise.

Wukong

Wukong

05-11-2006, 05:11 PM

Testimony from Carl Colby, Nicole's neighbor who called the cops on OJ.

Q: OKAY. SO NICOLE BROWN'S HOME WAS DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO YOURS DURING APRIL OF 1992; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: YOU HAVE A SON; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES. WE HAVE A SON NOW SIX YEARS OLD WHO WAS IN SCHOOL WITH JUSTIN SIMPSON, O.J.'S SON, AND THEY WERE BEST FRIENDS AND THEY SAW EACH OTHER CONSTANTLY AND, UMM, WHEN THEY MOVED IN, ACTUALLY NEXT DOOR, IT WAS A BIG SURPRISE AND A TERRIFIC EVENT BECAUSE TWO FRIENDS WHO WENT TO SCHOOL TOGETHER WERE NOW LIVING SIDE-BY-SIDE, SO THEY SAW EACH OTHER NEARLY EVERY DAY.
Q: OKAY. AND YOU BECAME ACQUAINTED WITH THE DEFENDANT HERE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHAT CAUSED YOU TO CALL 911?
A: WELL, IT WAS AN EVENING APPROXIMATELY 10:30 OR ELEVEN O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, AND IT IS A VERY -- IT IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, VERY QUIET, AND SOMETIMES BEFORE RETIRING I LOOK -- JUST GO CHECK THE LOCKS AND LOOK AROUND DOWNSTAIRS AND MAKE SURE THE LIGHTS ARE OFF AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I HAPPENED TO LOOK OUTSIDE AND I SAW A MAN OUTSIDE ON THE SIDEWALK.
Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT MAN DOING?
A: UMM, HE WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK LOOKING AT WHAT APPARENTLY WAS THE RESIDENCE NEXT DOOR, DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF US.
Q: AND WHAT TIME OF THE NIGHT WAS THIS?
A: I WOULD SAY IT WAS APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 10:30 AND ELEVEN O'CLOCK THAT NIGHT.
Q: SO THE MAN WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK?
A: YES. INITIALLY WHEN I SPOTTED HIM HE WAS STANDING ABOUT FIVE YARDS SOUTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AND RELATIVELY STATIONARY LOOKING AT THE HOUSE AND THEN SINCE I SAW HIM I WAS CURIOUS AND I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM, SO I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, WHAT IS A MAN OF THIS DESCRIPTION DOING OUTSIDE AT THAT TIME, SO --

NOTE: "A man of this description" This is an exclusive neighborhood, not too many black folks walking around.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHEN YOU CALLED 911 DID YOU CONTINUE TO WATCH THE MAN?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: OKAY. WHAT DID YOU SEE THE MAN DO AFTER YOU CALLED 911?
A: HE WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POSITION AND LOOKED UPON -- AT THE RESIDENCE AND THEN LEFT.
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AS THE MAN LEFT, DID YOU RECOGNIZE HIM?
A: YES, I DID. AFTER I HAD MADE THE CALL I RECOGNIZED HIM.
Q: AND WHO WAS THAT MAN?
A: IT WAS MR. SIMPSON.

http://walraven.org/simpson/feb03.html

Wukong

05-11-2006, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Heidstra was mistaken, he testified the noises came from NBS. He was not in a position to be sure of his claim!

Netta,

I'm not sure he was mistaken but I agree he was not in position to be sure where the sounds he heard came from. Karpf had slammed his gate around the same time and he lived right next door to Nicole. Heidstra was a block away and shielded by houses and trees.

Wukong

Wukong

05-11-2006, 05:45 PM

Netta,

The account of the watch is an interesting fact that was never explored in either trial. It was only briefly mentioned in either the grand jury or prelims by Lange (I think, maybe Vannatter). I can see why neither side wanted to get into this issue. The defense was trying to push the timeline as late as possible and for the prosecution there was the problem of OJ's phone call of the same time. I would think this would favor the defense but unfortunately they could not base the whole case around a broken watch that may have been set wrong to begin with.

Brian

Wukong

05-11-2006, 05:49 PM

Martin and Socal,

OK, maybe I need to stop making long posts because obviously neither of you read the testimony I posted above with my comments included. If you read Colby's testimony it is clear that he was concerned because of this statement:

SO I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, WHAT IS A MAN OF THIS DESCRIPTION DOING OUTSIDE AT THAT TIME,

This was my comment just below his statement:

NOTE: "A man of this description" This is an exclusive neighborhood, not too many black folks walking around.

Wukong

Wukong

05-11-2006, 05:53 PM

I should include Netta in my rant because he posted that OJ was looking in windows. He was not looking in windows, he was on the sidewalk looking at Nicole's house.

If you read Colby's full testimony it is quite obvious he was worried because there was a black man walking around outside. The attorney was trying to get him to admit this and the judge kept stopping this line of questioning.

Wukong

Wukong

05-11-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by martin II

netta

GOOD ONE!!!!!

Wukong
you gotta agree with that one.:beer:
martin II

Martin,

I included you because of this post and your M.O. of the past. When you posted this I had already agreed with Netta.

Maybe reading isn't your problem but comprehension does seem to be an issue.

Wukong

Wukong

05-11-2006, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Martin II

Some of the G's made every little thing out to be something sinister. When it could have had a different meaning altogether.

That is a double edge sword that cuts both ways Netta. For example; Vannatter carrying the vial of blood to Fung at the crime scene for one.

Wukong

Wukong

05-11-2006, 07:58 PM

Martin,

If OJ wasn't involved with illegal businesses that the IRS would have loved to know about, maybe I wouldn't see a sinister motive in him writing an IRS letter.

Wukong

Wukong

05-11-2006, 10:59 PM

Mario G Nitrini III now has his own website. I encourage everyone interested in OJ, Pellicano and other unsavory characters to check it out. It's called "Cold Cases in Tinsletown". If I know Mario this will be a no BS site, just the facts.

http://tinseltowncoldcase.blogspot.com/

Wukong

bobaugust

05-11-2006, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by martin II
bob

questions:
1. oj encountered nicole and the dog when she came out to
unlock the gate.
2. did nicole stand there looking at oj in dark suit gloves,hat and
a knife while he put the dog outside the gate and she did not
flee back into the house? or yell HELP.
3. if oj put the dog in the street and the dog was barking and ron
arrived immediately when oj attacked nicole. why didn't ron
see and or hear the dog on bundy in front of the condo
barking?
martin II

martin II, I thought the scenario I presented was pretty clear.

1. Simpson encountered Nicole after she had unlatched the front gate and was returning to her front door.

2. Yes, but Simpson may have not had the knife in his hands.

3. After Simpson let the dog out the gate, he and Nicole may have talked, then argued which escalated to a physical confrontation. That's when Simpson may have pulled his knife. He hit Nicole on her forehead, maybe with the blunt end of the knife knocking her down. When she fell she hit the back of her head on something hard, possibly one of the cement steps, and she was knocked unconscious. As Simpson stood over Nicole and the Akita was barking Ron walked in and yelled at Simpson surprising him.

Ron most likely did see and hear the dog barking in the street outside the front gate. That may be why he drove past the house and parked on Dorothy Street. Ron walked back and when he opened the front gate the barking Akita could very well have entered with him.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

05-11-2006, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by martin II

nope
martin II

How many times do you have to be told to "snip" in order to save Bandwidth? Geez Louise!

:no:

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by martin II

bob
was pilanker inside her house drying her hair at about 10:30 when she said she heard the dog bark. wonder if she washed her hair before drying it and did not hear a dog before 10:30p
martin II

martin II, the witness's name is Denise Pilnak.

I have no idea where you got the story that she was drying her hair. Pilnak testified that she went outside about 10:20 with her friend Judy Telander who was leaving to drive home. She said the night was very quiet and still and neither of them heard any dog barking.

Pilnak said after her friend left she went back into her house and called her mother. Her telephone records show that call was placed at 10:25 and lasted three minutes.

After the call she said she went into her kitchen and picked up some newspapers and then went to her bathroom. That's when she heard a dog barking. She said it was about 10:33 to 10:35.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Her mother called the restaurant and told them that she would have her daughter retrieve her glasses. Nicole called the restaurant and spoke with Ron -- we do not know what the agreement was as to when he would drop the glasses off. Nicole did not call her mother back and tell her about the conversation with Ron. IIRC

fbgweezer, after Ron spoke with Nicole he asked Karen Crawford for Juditha Brown's eyeglasses and told Crawford he was going to drop the eyeglasses off at Nicole's.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

05-12-2006, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, yes I believe that Simpson put the Akita outside the gate after he arrived at Bundy.

You seem to be getting confused with estimated times.

bobaugust

No disrespect Bob, but how could OJ put Kato outside the gate after he arrived at Bundy without alerting Nicole? IMO the front gate was left open by Ron Goldman and of course he wasn't given the option of being able to close it. After OJ left, Kato started his wailing and eventually went out the open front gate on to Bundy. If I am wrong, I stand corrected!

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Wukong
Martin,

Eva Stein's boyfriend, Louis Karpf, testified right after she did. Stein fell asleep at about 10:00 and was woken up at some point by barking dogs. She stayed in bed but never fell back asleep. She thought she had been awake, after hearing the dogs, for about a half hour when Karpf came home. She asked Karpf the next day what time he came home and he thought it was around 10:45 based on what time his plane landed and how long it usually takes him to get home. This is pretty weak information and I have to discount her time estimate of 10:15 for when the dog(s) started barking. Karpf testified that when he got home he went out to the mail box and did encounter the Akita on Bundy. The dog was barking "profusely" and was coming toward him. At this point he went back inside his gate, slamming it shut. I think this is interesting; a gate being slammed at around 10:45 (if his time is correct).

Brian, Karpf never said he slammed his gate. Dick Wagner made that up. Storfer's time estimate of 10:20 is contradicted by Denise Pilnak and Judy Telander who were outside talking between 10:20 and 10:25. Telander than got in her car and drove to the intersection of Dorothy and Bundy. She had her window down and never heard any dog barking. Storfer is also contradicted by Mandel and Aaronson who walked by Nicole's condo before 10:30 and never heard any dog barking. Also contradicted by Robert Heidstra who said as he approached Bundy about 10:30, 10:35 the dog started to bark. He never heard any barking before that.

According to Pilnak's telephone records she called her mother at 10:25 and spoke with her for three minutes. She said she picked some newspapers up and then went to her bathroom. When she was in her bathroom she first heard the dog barking. She said that was about 10:33 to 10:35,

February 8, 1995 Louis Karpf

Q SO 10:45 OR -47, YOU SAW THE DOG?
A I WOULD SAY THAT'S PRETTY ACCURATE.
Q AND WHERE IN THE STREET WAS THE DOG WHEN YOU SAW IT?
A AT THAT POINT, IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET JUST RUNNING OR WALKING AIMLESSLY.
Q AND BARKING?
A BARKING VERY LOUDLY.
Q AND WHAT DID IT DO WHEN YOU APPROACHED YOUR MAIL BOX?
A IT STARTED TO APPROACH ME, WHICH IT DID SCARE ME. SO I ACTUALLY RETREATED BACK INSIDE MY GATE UNTIL IT MOVED ON.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by martin II

Witnesses that lived in and at the corner of dorothy and the alley hear barking 10: 15 to 10:20/10:25 comming from the alley at Dorothy.
martin II

martin II, no, only one witness, Eva Stein, said that she thought the barking she heard was coming from the end of the alley where the street starts. The time Stein thought she heard the dog(s) barking was an estimate based on an estimate.

Five witnesses outside at that time never heard any barking.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by martin II

for me here is the issue

three witnessese one that lives next to nicloe, one that lives in the alley, and one that lives on the corner of dorothy and the alley say they remember hearing the dog barking anywhere from 10:15 to 10: 20/10:28 and the barking was comming from the alley or near the alley and dorothy.

so the dog out the gate at 10:30
people hear barking starting from 10:15 --10:28

you figure
martin II

martin II, you're confused because you keep avoiding the fact that five witnesses who were outside never heard any barking at the time the two witnesses in their house said they thought they heard barking.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Ron's car sitting unnoticed does ring a bell. It's been many years since I drove by 875 South Bundy & I wish I had paid better attention to the parking & the distance from the alley etc.

socaldiva, West LA patrol officers wrote down all of the license numbers of cars parked near Bundy the morning after the murders and started tracking down the owners.

Later that afternoon the owner of a red Toyota was contacted. Andrea Scott told the police that she had loaned her car to her friend, Ron Goldman. The detectives went to her house and showed her the keys that were found near Ron's body and she identified them as her keys.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

According to this picture, Heidstra was terribly mistaken! (ie: Voices, Gate slam, and Barking)

nettathirty, what do you see in that picture that contradicts what Heidstra said?

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Heidstra was mistaken, he testified the noises came from NBS. He was not in a position to be sure of his claim!

nettathirty, yes he was.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Wukong

Netta,

I'm not sure he was mistaken but I agree he was not in position to be sure where the sounds he heard came from. Karpf had slammed his gate around the same time and he lived right next door to Nicole. Heidstra was a block away and shielded by houses and trees.

Wukong

Brian, Karpf never said he slammed his gate.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Brian,

Nicoles watch was broken and the time was stuck at 10:03. According to OJs phone records he placed his last call to Paula at that same time, coincident or something else?

nettathirty, that's not correct.

Nicole's watch was not broken. There was only one photograph taken of Nicole showing the time on her watch as 10:03. That photograph could have been taken after 10:00 the morning after the murders.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

No disrespect Bob, but how could OJ put Kato outside the gate after he arrived at Bundy without alerting Nicole? IMO the front gate was left open by Ron Goldman and of course he wasn't given the option of being able to close it. After OJ left, Kato started his wailing and eventually went out the open front gate on to Bundy. If I am wrong, I stand corrected!

2LB 4A D8, I've posted what I believe could have happened.

I'll repeat it as briefly as I can

Nicole walked out of her front door accompanied by her dog to unlatch the gate so Ron could let himself in when he finally arrived.
On her way back to the front door she encountered Simpson who had parked his Bronco in the alley and had made his way down the walkway to the front of the condo.
As Simpson and Nicole talked, Simpson opened the front gate and let the dog out and then closed it behind him.
The talking turned to arguing and then escalated to a physical confrontation.
The Akita reacted by barking loudly and strangely,
Simpson hit Nicole on her forehead, maybe with the blunt end of his knife, knocking her down.
When she fell she hit the back of her head on something hard, possibly one of the cement steps, knocking her unconscious..
As Simpson was standing over his ex wife and the Akita was barking loudly and continuously Goldman walked in probably with the Akita following him, and yelled at Simpson surprising him.
Simpson yelled back and attacked Ron.
After dropping Ron to the ground to bleed to death Simpson returned to Nicole and sliced her throat.
Simpson walked back down the walkway and closed the rear gate behind him.
The Akita walked through Nicole's pooling blood and went out the front gate turning towards Dorothy St. where Simpson's Bronco was before it turned south on Bundy and sped away.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

05-12-2006, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Hmmm.....I think he just may have but I don't necessarily believe he parked in the alley. Have you ever heard what he would do when he spied on her before? I don't think I have but I doubt he'd park where anyone would see his car and associate it with her house. I think he could have still left by the back gate (obviously) and that may also have been one of the things that incited the Akita......not being able to follow him through a gate so running out through the open gate down to the corner where he vehicle would have left the scene from.

My 2 Cents for whatever it's worth.

OJ parks Bronco in the alley behind the condo because at that time no parking was allowed on Bundy.

Nicole is in the condo with Kato; she hears something. Thinking that it might be Ron, she goes out to greet him and let him in, leaving the condo door open. Kato stays in the condo.

OJ comes up behind Nicole and knocks her unconscious. Just as he was about to finish her off, in walks Ron Goldman through the front gate, which he is unable to close. Ron yells "Hey, Hey, Hey" and then OJ came at him like a bat out of hell. Poor Ron didn't stand a chance.

There is no yelling or screaming from Nicole and Ron because they didn't know what hit them. It all happened so fast and furious.

After OJ goes over and finishes off Nicole and leaves, it is then that Kato came out of the condo. Seeing his Mistress it was then that Kato started his wailing/barking. Kato then made it out of the open front gate on to Bundy.

When Kato was found, he was extremely agitated and distressed and would not settle down. Gee, I wonder why?

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

My 2 Cents for whatever it's worth.

OJ parks Bronco in the alley behind the condo because at that time no parking was allowed on Bundy.

2LB 4A D8, you say there was no parking on Bundy at the time of the murders.

What's your source for that?

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

05-12-2006, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

2LB 4A D8, you say there was no parking on Bundy at the time of the murders.

What's your source for that?

bobaugust

Bob, my only source is that my sister used to live on Bundy. At the time, Bundy was a very busy street with only one lane in each direction. That's why there was no parking on Bundy. Now what Bundy is like today, I haven't the foggiest.

Is this satisfactory? I hope so. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Bob, my only source is that my sister used to live on Bundy. At the time, Bundy was a very busy street with only one lane in each direction. That's why there was no parking on Bundy. Now what Bundy is like today, I haven't the foggiest.

Is this satisfactory? I hope so. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.

JMO and MOO!!

2LB 4A D8, that's interesting. I never heard that before.

Did your sister live near Bundy?

Wukong

05-12-2006, 03:08 AM

Bob,

I have to disagree with you on a few points:

I also read the Karpf testimony you posted about the dog approaching him while he was getting his mail. He said he was scared and retreated inside his gate. Have you seen his gate? It is the same as Nicole's. It is large and it would clang when you shut it, and I think he would shut it a little harder than normal especially when getting away from barking dog he was scared of. Just because Karpf didn't specifically say he slammed his gate, everything he said about this incident certainly seems to suggest he did, or at least closed it with a little more force than usual. If Wagner says the same thing then I guess it's because he thought this through the same way I did, like an engineer.

I think Pilnak and Telander's time estimate is contradicted by Storfer. He was closer to where the dog was barking and he looked at his clock at that time. It may have been 5 minutes off but he knew that. Something about Pilnak's testimony seems way too contrived. Can you honestly say there was nothing strange about her testimony? Yes, she was on the phone with her mother at 10:25 but was also washing dishes (crystal glasses), brushing her teeth and flossing at the same time. She was running around gathering papers, washing her face and didn't hear the dog until she stopped all her activities. She was also inside her house a block and a half away and across the street from Nicole at 10:25. How can she be outside talking with Telander at 10:25 and be on the phone with her mother at the same time? Something doesn't sit right with me about this woman.

When Heidstra heard the voices he was in the alley behind the houses and heavy foliage on the opposite side of Bundy from Nicole. I'm re-reading his testimony now and will post more later on Heidstra.

Brian

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Wukong
Bob,

I have to disagree with you on a few points:

I also read the Karpf testimony you posted about the dog approaching him while he was getting his mail. He said he was scared and retreated inside his gate. Have you seen his gate? It is the same as Nicole's. It is large and it would clang when you shut it, and I think he would shut it a little harder than normal especially when getting away from barking dog he was scared of. Just because Karpf didn't specifically say he slammed his gate, everything he said about this incident certainly seems to suggest he did, or at least closed it with a little more force than usual. If Wagner says the same thing then I guess it's because he thought this through the same way I did, like an engineer.

I think Pilnak and Telander's time estimate is contradicted by Storfer. He was closer to where the dog was barking and he looked at his clock at that time. It may have been 5 minutes off but he knew that. Something about Pilnak's testimony seems way too contrived. Can you honestly say there was nothing strange about her testimony? Yes, she was on the phone with her mother at 10:25 but was also washing dishes (crystal glasses), brushing her teeth and flossing at the same time. She was running around gathering papers, washing her face and didn't hear the dog until she stopped all her activities. She was also inside her house a block and a half away and across the street from Nicole at 10:25. How can she be outside talking with Telander at 10:25 and be on the phone with her mother at the same time? Something doesn't sit right with me about this woman.

When Heidstra heard the voices he was in the alley behind the houses and heavy foliage on the opposite side of Bundy from Nicole. I'm re-reading his testimony now and will post more later on Heidstra.

Brian

Brian, Karpf said "it started to approach me, which it did scare me so I actually retreated back inside my gate." I'm sorry but I don't interpret that as slamming his gate. Besides the fact that happened about five of so minutes after Heidstra said he heard Nicole's gate slam.

Heidstra said he heard the two male voices and then about 15 seconds later heard Nicole's front gate slam. Heidstra said he saw the Jeep like vehicle speed away down Bundy about five minutes later. Karpf said he got home about 10:45. That would have been about the same time Heidstra saw the Jeep like vehicle or just after it left .

I find Pilnak's time estimates more supported than any other witness because of her telephone records. Pilnak's telephone records show she called her mother at 10:25. Estimated times supported by telephone records are far more reliable than other estimated times.

Pilnak said that before she and Telander went outside Telander was working on Pilnak's computer in her office in her house and the front windows in the office were open. Windows on the north, right on Bundy. She said "This room is in the front of my house and you can hear just about every noise on Bundy from it."

Pilnak said that she was standing on her front porch at 10:21 PM while telander was in the street by her car. She told how exceptionally quiet the night was. Neither heard any dog barking.

Telander testified that she was printing letters on Pilnak's computer when Pilnak told her she looked at her watch and it was 10:18 and she had to leave for Aspen in two days so Telander had to leave. Telander looked at her watch and saw the same time. Telander said she printed out two more copies of the letter which took a about a minute and a half for each letter so it wa about 10:21 when Pilnak walked her to her car.

Pilnak didn't live very far from Nicole. She was a runner and had measured the distance from her house to Dorothy street as 75 yards.

The fact is that Pilnak was outside sometime before the 10:25 telephone call and there was no dog barking. That fact alone I believe makes her time estimates far more reliable than Storfer's. In addition what she says is supported by Telander, Mandel, Aaronson, and Heidstra.

bobaugust

Wukong

05-12-2006, 05:16 AM

Bob,

I'm still at work and have not had a chance to read Heidstra testimony. As far as Karpf I assume you believe he gently closed his gate or didn't close it at all?

Yesterday I read all of Pilnak's testimony and posted some of it on a previous page here. I think the woman has something wrong with her. You posted previously (and it was in her testimony also) that she was on the porch from 10:21 to 10:25. She can't be on the porch at 10:25 and be talking to her mother at 10:25. I don't know, I just have problems with her for some reason, I just get a sense of over eagerness from her testimony. I'll post something more difinitive later.

Brian

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Brian,
You know why! They weren't looking to see if it were OJ, which should have been their first thought. They saw a Black Man looking in a window and perceived it to be a crime in progress.

IMO. Why would that have been their first thought? He didn't live there and had no business spying on her.

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Perception: Gives you the ability to believe and see things that aren't there!

Domestic Abuse: Pictures, police reports, victim's statement and perpetrator's statement gives you the ability to believe and see things that are there! Domestic Abuse by Orenthal James Simpson.

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

The IRS letters:

What if it was an attempt by OJ to show he wasn't involved in anything that could be perceived as deceiving the Federal Govt.

Excised him from the family:

OJ owned the Browns by your own account. Who do you think the Browns would have catered to OJ, or Nicole? If he wanted to show he wasn't involved in anything, why not have his attorney notify the IRS instead of the letter to Nicole. Or, better yet, why send the letter at all -- she had already leased a house away from Brentwood. Maybe Orenthal didn't know about her plans?

I've never, ever said Orenthal owned the Browns -- another of your distortions. In fact, I've never talked about the Browns. Seems to me that they've done okay without the murderer. I do think they liked Orenthal and since there is no evidence that she had ever shared the incidents of abuse with them, they would not have known about that part of him. I think you can look at the Browns after the murders and know that they supported and loved Nicole.

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Wukong

Netta,

I'm not sure he was mistaken but I agree he was not in position to be sure where the sounds he heard came from. Karpf had slammed his gate around the same time and he lived right next door to Nicole. Heidstra was a block away and shielded by houses and trees.

Wukong If the slamming gate was Nicole's next door neighbor, wouldn't that mean that Heidstra could in fact judge the direction where the sounds were coming from?

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Wukong
Testimony from Carl Colby, Nicole's neighbor who called the cops on OJ. http://walraven.org/simpson/feb03.html Thank you Wukong.

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Rubbish. A man peering in a window would be suspect, regardless of color. imo I can understand why the neighbor came forward -- Especialy when that woman eventually turns up murdered and all evidence points to her stalker. MOO

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Brian,

Nicoles watch was broken and the time was stuck at 10:03. According to OJs phone records he placed his last call to Paula at that same time, coincident or something else? See how good these boards can be? I've not heard anything about Nicole's watch -- can you give me a link so I can read up on it?

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

fbgweezer, after Ron spoke with Nicole he asked Karen Crawford for Juditha Brown's eyeglasses and told Crawford he was going to drop the eyeglasses off at Nicole's.

bobaugust Thank you. My questions on this were more about what Ron and Nicole had agreed to. The defense wanted to trash Nicole and her character by implying that the bathtub and candles were for a rendevous with Ron. I don't believe this because I think had they arranged a "get together", Ron wouldn't have been sitting around the restaurant after his shift talking to his co-workers and making arrangements to meet a buddy later. MOO

Can you clarify something for me please. My understanding is that Nicole's condo was within walking distance of Ron's apartment -- am I wrong? So I don't understand why he would have driven to Nicole's. Of course, I would not be surprised to find that I've got this all twisted around -- LOL.

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by martin II

was oj peeking in a window or standing five feet from the house looking at the house? Depends on which incident you're asking about -- He'd done both on different occasions.

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by martin II

is was reported that ron had a appointment with some friends later on. That he went home borrowed a car and went to nicoles
directly from his home. IIRC, he didn't borrow a car -- his girlfriend was out of town and he was driving her car while she was gone.

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by martin II

talking about the neighbor in wukongs post that we discussed" black man on street"
martin Ahh, that incident was when he was standing/walking around on the SIDEWALK -- no one said 'street'

Wukong

05-12-2006, 09:10 AM

Colby testified that OJ was pacing back and forth on the sidewalk. He would walk up to where the sidewalk met the driveway and stare at Nicole's house. This was the house on Gretna Green so I'm not sure how far back the house was set from the sidewalk.

Nicole's watch: Here is the only reference I have ever found about the watch. This is from the Grand jury hearings, Det. Lange testifying:

THIS IS THE OPEN GATE THAT SWINGS OUT; THIS IS A GATE THAT IS STATIONERY. HER FEET WERE BENEATH THIS GATE. IT'S NOT DEPICTED HERE REAL WELL, BUT HER FEET ARE BELOW THE LOWER RUNG OF THIS FIXED GATE. HER LEFT ARM IS BENT AT THE ELBOW, PALM UP; LEFT HAND WAS CLUTCHED. SHE WAS WEARING AT LEAST TWO RINGS AT THE TIME. THERE WAS A WRIST WATCH ON HER LEFT WRIST. HER RIGHT ARM WAS BENT AT THE ELBOW APPROXIMATELY 170 DEGREES WITH THE PALM UP.
THE HAND WAS RESTING UNDER THE CHIN AREA.

I lived in the LA area starting in 1997 and drove on Bundy several times past the condo. There is no way you can park on Bundy where her condo is, there is no shoulder at all.

Wukong

http://walraven.org/simpson/gj_pt2.html

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by martin II

you are correct . sidewalk looking and then left. after the call the man realized it was oj. WHEN the neighbor saw him -- who knows what he was doing before.

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by martin II
fbg

Q: SO THE MAN WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK?
A: YES. INITIALLY WHEN I SPOTTED HIM HE WAS STANDING ABOUT FIVE YARDS SOUTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AND RELATIVELY STATIONARY LOOKING AT THE HOUSE AND THEN SINCE I SAW HIM I WAS CURIOUS AND I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM, SO I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, WHAT IS A MAN OF THIS DESCRIPTION DOING OUTSIDE AT THAT TIME, SO --

NOTE: "A man of this description" This is an exclusive neighborhood, not too many black folks walking around. I don't understand why you find this so odd. If I were to see a man standing around outside of my neighbor's home, obviously doesn't look like he belongs in the neighborhood, I knew that my neighbor is a young woman with children living alone -- I'd call the police.

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by martin II
wukong

i read this part about her feet stuck under that fense some time ago.
wonder how nicoles feet got stuck under that fixed fense.
martin ii ask Orenthal -- he can tell you.

tazzybaby

05-12-2006, 10:04 AM

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think this is what Martin was trying to post

http://www.nbc5i.com/entertainment/9204787/detail.html

OJ truly makes me sick. I don't know how anyone could ever defend him. How could he EVER make light of his children's mothers murder and the situation he was in??????

I have seen him pretend to stab someone with a banana, make jokes about his "skills" and now this?

I don't remember who it was, but someone was defending him and saying that he wasn't going to do this show....but here's the proof.

I desperately need a puke icon.

tazzybaby

05-12-2006, 10:12 AM

In Martins link there is a picture. You just have to sign up first.

:mad:

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by martin II
fbg

i THINK the purpose of wukongs post was to show the neighbors testimony and to highlight his comments of " A man of this description"

I don't think it is against the law for a person to stand on a public sidewalk and look at a house. If you saw a person in your neighborhood doing this (standing on the sidewalk)and you called the police and they arrived and the man was gone. they may asked you if you saw him break any law. Martin II The fact is Orenthal did not belong in that neighborhood for whatever reason and certainly had no reason to be trying to see into her home. I wonder if you would want your neighbor calling the police if they saw a suspicious man lurking outside of your home when your wife/daughter were home alone. Sorry, can't resist this - Especially if that lurker turned out to be Orenthal -- LOL

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 10:30 AM

tazzybaby

05-12-2006, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by martin II

tazzy
the first article i read this morning on this story was not very clear
as to the specifics of the story.

I then saw it on the Atlanta Journal/Constitution and posted it.
I read this paper daily and i am always signed in to it.
i did not realize others had to sign in to read the link.
But signing is a very quick process. e-mail. name. birth date etc.

Martin II

Thanks Martin,

I wasn't upset about signing up...lol I didn't make that clear.

It just really bothers me that he would make light of the situation. His ex-wife, the mother of his children, the woman that he supposedly loved too much (by his own admission) is murdered. Their children didn't have their father for a year after their mother was murdered. How could he EVER make light of this? Why would he think this is funny? He should be outraged.

Please don't defend him on this. I don't think I could bear to read it.

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by martin II
heidsters position

looking at the photo heidsters direct line of "hearing"

from nicoles gate there is
Tree
Bundy street
Large tree
A medium size house
Back yard of the house
A house maby car garage
A parking pad.

Any gate slamming sounds would have to travel through these obstructions. since it was suppose to be very quite in that area, Heidstra could have heard something like a broad noise from 'A GATE' not specifically nicoles.

After he learned that there had been a murder(next morning)
i think it is possible in his mind that he assumed that the slamming he heard came from nicoles gate.

wukong
Pilanker was not only doing the things you listed at about 10:21--10:25 i think she testified that she was also drying her hair( i assume with a blow dryer) so had she also washed her hair.
Also i assume she was inside her house when she did all these things.
martin II

martin II, Heidstra testified to a fact that the photograph doesn't show. Maybe this might clarify it for you. besides that Sunday night was very quiet and still. I don't believe Heidstra assumed anything, you're the one making uninformed assumptions.

October 26, 1996 Robert Heidstra

Q. Okay. Now, in terms of the terrain here, when you were on this alley, are you elevated from Bundy?
A. Oh, yes. It's much more elevated.
Q. You're up high?
A. Up high.
Q. Can you actually see Nicole's condominium from the alley when you're standing --
A. Well, you can see the roof, the tiles, the red tiles; that I could see, yes.
Q. All you can make out is a red-tile roof?
A. Yeah, the red tiles.

Pilnak (Planker) never said she was drying her hair anytime let alone at 10:21 - 10:25. If you read her testimony she said that she came back in the house after watching her friend, Judy Telander drive away, and called her mother. Telephone records show that call was made at 10:25 lasting three minutes. Pilnak said she was in her bathroom and heard the dog start to bark about 10:33, 10:35.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by martin II
netta
it is possible that the people that heard the dog barking heard it barking consistantly non stop at the time THEY heard it barking.
The dog could have barked in one area, stopped, moved to another area and started barking again. imo
martin II

martin II, do you know what the words consistently and nonstop mean?

bobaugust

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by martin II

FBG

my point is:
real estate people, city tax people, individuals looking to buy houses and a hoast of others walk through neighborhoods stand and look at houses in neighborhoods that they are not known in. LEAGALLY.

calling the police because a person does not LOOK like he belongs in the neighborhood looking at a house before you see any possible crime being commited seem to me to be jumping the gun. unless one has been appointed the neighborhood WATCH person and even then some real sense that a crime is being commited is required before one bothers the police.

i would think
martin II Those people do not lurk around at night and from his description and actions. Obviously the neighbor thought his actions were questionable enough to call the police -- good call on the neighbor's behalf. Of course there is not a requirement that there has to be a "real sense that a crime is being committed" before someone "bothers" the police. How ridiculous.

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by martin II

what would you do if the man turned out to be a real estate
sales person from a close by neighborhood. or a plain clothes cop. Why are you going on about this? I would hope the police would question his/her actions and tell him/her that their actions were upsetting the homeowners and to move on -- maybe come back during daylight when the real estate would be visible?

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 11:43 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
since these time periods don't jive and i assume that no witness is purposely telling a lie (other than possibly plinker) i think that it is very possible that the dog may have barked on one street, stopped barking and moved around the corner to another street and barked consistantly for them when they heard him.
okay -- so let me see if I've got the story you're pushing correct: Depending on what part of the street and/or streets the dog was on is whether or not neighbors could hear the barking? Even neighbors who lived next door to each other?

Wukong

05-12-2006, 11:45 AM

I have been reading Heidstra's testimony and found something very curious that is making me question his times:

Q. Now, you then began to walk across the alleyway, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. Approximately how long is that alley?
A. Oh, I think it was only a few minutes, two, three minutes.
Q. Do you know what the distance is?
A. 150 meters something like that.
Q. 150 meters?
A. Yes.
Q. So normally, it would take you two or three minutes to cross the alley?
A. Yeah.

http://walraven.org/simpson/oct25-96.html

Here he is talking about how long it takes him to walk from Gorham to Dorothy by way of the alley. I then found a scaled map showing the route he took from his house to the point where he heard the dog, which was right at the alley by the corner of Gorham and Bundy. Looking at the map I notice that the distance from the corner of Dorothy and Westgate (Where he lived), traveling down Westgate to Gorham is the same distance as the alley. The distance down Gorham to where he heard the dog barking is exactly twice as long as the alley. So basically to get from his house to where he heard the dog is 3 times the distance of walking down the alley once, maybe a little more.

Heidstra says it takes 2-3 minutes to walk down the alley. I will use 3 minutes to give him the benefit of the doubt. This equates to a time of 9 minutes to walk from his house to where he heard the dog. This means if he left his house at 10:15 then he arrived at the point where he heard the dog 9 minutes later at 10:24. This becomes less confusing if you look at the scaled map (link below)

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

Wukong

fbgweezer

05-12-2006, 12:10 PM

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
you know i am not talking people that live next door to each other. Actually, you are.

Wukong

05-12-2006, 12:31 PM

Martin,

Heidstra was talking about walking down the length of the alley from Gorham to Dorothy. The alley is only a little wider than a driveway, not 150 meters (actually if you use the scale on the map it is 400 feet) so he was talking the length not width of the alley.

Wukong

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob
some people say they heard the dog barking at one place for a time period consistantly. others say they heard the dog barking at another place and time period consistantly.

since these time periods don't jive and i assume that no witness is purposely telling a lie (other than possibly plinker) i think that it is very possible that the dog may have barked on one street, stopped barking and moved around the corner to another street and barked consistantly for them when they heard him.

i know this does not jive with the throry you are pushing but it is what i think could have happened to explain why different people say the dog was or was not barking.
martin II

martin II, your imagined possibility is contradicted by five witnesses.

No witness who ever heard the dog barking ever said that the dog started barking and then stopped for a while and then started again. All of the witnesses said once the barking started it was continuous, it didn't stop for a long time.

The fact is that the two witnesses who were in their houses and thought the dog started barking about 10:20 are contradicted by five witnesses who were outside and near Bundy at 10:20. These five witnesses never heard any barking before 10:30. Heidstra and Pilnak testified the dog never started barking about 10:30 to 10:35.

What surprises me is that you are so fast to defend Simpson's defense when it comes to evidence that's not as clear as this evidence is or when they make false accusations and unsupported speculation. Cochran and company did a good job finding and calling the witnesses that Clark didn't want to use because they they all testified to facts that contradicted her beliefs. Yet you want to believe Clark. Amazing.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-12-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Wukong
I have been reading Heidstra's testimony and found something very curious that is making me question his times:

Here he is talking about how long it takes him to walk from Gorham to Dorothy by way of the alley. I then found a scaled map showing the route he took from his house to the point where he heard the dog, which was right at the alley by the corner of Gorham and Bundy. Looking at the map I notice that the distance from the corner of Dorothy and Westgate (Where he lived), traveling down Westgate to Gorham is the same distance as the alley. The distance down Gorham to where he heard the dog barking is exactly twice as long as the alley. So basically to get from his house to where he heard the dog is 3 times the distance of walking down the alley once, maybe a little more.

Heidstra says it takes 2-3 minutes to walk down the alley. I will use 3 minutes to give him the benefit of the doubt. This equates to a time of 9 minutes to walk from his house to where he heard the dog. This means if he left his house at 10:15 then he arrived at the point where he heard the dog 9 minutes later at 10:24. This becomes less confusing if you look at the scaled map (link below)

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

Wukong

Brian, Wagner tried to do the same thing you are attempting and he ignored the reality that you do not seem be considering.

Heidstra was walking two old dogs. I don't know if you've ever walked a dog or dogs but the fact is that the dogs determined how long it took Heidstra to get from one point to another. If he was walking by himself then you could possibly determine how long each leg of his walk took, but that wasn't the case.

Sometimes dogs will stop, sometime they wont. That would depend on maybe the lawns that were along the way or the any other things such as fire hydrants or poles and the speed of the oldest dog.

I remember telling Wagner that what he was tying to do was an exercise in futility. The unknown information is what determined how long it took Heidstra to walk from one point to another.

bobaugust