General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by Lionthrone
While to this day the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson remains a mystery, it's good to see O J Simpson back in the swing of things with his latest pay-per-view venture "Juiced"

Perhaps with this venture and with future projects, he can slowly work his was back into mainstream society and gain our acceptance :) Didn't anyone tell you? Orenthal James Simpson was found liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

Who would want to pay to watch a murderer pull pranks?

Orenthal James Simpson is a double murderer who has been allowed to walk free. Mainstream society has not accepted him back and I doubt his wanting to make money off of his dead wife's story will endear him to anyone.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Lionthrone


fbgweezer,

Unfortunately the trail is cold after so many years.

You can chalk that up to the LAPD who pursued O J Simpson (and only, O J Simpson) :mad:

Lionthrone :) Oh I don't blame LAPD for Orenthal getting away with double murder. I blame an uneducated and biased jury and a group of amoral attorneys who were willing to sell their souls. There was no evidence of anyone else committing the murders -- not then and not in the 10+ years since the murders.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Lionthrone
nettathirty,

You are a breath of fresh air

The timeline alone made it impossible for O J Simpson to have committed the crimes. Isn't he though? Oh wait, I was thinking hot air........:D

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Lionthrone



nettathirty,

You are a breath of fresh air

The timeline alone made it impossible for O J Simpson to have committed the crimes.




Lionthrone :)


lionthrone, who claims he can't be bothered discussing the facts in this case shows his inability to understand the reality of what happened and disrespects our hero at the same time.

Simpson had well over a half an hour to drive to Bundy, less than a five minute drive from his house, kill to people and then drive back home. The facts, the witnesses, and the evidence all contradict your naive beliefs.

bobaugust

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Didn't anyone tell you? Orenthal James Simpson was found liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

Who would want to pay to watch a murderer pull pranks?

Orenthal James Simpson is a double murderer who has been allowed to walk free. Mainstream society has not accepted him back and I doubt his wanting to make money off of his dead wife's story will endear him to anyone.

fbgweezer,

If it's any comfort O J Simpson will not be paid for this project - He's doing it for kicks.

In regard to O J Simpson being found liable, well consider for a moment the racial make-up of the jury :rolleyes:



Lionthrone

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty
fbg,

What do you think happened, with the feet, gate and dog? I posted my theory on the gate and dog a few pages back and I don't want to waste space re-posting. I don't have a clue about the feet but from looking at the pictures of the crime scene, I can't imagine why anyone would even ask.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Lionthrone

fbgweezer,

If it's any comfort O J Simpson will not be paid for this project - He's doing it for kicks.

In regard to O J Simpson being found liable, well consider for a moment the racial make-up of the jury He's doing it trying to change his pathetic life. He won't be doing it long -- who gives a flip about an old, fat murderer having fun by pulling crap on people on tv? Wonder if he can even grasp how pathetic that is.

Orenthal was found guilty by the evidence only. Orenthal's blood, footprints, cap, glove, hair and bronco fiber at the murder scene.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty
That's not nice! I know but I couldn't help myself. Lionthrone sounded so insincere and I didn't want you to get your feelings hurt.

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by bobaugust
lionthrone, who claims he can't be bothered discussing the facts in this case shows his inability to understand the reality of what happened and disrespects our hero at the same time.

Simpson had well over a half an hour to drive to Bundy, less than a five minute drive from his house, kill to people and then drive back home. The facts, the witnesses, and the evidence all contradict your naive beliefs.

bobaugust,

Just thought I'd briefly pop out the woodwork now that O J Simpson is once again (where he belongs) in the forefront of media and public attention with his new project.

My naive beliefs are also the belief of tens of thousands of other O J Simpson supporters.

Lionthrone :)

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Lionthrone


bobaugust,

Just thought I'd briefly pop out the woodwork now that O J Simpson is once again (where he belongs) in the forefront of media and public attention with his new project.

My naive beliefs are also the belief of tens of thousands of other O J Simpson supporters.

Lionthrone :) Then he'll have an audience of tens of thousands supporters - NOT.

[bandit's mom]

[------------------------------------

While to this day the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson remains a mystery,

There's no mystery at all.


Perhaps with this venture and with future projects, he can slowly work his was back into mainstream society and gain our acceptance :)


I wouldn't advise holding your breath on that one.

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by nettathirty
bob,

If it were as simple as you claim, why do you continue changing the facts of this case?

Barking Dog for example?

nettathirty,

You asked why bob keeps changing the facts?

Well he does and he doesn't.

You see Bob is confronted everyday with his worst nightmare (conflicting testimony) The way to resolve that issue is to designate some facts free floating. meaning he can design a theory around each bump in the road (so to speak) and still seem credible.

In regard to the Barking Dog, you were perceptive enough to see through his usual line of bull.



Lionthrone :)

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by martin II
lionthrone

Good to see you dropping in.

one never knows what the future may hold. maby oj is trying to get his ducks in line one step at a time.
martin II

martin II,

Hello Martin the Second,

I think he's trying to do the same thing :)





Lionthrone

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust
[B]



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"

Of course it was confused and panicked, but not attacking.
The dog's Master was attacking his Mistress. Had anyone
else been attacking her the dog would have torn him to
shreds. Akita's were bred as guard dogs. But even a guard
dog is confused in a situation like this.

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Not a chance! :lol:


Hello socaldiva,


We can only hope :rose:





Lionthrone

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by bobaugust

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

Did your sister live near Bundy?

No, my sister lived "on" Bundy, but I can't remember what block. She lived in an apartment building with parking in the back off of the alley.

Is there a way to confirm this? If there is, please let me know and I will research it. Thanks!

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by martin II
If you were nearby I would down a bottle of jack daniels with you for that analysis.

martin II,

Thanks but I think I'll have a Samuel Adams :beer:




Lionthrone :)

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


bob,

If it were as simple as you claim, why do you continue changing the facts of this case?

Barking Dog for example?



nettathirty, I don't change the facts, I post them. You evidently don't know them so you think they've changed.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Lionthrone


bobaugust,

Just thought I'd briefly pop out the woodwork now that O J Simpson is once again (where he belongs) in the forefront of media and public attention with his new project.

My naive beliefs are also the belief of tens of thousands of other O J Simpson supporters.

Lionthrone :)


Lionthrone, You may be right, there could be tens of thousands of people out of tens of millions who are as naive and uninformed as you are.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



I'm just saying, looking at the photo someone deliberately positioned Nicoles feet underneathe the gate. OJ as the killer (NOT), but would not have had that much time to arrange the crime scene, Bob will atest to that!



nettathirty, there is no evidence that someone deliberately positioned Nicole's feet underneath the gate.

It could very well have happened either when she fell to the ground and was knocked unconscious or when Simpson sliced her throat. No expert ever testified that she was deliberately positioned, only people who fabricate fantasies try to sell that.

bobaugust

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by nettathirty
Martin II and Lionthrone

Where is Bob August, you think he's tweeking his website?



nettathirty,

Most Definitely ......ha, ha,......



Lionthrone

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Lionthrone


nettathirty,

You asked why bob keeps changing the facts?

Well he does and he doesn't.

You see Bob is confronted everyday with his worst nightmare (conflicting testimony) The way to resolve that issue is to designate some facts free floating. meaning he can design a theory around each bump in the road (so to speak) and still seem credible.

In regard to the Barking Dog, you were perceptive enough to see through his usual line of bull.



Lionthrone :)



Lionthrone, no not bull, common sense based on all of the witnesses who testified. The fact is that some witnesses testified to facts that contradicted other witnesses.

Fabricators indiscriminately pick and choose the witnesses they want to believe, I believe in coming to a more informed opinion based on what all the witnesses agreed on, not what they contradicted each other on.

You on the other hand offer no supported opinions only uninformed comments.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



That is 1 smart dog, OJ is dressed in dark clothes and yet the dog knew it was him.

OJ exits the rear gate, close it keeping the dog from following him.. The dog then goes out the front gate, and around to the rear of the Condo chasing OJ..



nettathirty, that's funny. You evidently don't own a dog.

Simpson's dog would have known Simpson regardless of what clothing he was wearing. Dogs use other senses other than sight to recognize their master.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
you continue to belive that you are the only person that reads transcripts. GEES
martin II


martin II, well if you read them you evidently have a reading comprehension problem since you get so many things wrong.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

someone had to open the gate for ron after oj put the dog out and closed it. If that is what he did. so who opened the gate for ron?
martin II

I find it hard to believe that Nicole would let OJ put Kato out. I was always under the assumption that Ron let himself in. Little did Ron know what was in store for him when he did that.

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


NETTA

he also opened the front gate from the outside, came back in tracked his paws in blood and went back out down to dorothy and the alley making tracks.
martin II


martin II, funny.

No the Akita didn't open the front gate, Ron Goldman did when he arrived and yelled at Simpson.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Martin II

More like 10 minutes.. bob, said Oj arrived at Bundy around 10:30p and Heidstra heard the gate clang about 10:40p!


nettathirty, closer to over 30 minutes.

Lionthrone was questioning the time line. Simpson's Bronco was not at his house at 10:25 when Allan Park arrived. Allan Park saw Simpson walk into his house at 10:55.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Martin II and Lionthrone

Where is Bob August, you think he's tweeking his website?



nettathirty, actually you got it right, I did update "Updated Simpson News"
http://www.bobaugust.com/updatednews.htm

bobaugust

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by bobaugust




Lionthrone, no not bull, common sense based on all of the witnesses who testified. The fact is that some witnesses testified to facts that contradicted other witnesses.

Fabricators indiscriminately pick and choose the witnesses they want to believe, I believe in coming to a more informed opinion based on what all the witnesses agreed on, not what they contradicted each other on.

You on the other hand offer no supported opinions only uninformed comments.

bobaugust,

Just admit that you're fast friends with speculation and conjecture and I'm sure we'll all be satisfied




Lionthrone :)

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Bob,
Lionthrone explained you don't change the facts, you merely tweek them to fit your fantasy!


nettathirty, no I don't have any fantasies. I may speculate what happened but I use witness testimony to support my speculation.

I don't tweak facts, I post what witnesses actually say.

bobaugust

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nettathirty
[B]


That is 1 smart dog, OJ is dressed in dark clothes and yet the dog knew it was him.

Not a dog owner I take it? Dogs know their owners whether
they can see them or not. Certainly the way you are dressed
has no bearing whatsoever on your dog's ability to recognize
you.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by martin II


BANDIT'S MOM
Do you think oj was in the front yard at the same time the Akita was?
martin II

It would seem so.

[bandit's mom]

Watching what? I have assumed that OJ knocked, rang the bell,
whatever and when she answered he attacked her. I assume
the dog got out at that time. The other option would be
that she let the dog out into the gated front patio, just
as I sometimes do with my own dog, to do his business. OJ
could have attacked when she opened the door to let the
dog in or out. OTOH, he could have simply knocked. Obviously
there's no one alive to tell us exactly how it went down. What's
your point?

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by nettathirty



bandits mom


Lets say you had moved on with your life, from your "abusive husband", who had on numerous occasions threaten your life. Without warning he shows up in the middle of the night with dark clothing, cap and gloves on in Southern California. Would you not be suspicious of him?

First of all, even as someone who gets up at 4:30 A.M. I don't
consider 10:30 at to be the middle of the night. Second, I don't
know whether she saw OJ or not. She could have simply
been letting the dog in or out when he attacked her. He may
have even known that it was a pattern for her to let the dog
out at a certain time. I have no idea.

And, assuming it didn't happen that way, assume she opened the
door and there stood OJ dressed in cap and gloves, what
makes you assume she wasn't suspicious? Maybe she
asked him what the hell he was doing. Maybe she tried to
slam the door on him. Maybe she just assumed he was spying
on her again and angrily stormed out to confront him.
I fail to see how you, or any of us for that matter, can
know the exact circumstanced. I don't claim to, but there
is nothing I've seen or heard that has even made me doubt
that OJ is the cold blooded murderer the majority of the country
obviously believes him to be.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


A PARK
Thats the guy that saw oj comming towards the house from between the two cars parked in tha yard. right?
martin II



martin II, no that's the guy that saw Simpson come into the entranceway of his house where the driveway starts, enter the front door and lights come on in the house.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
so which VERSION are we to belive the one of six months ago or the one next week.

i guess it is a floating theory/ work in progress.
martin II


martin II, you're confused again.

The Updated Simpson News is about what Simpson is doing today. It has nothing to do with what he did when he committed the murders.

Click on the link and you will know what I'm talking about.
http://www.bobaugust.com/updatednews.htm

bobaugust

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by socaldiva
You, Martin II, & Nettathirty seem be fast friends with pure fantasy ;)

socaldiva,

While Bob does seem to have a great deal of insight into this case, he does resort to speculation and conjecture, and on occasion he's outright mendacious (especially where there's conflicting testimony)

While it's more mischievous than anything else (and I don't believe Bob would lie out of malice) he should be held accountable for any misleading statements he makes :patriot:




Lionthrone :)

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Lionthrone


socaldiva,

While Bob does seem to have a great deal of insight into this case, he does resort to speculation and conjecture, and on occasion he's outright mendacious (especially where there's conflicting testimony)

While it's more mischievous than anything else (and I don't believe Bob would lie out of malice) he should be held accountable for any misleading statements he makes :patriot:




Lionthrone :)



Lionthrone, if you think I've made a misleading statement simply point it out. If it's misleading, I'll change it.

But I don't believe I've made any misleading statements, and I don't lie. I don't try to deceive. Most everything I say is supported by the evidence and witness testimony. The fact is that you evidently don't know what witnesses said so you may think I'm being mendacious, but I'm not, you're just confused and uninformed.

bobaugust

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by bobaugust
Lionthrone, if you think I've made a misleading statement simply point it out. If it's misleading, I'll change it.

But I don't believe I've made any misleading statements, and I don't lie. I don't try to deceive. Most everything I say is supported by the evidence and witness testimony. bobaugust


bobaugust,

It's just a general statement of fact which I'm pointing out and which other posters have noticed as well (and they're here all the time)



Lionthrone :)

[alien]

To all you Mom's and soon to be Moms....


HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!!!!

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


alien

for me here is the issue

bob says oj arrived at bundy at about 10:30 and this is when he put the Akita out the gate. ron arrived very close to this time. look at ron's time line from when he got off from work until he arrived at bundy. ron had to be near the condo on bundy. i assume when the dog was wondering around.

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

Hey Martin, I remember there being some issues about the times being estimated. If those people were absolutely sure of the time, I would have to believe them. Did they hear the dog just barking as any dog is prone to do or did they hear the sad wailing sound?

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by martin II
Most of America developed their opinions about this case from media TH.

ps: who do you think composed the muder scene that night?

martin II,

The white media orchestrated and formed the opinion most americans adopted :mad:



Lionthrone

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Lionthrone



bobaugust,

It's just a general statement of fact which I'm pointing out and which other posters have noticed as well (and they're here all the time)



Lionthrone :)


Lionthrone, no it's not a general statement of fact. It's false.

If someone has a problem with what I've said all they have to do is say so and ask me and I will post the supporting testimony or evidence that I based my statement on.

Your comments were your own based on your faults not others. Anytime martin II or nettathirty has asked me about something I've answered them. You don't ask anything you just sit on the side lines and make comments that many times show you don't know what you're talking about. When you're asked something you either ignore the question or give excuses like you discussed this case so much in the past that you aren't going to get into any discussions about the details.

What do you think I said that you found misleading?

bobaugust

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by martin II
[B]bandit's mom

it is suggested that she MAY have opened the door to go and unlock the gate for ron to enter. if she opened the door she would have seen oj in the yard ( as oj had no idea if and when exactly she would open her door.) I don't think she would have stood there arguing with him. she would have stepped back in and slammed the door. And oj would have been forced to flee.

You don't think? But you don't know, anymore than I do. She
could have unlocked the gate for Ron and let the dog out at
the same time. OJ could have grabbed her when she let the
dog our or when she opened it planning to let him in. Or
he could have been creeping around out there and she opened
the door to see what the hell he was up to. I don't think most
people assume they are about to be murdered. Particularly
with a nutty ex who you've already caught spying on you.
More likely she'd assume he was trying to check up onher.


there was no regular routine that night because the family had returned from the dinner party.

Actually they'd returned from a school function followed by dinner
out. So, again I ask, what's your point? You think the dog
didn't need to go out and pee because the family went out
that night. Trust me, it doesn't work that way. Most of us
who have dogs, make a point to let them out before bedtime,
assuming they will be staying in overnight.



Composed the murder scene? I have no idea what that means.
I think OJ created the murder scene since he was the murderer.
I certainly don't buy any of the absurd conspiracy theories
if that's what your driving at.

[alien]

Originally posted by tazzybaby
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?

He make me beyond sick. This coming from a man who supposedly was going to kill himself to "be with Nicole".

I have talked about this to a lot of people. For a man who was found not guilty for this murder, you would think he would be a little more thankful and grateful and lead his life accordingly. He said after the trial that he was going to find the murderer of his ex-wife. IMO he has done no such thing. He just walks around with a cocky attitude that I find hard to believe.

Can any of the NG's care to explain this recent behaviour. There is nothing funny at all about it.

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.

[Wukong]

Bob,

Let me first say that I am not Wagner, don't confuse me with him. I don't care what Wagner said, did or theorized. The only thing we have in common is that we are both engineers and tend to analyse in order to find an answer. I am reading the testimony and posting it. I don't have a theory to support because I know that as soon as you come to a conclusion on what happened you are immediately wrong. Once you have a theory you believe to be true, you end up having to defend it and that leads to myopic vision. You also need to remember that I believe OJ Simpson is guilty. I am merely taking a second look (more like 3rd or 4th) at the times anew to see if there is anything that may have been missed.

You are correct that the times testified about are not 100% accurate and need to be verified somehow. I am posting about what I read and what I gleen from the testimony. I agreed that Stein and Fenjves should be discounted. I believe Storfer can not be off on his time by the amount your theory dictates. I think there's something wrong with Pilnak (actually this is just a gut feeling, not very engineer-like). I will continue reading testimony and posting my findings. I have not come to a conclusion on anything and am just taking a fresh look at the facts testified to.

I posted testimony from Heidstra about how long it took him to walk down the alley then extrapolated this time to determine a total. I may be wrong but then again i may not and believe this is an early time estimate and am looking for a range of time since we can't be 100% accurate. You discount what i'm doing because Wagner did the same thing and then add that we don't know what the dogs pace was. I see nothing wrong with questioning his time estimates which may or may not be correct. I am questioning all the time estimates and who made them and what, if any, motive might be behind their estimate.

Brian

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Real Estate agents don't peer into windows, nor do " plain clothes cops" :rolleyes: It didn't turn out to be either of those, now did it?

And Real Estate agents usually don't go looking at houses late at night.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Bob,

Goldmans body, were it was discovered and how it got there?


nettathirty, you can see where Ron's body was found by clicking on this link.
http://www.bobaugust.com/photo.htm

How did it get there? That's where Simpson dropped him to bleed to death after he stabbed and cut him.

bobaugust

[alien]

Originally posted by Lionthrone
LOS ANGELES - In a scene from his new candid-camera program “Juiced,” O.J. Simpson pulls a prank involving a white Bronco, drawing criticism from the family of a man he was accused of killing.

As part of the pay-per-view show, Simpson pretends to sell the Bronco at a used car lot and boasts to a prospective buyer that he made the vehicle famous, according to a segment aired Thursday on “Inside Edition.”

“It was good for me — it helped me get away,” Simpson said, referring to the slow-speed, televised police chase that preceded his 1994 arrest on charges of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

------------------------------------

While to this day the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson remains a mystery, it's good to see O J Simpson back in the swing of things with his latest pay-per-view venture "Juiced"

Perhaps with this venture and with future projects, he can slowly work his was back into mainstream society and gain our acceptance :)


Lionthrone :)

Sorry, Lion, but he will never gain my acceptance especially with BS crap like this. It is so disrespecfull of Nicole and Ron, plus their families. I hope that anyone and everyone will be appalled by this. I truly hope that you can not find this acceptable behaviour.

I wonder how you would feel if you had a member of your family murdered and someone found something funny about any part of it.

[alien]

Originally posted by Lionthrone


fbgweezer,

If it's any comfort O J Simpson will not be paid for this project - He's doing it for kicks.

In regard to O J Simpson being found liable, well consider for a moment the racial make-up of the jury :rolleyes:



Lionthrone

What the H*LL kind of kicks is this. My God, he could at least show some respect for Nicole. And please dear God please quit bringing in the racial thing. I for one and sick to death of reading about it.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Wukong


I posted testimony from Heidstra about how long it took him to walk down the alley then extrapolated this time to determine a total. I may be wrong but then again i may not and believe this is an early time estimate and am looking for a range of time since we can't be 100% accurate. You discount what i'm doing because Wagner did the same thing and then add that we don't know what the dogs pace was. I see nothing wrong with questioning his time estimates which may or may not be correct. I am questioning all the time estimates and who made them and what, if any, motive might be behind their estimate.

Brian


Brian, no I don't discount what you're doing. You've surprised me in the past finding things in photographs that I looked at yet never saw.

I welcome your research and independent opinions especially when they substantiate what I've found and when they don't it forces me to look again at how I came to my conclusions.

Keep me advised.

bobaugust

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Oh, I'm sure OJ's been hoping for years that he could weasle his way back. He can't. He's evil & the world knows it.

I asked Mr Alien if he thought the OJ would ever admit to what he did on his death bed and Mr Alien said probably not because then he would go to jail. Bless Mr Alien's heart. I had to explain to him that a death bed confession means he is dying.....Ya know, ain't coming back again.

After that Mr Alien said he probably wouldn't anyway because he has to save his reputation. So then I asked Mr Alien what would be his memories of OJ. Was it that awesome football player, the funny Monday Night Football announcer or the actor who made movies that made us laugh. His response is that there would always be a question about if OJ did it or not. That is OJ's living legacy and will follow him to his death. I so agreed with Mr Alien.

[alien]

He make me beyond sick. This coming from a man who supposedly was going to kill himself to "be with Nicole".

I have talked about this to a lot of people. For a man who was found not guilty for this murder, you would think he would be a little more thankful and grateful and lead his life accordingly. He said after the trial that he was going to find the murderer of his ex-wife. IMO he has done no such thing. He just walks around with a cocky attitude that I find hard to believe.

Can any of the NG's care to explain this recent behaviour. There is nothing funny at all about it.

Somehow I jumped right in the middle of Tazzy's post. Not sure how that happened, but the above is my post.

Sorry Tazzy. for any confusion about your post and mine.

[alien]

Alien is off to the shower to get ready to go to work.

My final thoughts until this board becomes active again.

Lion, go away. You are the nastiest person I have ever encountered. You never discuss the case you just throw around stuff and try to incite the other NG's on this board.

Netta, you were becoming a decent person. You are a NG, but were willing to discuss the case. Along came Martin and Lion and you get nasty again. This is just my IMO.

Let's all quit with the racial BS again. The person who called 911 that night probably was just a concerned neighbor who had issues with some dude standing outside Nicole's house. The jury in the civil trial didn't make up their minds because OJ was African American. They took the time to look at the evidence and that is why they found OJ liable for the murders. Not guilty mind you to put him in prison where in my opinion he belongs, but liable.

Civil lawsuits aren't to find a person guilty, although I with they could. When my Brother was shot to death, my Mother filed a law suit to find the person who shot him liable for the shooting so she could pay for funeral expenses. No Parent ever expects to have to bury their child at the age of 17. When my Son was killed in a truck accicent, I could have filed a law suit for money. I chose not to, but believe me to this day I believe the truck he was driving was faulty in respect that the part of the truck that collasped and crushed him to death was their fault.

What I am trying to say is that civil lawsuits can find a person GUILTY, but because of the laws that person won't be punished.

And to all you NG's out there, if you find it funny or something else about OJ doing a show about the Bronco, please please go talk to someone who has lost a cherished family member and ask how they would feel. I pray to God every day that you never have to experience the death of a family member.

And in closing, I still want to hear from any of the NG's why they believe in their heart of hearts why OJ didn't do it. To borrow a line from Austin Powers....."throw me a bone." Lion suggested that there are a lot of people who believe that OJ is innocent. How come, on this board, we only see a very few. I want some explanations. I didn't base my guilty theory on anything but what the evidence showed. Try to give me a reason to change my opinion to yours.

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by alien
And please dear God please quit bringing in the racial thing. I for one and sick to death of reading about it.

alien,

Sorry but the O J Simpson trial and race, will forever be entwined :)

There was a special last year on television regarding the O J Simpson trial and Race (a summary of the show is still available at the PBS website)

You might want to take a look or even purchase a DVD of the show




Lionthrone :)

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

wrong
that is where k2 slung rons body to.
martin II


Martin II, wrong, that's where the aliens from outer space planted Ron's body after they shoved Nicole under the gate just in case she wasn't really dead after they slit her throat. Oh yeah, they also drained the blood from her body and poured it on the walkway and when they killed Ron he didn't have any clothes on so they dressed him with the clothes he was found in even though the cuts they made on his clothing didn't match up with the cuts on his body.

These aliens from outer space were smart enough to know that they could fool most of the intelligent people it was just those pesky dumb people who weren't fooled. They sure fooled me but I bet they didn't fool you, right?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Bob,

It was speculated that Goldman was attacked and killed on the walk way. His body was found on the alcove, it appeared he was placed in the alcove after his death!


nettathirty, speculate all you want, the fact is that Ron was found where Simpson left him to bleed to death.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Socal,

They are getting this from Wagners site, evidence of this is Martin calling the "heaver" K2. You know they could not come up with this themselves because they do no studying. The reason Wagner theorized this scenatio is because of the blood flow on the tiled walk (where Nicole lay) that leads to the sidewalk in front of the house. Wagner has an overhead photographic view of the bloodflow taken after the bodies were removed. He overlayed his own drawings over the blood that outlined different areas. He saw things in the blood the same way people see Jesus' image on a potato chip.

Wukong

[alien]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Why you never say this to your fellow G's when they attack the criminal jury, and make the same claim of race!

Netta, the race thing had kind of died off on this board until Lion makes his grand appearance. It was more in regards to OJ standing outside Nicole's house that I was talking about.

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva
Sending thanks to Hotwater & Deepwater for leaving this board up :seeya:

Yeah, I thought is was going to be closed down. I will keep reading and posting.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

If Orenthal came through the Bundy gate, perhaps he purposely let the dog out as he entered.

I don't think so socal because I don't think that OJ came through the Bundy gate and if he did, what did he expect Kato to do? Take off running scared never to return? I think that it would have backfired on OJ and Kato would have whined and probably would have started barking. Did OJ want to bring that much attention to himself? I don't think so.

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

I've always thought OJ snuck down from the alley too, but I could see him thinking he would just open the gate & Kato would just run out wanting to go for a spin in the neighborhood. Most dogs love getting out & running off for a bit. imo

I'm sorry if I missed your post about this, but how do you think Kato got out?

IMO, Kato got out through the Bundy gate which was left open when Ron Goldman showed up.

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


alien

what do you think the statement "person of this description" standing on the side walk means. does that translate to "black man" that does not belong in this neighborhood must be commiting a crime?
martin II

It certainly didn't translate into "black man" for me. And even if it did for you, what does it have to do with anything about the murders. So some neighbor sees someone standing outside Nicole's condo and calls the police. That neighbor makes the statement "person of this description". How do any of us know what that neighbor meant by that and again what the heck does if have to do with the murders and the trial.

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


alien

i suggest you read the witnesses testimony and then decide who you belive
martin II

Did that. Didn't see anyone say with a really specific certainty that they knew the exact time. Did I misread or misunderstand something?

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


alien

many gs have attacked the mostly black jury in the criminal trial as being the only reason oj was found not guilty. yet when lionthrone mentions the all white jury in the civil trial you seem to
be critical of his statement. why is that?
martin II

Because IMO, lion is one of the most annoying people I have ever come across on this and any other boards. He pops in and out like some kind of bunny with his comments, but he never seems to really want to discuss the facts about the case. He throws crap out to see if it will cause an uproar and IMO it most certainly does. You and netta seem to forget what the actual subject is at hand on this board and start with snide comments and act like lion is some kind of hero.

Just remember everything I have posted is my opinion.

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


alien

you skipped over my question.
do you get upset when some gs claim that oj was set free because the mostly "BLACK JURY" SET HIM FREE BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK?
martin II

I am going to revert back to being an immature 4 year old with a Nanny Nanny Boo Boo....attitude and will say to you, I will answer your questions when you answer mine. Give me one single shred of something that could make me change my mind about OJ's guilt. Something tangible so explain away all the evidence that was at Bundy (and other places). And please don't bring up Vannatter and that vial of blood, because it won't wash for me.

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II
bandits mom

Nicole had set up her house with lit candles and she had drawn her bath water. Which it is logical to assum that she had plans to relax in. And retire after her bath.Some have said she planned to do this with ron. I don't know if that was her intention or not. but i don't think she was then planning to go back out with the dog.

The dance recital and dinner did not constitute a normal evening
for Nicole and the kids and oj had no way of knowing who was in the house visiting her and the children after dinner.

If you read back some of the testimony/post, you will see that Nicoles body was found by LE with her legs tucked under a stationary fense/gate (looking to the left if you are looking towards the condo)
The question is, how did her legs get tucked into this position?
MARTIN II

Can I ask in a polite kind of way what the deal is with Nicole's legs? Who knows what happens to a person's body when it is dying. Maybe it was a "knee jerk" reaction. And no pun is intended.

How do we know that kind of evening was normal for Nicole and her kids. Maybe after her bath she would take Kato out for his last "bathroom run" for the night. And didn't OJ call the house to talk with his daughter and would know that no one was in the house but Nicole and her children.

[Wukong]

Originally posted by martin II

wukong
i put the k2 in my post to see who had actually read wagner
as opposed to joining bob in his argument with wagner.
nothing wrong with examining every theory is there?
i don' t believe wagner was some nut.
martin II

Martin,

I think it is very important to examine every theory. I don't think Wagner was a nut either. He has a lot of excelent information on his site and I can appreciate all the work he put into it. I just don't happen to agree with his conclusions as to what happened.

Nicole's legs under the gate is one example of Wagner making much out of nothing. Her legs could very easily have ended up there as she was in the throes of death and kicking her legs involuntarily. I really see no reasonable explaination for someone to push her legs under the gate.

On the subject of Nicole's neighbor Colby, who called the cops on OJ, and his testimony about "A person of this description" it was obvious from reading his testimony he meant a black man. It was quite obvious if you read the questions from the attorney who kept trying to get him to say this. The witness seemed willing to admit it but kept getting stopped by objections and the judge himself. The only reason I posted this originally was because I thought it interesting. I didn't mean to start a rase discussion.

Wukong

[Wukong]

Above I wrote about how important I feel it is to read everything about this case. I was recently re-reading Joseph Bosco's website. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Bosco and believe him to be truthful in what he says about this case. He was in the courtroom almost every day of the trial, was involved in behind the scenes investigations and wrote a book on the subject. I found these two paragraphs, from his website in 2004, interesting:

"Following the money" is a good idea in any investigation. We did and we learned almost everything we needed to know, in time. For starters, follow: "R & R Entertainment," or many derivations of "R & R." There are literally dozens of such fictitious dba's registered to Simpson and Kardashian, that include nonexistent agents and partners with nonexistent phone numbers and street addresses. Mr. Simpson and Mr. Kardashian were apparently involved in lucrative, illegal activity for many years, mostly involving pornographic film production and distribution, and sports gambling. I wish you easier hunting than I had; the records at the county courthouse were not digitized or even microfiched when I went through them day after day in the late 90's."

"Don't let the physical evidence be the basis for concrete theories. As most of you know, I learned my forensics under Dr. Henry Lee. The Bundy crime scene, like almost all of the case, is not what it seems to be, on several different levels, mostly by design, but a significant part is due to the vagaries of bad luck and timing. That crime scene was not only tampered with, different people tampered with it at different times and for very different reasons. That was one busy crime scene BEFORE the police arrived "officially." Consequently, tread lightly when you swear by the physical evidence of that night unless you really understand the case long before it came down to that goddamn bloody shame."


This is also a very interesting statement from Joe Bosco:

"For the first time publicly I will say this much: At least half of my work on the case I have not published anywhere, by choice, yet."

http://josephbosco.com/2004_11_01_archive.html

Interesting reading.

[Wukong]

Socal,

Bosco never said OJ is innocent. His claims of crime scene tampering has nothing to do with Lab testing. A lab can only test what is collected and provided to them. I don't understand your statement that you are doubtful of him because of Henry Lee? Bosco is a writer, not a criminologist, so studying under Lee is just him learning some forensics and how to look at a crime scene, he is not a forensic scientist. Henry Lee is no dummy and although he got some things wrong in the OJ case he is still a respected forensic scientist. A lot of what Lee got wrong had to do with the prosecution not wanting him to be involved in the case. They did everything in their power to undermine his investigation.

My motive for posting about Bosco was to get people here to look at everything about the case and not just what has been published. There was certainly much more going on in this case than what was in the media, the trial and in books. There is still many details that many people on both sides of this case don't want revealed.

Wukong

[Hotwater]

Happy Mothers Day to all!

--Hotwater

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by socaldiva
I lost a lot of respect for Lee after his participation in the Simpson case & I've seen him afterwards seeming befuddled in other cases.

I don't have a problem looking at a variety of information, regardless of it's source. I will read more from the link you provided. Thanks.

socaldiva,

Sometimes you are so full of it :mad:

The guy is the Charlie Chan of forensic sciences.

He's a fellow of the american academy of forensic sciences and a contributing editor for the board of forensic sciences. he's brilliant by all accounts, and the prosecution team tried to hire him but the dream team got the drop on him.

If he had testified for the prosecution team you'd revere him to this day :mad:

"Theories like fingerprints....Everybody has them" .....Dr. Henry Lee


Lionthrone :)

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by martin II
lionthrone

unbelievable that some can be led like sheep without knowing it.

martin II


martin II,

Well I would never describe socaldiva as a sheep, but If she is one she's a Bighorned Sheep (They're known for head-to-head combat) :eek:



Lionthrone :)

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by socaldiva
As another poster posted out, you only come here to dish out your derisive comments. Nothing germain to the case itself.

I thought a while back you posted that you don't come here anymore because you've found another spot with "more enlightened posters"? I guess they are all busy today :lol:

socaldiva,

Actually I don't generally post over the weekend, but with a flood watch in the area (3-6 inches of rain expected) It seemed like a good time to post on the CTVMB's.

Question: Are you so territorial that you feel threatened by my presence :shrug:


Lionthrone :)

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by socaldiva
I'm not the least bit "threatened" by your presence. Your lack of knowledge & insight into this case preempts that ;)

YOU are the one that said you had "more enlightened posters" elsewhere to post with, yet here you've been for several days now. I find it laughable.

socaldiva,

I go where the action is :cool:

As for my lack of knowledge, I know more about this case than you'll ever know.

If you were around when the going was good, you'd know that
:patriot:


Lionthrone

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Lionthrone


socaldiva,

I go where the action is :cool:

As for my lack of knowledge, I know more about this case than you'll ever know.

If you were around when the going was good, you'd know that
:patriot:


Lionthrone



Lionthrone, you may think you know more but I doubt it. I've never seen you post anything that supports that claim.

It sounds to me like your knowledge about this case is limited to what you learned from the criminal trial and you're as stunted as other posters who have ignored all of the new information and evidence that was learned from the many depositions and the civil trial testimony.

Anyone can claim anything but unless they back them up they're not believable.

bobaugust

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by bobaugust
Lionthrone, you may think you know more but I doubt it. I've never seen you post anything that supports that claim.

It sounds to me like your knowledge about this case is limited to what you learned from the criminal trial and you're as stunted as other posters who have ignored all of the new information and evidence that was learned from the many depositions and the civil trial testimony.

Anyone can claim anything but unless they back them up they're not believable.


bobaugust,

Because of an absolute victory in the criminal trial, and O J Simpson's dogged refusal to pay out a single dime, I'm quite satisfied and quite resolute to just sit back and take pot-shots at the guilties.


Lionthrone

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Lionthrone



bobaugust,

Because of an absolute victory in the criminal trial, and O J Simpson's dogged refusal to pay out a single dime, I'm quite satisfied and quite resolute to just sit back and take pot-shots at the guilties.


Lionthrone



Lionthrone, sure you do, being the hypocrite you are.

I believe you've already admitted to the fact that just because Simpson was acquitted doesn't mean he didn't commit the crime. The fact that another jury found him responsible for the murders after he was proved to be a liar and a killer makes your "absolute victory" a sham.

Your so called pot-shots are meaningless since you can't argue the evidence.

Your claim of knowing more about this case than socaldiva will ever know is ridiculous and false. The only thing you seem to post about is race. You haven't and evidently can't argue the truth of these murders without looking foolish because you are so uniformed. So you simply use excuses to avoid it. Good job.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Lionthrone


socaldiva,

Sometimes you are so full of it :mad:

The guy is the Charlie Chan of forensic sciences.

He's a fellow of the american academy of forensic sciences and a contributing editor for the board of forensic sciences. he's brilliant by all accounts, and the prosecution team tried to hire him but the dream team got the drop on him.

If he had testified for the prosecution team you'd revere him to this day :mad:

"Theories like fingerprints....Everybody has them" .....Dr. Henry Lee


Lionthrone :)



Lionthrone. Charlie Chan of forensic sciences says things more like Inspector Cluso.

Lee saw other shoe prints at Bundy when he visited there on June 28, 1994 and the defense tried to argue that someone else was there during the murders. Until the prosecution produced crime scene photographs taken the morning after the murders showing the exact place Lee saw the prints and they weren't there then.

Lee saw other shoe prints in photographs of the crime scene taken after the murders and the defense again tried to argue that someone else was there during murders. Until the prosecution showed that those shoe prints were imbedded in the cement when the walkway was poured.

Lee continues to this day to make misstatements about the evidence in this case.


Another City, Not My Own, Dominick Dunne

"Did I ever tell you this?" asked Harvey Levin. "About two weeks before the trial started, I was in Shapiro's office in Century City. This was before Johnnie Cochran took over. Shapiro was still in charge. He did the same sort of thing with me that he did with Jeffrey Toobin, when he leaked to Jeffrey the stuff about Detective Mark Fuhrman's racism. He was playing cutesy. I was asking him questions about the defense strategy, and he said, 'I would never be a source, but if you should happen to see anything in my office.'

He took a sign and turned it around. There, in a child-like spidery handwriting, were three possible defense strategies. Number One: OJ didn't do it. Number Two: Contamination of the evidence, Number Three: Conspiracy to frame.

That part was all fine, but I said something like, "Is that Dr. Lee's handwriting?' and Shapiro said, because I apparently wasn't supposed to have seen the signature, "That's not what I was showing you,' and then he kicked me out of his office."

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Originally posted by martin II
*Snipped*
i have always wondered if bosco will name some killers othet than oj. The gambling issue does fit smack into wagners theory of motive. I can deal with some of wagner because he is detailed and does give options for the reader in his presentation. The motive he gives for people wanting Nicole dead is very beliviable for me.
martin II

Martin,

Bosco is not going to name other killers as far as I know. He has never said OJ is innocent, only that others were involved before and after the murders. Where do you think Wagner got the idea from? I don't find his reason for why people wanted Nicole dead very compelling. I have not read Wagner's theories in many years but I don't recall any options in the basic hypothesis.

Wukong

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

Bob,
Ron was killed on the walkway, and "heaved" to the alcove! Do you have a theory on this, Bob?

How totally disrespectful to Ron Goldman! Sounds like he was nothing more than a sack of potatoes to you! "Heaved!" GMAFB!

JMO and MOO!!

:cuss: :rolleyes: :cuss:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

2l8

so how could ron let himself in if oj grabbed Nicole as she was going from her front door to the gate to unlock it for ron to let himself in when he arrived? the gate would still be locked.
martin II

IMO, the front gate was not locked; only closed shut.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

<snipped>

If you read back some of the testimony/post, you will see that Nicoles body was found by LE with her legs tucked under a stationary fense/gate (looking to the left if you are looking towards the condo)
The question is, how did her legs get tucked into this position?
MARTIN II

Ok, I am only going to post this once, so get your reading glasses on. I will try to make a long story short. I worked with this gal. She was younger than me. She was a single Mom and was having a real tough time. She lived from paycheck to paycheck. Everyone knew that something had to be definitely wrong if she didn't come to work on payday. Payday was on Monday. I spent the day with her on Sunday. She looked and acted fine to me. We started work at 9:00. "Jane" wasn't there. By 10:00, "Jane" still wasn't there. No one had heard from her. I, my Supervisor and another gal headed for "Jane's" apartment. We had to get the Manager to let us in. We called out her name. No answer. We could hear water running in the bathroom, so we made our way there. The door was completely shut. We looked down and saw that all of her toes were underneath the door. We knew that she was gone. As we cried, we were trying to push all of her little toes back underneath the door, but they wouldn't budge. We didn't ask for an explanation of how that would happen.

So in closing, it does happen. If it is so important to you, I hope that you find out how that would happen.

:rose: For "Jane" ~ God Bless You! :rose:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva
OMG 2L8, how awful. For everyone involved. I'm so sorry that happened to you & "Jane". :rose:

Thanks socal. I didn't want to bring it up, but Martin II was getting on my last nerves. Like it had never happened before and insinuating that someone intentionally had done it.

:)

[alien]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Thanks socal. I didn't want to bring it up, but Martin II was getting on my last nerves. Like it had never happened before and insinuating that someone intentionally had done it.

:)

And it just seems so disrespectful to keep brining it up. Rather like the post of Ron being "heaved" over the fence.

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


alien

netta and i, wukong fbg and others have been disscussing the details of various theories on this thread for 2-3 days ALL ABOUT THE CASE.
martin II

You know what, martin. I know that you have been discussing the case. I said that when lion comes bunny hopping in, you seem to forget about the "case" and respond to his crap that has nothing to do with the evidence of the case, etc. You post to his inane chattering with more inane chattering. If you want to believe that OJ is innocent, then please feel free to do so and post reasons for that. Don't start making comments about OJ getting his ducks in a row when it was so transparently obvious that he was making light of the deaths of his ex-wife and a poor innocent person who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Guilty or innocent, OJ should have more respect for those two people.

[alien]

Originally posted by Lionthrone


socaldiva,

I go where the action is :cool:

As for my lack of knowledge, I know more about this case than you'll ever know.

If you were around when the going was good, you'd know that
:patriot:


Lionthrone

Than good Lord, child, share that wealth of information with us "unenlightened" people. Give me on good solid piece of evidence that will make me go "HMMM", I never thought of that. It would explain away all the evidence to proves that OJ did do it.

Don't be shy. Show us how much you know.

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva
Hi Alien :seeya: I tried sending you a PM twice, but your box is full. I hope you have a great Mother's Day. :rose:

Opps, Sawwy....

I cleared messages out.

You have a most wonderful Mother's Day yourself. I am praying for good weather here so Mr Alien and I can have our barbecue with friends.

:rose:

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II

2l8

sorry to hear about your friend.

your experience with her case has nothing to do with how nicole's body was found imo
martin II

How can you say that with such certainty?

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


alien

In a response to Tazzy i stated that if i were oj i would find other
things to do with my time other this diddy.

my reason for saying this is that from reports this pay for view event is just some kind of a cheap way of making some money for the promoters not oj.

on the other hand it can be seen as a way for oj to judge the publics acceptance of him and or the show. If the show is successful, i would think oj would be interested in doing something else along thses lines or something with a more interesting plot.

Therefore my comments about getting his ducks in line.
I don't hold it against you if you find fault with my comments.
there is nothing i can do about that.
martin II

Your comments are your opinions as are all of ours. I do agree with you that OJ should find other things to do with his time. However, if he wants to do this kind of show, more power to him I suppose because it is all the rage now. Do you honestly believe that OJ won't make any money off this venture? IMO, if he continues to do things that make light of the deaths of Nicole and Ron, I don't think the public will be very accepting. Would you accept that kind of horrible behaviour from him?

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


two people found dead in two different places for two different reasons by different killers. that is my opinion.
matin II

Death is death no matter who, where or what.

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


i have no idea as to the arrangement of the promoters and oj.as it is none of my business. i don't know how the public will receive this pay for view piece.

i would never object to a person making a living regardless if i liked them or not.
in your case you can just not watch the program when it is on.i guess.
martin II

Well I certainly wouldn't object to a person making a living either regardless if I like them or not. That isn't even the point. The point is that what he did was tasteless and cruel.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Can you imagine? Based on that theory your dog would never come when you call it, if they can't see you first :tongue: The NGs argue that the dog wouldn't know Orenthal dressed in camo but the neighbor who saw him stalking Nicole should have? Cochran said Orenthal in a knit cap is still Orenthal but his own dog wouldn't recognize him......hahahahahaha

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
who do you think composed the muder scene that night?
martin II Orenthal James Simpson

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by Wukong
He saw things in the blood the same way people see Jesus' image on a potato chip. :lol: some folks find those images in tortillas down here.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


I don't think so socal because I don't think that OJ came through the Bundy gate and if he did, what did he expect Kato to do? Take off running scared never to return? I think that it would have backfired on OJ and Kato would have whined and probably would have started barking. Did OJ want to bring that much attention to himself? I don't think so.

JMO and MOO!! I don't think he'd thought about Kato -- remember, Kato was Orenthal's and Nicole's dog. Orenthal testified to coming by to pick up/drop off the dog on occasion. Kato was probably confused when Orenthal attacked Nicole and that would have started the incessant barking. I do have one question -- When Heidstra said he heard the "Hey, hey, hey." -- had the barking already started?

I think Orenthal could very possibly have come through the front gate (using the set of Nicole's missing keys) and left it unlocked -- which is how Ron was able to walk in on the attack. As the NGs like to say, anybody would recognize Orenthal and I'm sure Ron did.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by Lionthrone
The guy is the Charlie Chan of forensic sciences. I agree with this -- Henry Lee does remind me of Charlie Chan -- of course Charlie Chan was make believe and his conclusions were also scripted.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I think the majority don't have a question as to whether or not he did it. They will simply remember him as a pathetic man that beat & murdered his wife & got away with it due to celebrity & moronic jurors.


I couldn't agree more. I know plenty of people who don't share my views on many subjects, but I don't personally know
one single person that doesn't believe, without any doubt,
that OJ is a murderer.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lionthrone
[B]

alien,

Sorry but the O J Simpson trial and race, will forever be entwined :)

You mean because he was acquitted by a primarily African
American Jury based solely on the fact that he was
African American, in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Brett Cantor owner of the "Dragon Fly Night Club", was knifed to death in Brentwood in a similar manner as the Bundy murders in Sept 1993.

The case remains unsolved.

How can this be, shouldn't there be evidence of a second person at the crime scene? I'm sure there were many murders in and around Brentwood before and after the murders of Nicole and Ron. The fact remains, that forensic evidence identified one person and only one person as being at the murder scene with the two victims -- Orenthal James Simpson. Whatever the circumstances of any other murder or any other acquaintance, business associate, etc., of anyone else, Orenthal James Simpson's forensic evidence was not found at those scene.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Martin II

The G's hang their decision on the fact that there is NO trace evidence of anyone other than OJ at Bundy. Yet, in the Cantor scenario there is NO trace evidence of anyone at the crime scene, yet Brett Cantor was knifed to death by someone? Link please to statement that there was no trace of evidence of murderer at Cantor crime scene.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by martin II
[B]bandits mom

Nicole had set up her house with lit candles and she had drawn her bath water. Which it is logical to assum that she had plans to relax in. And retire after her bath.Some have said she planned to do this with ron. I don't know if that was her intention or not. but i don't think she was then planning to go back out with the dog.


Based on what? I've let my dog out, taken a bath, and then
let him back in. The courtyard was gated, she would assume the
dog was safe out there. I still don't see what any of this has
to do with OJ's obvious guilt.

The dance recital and dinner did not constitute a normal evening
for Nicole and the kids and oj had no way of knowing who was in the house visiting her and the children after dinner.

Whether it was a "normal" evening or not, he wouldn't have
known that, since they were no longer married, and no longer
responsible for answering to each other. I guess the possibility
of unexpected guests would be something any murderer could
potentially have to deal with. Perhaps he planned on looking through her window, it certainly wouldn't have been the first
time.



If you read back some of the testimony/post, you will see that Nicoles body was found by LE with her legs tucked under a stationary fense/gate (looking to the left if you are looking towards the condo)
The question is, how did her legs get tucked into this position?

Um, that's how she fell? Again, I fail to see what on earth
that has to do with OJ being the killer?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II i have no idea as to the arrangement of the promoters and oj.as it is none of my business. i don't know how the public will receive this pay for view piece.

i would never object to a person making a living regardless if i liked them or not. in your case you can just not watch the program when it is on.i guess.martin II Orenthal's financial arrangements become the public's business when he hides behind the law to not pay a judgement that he owes. Besides, we know he is not above stealing cable, what makes you think he's above taking money under the table for this? I, however, think he is only doing it to get his big ole bobble-head in front of the cameras again. He may have even convinced himself that he was abused and he was the victim in the whole thing. But, there is a majority of Americans who looked at the evidence, listened to the testimony and judged him a double murderer. And we ain't paying to watch him on tv or anywhere else.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by nettathirty
NO trace evidence of the killer was found at the Cantor crime scene, does that suggest there was NO killer? Link to this statement please

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
i belive that nicole definately knew that ron was comming over the night of the murders after he got off from work.
martin II The question is not whether she knew he was coming over -- of course she did, she'd called him and asked him to drop the glasses off. The question is whether or not it was a definite or if it was . . . ."if it's not too late. . . '

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Martin II

Where can you order the video, I'm curious to see what's all on it? I think you can call 1-800-MURDERER and it rings at Orenthal's.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
fbg

it is suggested that it took oj only 1- 1 1/2 minutes to kill nicole and ron. he then went out the back gate to the alley to the bronco. if the time Heidestra saw oj driving away at dorothy is correct, when did oj have time to compose the crime scene?

and where are the foot prints at nicoles body to show that this was done by someone in bm shoes?
martin II Evidence proved that Orenthal James Simpson was the murderer so IF the scene was composed, then bobble-head boy had to be the one to do it.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by martin II


the fact that you and all your friends belive oj was guilty means exactly what?

It simply backs up the opinion polls that have shown that
the American public believes, overwhelmingly, that he is
a murderer. THAT is how he will be remembered and nothing
he does is going to bring him back into the limelight, except
as an object of ridicule. While I'd much prefer he be rotting
in jail, I do take some comfort in the fact that he has gone
from being a well loved figure to a hated one and will
live his life that way.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I just can't imagine why he would choose to come through the Bundy entrance. It doesn't appear that there was any parking on Dorothy & the other street (starts with a G) is much further away. Parking on Bundy would have been much riskier than parking in the alley. Much more of a chance of being seen. imo I don't know where he parked but I'm guessing a side street. However, using his history of stalking, I do believe he walked on Bundy to the front of her house and unlocked the gate. I think Nicole heard something out there and stepped out to investigate. I think Orenthal attacked her and Ron walked through the gate at that time.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
Heidstra first heard the dog barking when he was at bundy/gorham that is why he retreated into the alley and walked down towards dorothy.



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 So sounds like Kato didn't start barking until the attack on Ron. So Kato didn't bark until the stranger walked up. Hmmm

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
"For what purpose?" Petrocelli asked. Fischman stated under oath that Ms. Simpson told her directly that she, Resnick and a man engaged in sex together. Fischman had disclosed during a television interview before the criminal trial started that Resnick and Ms. Simpson had had a sexual relationship. How pathetic you are -- a drug addict and a **** who was sleeping with the bag boy from the corner grocery. If you want to prove your point, give backup to their stories.

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


The majority of americans base their opinions on what the nedia teaches them they should believe. They have been wrong so many times. The majority of americans thought it was a good idea for Bush to invade IRAQ. Then.


Well you don't know if people will watch the pay for view tv or buy
the dvd now do you? you are just wishing and hoping everyone feels like you right?
martin II

I would like to think that the majority of Americans base their opinons on their common sense. You say they have been wrong so many times, but only give one instance.

I don't know how many people post on this board, but I know of only 3 of you (martin, netta and lion) who believe OJ is guilty. Who has the majority going on?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


You belive faye when she talks about oj abusing nicole not when she talks about nicoles activities.

look it seems that everyone i this little friendship circle,was doing extra duty so to speak.

the back up is listed at the top of the post.

civil trial
PETROCELLI questioning Cora F. You've never seen me refer to anything Faye said as being credible. I don't think you can take as credible information from a junkie. And remember, it was Nicole that was part of the intervention. As far as Cora, she was sleeping with the grocery boy and trying to get Nicole to lie and cover for her. I do not consider either of these two people to be credible.

[caphill]

Originally posted by kta


Bingo. No trace evidence OTHER THAN OJ at Bundy.

:punch:


There was many unidentified fingerprints on the wall next to Nicole's body. There was also blood under her finger nail that was not hers, Ron's or OJ's

There was a blood drop on her back that was never tested.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by martin II
[B]

i have never stated that oj was guilty.

you will have to think of other times when the american public got it wrong on your own but start at the last two presidential elections.


Yes, but got it wrong by a very small minority, not he huge
majority that believes OJ is a murderer. Also remember, that trial
wasn't just on CTV. It was everywhere, everday for months.
THAT's where most people formed their opinions. Let's also
not forget that no one looked more completely shocked by
the verdict than OJ's good buddy Robert Kardashian. I can
still remember the look on his face. He couldn't believe they'd
pulled it off!

[alien]

Originally posted by alien


I would like to think that the majority of Americans base their opinons on their common sense. You say they have been wrong so many times, but only give one instance.

I don't know how many people post on this board, but I know of only 3 of you (martin, netta and lion) who believe OJ is guilty. Who has the majority going on?

WHOA!! Can we say TYPO...:o

What the Alien meant to say was that netta, martin and lion think OJ is innocent.

Sorry netta and martin if I shook ya'll up.

Can't wait to see what lion will post to my comments before he reads this disclaimer. That is, of course, if he can lower himself to visit this board of unenlightened posters.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by caphill



There was many unidentified fingerprints on the wall next to Nicole's body. There was also blood under her finger nail that was not hers, Ron's or OJ's

There was a blood drop on her back that was never tested.


caphill, There were many unidentified one of kind fingerprints found at Bundy. That's not unusual. All homes have many one of kind fingerprints found inside and outside of them. That's the reality of life, no one lives in a vacuum.

The scrapings found under Nicole's fingernails was found to be type B. Nicole had type BA blood. Greg Matheson testified that type BA blood may degrade to type B and it was his opinion that's exactly what happened. It isn't too hard to understand that when you consider the fact that Nicole's hand was found resting in a pool of her own blood.

DNA testing was conducted on Nicole's fingernail scrapings and the results were found to be Nicole's DNA.
Item No. 84, PCR testing, Nicole. 1/2,500.

There was blood on Nicole's back that was never tested before it was washed off her body by the coroner. That blood was most likely Nicole's or Ron's blood that may have dripped from the murder weapon Simpson used to kill both victims. Or possibly Simpson's blood from the cut on his finger.

bobaugust

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I've been out for the last few hours, so I'm trying to catch up here, but this post stuck out like a sore thumb.

You compare the American public looking at the evidence presented in the trial & compare that to American's electing a President that people find fault with afterwards? You might want to consider:

1) Looking at the evidence in a murder case is evaluating something that has ALREADY TRANSPIRED. Picking a President most often involves trying to PREDICT what kind of job they will do.

2) Regardless of who is elected, there are always throngs of people that criticize the job that he does.

I was trying to formulate an answer to martin's question, but hit a mind cramp. Thanks for your explanation that I agree with.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


or another persons that was dripped.


martin II, or blood from aliens from outer space that was dripped.

bobaugust

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II
alien

it appears that lionthrone's comments seems to "upset your apple
cart" so to speak. Why is that. He is expressing HIS opinions on events just as YOU are expressing yours.
martin II

Do ya think?? ;)

If you are aware from my posts that lion "upsets" me, the answer why should be contained in the posts where you came up with the idea that I am "upset".

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty




Storfer put the barking start time at 10:15p along with 2 other witnesses!


nettathirty, that's incorrect. Storfer estimated the time he heard the dog bark as 10:20. Fenjves estimated the time he heard the dog bark as about 10:15 to 10:20. Stein estimated she heard dog(s) barking about a half an hour before Karpf arrived home at 10:45. All three witnesses were in their houses.

Five other witnesses who were outside at 10:20 near Nicole's condo never heard any dog barking Two of them did hear the Akita start to bark about 10:30, 10:35.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


netta
thanks. that is what i had in my notes also.

I was looking at the bundy neighborhood via satalite over the weekend and realized that from their house (Storfers)they would be able to hear the dog from both positions. Bumdy and the position of Dorothy ST and the alley.

Also when the AKITA walked on Dorothy and made the paw prints
he was right on the side of their house.

So how could oj be at bundy killing nicole at 10:30 when the Akita
was in the street with bloody paws 10-15 minutes earlier.
The time line is off.

martin II



martin II. that's because Storfer and Fenjves were mistaken. Mandel, Aaronson, Pilnak, Telander, and Heidstra all contradicted the times Storfer and Fenjves estimated.

Heidstra is the key witnesses who tell us when the dog started to bark, when Goldman arrived at Bundy, and when Simpson left Bundy.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II

bob

Mandel and Aronson. i think it was these two. comming from dinner taking a stroll as one said , paying attention to each other,
did not notice anything. Pilnak, the time freak, was in her bathroom when she say she heard the dog barking. i don't belive her and she lived about half a block down from bundy and further from the front of nicoles condo.

telander
the black dog that heidstra say he heard barking lived in the house right next to her. i may be wrong but that is what i got from heidestras testimony. is that correct.
martin II



martin II, no you aren't correct. Telander did not live next door to where the small black dog was.

Mandel and Aaronson were not paying attention to each other any more than any two people who were walking and talking. Both testified that they saw and heard nothing out of the ordinary when they were walking home that night.

They walked right by the front of Nicole's condo shortly before 10:30 that night. They didn't see any dead bodies. They didn't see any bloody paw prints. They didn't hear any dogs barking.

Pilnak's estimated times are more supported than any other witness who testified about this event. Supported by telephone records. Pilnak and Telander were outside just down the street from Nicole's condo at about 10:20. Pilnak also told how still and quiet the night was. After Telander drove away Pilnak went back into her house and called her mother. Pilnak's telephone records show that call was placed at 10:25.

Telander testified that when she drove away from Pilnak's house she went to the intersection of Bundy and Dorothy St. to turn around. She said her car window was open.

Heidstra looked at this watch when he left his house about 10:15. When he arrived back home it was almost 11:00.

Mandel, Aaronson, Pilnak, Telander, and Heidstra never heard any dog barking on that still quiet night until after 10:30.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Bob,

I still have problems with the time the dog started barking. I have been way to busy to finish researching this but need to get back to it. I can't see why you can discount Storfer's time of 10:20. How do you reconcile this? I have not seen you reconcile this, only discount it because he was in his house. But then you rely on Pilnak and when she heard the dog inside her house a block and a half away. I am not saying you're wrong, only that you cannot be sure about Pilnak until you have a good explaination for Storfer. To me, Storfer being in his house is not a good reason to throw out his testimony. I think that Storfer and Pilnak are the two best witnesses to the time because they both looked at clocks around the time they heard barking. Pilnak being on the phone at 10:25 doesn't prove the dog was not barking at 10:20. I still have big problems with Pilnak's testimony but need time to anylize her testimony and the time situation as a whole.

Again, I see no problem with OJ being the murderer and the dog barking at 10:20. There are explainations for this beside Pettrocelli's.

Brian

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


alien

i assume that you are saying that you have not been "up set" by linothrones post. i take the comment back. that is good to hear.
martin II

"Because IMO, lion is one of the most annoying people I have ever come across on this and any other boards. He pops in and out like some kind of bunny with his comments, but he never seems to really want to discuss the facts about the case. He throws crap out to see if it will cause an uproar and IMO it most certainly does."

The above is what I posted earlier. I am not sure where you get your assumption from. Did you not get the sarcastic twist of the first part of my response to your questions about lion upsetting me.

Also, his superior attitude is another deal all together.

Hope this clears up any and all confusion about how I feel about lion.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Bob,

Kato, slept with the children upstairs. Is it possible that Nicole was dead before 10:30p along with Goldman, but the dog didn't come outside until after 10:30p?


nettathirty, there is no evidence that the dog was sleeping with Nicole's children that night. That was only speculation on Wagner's part.

There is no evidence that Nicole was dead before 10:30. Mandel and Aaronson walked right by the front of Nicole's condo shortly before 10:30. They saw nothing out of the ordinary.

Heidstra Heard two male voices coming from Nicole's condo sometime between 10:30 and 10:45. From Heidstra's descriptions of those voices Heidstra most likely heard when Ron Goldman arrived at Bundy. The fact that there is only evidence of three people being at Bundy that evening, the two victims and the killer, makes that more than likely.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Netta,

I have not speculated anything yet. If I had a preconceived notion about what happened before I complete my study that would prejudice anything I do and how I read the testimony.

Brian

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Wukong
Bob,

I still have problems with the time the dog started barking. I have been way to busy to finish researching this but need to get back to it. I can't see why you can discount Storfer's time of 10:20. How do you reconcile this? I have not seen you reconcile this, only discount it because he was in his house. But then you rely on Pilnak and when she heard the dog inside her house a block and a half away. I am not saying you're wrong, only that you cannot be sure about Pilnak until you have a good explaination for Storfer. To me, Storfer being in his house is not a good reason to throw out his testimony. I think that Storfer and Pilnak are the two best witnesses to the time because they both looked at clocks around the time they heard barking. Pilnak being on the phone at 10:25 doesn't prove the dog was not barking at 10:20. I still have big problems with Pilnak's testimony but need time to anylize her testimony and the time situation as a whole.

Again, I see no problem with OJ being the murderer and the dog barking at 10:20. There are explainations for this beside Pettrocelli's.

Brian


Brian, Pilnak's telephone call at 10:25 does prove the dog was not barking at 10:20. Both Pilnak and Telander testified they went outside when Telander was leaving to go to her car at about 10:21. Pilnak told how exceptionally quiet and still the night was then, just as Heidstra said.

After Telander got in her car and drove off Pilnak went back into her house and called her mother. That was the 10:25 call. Telander meanwhile had her driver's window down and drove to the intersection of Bundy and Dorothy St. and turned around. Neither Pilnak nor Telander heard any dog barking.

Storfer said that the dog barking he heard was loud and persistent. No one outside at 10:20 heard any dog barking.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Bob,

So Storfer did not hear a dog? If he did hear a dog it was not 10:20? I just cannot discount Storfers testimony as easily as you. Again, I need to look at it again. Who knows when I'll find time though. I am in the middle of designing 10 brand new products for introduction in August and am up to my azz in aligators.

Brian

[Hotwater]

...And it was going so well!

FYI kta got banned despite creative use of the keyboard. Please do not follow his/her example.

Thanks,

--Hh20

[caphill]

Originally posted by bobaugust



caphill, There were many unidentified one of kind fingerprints found at Bundy. That's not unusual. All homes have many one of kind fingerprints found inside and outside of them. That's the reality of life, no one lives in a vacuum.

The scrapings found under Nicole's fingernails was found to be type B. Nicole had type BA blood. Greg Matheson testified that type BA blood may degrade to type B and it was his opinion that's exactly what happened. It isn't too hard to understand that when you consider the fact that Nicole's hand was found resting in a pool of her own blood.

DNA testing was conducted on Nicole's fingernail scrapings and the results were found to be Nicole's DNA.
Item No. 84, PCR testing, Nicole. 1/2,500.

There was blood on Nicole's back that was never tested before it was washed off her body by the coroner. That blood was most likely Nicole's or Ron's blood that may have dripped from the murder weapon Simpson used to kill both victims. Or possibly Simpson's blood from the cut on his finger.

bobaugust


There are 4 universal blood types. A, B, AB, and O. Type A has only an A antigen, type B has only a B antigen, type AB has both an A and a B antigen, type O has no antigens.

Greg Matheson or anyone else that testifies that a B blood type is likely an AB type with an A antigen missing is suspect of giving less that accurate testimony.

The fact was type B blood was found on or under Nicole fingernails and she, Ron and OJ did not have type B blood.

Why would the A antigen degrade and the B antigen remain in an AB type? If that could happen, then you coud never trust any blood typing of anyone that had A,B,or AB blood if there was a possibly that one or the other antigen could just disappear. An emergency blood transfusion could become a fatal decision.

To say that the blood drops on Nicole's back was most likely OJ's is biased reasoning. It could have been OJ's or it could have someone elses blood. The question is why the blood was not examined. If it had indeed been fresh blood droppings from OJ with no ETDA traces, the prosecution might have been on the other side of the winning aisle.

[alien]

Originally posted by Hotwater
...And it was going so well!

FYI kta got banned despite creative use of the keyboard. Please do not follow his/her example.

Thanks,

--Hh20

Was it because of the word b***h word. I guess we all better be careful. I have never seen a moderator post a message about someone being banned.

To bad, kta was making some good points. I hope kta can reinvent with another nic.

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II

not really but it does not matter. i am sure lionthorne will be able to respond if he see fit.
i just have not been able to undrstand how someone can cause you to feel any way that you donot desire to feel.
martin II

Bless your heart martin. I guess you don't understand what I am trying to say. I don't look at it as a personal attack. I said that he annoyed me. Annoyance is a personal thing. I am annoyed by lion and the things he says. I have the right to feel that way.

I used the term about him bunny hopping on this board and refering to people as unenlightened. So IMO, he is attacking anyone who makes comments. IMO that includes you and netta.

People on this board make comments based on their opinion. Most of us make comments based on what we have enlightened ourselves on by reading transcripts and reading what others have to say.

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II

alien

"unenlightened" is a word that bob uses to describe everyone here that dissagree with his theories. So, does he annoy you also.

i belive that people ALLOW others to make them feel one way or the other. Not that one person can MAKE another feel one way or the other. Good or bad.
martin II

If I am wrong, I am wrong so let me know if you think I am wrong. Lion never gives any insight into why he thinks we are unenlightened and he never explains why he thinks OJ is innocent. He just throws out stuff to cause chaos and stuff that makes no sense.

And please please understand that I feel annoyance with lion. He does not make me feel bad about what I believe in.

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

Do you understand what I am saying?

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


alien
The moderator came on this thread saturday and wished everyone a happy mothers day. This indicated that she/he did read this thread from time to time.

That comment (kta)was a unecessary slap at the black women on the jury and it was hateful.
martin II

I don't doubt for a second that the moderator doesn't check this board.

I just said that I never saw a message letting us know that someone was banned. I know from reading your posts that you were rayray, but I never saw a post letting us know that you were banned.

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by alien
If I am wrong, I am wrong so let me know if you think I am wrong. Lion never gives any insight into why he thinks we are unenlightened and he never explains why he thinks OJ is innocent. He just throws out stuff to cause chaos and stuff that makes no sense.

And please please understand that I feel annoyance with lion. He does not make me feel bad about what I believe in.

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Hello alien,

One of the reasons I feel I don't have to explain myself is because it doesn't really matter whether O J Simpson is guilty or not.

I was personally moved when an all-black jury had the strength, courage, and fortitude to go against public thinking, to go against the consensus of most courtroom pundits,........just to support one of their own. :patriot:

They're Heroes :)




Lionthrone

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by socaldiva
Alien was right. You get the most offensive poster award. You are such a r***** and that seems to be all you have to offer. Ever.

socaldiva,

Actually I have quite a bit to offer :(

I'm very well versed in most subject matter from Politics, to Science & Space Exploration, to Sports.

Thanks for the award though, I'll wear it as a badge of honor :patriot:



Lionthrone :)

[Wukong]

Caphill,

All the testimony about AB, B, A, antigens etc... which you so expertly pointed out (Not being cute here, I really thought you did a good job. I have studied all of this testimony myself) was all made moot when the DNA test on the blood under Nicole's nails came back to Nicole.

Wukong

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lionthrone


Hello alien,

One of the reasons I feel I don't have to explain myself is because it doesn't really matter whether O J Simpson is guilty or not.

I was personally moved when an all-black jury had the strength, courage, and fortitude to go against public thinking, to go against the consensus of most courtroom pundits,........just to support one of their own. :patriot:

They're Heroes :)




Lionthrone


Just for accuracy the make up of the jury was 9 blacks, 1 Hispanic and 2 whites.

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by caphill
Just for accuracy the make up of the jury was 9 blacks, 1 Hispanic and 2 whites.

caphill,

It's believed at some point during the long sequestration that the jury developed what is known as Group Think.

They essentially formed one mind, one opinion, and I can assure you the driving force behind that decision was lead by the fore-person of the jury (an african american female) who every juror highly respected and admired.

The strength, determination, and will of those 9 african american jurors won the day




Lionthrone :)

[Wukong]

Lionthrone is a one trick pony and, alas, the one trick he does know is not very good. As I browse the boards reading threads of interest, Lionthrone occassionaly pops up with his one tired trick and leaves.

You see folks, Ponythrone would love nothing better than to get every person who is not of color banned from this board. He spouts the same nonsense everywhere he goes, then when someone gets irate about his comment he smugly posts something along these lines: "What are so upset about? Can't take it? Can't stand to see a proud black man standing up for his own? I think you have a problem." His posts are filled with emoticons of shrugging shoulders, frowns and smilies; which by the way are the best part of what he posts. I have yet to read anything of substance from him and am not holding out for anything enlightening coming from this egotist any time soon. You would think that one who professes to be well versed in many subjects to write something of interest??

I would suggest just ignoring the little one trick pony, you would save yourself a lot of grief and a possible banning.

Wukong

[caphill]

Originally posted by Wukong
Caphill,

All the testimony about AB, B, A, antigens etc... which you so expertly pointed out (Not being cute here, I really thought you did a good job. I have studied all of this testimony myself) was all made moot when the DNA test on the blood under Nicole's nails came back to Nicole.

Wukong


There is a little problem with that argument. The blood typing comes from a red blood cell. A red blood cell does not have a nucleus. There is no DNA in a red blood cell.

There could have been epithelial cells from the fingernail scrapings that came from Nicole. That in no way explains away the type B red blood cell that could not have come from Nicole, Ron or OJ.

To simpify: You can not get DNA out of a red blood cell. FACT.

To say DNA testing showed that the type B red blood cell came from Nicole is a scientific impossiblity and would be false testimony.

[caphill]

Originally posted by martin II


Are we to assume that greg mathesons testimony about B blood degrading into ab was not accurate?
MARTIN ii


That is a correct assumption!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Bob,

1. Was there evidence that the dog didn't sleep with the Children, ever?

2. If NBS and Goldman were dead before 10:30p and the dog hadn't come outside. Wouldn't it be safe to say Mandel and Aaronson would not have heard anything as well.

3. Heidstra was in the alley across the street from Bundy. I don't think he was in the best position to say, who and were the source of those sounds came from! (MOO)



nettathirty,

1. I have never heard any evidence that the Akita slept with the children, but I wouldn't doubt that it sometimes did.

2. Your question is based on a false premise. There is no evidence that Nicole and Goldman were dead before 10:30. The evidence is that Goldman arrived at Bundy after 10:30. If both Ron and Nicole were dead when Mandel and Aaronson walked by the front of Nicole's condo, it's very likely they would have seen the same thing Boztep saw. The gate was open and Nicole's body and blood could be seen.

3. Heidstra was the only ear and eye witness to these murders. Heidstra was in the best position to tell where the sounds were coming from. He was directly opposite Nicole's condo and at a higher elevation. Heidstra had no doubt that the voices and the gate he heard came from Nicole's condo.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by caphill



There are 4 universal blood types. A, B, AB, and O. Type A has only an A antigen, type B has only a B antigen, type AB has both an A and a B antigen, type O has no antigens.

Greg Matheson or anyone else that testifies that a B blood type is likely an AB type with an A antigen missing is suspect of giving less that accurate testimony.

The fact was type B blood was found on or under Nicole fingernails and she, Ron and OJ did not have type B blood.

Why would the A antigen degrade and the B antigen remain in an AB type? If that could happen, then you coud never trust any blood typing of anyone that had A,B,or AB blood if there was a possibly that one or the other antigen could just disappear. An emergency blood transfusion could become a fatal decision.




caphill, Matheson explained what happened in his testimony. You also seem to want to ignore the fact that the questioned scrapings from underneath Nicole's finger nails were tested and only her DNA was found proving Matheson right. And you seem to want to ignore the fact that Nicole's hand was resting in a pool of her own blood. The type B blood found under Nicole's fingernail was her own degraded blood.


May 2, 1995 Greg Matheson

MR. GOLDBERG: You said that a type BA can degrade into a B. And so I'll just write a little arrow down to B (Indicating).
MR. MATHESON: A BA can degrade until it can be--look like or be confused with a b.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And maybe I may have been phrasing some of my questions inartfully. Does the type actually change or is it the appearance that changes?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's the appearance. It's what we are seeing as far as our development is what actually changes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So is this phenomenon of BA to B one that you have seen in your work and also that's been noted in the forensic science literature?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But does it happen the other way around? I mean, can you get it to degrade from the B to a BA?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: So there is a define degradation route with respect to this marker?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. Like I mentioned earlier, the a bands are the least able, then comes the B and then the c.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II

alien

"unenlightened" is a word that bob uses to describe everyone here that dissagree with his theories. So, does he annoy you also.


martin II


martin II, you're wrong again.

I don't believe I've ever used the word "unenlightened." I do use the word uninformed, not when someone disagrees with me, but when people like you offer opinions when it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about or what witnesses actually said in their testimony.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Caphill,

Nice try but blood is not made up of only red blood cells:

"Our body's cells each contain a complete sample of our DNA. One cell is roughly equal in size to the cube described in the previous paragraph. There are muscle cells, brain cells, liver cells, blood cells, sperm cells and others. Basically, every part of the body is made up of these tiny cells and each contains a sample or complement of DNA identical to that of every other cell within a given person. There are a few exceptions. For example, our red blood cells lack DNA. Blood itself can be typed because of the DNA contained in our white blood cells. "

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

wukong

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


when the major media gives you a one sided view of events. where do you get another view from? Read the depositions and testimony, listen to experts (both sides), use good common sense. Most people are smart enough to decipher the rhetoric surrounding any event and draw conclusions based on facts and probability.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



After Ron and Nicole were murdered about 10:15p. I too believe OJ came about 10:40p and altered the original crime scene. For what purpose? And, if he altered the scene, does that mean he removed any and all evidence of another person(s) having been there? This is not plausible.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by caphill



There was many unidentified fingerprints on the wall next to Nicole's body. There was also blood under her finger nail that was not hers, Ron's or OJ's

There was a blood drop on her back that was never tested. Link to "unidentified fingerprints on wall". The blood under her fingernail was tested and it proved to be Nicole's.

Have you looked at the crime scene photos? Would you mind pointing out for me which blood "drop" on her back was not tested.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Crime Remains Unsolved, and the LAPD hadn't arrested anyone for the Cantor Murder and it's been 13years almost! Your statement of fact was that there was NO trace evidence found at the Cantor murder scene. Either you need to retract your statement and say it is not a fact or prove it by linking to credible source of the statement.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
kta

what time did ron arrive at the bundy gate on 6/12
martin II Just as Heidstra heard "Hey, hey, hey." and Kato started barking.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


i have read something different.

please give a link to your assertion.
martin II I haven't read anything different -- please give a link to your assertion that the number of people that believe Orenthal is not the murderer has grown.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

from the way the lapd lab collected the "EVIDENCE" and based on
the 'MISTAKES" made by some lab tech. some of the blood drops may have come from aliens. the lab may have just attatched oj's name to them. HAHA
martin II
:) All three labs were out to get Orenthal? LOL -- you need to reassess your meds -- the new ones aren't working.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The reason nobody knew of abuse, is because there was NO abuse. Right. Nicole's statements, Orenthal's apologies and penalty, AC's statements, police reports, 911 calls and pictures were all a hoax......LOL......or maybe Orenthal 'showed up" after the abuse and before the police and hospital....LOL

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



What does your life, have to do with Nicole and OJs?
(this is not meant to be sarcastic)

These weren't OJs friends, they were NBS friends only! Not true -- Orenthal called Christian to whine about Nicole the night of the murders!

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


alien

You must know that the majority of americans make decision based on what they are told to belive by the media.

During the runup to the war there were some peace groups that protested our involvement. but the mass media and congress pushed this view aside and fed the american pubilc the administraiton's bs line that iraq had the bomb and was sending it to d.c. and the large majority of the american pubilc went for it and backed the war. they got it wrong.
martin II You are proving yourself to be as ignorant of human beings and world affairs as you are of this murder case.

Maybe a majority of your friends let the media make their decisions but the people I know are bright enough to do their own thinking.

As far as the war, the majority of the American people "went" for the war because we all thought Iraq had the bomb -- that is what Hussain wanted us to believe. I do not believe George Bush or any other president of the United States would maliciously lead us into war.

You seem to like to sit on the sidelines and point your little fingers and criticize the folks out there making the hard calls. Pitiful.

[Wukong]

Some very interesting comments on Mario Nitrini's Myspace:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=61948323

Wukong

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


kta

faye's comments about what she and nicole's activities (the three some) had been discussed here over and over so many times.

cora fishmans deposition has her testimony. since you obviously have not read it. i suggest you do. it is listed along with all other testimony.

i will ask you again

what time did fuenjves say she/he heard the Akita bark?
martin II Don't be ridiculous. You suggesting to someone else that they have not read testimony is laughable.

I will ask you -- WTH does fuenjves hearing the Akita bark have to do with anything tangible that was left at the murder scene?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



What do you think the jury in the Criminal Trial based their opinions on, when reendering the NOT GUILTY verdict? Race fueled by ignorance

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


Faye was not oj's friend. cora and oj were friends but cora had a very person female relationship with nicole and counceled her against activity that could cause her harm.
martin II LOL -- yes I can hear her now......"Nicole, don't sleep with the grocery bag boy and lie to your husband.. . ." LOL

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
so tell me what time did fuenjves hear the dog bark?? What does this have to do with the tangible evidence left at the murder scene?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


yep

what time did fuenjves hear the dog??

Grocery clerk--Waiter--- what is the differance?

martin II GTF over the fuenjves thing -- no one cares. It makes no difference in the tangible evidence left at the murder scene.

The difference between the waiter and the grocery clerk -- Cora was married and Nicole was not. There was evidence of Cora's adultery and no evidence of a relationship between Nicole and Ron.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



When the juror said " this was a murder, and not a Domestic Abuse". What do you think she meant, and why do you think she felt that way? I think the defense jury profiler had it right -- black women accept DM within their relationships and black women will not pity Nicole because she is a white woman married to a black man. Couple that with ignorance about the sciences and society and you've pretty well got her answer.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva



Oh, pick me. Pick me. I know. Because she was an IDIOT!!! :lol:

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


That's funny, when someone calls you on something you refer to it as "nonsense".

Why don't you take your own advise & "stop the nonsense"? Oh, that's right, because then you wouldn't have anything to post :lol: :lol:

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Oh sure, the "majority of American's make decisions based on what they are told to believe by the media". You, Netta & Lionsthone were just too smart to buy into it.

And here I was thinking they were't too smart ;)

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
Stop the nonsense.

in cora's deposition she said fay told her that she and nicole had a threesome with a man they both met in mexico. now if you have never heard this subject discussed on this thread. you can read coras deposition for yourself. But she refused to disclose the contents of her conversation with AC -- hmmm

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


OMG! You want a link to your own posts??!! :lol: I am telling you -- the new meds are not working.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Martin II is like the Dustin Hoffman character from Rain Man, he's still answering questions from last week :tongue: ROFLMAO. . . couldn't have said it better myself

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


You decided this based on a "satalite" view? I went there yesterday in person ;) I bet that was an experience. Hmmm, feet on the ground looking and not speculating via "satalite" view.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II

bob
what evidence do you know of that proves that the dog was NOT sleeping with the children that night???
martin What evidence do you know of that proves the dog WAS sleeping with the children that night???

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by Wukong
Some very interesting comments on Mario Nitrini's Myspace:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=61948323

Wukong

I'm blocked from viewing at work....lol Give me a little detail.

:D

[bandit's mom]

[As far as the war, the majority of the American people "went" for the war because we all thought Iraq had the bomb -- that is what Hussain wanted us to believe. I do not believe George Bush or any other president of the United States would maliciously lead us into war.


Actually there is a significant amount of evidence that Roosevelt
had knowledge of Pearl Harbor prior to the attack, but knew
that the only way to get us into war was to have us directly
attacked. I'm still on the fence on that particular theory, but
I don't, for one second, doubt that our current President
lied through his teeth and would have done virtually anything
to get us into this war. You may or may not also recall
that Lyndon Johnson out and out fabricated an attack
on an American Ship in order to escalate the Vietnam war.
So, the concept of a President lying to get what they want
is not, in any way, hard for me to buy.

That said, I don't really see what it has to do with the OJ
trial. I believe the vast majority of Americans did not want
to believe OJ guilty. It's hard to recall now, but this was
one of the best liked men in the country prior to the murders.
The funny, outgoing, slap you on the back kind of guy
everyone liked, not to mention a highly admired athlete,
and we all know how this country likes to hero worship
athletes.

For most people, I think the Bronco chase was the first time
we really questioned his innocence. Why does an innocent
man appear to be running? Why is he threateneing suicide
if not out of guilt, or fear of what was going to happen to
him as a result of the murder. Then, as the evidence mounted,
we came around. It's my opinion that OJ was one of the best
cases we've seen where someone was truly "presumed innocent". I'd go so far as to say "hoped innocent". It was
the evidence that made that impossible to hold onto. Nothing
else.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
there were 5 houses on bundy across the street from nicoles condo. which house did the black dog belong to?
Why don't you tell us which house the dog belonged to?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by bandit's mom

*snip*for space
For most people, I think the Bronco chase was the first time
we really questioned his innocence. Why does an innocent
man appear to be running? Why is he threateneing suicide
if not out of guilt, or fear of what was going to happen to
him as a result of the murder. Then, as the evidence mounted,
we came around. It's my opinion that OJ was one of the best
cases we've seen where someone was truly "presumed innocent". I'd go so far as to say "hoped innocent". It was
the evidence that made that impossible to hold onto. Nothing
else.

I agree with you completely.

:beer:

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by Wukong
Lionthrone is a one trick pony . . . I would suggest just ignoring the little one trick pony, you would save yourself a lot of grief and a possible banning. :beer:

[Wukong]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


I'm blocked from viewing at work....lol Give me a little detail.

:D

Tazzy,

Clean out your PMs/mailbox then PM me so I know you can accept a message.

Here are two comments made on Mario's Myspace:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

5/14/2006 7:19 PM

Mario, your day is coming.
George

------------------------------------------------------------------

5/14/2006 7:53 PM

God bless you, Mario. You have friends in high places that were waiting for the right evidence to come forward for your cause and others with similar complaints against Ito. That evidence has been brought forward.

George

------------------------------------------------------------------

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by caphill



There is a little problem with that argument. The blood typing comes from a red blood cell. A red blood cell does not have a nucleus. There is no DNA in a red blood cell.

There could have been epithelial cells from the fingernail scrapings that came from Nicole. That in no way explains away the type B red blood cell that could not have come from Nicole, Ron or OJ.

To simpify: You can not get DNA out of a red blood cell. FACT.

To say DNA testing showed that the type B red blood cell came from Nicole is a scientific impossiblity and would be false testimony. You can get DNA from body fluids -- blood, semen, saliva, etc.

[Wukong]

Originally posted by martin II


wukong
in some of mario's posting I THINK he said that some guy brought rocky up in the mountains a black bag left in the limo by oj and that rocky tossed it in a lake.

then i read where mario says the story about rocky being in the mountians was a LIE.

martin II:shrug:

Close Martin but not really. You know, I really worry about you sometimes.

Mario said that Rocky told him he was camping (never mentioned mountains?) all week after the murders. Then Mario found out from a person covering OJ's house on the 14th (2 days after the murders) that Rocky was seen leaving Rockingham carrying two more bags. Mario said Rocky lied to him about camping all week.

Wukong

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

i have been looking for le report on the cantor murder from a established media organizaiton. for some strange reason there has been none found. this leads me to believe that le never released any info on this case at all to the media or i just don't know where to look. Do you have info about evidence found at this murder scene?
martin II I wasn't the one that offered the statement that no forensic evidence was found at the Cantor murder scene. You and your buddy netta are the ones pushing that . . .

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


You are so full of it! You don't even know what you are talking about.

When someone is banned, typically the only way you know this is if you look at someone profile. You don't know what you are talking about when you say the "moderator did list banned next her name in all her previous posts". Most posts of someone banned disappear. Look at Califgirls posts, there are still intact 5 months later!

Don't drag my into your trouble. You went on & on & on for days & weeks as to who I was & whether or not I had been banned.

Talis was banned for making hateful r***** remarks & you were banned for saying a poster deserved their beatings. So don't you DARE drag me into YOUR trouble you little weasle. Go socal, Go socal.....lol

[Wukong]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
You can get DNA from body fluids -- blood, semen, saliva, etc.

I already posted a reply to this but I want to add something. The poster was correct that red blood cells don't have DNA. I posted a link to a very good primer about DNA which anyone interested should read. Anyway, white blood cells do contain DNA but the poster was insistant that the DNA testing could not prove the blood was not type B. As Bob posted subsequently the AB had degraded to a B in the testing but the DNA test proved without a doubt the blood was Nicole's. DNA and blood typing are two completely different tests and I am not sure the poster fully understands this.

Wukong

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
fbg
the reason you thought iraq had a Bomb was because your president and the media told you they did.

at any rate the american public got it wrong. and they are pissed. therefore the presidents ratings are not at a lot,less than 40% approval.
you may want to consider bringing to a end all of these personal
attacks on people that don't belive you or your positions. you don't know any of them personally.so no need to allow yourself to get out of control or FRUSTRATED as you say, because of different opinions. martin II He is my president and this is my country. Sounds like you may owe your allegience somewhere else?

You make me laugh....Please don't take my comments personally -- I actually do worry about your meds being wrong.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Now he's posting to banned posters? :lol: LOL -- that's because everyone else gets tired of answering the same and/or inane questions over and over.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Is he trying to say his looking at a satalite view of cars & "gargable cans" is more reliable than the witness testimony? :confused: and a 'satalite' view of tree leaves.....:D

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Thanks :o

RR2 also fails to mention that I'm such a "trouble maker" that he FOLLOWED me to the Nancy Grace forum to post even though he his cable company doesn't carry her show! :rolleyes: LOL -- only our little rayray would go to that much trouble.....LOL

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


At least his post served as a reminder for me to bring in my "gargable cans" :D He needs to move south -- we just call them trash cans -- much easier to spell.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

"unenlighted"--"uninformed"-- "unable to understand"


All are words used to indicate a lack of knowledge on the subject. which is what you claim is the condition that people that dissagree with you suffer from. It is your way of using a 'sound bite' to put people down. imo
martin II



martin II, no I don't use the word uninformed to put people down.

When someone makes false accusations and claims based on their own ignorance of the facts and evidence in this case. Or when they offer opinions on what they think witnesses said, not what they actually said, they are uninformed. I simply inform the uninformed.

If you feel put down because what you say is corrected so much, then I would suggest you start informing yourself before you make statements based on your memory to avoid the mistakes you consistently make.

If you don't want to find out the answers for yourself, which you usually don't seem to want to do, then prepare to be corrected. I believe I've been nice about correcting you about your mistakes but when you continue to repeat the same mistakes never admitting you're wrong my responses probably aren't as nice.

bobaugust

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by martin II


bandit


I was wondering how they came to this conclusion without any evidence being presented if they were not educated to his guilt
by the media.
martin II

If you recall, both sides, the prosecution and the defense
made statements. Add that to the Bronco chase that I've
already mentioned. People were forced to change their minds.
Did the media present the news? Of course they did. They
presented statements from both sides. That's their job.
Just like what is happening now with the Duke case. I get
coverage every day about what either the prosecution or
defense side has to say. So what? I still haven't completely
made up my mind. There are still cases that have gone to
trial and resulted in a verdict that I haven't made my mind up
about. So, what does any of that prove? Of course we get
news from the media. If you watch alot of Fox news, you're
definitely getting biased news. I don't see that with the networks. I think they strive to present the news as
objectively as possible. But, even if they don't, I think most
of us are capable of filtering out the fanatics. Personally, I roll
my eyes any time I hear Nancy Grace speak. I agreed with
her about Scott Peterson's guilt, but I also realize that to
her, everyone is guilty. So, I really don't consider anything she
says to be any more than her personal opinion. Certainly not
actual news. I'm still capable of forming an independent opion.

And for the record, I NEVER, for one second, supported the US attack on Iraq. I do believe the President lied to us. Deliberately
and with specific intent. I haven't made up my mind about the Duke Case, I would have acquitted Michael Jackson, even though I think, in all likelihood he's guilty, because it was NOT proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
And I don't have the slightest doubt that OJ should have
been convicted and that he is a double murderer.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
heidstra testified that he NEVER SAW either dog that he heard barking on 6/112.

i am looking at heidstras testimony again. i have not found where he said he was wearing a watch on 6/12
martin II



martin II, no that's not quite correct.

Heidstra did say he never saw the Akita, but he said he knew the dog and recognized it by it's barking. Heidstra did see the second dog that was in the yard where he stopped in the alley. He said it was a little black dog.

October 25, 1996 Robert Heidstra

Q. Okay. Any particular reason why you left a little later that night?

A. Yeah. I was reading my paper and looking at TV, and I forgot about the time. And one of my dogs gave me a signal, and I looked at my watch, and it was 10:15. And I said, hey, we better go now. So I know exactly it was 10:15.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

please present the "evidence' that goldman arrived at the bundy gate at 10:30p
martinII



martin II, I didn't say Goldman arrived at 10:30. I said Goldman arrived after 10:30.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


if oj came to the crime scene he may have altered it by picking up the glove and tracking in the blood pool and maby causing blood to cover other foot prints. But tucking nicoles legs under the gate. no way.
martin II


martin II, well at least you seem to understand that Simpson was at Bundy and that Fuhrman never planted the glove. Good for you martin II, you've taken another step, albeit a small step, in the right direction to the truth of these murders.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


but the dog had alread been in the street tracking blood on dorothy and bundy.

i asked for a time not a joke.
martin II


martin II, there were no bloody paw prints before 10:30.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II



do you have a opinion of joe boscos comments that " that there was tampering with the bundy crime scene before the "OFFICIAL" police arrived.
martin II


martin II, no I really don't know what Bosco is talking about.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


i am sure you are with the 45% that are STILL being fooled.

:seeya: Look we have sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers serving in the armed forces all over the world -- I owe them my allegiance and support. Besides, this board is about a murderer who walks without penalty in this nation of laws. Let's talk about him.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
what time after 10:30pm
martin II


martin II, based on Heidstra's testimony he heard Goldman yell at Simpson about five minutes after he heard the Akita start to bark.

bobaugust

[caphill]

Originally posted by Wukong
Caphill,

Nice try but blood is not made up of only red blood cells:

"Our body's cells each contain a complete sample of our DNA. One cell is roughly equal in size to the cube described in the previous paragraph. There are muscle cells, brain cells, liver cells, blood cells, sperm cells and others. Basically, every part of the body is made up of these tiny cells and each contains a sample or complement of DNA identical to that of every other cell within a given person. There are a few exceptions. For example, our red blood cells lack DNA. Blood itself can be typed because of the DNA contained in our white blood cells. "

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

wukong


There was a red blood cell that was a B type. That type B red blood cell can not be explained away by any other DNA testing that showed there was another blood or tissue sample mixed in the scrapings.

There is no scientific basis for Greg Matheson testimony that the B type blood was really an AB and the A antigen had degraded or just disappeared.

It there was B antigens and no A antigens found in the scrapings then there was at least one donor that had B type blood and that wasn't Nicole.

Since a donor with B type was at the murder scene and that didn't fit the prosecutors case , it was just explained away in manner that is contrary to science. Greg Matheson's testimony should be an embarrassment to him and the scientific serelogy community.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by caphill
Since a donor with B type was at the murder scene and that didn't fit the prosecutors case , it was just explained away in manner that is contrary to science. Greg Matheson's testimony should be an embarrassment to him and the scientific serelogy community. The DNA under Nicole's fingernail was proven to be her own. I thought the explanations made perfect sense and have not heard your version until this board --- where were you during the trial?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob it is obvious what he is talking about. it is stated in the post to his site by wukong.

i just want your opinion on what he said.do you believe it or not?
martin II


martin II, no I don't really think much of it since Bosco hasn't clarified or explained what he was referring to when he wrote that almost two years ago.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


wrong
heidestra never identified the voice with any person by name.
martin II


martin II, that's true but it was pretty clear from Heidstra's descriptions of the voices he heard that it was Goldman and Simpson.

About five minutes or so after Heidstra said he heard the two voices he saw a white jeep like vehicle speed away from Bundy. A few minutes later Jill Shively encountered Simpson's speeding Bronco.

The fact that there is no evidence of anyone else but the two victims and Simpson being at Bundy that night, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Heidstra heard Goldman when he arrived.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by caphill



There was a red blood cell that was a B type. That type B red blood cell can not be explained away by any other DNA testing that showed there was another blood or tissue sample mixed in the scrapings.

There is no scientific basis for Greg Matheson testimony that the B type blood was really an AB and the A antigen had degraded or just disappeared.

It there was B antigens and no A antigens found in the scrapings then there was at least one donor that had B type blood and that wasn't Nicole.

Since a donor with B type was at the murder scene and that didn't fit the prosecutors case , it was just explained away in manner that is contrary to science. Greg Matheson's testimony should be an embarrassment to him and the scientific serelogy community.


caphill, Matheson testified that this degradation of BA to B was noted in forensic science literature.

The fact is that Nicole's hand was found lying in a pool of her own blood. The fact is that DNA testing on the scrapings from under Nicole's fingernails were found to be her DNA.

Matheson didn't testify to anything that was contrary to science. His testimony about this was never contradicted by any defense expert.

Matheson's credentials are legitimate, we have no idea who you are or what credentials you may have to dispute him, but it seems that you're the one who is in denial of the facts here.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
it is obvious that caphill knows more about dna/blood than you.
since you don't even know what to dissagre with, why not put a sock in it and listen, you may learn something you don't know.

otherwise your option is to do what you always do, cloud the issue with nonsense post.
martin II :confused: I don't even know what "dissagre" is so how in the world could I be accused of it?

caphill may very well know more than I do about DNA/blood, that does not alter the fact that the DNA under Nicole's fingernails proved to be her own.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


OMG I think this post should be directed at you. You are the king when it comes to not knowing what is going on.

How dare you tell her to put a sock in it! I guess you are working your way up to another melt down :rolleyes: -- picture of whambulance carting rayray away..............lol

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
from your detailed knowledge of dna ( if you do have this detailed knowledge) is it possible for the ab to degrade into b and the a dissapeared?martin II I've never understood bob to claim to have 'detailed' knowledge of dna. You need to quit trying to act like you can be conversant in areas that you do not know or understand --

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Turn off your lava lamp :tongue: LOL -- do you see pink highlights over his words or is it just him?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
Nah, it's just him. :D So now we know what kind of meds he takes --

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


i have no detail knowledge of dna that is why i am reading the link provided by wukong.

all that you have taught posters about dna from your detail knowledge turned out to be false.

sorry for the computer glitch i am sure it was hard on your eyes
martin II WTH :confused:

[alien]

Originally posted by Lionthrone


Hello alien,

One of the reasons I feel I don't have to explain myself is because it doesn't really matter whether O J Simpson is guilty or not.

I was personally moved when an all-black jury had the strength, courage, and fortitude to go against public thinking, to go against the consensus of most courtroom pundits,........just to support one of their own. :patriot:

They're Heroes :)

Lionthrone

[alien]

Originally posted by alien



Well hello, lion. I see you are still with us. Are the flood watches still going on?

Your first comment is very concerning. It doesn't really matter whether OJ Simpson is guilty or not. So can I assume that you feel it is fine and dandy for a double murderer to walk free. I personally believe that OJ will probably never kill again, unless of course he goes overboard during one of his road rage incidents. I also personally feel that he will lose it again sometime and have another incident of road rage.

By "one of their own" are you talking about OJ being black or a double murderer? Okay, that was little tongue in cheek humor, but it is a valid qestion.
And, if I remember, it wasn't an "all black juror". Where did you get that information.

[alien]

Originally posted by alien


Not enough coffee for me yet. I made a mistake on my quote to this and it intermingled with lion's message. I think I got it fixed. :o

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by nettathirty
3. Heidstra across the street from NBS condo in the alley! Heidstra was in the alley behind the condo

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
the distance From the sidewalk to where nicoles body was found is about 12-15-16 feet or maby a few feet more.. The small light that was over the door only illuminated out to a few inches past the first step. maby to nicole or on her but it was not a bright light at all. The distance from the gate to the sidewalk is about 9-10 feet. +- a foot or so. with plants on each side.
So when was the dog barking? Before they walked by or after?

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


when cafligirl now socal diva was banned for constantly making trouble between posters , the moderator did list banned next her name in all of her previous post so that it could be seen by all.

if she continues to interject herself into every single post here, and as other poster had said act as the referee she will meet the same fate.

so enough of the personal stuff, post something about the case.
martin II

Now, now martin. You say enough of the personal stuff, but you did it in this post. socal continually denies that she is caligirl, but you never deny that you are/used to be rayray. I read posts from caligirl and from information she gave, she and socal are not the same person.

Why can't she interject herself into every post if she wants to. That is what this is all about. Making comments on posts. If she has information to give or wants to make a comment, she has the right since she is a member of this board.

So you say enough with the personal stuff and lets post about the case. I say AMEN to that. However, I wonder if lion will do the same? I really don't recall any pertinent information he has given that is really about the case. He never tells us why he thinks OJ is innocent (oh wait, I forgot about his comment that it doesn't matter if OJ is innocent or guilty). So will you respond, as you always to, to his comments that are not about the case?

I not picking a fight with you, but remember the old adage, practice what you preach.

So on with the case.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
Just came across a photo that reminds me of RR2 :lol:

http://www.msu.edu/user/arcenasa/Webpage/Confusion.jpg Think it was taken by 'satalite'?

[alien]

Originally posted by Wukong
Lionthrone is a one trick pony and, alas, the one trick he does know is not very good. As I browse the boards reading threads of interest, Lionthrone occassionaly pops up with his one tired trick and leaves.

You see folks, Ponythrone would love nothing better than to get every person who is not of color banned from this board. He spouts the same nonsense everywhere he goes, then when someone gets irate about his comment he smugly posts something along these lines: "What are so upset about? Can't take it? Can't stand to see a proud black man standing up for his own? I think you have a problem." His posts are filled with emoticons of shrugging shoulders, frowns and smilies; which by the way are the best part of what he posts. I have yet to read anything of substance from him and am not holding out for anything enlightening coming from this egotist any time soon. You would think that one who professes to be well versed in many subjects to write something of interest??

I would suggest just ignoring the little one trick pony, you would save yourself a lot of grief and a possible banning.

Wukong

I know you are right, but sometimes I just have to say something to him. Believe me, I pick and choose my words when responding to him so as not to get banned. Plus I would never lower myself to lose control because of something that he says. I said he annoys me. Rather like other people I know in my personal life who rant and rave about something they know nothing about.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



If he were in the alley behind the condo, he would have seen the Bronco. See link below, he was in the alley of the Condo across the street from NBS!


http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/aerial04.jpg how can you look at that picture and still say he was across from Nicole's? The picture plainly shows that the alley he walked was behind her condo.

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


origionally my post was:

85% of the american public said oj was guilty BEFORE the trial started. Before any testimony was ever given.

the only thing the public had at that point were the many mass media reports by TH giving their opinions.

No prosecution or defense FACTS had been presented at that time. Yet 85 % of the american public came to the conclusion that oj was guilty.
martin II

Is it possible that 85% of the American public were swayed by the Bronco chase? Please do not point out the people along the hiway with their go OJ go signs. That was in California. I am in North Dakota and other people I discussed the case with were in Texas. People in North Dakota, by and large, don't have a lot of racist feelings. This is one state where inter-racial relationships aren't frowned upon. They also formed their opinions of guilt by what they saw during the trial and read afterwords.

I will tell you that I didn't form an opinion about his guilt or innocence based on what the TH's were saying. I wanted information about what the heck happened. But when that Bronco chase ensued, I stated thinking that he was guilty because wouldn't an innocent man turn himself in so he could prove his innocence with the evidence. My total opinion of his guilt was from watching the trial and reading everything I could get my hands on after the fact. That opinion was reinforced after the civil trial.

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva
Just came across a photo that reminds me of RR2 :lol:

http://www.msu.edu/user/arcenasa/Webpage/Confusion.jpg

Oh, Girl. You are sooo bad. I laughed so hard. Glad I didn't have coffee in my mouth.

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


alien
i thought that our conversation about your feelings about lionthrone's post was complete. Is he still occupying space in your head?

martin II

martin, don't even go there. You know very well that I brought up lion to make a point. If I don't see his name, I don't think about him. Simple as that.

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Next time, go with iced tea :o

Happier still that it wasn't a dr pepper. I actually did that one time. Started laughing with dp in my mouth. What didn't spew out my nose went down the wrong pipe and I swear I coughed forever. I really was quite painful and not a pretty sight. Glad no one was around to see. :eek:

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Next time, go with iced tea :o

I'm still laughing. Has something ever tickled you so much, that you can think of it an hour later and start laughing all over again?

I am off to watch my 9 year old Granddaughter play soccer. I hope I don't start laughing during a critical moment. Then those who think I am a little crazy will know for certain. :D

Talk to you later.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


well the dog was on dorothy before 10:30 barking and that is where the le found bloody prints.





martin II, I don't believe the dog was barking before 10:30. I believe that Fenjves and Storfer were mistaken.

Why do I believe that? Because both Fenjves and Storfer told how loud, unusual and persistent the barking was they heard. Five other witnesses who were outside near Bundy before 10:30 didn't hear any barking. Two of them never heard a dog bark until about 10:30 or shortly after 10:30. One of them, Heidstra, who was closer to the dog than any other witness told when the barking started how loud, unusual, and non stop it was.

Mandel and Aaronson walked by the front of Nicole's condo shortly before 10:30. Neither heard any dog barking or saw any bloody paw prints.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


what about two people walking up the street talking to each other that did not talk to le about being there??lots of possibilities
martin II


martin II, Heidstra said the voices came from Nicole's condo, not the street. Heidstra knew exactly where he was. The alley was at a higher elevation than Nicole's house and he could see her roof tiles.

No witness has ever come forward to say they were talking or even near Nicole's condo at the time Heidstra heard the two male voices yelling at each other, like an argument.

Sure anyone can speculated anything they can dream up but that's just more unsupported irrelevant fantasies.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
from your detailed knowledge of dna ( if you do have this detailed knowledge) is it possible for the ab to degrade into b and the a dissapeared?
martin II


martin II, that's what the real expert Greg Matheson testified to and explained how it happens.

May 2, 1995 Greg Matheson

MR. GOLDBERG: You said that a type BA can degrade into a B. And so I'll just write a
little arrow down to B (Indicating).
MR. MATHESON: A BA can degrade until it can be--look like or be confused with a b.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And maybe I may have been phrasing some of my questions inartfully.
Does the type actually change or is it the appearance that changes?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's the appearance. It's what we are seeing as far as our
development is what actually changes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So is this phenomenon of BA to B one that you have seen in your work and
also that's been noted in the forensic science literature?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But does it happen the other way around? I mean, can you get it to
degrade from the B to a BA?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: So there is a define degradation route with respect to this marker?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. Like I mentioned earlier, the a bands are the least able, then comes
the B and then the c.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Bob,

1. This point would be neverending.

2. NBS gate didn't extend out to the sidewalk, were Mandel and Aaronson was walking, nor would the blood before the dog tracked in it?

3. Heidstra was across the street in the alley from Bundy. I doubt from where he was standing that he could be so sure that the noises came from Nicole!


nettathirty,

1. There is no evidence that Nicole's dog was sleeping with the kids. Period. The evidence is that the Akita was in the street in front of Nicole's condo when it started to bark about 10:30.

2, Mandel and Aaronson walked right past the front of Nicole's condo. If the gate was open like it was when Boztep went there later, they would most likely have seen blood and a body. They both testified they saw nothing unusual, nothing attracted their attention. No blood. No dead bodies. No bloody paw prints. And they never heard a dog barking.

3. Heidstra knew that area very well, he walked it every night. Heidstra was in the alley directly across from Nicole's condo. The alley was a higher elevation than Nicole's condo and Heidstra could see her roof tiles. There was no doubt in his mind that the voices and the gate slam came from Nicole's condo. Your argument is contradicted by Heidstra's testimony.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


netta

the distance From the sidewalk to where nicoles body was found is about 12-15-16 feet or maby a few feet more.. The small light that was over the door only illuminated out to a few inches past the first step. maby to nicole or on her but it was not a bright light at all. The distance from the gate to the sidewalk is about
9-10 feet. +- a foot or so. with plants on each side.

Unless Mandel and Aronson were stimulated by something to look into the walkway as they walked, talking to each other,
i doubt they would have paid any attention to what was in the walkway.imo

The hay hay hay could have been two other people on bundy.
Previously i had read where it was theorized that the hay hay hay came from a motorist that was yelling at the Akita to get out of the street.

WHO KNOWS

martin II


martin II, that someone was Dick Wagner and just another fantasy he created about a motorist yelling at the dog in the street. Funny.

People who walk and are talking are not blind and unaware of what's happening around them. If the gate was open like when Boztep went to Bundy later that night, Mandel and Aaronson would have seen what Boztep saw.

But it wasn't. The murders had not been committed yet. Before 10:30 that night there were no bodies, no blood, no bloody paw prints and no dog barking. That's what all of the witnesses tell us.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The Bundy evidence contradicts the prospect of OJ being there as a vicious (sp) murderous attacker.


nettathirty, you've got things backwards.

The Bundy evidence proves Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. The fact is that all of relevant physical evidence points to Simpson. Nothing points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Bob,

1. There is NO evidence that the Akita was not upstairs with the Simpson children. PERIOD!

2. Mandel and Aaronson walking pass after the fact.
(a) They would not have seen blood because the dog was responsible for tracking it out the front gate.
(b) RG and NBS dead, killer has left the scene all is quiet why would they suspect anything as they pass NBS front walkway. What would possibly distract them from one another, not NBS and RG they're dead.

3. Heidstra was mistaken, from were he was he was not in a position to know for sure who did what and when?


nettathirty, you're fantasizing.

Nothing supports your fantasy. All of the witnesses and the evidence support the real time of the murders, after 10:30. That's what Simpson's defense proved and that's what Petrocelli proved.

About the only thing you got right in your fantasy is that no one heard the dog barking until about 10:30.

I agree if both bodies were dead behind a closed gate Mandel and Aaronson would not have been able to see anything. But there is no evidence that supports that possibility.

Robert Heidstra was the key witness here. He heard the Akita start to bark when it was in the street. He heard Ron Goldman arrive at Bundy. He saw Simpson speed away from Bundy.

If Robert Heidstra was not walking his dogs that night, your fantasy might be a possibility but that wasn't the case. Robert Heidstra's testimony destroyed Wagner's fantasies and his testimony destroys your Wagner clone fantasy. That's reality.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II

bob
actually that is not accurate.
BOZTEP was pulled right into the walkway by the Akita. he could not help buy see the gate and body.

you obviously have not noticed two women after dinner and drinks walking down the street enjoying each others company.
talking face to face at some times paying attention to each other as they themselves testified they did.

it would be unusual if they were looking into the walkway of every house on bundy. imo
martin II



martin II, I don't know where you got your information from but that's not what Boztep said. Mandel and Aaronson were not two woman enjoying each others company. Funny. They didn't have to be looking into every house on Bundy, but if the gate was open like it was when Boztep went there they would have easily seen something was wrong.

February 8, 1995 Sukru Boztep

Q BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN THE DOG STOPPED AT THAT LOCATION, WHAT DID IT DO?
A WELL, DOG JUST WAS IN FRONT OF ME AND THEN LOOKING AT THE RIGHT SIDE OF -- RIGHT SIDE OF THE STREET. SO I COULDN'T GO ANY FURTHER AND I STOPPED AT EXACTLY SAME POINT WHERE THE DOG WAS LOOKING.
Q SO THE DOG TURNED ITS HEAD TO THE RIGHT?
A CORRECT.
Q AND LOOKED -- WAS IT LOOKING TOWARDS THE HOUSE THAT WAS AT THE END OF THE PATHWAY?
A YES.
Q AND BECAUSE OF THAT, YOU DID -- YOU LOOKED IN THE SAME DIRECTION?
A YES.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU SAW?
A I SAW A LADY LAYING DOWN FULL OF BLOOD.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Caphill,

Since only Nicole's DNA was found under her nails you figure that the degradation problem must mean that there was a single red blood cell, from someone, else under her nails? This would imply that someone's red blood cell was somehow separated from the other blood components of this mystery person. This is very difficult to achieve without a centrifuge unless this person's blood was put under a microscope and the red blood cells separated by hand. I guess that's possible but I tend to believe the degradation possibility over this unlikely scenario. Matheson had done thousands of blood tests and had seen this degradation many times.

Wukong

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Bob,

That's a matter of opinion!


nettathirty, no that's a fact.

If you think you know of any relevant physical evidence that doesn't point to Simpson, please inform me. If you think you know of any relevant physical evidence that points to anyone else, please inform me. If you think you know of any legitimate information that eliminates Simpson, please inform me.

Your opinion is unsupported and irrelevant to the facts in this case.

bobaugust

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II
netta

socal SAID she walked down the alley that heidstra walked and she knew how long it took him to get from bundy and gorham to the halfway spot behind the neighbors house where he heard hay hay hay.

Obviously she must have been in the wrong alley.
martin II

martin, martin, martin. Didn't you post something earlier about getting of the personal thing.

[alien]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Right, cause Texans are gifted that way!

Okay, this is one thing that netta and I will agree on because I am from Texas originally. :lol:

However, IMO living in Ft Worth may be a little bit different from living in Brentwood or another small community where the houses are kinda clumped together.

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Glad you got a giggle. Soccer sounds great. Have fun. :seeya:

I did have fun. The weather was/is beautiful.

Braggy Grandmother alert. Granddaugther of Alien and her team lost 1 to 3, but Granddaughter of Alien was the only one who made a goal. She tried one other time, but it went way over the net. I told her that if she ever gets tired of soccer, she could try out for a place kicking position on a football team. ;)

Alas, she did get hurt. Got kicked on the leg where the shin guard wasn't positioned and in her private parts. She was too embarrased to tell her coach about the second injury. But because she is the off spring of Alien's Daughter who is an off spring of Alien, she is tougher than tough and went right back in.

And hey, I didn't laugh.

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


alien
It really does not matter at all.
martin II

So, my dear. If it really doesn't matter at all, why do you keep bringing it up?

[alien]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, no that's a fact.

If you think you know of any relevant physical evidence that doesn't point to Simpson, please inform me. If you think you know of any relevant physical evidence that points to anyone else, please inform me. If you think you know of any legitimate information that eliminates Simpson, please inform me.

Your opinion is unsupported and irrelevant to the facts in this case.

bobaugust

bob, you know you will not get an answer. Myself and several other posters have asked netta, martin and lion to give us something/anything to disprove the evidence. At least lion posted that it didn't matter to him. I am still waiting for someone to give me one piece of evidence to counter act all the other evidence to proves without a doubt the OJ did it, but I never get that answer. I guess I have to stick with my original opinion (without any doubts) that OJ is the guilty party.

[alien]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Socal,

I have always said OJ visited the crime scene. I believe OJ was the source of the bloody shoe print. However the shoe he wore to Bundy probably wasn't a Bruno Magli, it could have been any number of shoes with the shoe sole..

I believe OJ drove his Bronco to Bundy, and that would account for those fibers.

The cut on OJs finger probably was a reinjury, not a fresh wound as of the 12th of June. The cut was on the knuckle, and those cuts are not easily healed because the fingers bends often!

The Blue/Black fibers on Goldman only suggest two things to me!
1. Multiple Killers
2. OJ not source of fibers, fibers not found in Bentley, Bronco or Rockingham..

netta, thanks for giving us your beliefs. Now tell me (and forgive me if you already did) why did OJ visit the crime scene.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty





Timeline is not a area you have a leg to stand on!


nettathirty, of course the time line is something that reasonable people understand.

The first thing in understanding the time line is to understand that time estimates given by witnesses are nor real times. They do not tell us when an event happened only approximately when it happened. It's the order that events happened in that tell us what Simpson did.

Simpson was last seen at Rockingham when he and Kaelin returned from Mc Donald's about 9:40 PM. Simpson's Bronco was not at Rockingham when Allan Park arrived at 10:25 PM.

Some time before 10:25 PM Simpson drove to Bundy, killed both Ron and Nicole some time after 10:30, leaving his blood, bloody shoe prints, his hat, his glove, some of his hair, and fiber evidence from his clothing and his Bronco carpet at Bundy. When Simpson left Bundy and drove back home he was seen by two witnesses.

When Simpson arrived back home he parked his Bronco outside his locked Rockingham gate leaving his blood and both victims blood in his Bronco. Simpson scaled his fence behind Kaelin's room to enter his estate falling against Kaelin's back wall alerting Kaelin that someone was behind his room, and unknowingly dropped one of his gloves. Simpson left his blood on his driveway and was seen entering his house and lights go on at 10:55 PM.

That's the time line supported by all of the relevant physical evidence, and three witnesses.

bobaugust

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


alien

socal informed the thread that she had made a personal visit to the crime scene area. she said she walked the alley that heidstra walked and review the area around the neighbor hood. as it turns she was in the wrong alley, identified the wrong place heidstra was and looked dorothy st wrong.

nothing personal about that.

what time do you belive it was when the dog first started barking.
that is the current issue.
martin II

I'm thinking that it was how you said it that made it personal. socal also admitted to being wrong about something.

And just so you know, I am not ever going to answer your question about the dog barking because it has been hashed and rehashed. The actual evidence of the dog barking IMO has been proven.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Socal,

I have always said OJ visited the crime scene. I believe OJ was the source of the bloody shoe print. However the shoe he wore to Bundy probably wasn't a Bruno Magli, it could have been any number of shoes with the shoe sole..

I believe OJ drove his Bronco to Bundy, and that would account for those fibers.

The cut on OJs finger probably was a reinjury, not a fresh wound as of the 12th of June. The cut was on the knuckle, and those cuts are not easily healed because the fingers bends often!

The Blue/Black fibers on Goldman only suggest two things to me!
1. Multiple Killers
2. OJ not source of fibers, fibers not found in Bentley, Bronco or Rockingham..



nettathirty, the facts contradict your beliefs.

The Silga sole that left the bloody shoe prints at Bundy were made exclusively for Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes.

The cut Simpson came back from Chicago with on the knuckle of his middle finger was an intentional glass cut right over the knife cut he sustained when he was committing the murders. Isn't it amazing that he recut that exact knuckle that was cut before? Simpson later lied when he testified saying he was never cut before and never dripped any blood before leaving for Chicago.

The blue black cotton fibers were found only on Ron Goldman's shirt, Simpson's right hand glove, and Simpson's socks. The fact that Kato Kaelin testified that he remembered Simpson wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit the night of the murders and the fact that a freshly washed dark colored cotton sweat suit was found and video taped in Simpson washing machine the day after the murders suggest that was most likely the source of the blue black cotton fibers. They in no way suggest any other killer. Your opinion is unsupported, irrelevant, and makes no sense, It's based on false reasoning and pure fantasy.

bobaugust

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


alien
instead of asking the same quesiton over and over again, can you answer a import question to the case. what time was Heidstra actually half way in the alley when he hears a voice yell hay hay hay.?
martin II

Excuse me, but isn't that what you are doing with your question about the dog barking. I am asking for you to give me one good reason why OJ isn't guilty, which by the way, is the name of this board, but you won't answer it. At least not that I can see.

But just to make you a happy man, I will go back and read the testimony of Heidstra and give you an answer. Because his testimony is what I will base my answer on. However, if I do that to answer your question, will you do the same thing?

[caphill]

Originally posted by socaldiva


"Visted" the crime scene & you think the bloody shoe print belongs to Orenthal?

What fibers are you taking about relative to his Bronco being at Bundy?

Regardless of what injuries you think Orenthal sustained & when, what is you explanation for him dripping fresh blood at Bundy that night?

I don't know how you came to your conclusion relative to the fibers, but did you know that those blue/black fibers were on the Rockingham glove along with other trace evidence from Bundy? Explain that, please.



What about the pilot and other passengers on the plane that testified that OJ did not have a cut on his hand when he was in route to Chicago.

He had an obvious bleeding cut on his way back to LA.

Did all those witness lie about seeing his hands. Did the limo driver see OJ bleeding as he helped load the limo with his bags and during the trip to the airport? The answer is no.

[alien]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Goldmans body was found in a part of the yard that doesn't suggest he died there, no sign of a struggle in that area.
Nicoles feet were protruding underneathe the gate next to the front door, it appeared someone place her feet there diberately. There was no sign of injury to her legs and feet to suggest it happened accidently!

OJ (imo) came to Bundy after the crime, and altered the scene.

Thank you for answering, but where is it said that there was no sign of a struggle in that area. And how do you know that? I still don't understand the thing about Nicole's feet. How do we know (unless we witness it first hand) what the body does when it is dying?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


alien
instead of asking the same quesiton over and over again, can you answer a import question to the case. what time was Heidstra actually half way in the alley when he hears a voice yell hay hay hay.?
martin II



martin II, instead of asking everyone what they think, why don't you read Heidstra's testimony and post what you think?

All you do is ask questions but you never answer them. But then again you never admit when you're shown to be wrong about false claims you make. Maybe that's why you won't answer questions, you're afraid that what you say will be proven wrong again, right?

Heidstra's testimony is very clear as to when he heard the "Hey, hey, hey!"

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by caphill




What about the pilot and other passengers on the plane that testified that OJ did not have a cut on his hand when he was in route to Chicago.

He had an obvious bleeding cut on his way back to LA.

Did all those witness lie about seeing his hands. Did the limo driver see OJ bleeding as he helped load the limo with his bags and during the trip to the airport? The answer is no.



caphill, the knife cut across Simpson's knuckle of his middle finger on his left hand dripped blood everywhere he went after the murders and he most likely never even realized it.

When Simpson got back home after returning from Bundy he took a fast shower that's when he probably saw it and treated it. Once he became aware of the cut he was careful not to anything to reopen it. After treating the cut it wasn't that noticeable unless you knew it was there and nobody but Simpson knew that.

Simpson had no problem keeping the cut out of sight when he went to Chicago. It wasn't that hard to do. When he signed autographs he held whatever he was signing in is left hand hiding the cut from sight when he wrote with his right hand. No one knew he was cut so no one was intentionally looking for it.

When Simpson was in his hotel room in Chicago and the police called him and he told them he would return to LA as soon as he could he knew the cut on his knuckle would be incriminating so he intentionally broke a glass and recut his finger making the cut very noticeable. On his way back to LA he made sure everybody saw it then.

Simpson's no dummy.

bobaugust

[caphill]

Originally posted by Wukong
Caphill,

Since only Nicole's DNA was found under her nails you figure that the degradation problem must mean that there was a single red blood cell, from someone, else under her nails? This would imply that someone's red blood cell was somehow separated from the other blood components of this mystery person. This is very difficult to achieve without a centrifuge unless this person's blood was put under a microscope and the red blood cells separated by hand. I guess that's possible but I tend to believe the degradation possibility over this unlikely scenario. Matheson had done thousands of blood tests and had seen this degradation many times.

Wukong


With scraping from under Nicole's nails if would be reasonble to assume that there would be DNA found from her blood or epithelial cells. That doesn't exclude the fact there could have been a mixed sample of her DNA and someone else's DNA. To find a red blood cell type B in the scrapings is a strong indication that there was a mixed sample. Any testimony that DNA testing proved to the B blood to be hers is highly suspect and impossible to get a DNA profile from a red blood cell.

To classify Greg Matheson as a DNA expert is giving him too much credit. He gave false testimony about the very basic EAP blood typing test. That EAP blood typing doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand and analyze. If he couldn't get that right what makes anyone think he was any kind of expert on DNA testing. These so called DNA experts did even know how to collect and package the samples for testing.

To put this discussion to rest, is there scientific data that a AB type red blood can have a A antigen just disappear. Matheson seemed to think that only an A antigen could degrade and B antigen could not. I challenge anyone to find the scientific data to support his statements.

He testified that the red blood cell doesn't change just the appearance changes. What the h*ll kind of scientific explanation is that.

Did Cellmark do the DNA testing of Nicoles fingernail scrapings? Did the Cellmark expert testify regarding the DNA from the fingernail scraping? Is so can someone direct me to that expert testimony.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



This is true, but estimated times seem to error on the side of you, Mr August?

OJ placed a call to Paula B., at 10:03p, are you now saying this call happened in OJs driveway, as OJ claimed along?


nettathirty, Simpson could very well have been in his driveway when he place that call.

But Simpson didn't claim that all along. He only claimed that after he learned that his cell phone telephone records showed that call to Paula at 10:03.

Before learning about that evidence Simpson was still claiming that he went to his Bronco before leaving for the airport to get his cell phone from his Bronco. He even told Dr. Baden that fabricated story.

After learning that his cell phone records then put him in his Bronco at 10:03 he changed his story and said he went to his Bronco to get his cell phone accessories before leaving for the airport. But that was also a lie. Simpson never went to his Bronco at all before leaving for the airport. That was a lie he created in his initial statement when the detectives asked him about blood in his Bronco. Simpson never knew he was dripping blood everywhere he went after the murders.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Caphill,

NOT one expert testified the bruise to OJs finger was as a result of a knife, that's Bobs opinion.

The blood drops at Bundy, in the Bronco and the driveway, suggest a rapidly bleeding cut. Bob, is saying OJ didn't notice the cut until OJ started his shower, which does not add up. Had OJ bleed in the same manner as the places mentioned above, he would have left a blood trail up to his bedroom - bathroom ..and he did not !



nettathirty, I didn't say that Simpson noticed the cut when he started his shower. He could have realized he was cut before he got into the shower or as he was showering, no one knows.

Dr. Huizenga's testimony contradicts your beliefs about the bleeding cut.

Dr. Huizenga told how the cut across Simpson's knuckle was the kind of cut that would bleed, form a temporary clot, be easily reopened and bleed again. This bleeding, clotting, and bleeding again continued until Simpson became aware of the cut and treated it.

The blood drops at Bundy and at Rockingham do not suggest a rapidly bleeding cut.

bobaugust

[alien]

Originally posted by nettathirty



These are the crime scene photos, so be warned.

However, it is just enough space to get her lower leg into and without bruises to the leg, someone had to have placed her legs there!

http://www.bobaugust.com/photo.htm#no1

I have seen the pictures before, but thanks for the warning. But, how does that prove that someone placed her legs there?

By the way, thanks for the picture of OJ holding his crotch and giving the finger. Do you have any comments on that. Doesn't show me a grieving person. I can tell you right now that I have no contact with my exes, but I would be honestly sad if anything like what happened to Nicole happened to them. If, God forbid, anything like that happend to Mr Alien, I would spend the rest of my life being sad. And if I had been charged with the murders and found innocent, I would spend the rest of my life showing exemplory (sp?) behaving as someone who's life was forever changed. Can you explain any of OJ's behaviour after the murders?