General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


your post

I think that this is when Kato completely freaked out. When OJ went back to finish off Nicole, Ron just opened the gate because it was not locked and walked in. That's when Ron goes heyheyhey and thus didn't have time to shut the gate because OJ was on him like a duck on a June bug. After OJ left out the back gate, it was then that Kato went out the opened front gate, barking and wailing.
martinII

[Happy Chic]

Originally posted by martin II


kate
if you are interested in this ask GOAT GIRL
She is the one that brought it to fbg's attention in her post.
martinII
:seeya:

Just registered after being run off of the Iago Board.

[Happy Chic]

Is anybody here familar with the Iago Board and the people who run it>

Does anybody here post on there?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


kate
if you are interested in this ask GOAT GIRL
She is the one that brought it to fbg's attention in her post.
martinII
:seeya:

Thank you. However, because you are the one who posted that she had broken a "privacy rule" I assumed you would be able to assist me.

Apparently not?

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



MartinII

Correct me if i'm wrong, the gate at Bundy didn't extend out to the sideway or curb? It was only a few feet from were Nicoles body was found!

netta
no it did not
from the pictures.

from nicoles first door step ( where her body was) to the gate was ABOUT 6-8 feet (tiles)
from the gate to the side walk was ABOUT 10-15 feet.

martinh II

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Thank you. However, because you are the one who posted that she had broken a "privacy rule" I assumed you would be able to assist me.

Apparently not?

if you need assistance read the post on this subject. Then there would be no need to post to me.
martinII

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


if you need assistance read the post on this subject. Then there would be no need to post to me.
martinII

My question was not answered throughout the postings because no one was able to point out where the information came from that reposting a PM is a violation of Terms of Service.

You are unable to assist me and once again posted what you knew nothing about, that much is apparent by your responses to me.

Thanks.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kate Sachel
[B]

Hi Netta,

In some ways I agree with this, but I think that you are generalizing too much.

Those who have had unsavory experiences with police would definitely be more inclined to believe that such corruption occurs,

I've never been arrested, harassed or bothered personally
by the police in any way. I absolutely, 100% believe that
police corruption exists. I believe that minorities (which I
am not) are often singled out for abuse by the police
and I believe a large number of officers do abuse their power.
I generally don't like cops much.

That said, once again, to believe police corruption in this
case, or even more absurd, a frame, is to dispense with
common sense. Once again, BEFORE these murders ocurred,
OJ was a well loved sports figure. Sports figures seem to
be able to transcend the racism in our society. So does
Oprah. So does Colin Powell. For whatever reason, even
a lot of racists accept these African Americans, even hero
worship the athletes. OJ was loved and admired. There would
be absolutely no logical reason to want to frame him for
these murders. More likely, it was again, common sense that
made them look at him. It was his ex-wife. There was a
blood trail leading up his driveway, which was discovered
when they went there to notify him. It was completely logical
to assume that he was either another victim and, if not,
then obviously a suspect. As the ex, he surely would have
been at least a suspect even without the blood trail, but assuming the police weren't brain dead, after seeing the blood
trail, he jumped to the top of the list. Seems like a no brainer
to me!

To then buy that all of these experienced police officers
and lab technicians conspired to convict an innocent man
of a brutal double murder is ridiculous. To what purpose?.
I don't personally believethat even the moronic jury believed it.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
fbg
i thought it was said that oj and kato did some blow at mc donalds in the bently. see how lies can spread I didn't spread a lie -- Orenthal's blood sample should he had used marijuana close enough in time to still be in his system.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I didn't spread a lie -- Orenthal's blood sample should he had used marijuana close enough in time to still be in his system.

Marijuana takes about 1-2 months to get out of ones blood and about 6 mo to get out of the hair follicle.
according to DAY Top

so i don't know what you mean by "close enough in time"

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by Happy Chic
Is anybody here familar with the Iago Board and the people who run it>

Does anybody here post on there?

Welcome aboard!

I have heard of the Iago Board, and I believe that some people who post here have also posted on that board or are aware of the people that do.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by socaldiva
I don't know who or what "Day Top" is, but I think Martin II is mistaken on the time frame relative to marijuana being detected in the blood.

The fact of the matter is that it varies alot.

Marijuana stays in your system for different amounts of time depending on how often you smoke it, how much you smoke, the weight/height of the person who has smoked it, and the strength of the particular type of marijuana that was smoked.

It can stay for as little as 3 days or as many as 90 days.

[Kate Sachel]

Addendum:

The above that I posted regarding marijuana is in regard to if you are tested via urine sample.

When testing with hair follicles, traces of marijuana can actually stay for about 2 years.

[Happy Chic]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Welcome aboard!

I have heard of the Iago Board, and I believe that some people who post here have also posted on that board or are aware of the people that do.

Thanks. I was hoping for something less hostile on this bord. Hopefully the people aren't as mean .

[Happy Chic]

Originally posted by nettathirty




Bandit Mom

You maybe right, it probably does not apply to this case..

IMO MOO JMHO..

Maybe not corruption but I think that police dishonesty for sure occurred.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by Happy Chic


Thanks. I was hoping for something less hostile on this bord. Hopefully the people aren't as mean .

I would suggest that it depends on what your definition of "hostile" is.

Things do get heated on this forum, but only by some. The majority are very easy to get along with, and that does include both "guilty" and "not guilty" individuals.

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel
Addendum:

The above that I posted regarding marijuana is in regard to if you are tested via urine sample.

When testing with hair follicles, traces of marijuana can actually stay for about 2 years.

fbg spoke of oj/s blood sample. So i did not get the idea she was talking about urine test.

Ill go with Day Tops numbers.

martinII

MARTINii

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg spoke of oj/s blood sample. So i did not get the idea she was talking about urine test.

Ill go with Day Tops numbers.

martinII

MARTINii

Blood tests regarding drug use are very similar to urine tests.

Go ahead and stay with Day Top, it makes no difference to me.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Ok. It seems that some of the NG's try to use this information differently depending on who they are talking about. When it was mentioned that Nicole didn't have any drugs in her system at autopsy, they try to narrow the time frame for drugs remaining in the body. When it's OJ, they seem to expand it outwards.

Yes, I noticed that.

Marijuana actually has the ability to stay in the body for a much longer period of time than cocaine however.

What I should have added though is that there are ways to more accurately pinpoint how long the drug has been in an individual's system. Technology is such that, even though the drug can remain for an extended period of time, the time in which it was actually consumed can be narrowed down tremendously.

[Happy Chic]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Happy Chic

Welcome to the board, we're glad to have you and it's always good to get a FRESH Prospective on the Simpson case..

A brief introduction:

Netta30, MartinII, Lionthrone are NG's

Socaldiva, 2L8, Bandit Mom, Mr August, Kate, fbg are the G's

Wukong - 98.9 percent sure a G..

If I left anyone out, it was not intentional, Ok except for (Socal) that's a joke!!

You will learn that we're know different than any other large family .. We're not going to AGREE, and we have come to an agreement on that!


:rose: :rose:

Thanks.

I think the police acted questionably in this case. Wether that affects if OJ did it or not is another story, but I do feel that they fudged and lied where it suited them to look good.

I still pretty much think he's guilty but I also think the police are guilty of their own personal law breaking where they saw fit.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Mr August,

I'll try this again, just so we're clear on who is who?




Nettathirty, your mixed bag of beliefs only show how confused you are. Here is a response to only the ones that the evidence proves you wrong.

The blue black cotton were were found on Ron Goldman's shirt, Simpson's right hand glove and Simpson's socks.
If they didn't come from the clothing Simpson wore, how did they get on his socks?

Simpson dripped blood drops at Bundy, in his Bronco, and at his house. Those drops came from a cut he sustained at Bundy. The only cut Simpson had on him was on the knuckle of his middle finger on his left hand. Simpson admitted to the police that was a glass cut but he was cut in the same exact place before.

No one said anything about a scab. Dr. Huizenga testified that kind of cut would form a temporary clot and stop bleeding, but could be easily reopened and bleed again, then form another temporary clot. This bleeding, stopping, bleeding, stopping would continue until the cut was cared for.

There is nothing about Heidstra's story that has found to be not accurate. The facts that Heidstra testified to were never contradicted by anything or anyone.

Vannatter, Clark, Darden, and Fuhrman were not Simpson allies. They may have made mistakes that worked in Simpson's favor but they never did that intentionally.

There has never been any question that Simpson's hat and glove were found at Bundy.
There is no question about the Rockingham glove. More excuses.
There is no question about Nicole's blood or the blue black cotton fibers that were found on Simpson's sock.
There was no missing blood. Another false argument by the defense.

Simpson did kill Ron and Nicole. The evidence proves it and Simpson's lies confirm it.

bobaugust

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by socaldiva



They were competent in their jobs, but the jurors were MORONS!

I agree the jurors were morons. I think the police were
competent in this case. I think Gil Garcetti was also
a moron and he lost the case the day he changed the
venue. I also think Clark and Darden, while possibly competent
in the past, certainly were not on this case and the biggest
joke of all, other than the jurors, was the idiot judge.

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Yes, I noticed that.

Marijuana actually has the ability to stay in the body for a much longer period of time than cocaine however.

What I should have added though is that there are ways to more accurately pinpoint how long the drug has been in an individual's system. Technology is such that, even though the drug can remain for an extended period of time, the time in which it was actually consumed can be narrowed down tremendously.

explain

[martin II]

cocaine and marijuana are two different drugs.
martinII

[Wukong]

Happy Chic,

Welcome! If you are "Ketch" from Iago, they were pretty easy on you. If you continue posting anything on Iago like you have been then it will get ugly.

Speaking of Iago, Has anyone been reading Jasper's parallels between the Kennedy assasination and Mark Fuhrman? The three thumps by Fuhrman signifying the three bullets shot by Oswald, Jackie's bloody glove, the Hertz billboard on top of the book depository, the Bundy/Gorham curve the same as Dealy plaza, the uncanny coincidence of dates..... This guy Fuhrman is a genius! It is obvious they are completely out of ideas on Iago.

Bob, I found this post by your buddy Jasper that proves you are wrong about the barking dog times. I mean how can you be right when the foremost authority on all things Simpson disagrees?

From: Jasper
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Time: 04:23:14 AM

Comments
Buster, ¡K.. It doesn¡¦t get any creepier to me, especially now that I¡¦m sure Pablo Fenjves DID hear a dog¡¦s plaintive wail at 10:15 p.m. on the night Nicole died. ¡VJasper

(The above posted with tongue firmly in cheek:) )

Bob, I am again limited with regard to time. I need to post much detail in support of my hastily thrown together theory but need time. As insane as this might seem I have to agree with Martin about the dog taking an occassional breather. I also have an idea about the dog not barking at certain times due to OJ coming back for his hat and the Akita staying near him at that time. One thing I want to say is that in your original challenge to post atheory that fit's all the evidence one thing came to mind about your theory and the evidence. If OJ knocked Nicole uncouscious then killed Ron, returned to Nicole to finish her off then left, there was not enough time for a blood pool to form for OJ to step in. There needs to be time enough for this to happen and your theory doesn't allow for this.

You also asked me about the evidence that shows Ron was killed first. Please clarify what evidence you feel points to this scenario. As for OJ not stepping in Nicole's blood when Ron showed up (from my theory) it is obvious that OJ was searching an area away from the blood pool (which would have been much smaller than the crime scene photos at the time) near the fixed gate that Nicole's legs were under. If he was at a position where there was no blood between him and the gate Ron entered then he would not have stepped in blood at that point.

Brian

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty




How did the blood soak through OJ legs to be on both sides of the sock, Mr August?

Oj removed the sock, left the sock on the floor of his bedroom and the blood was enough to absorb to the other side of the sock, why NO BLOOD on the carpet?


netta30


nettathirty, I don't know how many times I've posted the explanations to your false statements but I'll do it again. There was no blood on Simpson's carpet because he didn't drip blood on his carpet No microscopic blood speck went through Simpson's legs. Another false argument by the defense and excuses from you pleading ignorance again. There was no blood transferred from the tiny blood stains on Simpson's sock because that part of the sock never touched the carpet.

The Prosecution Responds. Hank Goldberg writes,

"The defense contended that no one was wearing the socks when Nicole's blood was splashed on them.

This theory had been expounded by Dr. Herbert MacDonell. He had testified that Nicole's bloodstain had penetrated one side of Simpson's sock and had transferred to the other side. The defense theorized that this could not have happened if someone had been wearing the socks at the time because blood cannot go through someone's ankle. They claimed that the idea that no one was wearing the socks when the blood was deposited on them supported their planting theory. The implication was that someone deposited Nicole's blood while the socks were lying flat on a table.

Interestingly the stain that would have traveled through the wearer's ankle was only a microscopic speck.

I easily dispatched this issue with Dr. Lee. I asked him whether the microscopic stain could have been caused if the socks were inside out and the toe of the sock was touching the ankle. I knew from photographs that this was, indeed, how the socks were recovered. However the defense only provided Dr. Lee with second generation photographs. From his photographs of the socks, he would not been able to see that the socks were recovered in this condition. I asked Dr. Lee whether this could account for the questioned microscopic stain.

"I cannot rule out," he replied. (emphasis added)
"The scenario that I just gave you?" I asked.
"Yes," he replied.

After Dr. Lee admitted that my scenario could account for the questioned stain, I produced my photograph. It clearly showed that the scenario I outlined to Dr. Lee was, in fact, what had happened. The socks were collected inside out, with the toe touching the ankle, showing how blood got from one side of the sock to the other.

I also elicited evidence from the forensic science literature that a single drop of blood on nylon material could take from seventy five minutes to nine hours to dry. the socks were nylon. Therefore, the blood could also have transferred from one side to the other after Simpson returned to Rockingham and took his socks off.

In short, Dr Lee's testimony showed logical, rational explanations for how blood got from one side of the sock to the other."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Wukong


Speaking of Iago, Has anyone been reading Jasper's parallels between the Kennedy assasination and Mark Fuhrman? The three thumps by Fuhrman signifying the three bullets shot by Oswald, Jackie's bloody glove, the Hertz billboard on top of the book depository, the Bundy/Gorham curve the same as Dealy plaza, the uncanny coincidence of dates..... This guy Fuhrman is a genius! It is obvious they are completely out of ideas on Iago.


You also asked me about the evidence that shows Ron was killed first. Please clarify what evidence you feel points to this scenario. As for OJ not stepping in Nicole's blood when Ron showed up (from my theory) it is obvious that OJ was searching an area away from the blood pool (which would have been much smaller than the crime scene photos at the time) near the fixed gate that Nicole's legs were under. If he was at a position where there was no blood between him and the gate Ron entered then he would not have stepped in blood at that point.

Brian


Brian, yes I've been following Garrison's postings. I guess Garrison's claim of an exceptionally high IQ allows him to see connections to the Simpson case in almost everything he looks at. Movies, and history.

Most of the time I just shake my head when I read his garbage and think he really has a serious problem in comprehending realty.

I don't agree that it took a long time for Nicole's blood to pool. There was a hugh amount of blood that immediately came from Nicole when she was nearly decapitated. After that the blood continued to drain from her body causing the pool to get larger. The evidence is that after Simpson killed Nicole he returned to Ron. When he left Ron he would have had to walk through Nicole's blood on the steps to get to the walkway to the alley.

Journey Into Darkness, John Douglas

"The (killer) then goes back to Goldman because he has to make sure he finishes him off. We know he goes back because her blood is found on the bottom of one of Goldman's shoes. Now, this is very, very important, because it tells you that the offender is not a professional killer. This is not a hit man. He doesn't know exactly what it takes to kill this guy. He has to come back and check on him. He sees that Goldman is dying and he goes back and stabs him multiple times. In fact, he's actually stabbed more times than Brown, even though the personalized sort of attack is reserved for her. That's because even though she's the one he's out to punish, to revenge himself on, the male is the greater physical threat. That's another reason we know the crimes were committed by a single offender. Two or more killers would have been able to control the situation better. You wouldn't have the evidence of such a struggle on
Goldman's body.

bobaugust

[alien]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nettathirty
[B]


Happy Chic

Welcome to the board, we're glad to have you and it's always good to get a FRESH Prospective on the Simpson case..

A brief introduction:

Netta30, MartinII, Lionthrone are NG's

Socaldiva, 2L8, Bandit Mom, Mr August, Kate, fbg are the G's

Wukong - 98.9 percent sure a G..

If I left anyone out, it was not intentional, Ok except for (Socal) that's a joke!!


My welcome to you Happy Chic.

Netta, I am so sad that you forgot to add me to the list of NG's. I know you said it wasn't intentional, but my feelings are wounded beyond belief. ;)

[martin II]

Originally posted by Wukong
Happy Chic,

Welcome! If you are "Ketch" from Iago, they were pretty easy on you. If you continue posting anything on Iago like you have been then it will get ugly.

Speaking of Iago, Has anyone been reading Jasper's parallels between the Kennedy assasination and Mark Fuhrman? The three thumps by Fuhrman signifying the three bullets shot by Oswald, Jackie's bloody glove, the Hertz billboard on top of the book depository, the Bundy/Gorham curve the same as Dealy plaza, the uncanny coincidence of dates..... This guy Fuhrman is a genius! It is obvious they are completely out of ideas on Iago.

Bob, I found this post by your buddy Jasper that proves you are wrong about the barking dog times. I mean how can you be right when the foremost authority on all things Simpson disagrees?

From: Jasper
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Time: 04:23:14 AM

Comments
Buster, ¡K.. It doesn¡¦t get any creepier to me, especially now that I¡¦m sure Pablo Fenjves DID hear a dog¡¦s plaintive wail at 10:15 p.m. on the night Nicole died. ¡VJasper

(The above posted with tongue firmly in cheek:) )

Bob, I am again limited with regard to time. I need to post much detail in support of my hastily thrown together theory but need time. As insane as this might seem I have to agree with Martin about the dog taking an occassional breather. I also have an idea about the dog not barking at certain times due to OJ coming back for his hat and the Akita staying near him at that time. One thing I want to say is that in your original challenge to post atheory that fit's all the evidence one thing came to mind about your theory and the evidence. If OJ knocked Nicole uncouscious then killed Ron, returned to Nicole to finish her off then left, there was not enough time for a blood pool to form for OJ to step in. There needs to be time enough for this to happen and your theory doesn't allow for this.

You also asked me about the evidence that shows Ron was killed first. Please clarify what evidence you feel points to this scenario. As for OJ not stepping in Nicole's blood when Ron showed up (from my theory) it is obvious that OJ was searching an area away from the blood pool (which would have been much smaller than the crime scene photos at the time) near the fixed gate that Nicole's legs were under. If he was at a position where there was no blood between him and the gate Ron entered then he would not have stepped in blood at that point.

Brian

wukong
i am please that you have spoken on this subject. i posted about this before. If it did take oj 1-2 minutes to kill both ron and nicole the blood pool would not be formed at that time and there could not be any bm foot prints. Period.
So the timeline is off
martinII

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by socaldiva



The judge does not have the option of finding a defendent guilty if the jury votes not guilty. Where did you come up with that????


No, but he does have the reverse option. Remember the Nanny
baby shaking case of a few years back? If I remember correctly
the jury found her guilty, but the judge voided the verdict
and she walked. However, obviously to overule a not guilty
verdict is entirely different. Double jeapordy would apply.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


wukong
i am please that you have spoken on this subject. i posted about this before. If it did take oj 1-2 minutes to kill both ron and nicole the blood pool would not be formed at that time and there could not be any bm foot prints. Period.
So the timeline is off
martinII



martin II, that's not correct.

When Nicole was nearly decapitated there was a huge amount of blood that spurted onto the steps. As she lay on the ground bleeding to death her blood was draining from her body enlarging the pool of blood around her body.

I have no idea where you got your information from to come to that conclusion but In the civil trial I don't believe any defense attorney ever presented any evidence or made the argument that you are making in response to Dr. Spitz's testimony of how long it took Simpson to kill each of his victims.

bobaugust

[alien]

Okay Netta, I finally got over you not including me in the list of the NG's. :D

Although I think my heart is still a little broken.

I have a couple of questions for you and if you already answered them, please forgive me.

You have said that you don't think OJ is the killer, but visited the scene. Why do you think he visited the scene? and if so, why would he not call the police?

Also, please explain why you think Mark Furhman was on OJ's side? It seems that a lot of G's think that MF set OJ up. Why do you not feel the same way.

I would love to see your answers.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, that's not correct.

When Nicole was nearly decapitated there was a huge amount of blood that spurted onto the steps. As she lay on the ground bleeding to death her blood was draining from her body enlarging the pool of blood around her body.

I have no idea where you got your information from to come to that conclusion but In the civil trial I don't believe any defense attorney ever presented any evidence or made the argument that you are making in response to Dr. Spitz's testimony of how long it took Simpson to kill each of his victims.

bobaugust
bob
how much is a 'HUGE ' amount?

From the edge of nicoles body on the tiles,and looking a foot or two towards the gate, in the picture, there is a blood pool.
this is where the bm print was made.

Exactly how many minutes do you think it would take for the blood to flow from nicole to form a pool wide enough and deep enough that the kind of bm print shown in the picture could be made? and please don't generalize .
MartinII

[goatgirl]

Originally posted by Happy Chic


Just registered after being run off of the Iago Board.

Hi HC

I post on Iago...

sorry to hear you got the boot, what was your poster name there?

GoatGirl
:)

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
No, but he does have the reverse option. Remember the Nanny
baby shaking case of a few years back? If I remember correctly
the jury found her guilty, but the judge voided the verdict
and she walked. However, obviously to overule a not guilty
verdict is entirely different. Double jeapordy would apply.

bandit's mom.

I followed the Au Pair trial very closely (because of the local interest) In actuality Judge Zobel, reduced Woodward's conviction from second degree murder to that of manslaughter.

He then sentenced her to time served (or 279 days) whereupon (as you might imagine) she hopped on the first flight from Boston to London faster that Neil Entwistle's wildest dream.

Judge Zobel was well within his right under law (but most especially since the baby wasn't shaken to death, he died from the massive re-bleed of a subdural hematoma)





Lionthrone :)

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

your post

I think that this is when Kato completely freaked out. When OJ went back to finish off Nicole, Ron just opened the gate because it was not locked and walked in. That's when Ron goes heyheyhey and thus didn't have time to shut the gate because OJ was on him like a duck on a June bug. After OJ left out the back gate, it was then that Kato went out the opened front gate, barking and wailing.
martinII

Yeah, this is my Post. And your point is?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by bandit's mom

I agree the jurors were morons. I think the police were
competent in this case. I think Gil Garcetti was also
a moron and he lost the case the day he changed the
venue. I also think Clark and Darden, while possibly competent
in the past, certainly were not on this case and the biggest
joke of all, other than the jurors, was the idiot judge.

IIRC, Garcetti changed the venue at the request of Bill Hodgeman (don't know if I've got his name right or not. He was supposed to be the lead, but he had a heart attack and had to step back) and Marcia Clark because Santa Monica was too far away and they didn't want to make the long commute. Big, big mistake by Garcetti IMO though!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

IIRC, part of that equation was that the Santa Monica courthouse had suffered damage in the Northridge earthquake, and/or couldn't accomodate the media throng that was anticipated.

I don't doubt your equation Socal. It's just that I never heard or read anything about the Santa Monica Courthouse being damaged. Not that I don't doubt it. That Northridge Earthquake was a real hum dinger. I received more damage from Northridge than I did from the Sylmar Earthquake and I was even closer to the epicenter! Go figure.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II

bob
how much is a 'HUGE ' amount?

From the edge of nicoles body on the tiles,and looking a foot or two towards the gate, in the picture, there is a blood pool.
this is where the bm print was made.

Exactly how many minutes do you think it would take for the blood to flow from nicole to form a pool wide enough and deep enough that the kind of bm print shown in the picture could be made? and please don't generalize .
MartinII


martin II, The flow of blood on the tiles depended on the slope of the tiles. I don't believe it was a level surface.

Besides the fact if there was any doubt or suspicion about the pooling blood and the time it took to pool it would have been raised by the defense. It was never made an issue by any expert who testified, either prosecution or defense.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Yeah, this is my Post. And your point is?

2L8

my point is:

If "Ron did not have time to close the gate" after the hey hey hey, what was the gate slamming sound that Heidstra said he heard right after the hey hey hey?
MARTIN II

[martin II]

bob

Blood flow

now you have said many times that there were pieces of information that were not brought up in either trial that tell "us"
what happened.
Just because certain possibilities were not discussed in the trials
does not mean that these possibilities could not be true or should not have been looked at. imo

But i am interested in knowing how many minutes do you think it would take for the blood pool to form so the bm print could be made.

taking in consideraiton the slope of the tiles
MARTIN II

[martin II]

another view

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

CATCHING NICOLE UNWARY: The critical part of the plan would involve the final encounter: Gus with Nicole. Gus was clear on what he needed: he needed a situation in which Nicole opened her front door after dark under circumstance where she thought she was sure she knew exactly who was on the other side of the door. It was very important to him that she be completely unwary until the moment he sprang. As long as those conditions were met, other details could be accommodated.

That requirement, though, implied another. There had to be a second victim: the person that Nicole thought was at her door. They rehearsed the scene in their minds: An expected visitor would come at night, the visitor would page her from the call box, Nicole would go to let him in. That person would wait at the gate for Nicole to admit him, and Steve would nail him from behind, as Gus had instructed. Nicole would proceed to the gate, utterly certain she knew who was there. Gus would grab her, drag her down the steps and kill her while Steve dispatched the visitor. Then they would plant O.J.'s stolen cap and gloves, arrange the scene for O.J.'s expected visit a few minutes later, and retire to their car. There they would call Margot on the cellular phone, to tell her the deed was done. Margot would call O.J. with some story that would lure him to the scene, and Gus would fly home that night. Nicole would be viciously murdered, and O.J. would be implicated. Margot loved it!

[martin II]

Here is estimated timeline for Ron from work to bundy.
martin II

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



GOLDMAN'S LAST FREE MINUTES

[CHARLENE: I had previously conducted an outdoor retracing of Goldman's steps, and here I recreate his activities in his apartment. The only remaining uncertainty is the time it took for him to get from his front door to his car at the Gorham Avenue apartment; I estimate this as one minute.]

[martin II]

Here are results of wagners experienment on how the blood pools formed under and around nicole and the time it took for the pools to form so that it would be possible for a person to make a foot print by standing next to or near nicole.

see picture # 6

martinII


http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/ng_739.htm



To make the situation more vivid, Figure 6 [ORTHO_T.JPG] has been prepared showing Nicole in her final position with the extent of the blood pool shown in green at 1 minute, 4 minutes, 6 minutes, and 7.2 minutes (when her heart stopped beating) depicted. Notice that it is not until 5 or 6 minutes after Nicole’s throat was slashed that we can expect that a man stepping around in that dark place would be likely to step completely in the growing blood pool.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II
cocaine and marijuana are two different drugs.
martinII

No kidding.

Honestly, sometimes I do not understand how you manage to interpret things in the manner in which you do. No one, neither myself nor Socal, said anything about marijuana and cocaine being the same.

The point in my post, which was in direct reply to Socal, is that marjuana stays in the system longer than cocaine. I then went on to say that technology these days is such that the timeframe of when a drug was introduced into the body can be narrowed down tremendously.

Have I made myself clear at this point?

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


IIRC, Garcetti changed the venue at the request of Bill Hodgeman (don't know if I've got his name right or not. He was supposed to be the lead, but he had a heart attack and had to step back) and Marcia Clark because Santa Monica was too far away and they didn't want to make the long commute. Big, big mistake by Garcetti IMO though!

Do you belive that the citizens in Santa Monica were more likely to be good and fair jurors than the citizens in LA?
Martin II

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel
No kidding.

Honestly, sometimes I do not understand how you manage to interpret things in the manner in which you do. No one, neither myself nor Socal, said anything about marijuana and cocaine being the same.

The point in my post, which was in direct reply to Socal, is that marjuana stays in the system longer than cocaine. I then went on to say that technology these days is such that the timeframe of when a drug was introduced into the body can be narrowed down tremendously.

Have I made myself clear at this point?

Kate Sachel,

Crystal Clear :)





Lionthrone

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


No kidding.

Honestly, sometimes I do not understand how you manage to interpret things in the manner in which you do. No one, neither myself nor Socal, said anything about marijuana and cocaine being the same.

The point in my post, which was in direct reply to Socal, is that marjuana stays in the system longer than cocaine. I then went on to say that technology these days is such that the timeframe of when a drug was introduced into the body can be narrowed down tremendously.

Have I made myself clear at this point?

kate

origionally a poster stated that there was no drugs in nicoles system when she died.( correctly) and that for the poster, this meant that she did not do drugs.

it was stated that oj had traces of marijuana in his blood implying that he smoked marijuana righ up to or close to the time of the murders.

the fact that cocain is depleted from the system in a few days 4-5.
only means that nicole did not do drugs within this time period. Before this, Who knows.

since oj had traces of weed in his system at the time of the murders it only means that it could have been put there at any time from 1 day to 2 years.who knows.

now for me that closes the discussion.
Martin II

[Happy Chic]

Originally posted by martin II


kate

origionally a poster stated that there was no drugs in nicoles system when she died.( correctly) and that for the poster, this meant that she did not do drugs.

it was stated that oj had traces of marijuana in his blood implying that he smoked marijuana righ up to or close to the time of the murders.

the fact that cocain is depleted from the system in a few days 4-5.
only means that nicole did not do drugs within this time period. Before this, Who knows.

since oj had traces of weed in his system at the time of the murders it only means that it could have been put there at any time from 1 day to 2 years.who knows.

now for me that closes the discussion.
Martin II

martin, do you ever post on iago?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


kate

origionally a poster stated that there was no drugs in nicoles system when she died.( correctly) and that for the poster, this meant that she did not do drugs.

it was stated that oj had traces of marijuana in his blood implying that he smoked marijuana righ up to or close to the time of the murders.

the fact that cocain is depleted from the system in a few days 4-5.
only means that nicole did not do drugs within this time period. Before this, Who knows.

since oj had traces of weed in his system at the time of the murders it only means that it could have been put there at any time from 1 day to 2 years.who knows.

now for me that closes the discussion.
Martin II

Martin,

What you are clearly failing to see is that my posting was in all actuality backing up your argument on the issue of drugs in the system. Hence my point about the fact that cocaine does not linger for as long as marijuana. Were you not able to see that I was essentially agreeing with you on this point?

I am aware that Nicole used cocaine. I am also aware that OJ used cocaine. What I have failed to see proof of thus far is that either individual was a frequent user.

I have no problem stepping up to the plate when I recognize that someone's argument has merit and is valid. I only wish that you would be able to do the same.

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


IIRC, Garcetti changed the venue at the request of Bill Hodgeman (don't know if I've got his name right or not. He was supposed to be the lead, but he had a heart attack and had to step back) and Marcia Clark because Santa Monica was too far away and they didn't want to make the long commute. Big, big mistake by Garcetti IMO though!


Why the trial was moved from Santa Monica to LA.


http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/man_8.html

[martin II]

Originally posted by Happy Chic


martin, do you ever post on iago?

Happy Chic

i may have visited the site but never posted i don't think but not sure.

can you give me the link to iago?
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by martin II


Happy Chic

i may have visited the site but never posted i don't think but not sure.

can you give me the link to iago?
martin II

happy chic

you can pm me the link if you like
martinII

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

2L8

my point is:

If "Ron did not have time to close the gate" after the hey hey hey, what was the gate slamming sound that Heidstra said he heard right after the hey hey hey?
MARTIN II

Originally posted by martin II

If Ron did not have time to shut the gate , what was the gate slamming Heidstra heard?

My response:

All of us have our own opinion as to what gate was slammed, back or front. And as you stated, if that is what Mr. H testified to that it was the front gate he heard slamming, then that's what happened. Whether we all agree or not, right?

I hope that the above now eliminates any more discussion on this matter.

JMO and MOO!!

:rolleyes:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

Do you belive that the citizens in Santa Monica were more likely to be good and fair jurors than the citizens in LA?
Martin II

WTH? How does your response have anything to do about my original post? What my opinion would be regarding the above is totally irrelevant to the case at hand.

JMO and MOO!!

:rolleyes:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by alien
Okay Netta, I finally got over you not including me in the list of the NG's. :D

Although I think my heart is still a little broken.

I have a couple of questions for you and if you already answered them, please forgive me.

You have said that you don't think OJ is the killer, but visited the scene. Why do you think he visited the scene? and if so, why would he not call the police?

Also, please explain why you think Mark Furhman was on OJ's side? It seems that a lot of G's think that MF set OJ up. Why do you not feel the same way.

I would love to see your answers.

Uh, excuse me. No offense, but I am a "G" and I don't think for one minute that MF was out to set OJ up ~ period! Just wanted to make that clear. Thanks!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

Why the trial was moved from Santa Monica to LA.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/man_8.html

Yes, I saw this last night and was going to post it to Socal. But since you are on this Board 24/7, you beat me to it!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

I think he's wanting to say that you think the white jurors would have done a better job. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I am not in the mood to play his ridiculous "games!" And, I would never give him the satisfaction of calling me a r@ci$t.

:seeya:

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Sorry, but I am not in the mood to play his ridiculous "games!"

:seeya:

Good luck on that one.

It's terribly frustrating when he asks all of the time for links or where someone has gotten their information, but try to ask him for the same and he acts as though you're asking for a kidney.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Good luck on that one.

It's terribly frustrating when he asks all of the time for links or where someone has gotten their information, but try to ask him for the same and he acts as though you're asking for a kidney.

Good Morning. I think that Netta and Martin are trying to set all of us up by getting us to contradict ourselves and then throw it in our faces and stuff it down our throats. They are obviously taking notes and keeping track of everything that we G's say. I don't think any of us G's need to justify ourselves to these two ******. That's why I try hard not to answer them or play their games, but it is difficult sometimes as you well know.

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

I didn't see anything in that link relative to earthquake damage, but I could swear I remember that about the courthouse. I'll have to dig around later & see if I can come up with anything.

Don't feel bad. I certainly didn't make up what I heard. I think that I read it in the L.A. Times; heard it on the news or heard it from a TH. Anyway, I think that your explanation is a lot more plausible than mine.

:D

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

Thanks. I think your explanation is plausible, I don't think it was ONE reason.....I think there were a couple of reasons. But, I agree with you 100%, it was a BIG mistake. Too bad he wasn't tried there.

Yeah, me too. But then we wouldn't be posting on this Board some 10+ years later, right? LOL!

[martin II]

Originally posted by martin II


Happy Chic

i may have visited the site but never posted i don't think but not sure.

can you give me the link to iago?
martin II

happy chic

you can pm me the link if you like
martinII

[alien]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Uh, excuse me. No offense, but I am a "G" and I don't think for one minute that MF was out to set OJ up ~ period! Just wanted to make that clear. Thanks!

Sorry 2L8. There I went again using G instead of NG. :eek:

So to make everything clear. It seems from posts from the NG's they think that MF framed OJ with the glove. I would like netta to explain why he thinks MF was on OJ's side so to speak.

Again, my apologies to you and all the other G's (including myself) who don't think that MF set OJ up.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by Lionthrone


bandit's mom.

I followed the Au Pair trial very closely (because of the local interest) In actuality Judge Zobel, reduced Woodward's conviction from second degree murder to that of manslaughter.

He then sentenced her to time served (or 279 days) whereupon (as you might imagine) she hopped on the first flight from Boston to London faster that Neil Entwistle's wildest dream.


You're right of course. I didn't follow as closely, just remembered
there was a lot of outrage at the time. Basically though, I think
the same principal applies. I doubt a judge would be able
to take a manslaughter verdict and change it to second
degree. But lowering the verdict is different. I still think
a judge can void a guilty verdict altogether in some instances
though, at least according to Law & Order !

Judge Zobel was well within his right under law (but most especially since the baby wasn't shaken to death, he died from the massive re-bleed of a subdural hematoma)

As I said, I didn't follow the case that closely, so I don't really
have an opinion on her guilt or innocence.





Lionthrone :)

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
[B]

Good . I don't think any of us G's need to justify ourselves to these two ******. That's why I try hard not to answer them or play their games, but it is difficult sometimes as you well know.

I agree. I try to just ignore them, because they are so clearly
baiting. I have to say though I checked out that Wagner
site Martin keeps linking to, and it is hilarious. One of
the funniest things I've seen on the web. It has to
be a spoof, isn't it? This guy can't be serious.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
[B]

Good . I don't think any of us G's need to justify ourselves to these two ******. That's why I try hard not to answer them or play their games, but it is difficult sometimes as you well know.

I agree. I try to just ignore them, because they are so clearly
baiting. I have to say though I checked out that Wagner
site Martin keeps linking to, and it is hilarious. One of
the funniest things I've seen on the web. It has to
be a spoof, isn't it? This guy can't be serious.

Bandit
The blood flow experiement was conducted by wagner, one of the more detailed investigators on this case.

If you can disprove any part of wagners experiment on blood flow
it would be interesting to read.

Martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by alien


Sorry 2L8. There I went again using G instead of NG. :eek:

So to make everything clear. It seems from posts from the NG's they think that MF framed OJ with the glove. I would like netta to explain why he thinks MF was on OJ's side so to speak.

Again, my apologies to you and all the other G's (including myself) who don't think that MF set OJ up.

Thank you Alien, but you don't need to apologize. I just wanted to make sure that we were all on the same page!

:seeya:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
[B]

Good . I don't think any of us G's need to justify ourselves to these two ******. That's why I try hard not to answer them or play their games, but it is difficult sometimes as you well know.

I agree. I try to just ignore them, because they are so clearly
baiting. I have to say though I checked out that Wagner
site Martin keeps linking to, and it is hilarious. One of
the funniest things I've seen on the web. It has to
be a spoof, isn't it? This guy can't be serious.

Bobaugust and Wukong are the most knowledgeable re: the Wagner site. If you have any questions, they can certainly answer them for you!

:seeya:

[alien]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Thank you Alien, but you don't need to apologize. I just wanted to make sure that we were all on the same page!

:seeya:

I think that all of the G's are on the same page. I just had to apologize because I felt that I had offended you.

Have a great afternoon. :)

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


Bandit
The blood flow experiement was conducted by wagner, one of the more detailed investigators on this case.

If you can disprove any part of wagners experiment on blood flow
it would be interesting to read.

Martin II


martin II, none of Wagner's home experiments had anything to do with the reality of the evidence found at Bundy.

Wagner set up his own conditions to prove what he wanted to prove, like his ridiculous attempt to prove that Mandel and Aaronson would not have seen the bloody paw prints when they walked right over them.

His home experiments with pooling blood were just as ridiculous. The only one he fooled was himself and gullible people looking for any excuse to avoid the truth of these murders. Like you.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, none of Wagner's home experiments had anything to do with the reality of the evidence found at Bundy.

Wagner set up his own conditions to prove what he wanted to prove, like his ridiculous attempt to prove that Mandel and Aaronson would not have seen the bloody paw prints when they walked right over them.

His home experiments with pooling blood were just as ridiculous. The only one he fooled was himself and gullible people looking for any excuse to avoid the truth of these murders. Like you.

bobaugust

bob
I realize that you and wagner had some serious differances on this case. His blood experiement is layed out so one can examine it in detail and decide for oneself.

So, if you can post the details of your blood flow experiement, proving how long it took for the blood pool to form, i would be able to compare his work to yours.
Martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
I realize that you and wagner had some serious differances on this case. His blood experiement is layed out so one can examine it in detail and decide for oneself.

So, if you can post the details of your blood flow experiement, proving how long it took for the blood pool to form, i would be able to compare his work to yours.
Martin II



martin II, don't be ridiculous. No one had to do any experiment to comprehend the realty of the blood on the ground.

Wagner conducted home experiments to try and support his fantasy about mob killers. His theories were unrealistic, unsupported, and contradicted by the evidence and witness testimony. There isn't one shred of evidence that supported his speculation so he created his own. Just like he created non existent witnesses. Just like he changed what witnesses actually said to what he thought they should have said.

No legitimate expert ever questioned the blood pools or the body positions. Only fanatics looking for any excuse try to make arguments that something was wrong with the blood, that the bodies were staged, that Goldman was killed without his clothing on. Only really gullible people who want to believe anything, no matter how ridiculous it is, grab onto these meaningless and irrelevant arguments.

If you want to believe in Wagner's experiments, fine with me I would expect you would, it goes right along with all of your gullible so called beliefs and excuses to avoid the simple truth of these murders.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob

so without any experiments of your own. how long did you guess it took for the blood pool next to nicole to form to the point that the bm print could be made as shown?
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

so without any experiments of your own. how long did you guess it took for the blood pool next to nicole to form to the point that the bm print could be made as shown?
martin II


martin II, your question is irrelevant.

The fact is that when Simpson nearly decapitated Nicole by extending her neck and slicing her throat a lot of blood spurted out onto the bottom step forming a pool of blood around Nicole's head.

Simpson returned to Ron Goldman and then had to walk past Nicole to get to the walkway to the rear gate. Simpson walked through Nicole's blood leaving his first bloody shoe print on the top step leading to the walkway.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, your question is irrelevant.

The fact is that when Simpson nearly decapitated Nicole by extending her neck and slicing her throat a lot of blood spurted out onto the bottom step forming a pool of blood around Nicole's head.

Simpson returned to Ron Goldman and then had to walk past Nicole to get to the walkway to the rear gate. Simpson walked through Nicole's blood leaving his first bloody shoe print on the top step leading to the walkway.

bobaugust

bob
i know about the step where the shoe HEEL print was made.

i am talking about the blood pool next to Nicole that had to be wide and thick to get the type of bm print shown in the picture.

Wagner says that based on Nicoles wounds and position while bleeding, the blood pool under and next to her could not have formed within 1 1/2 minutes. ( the time it took the killer to kill them and hear for back gate)

He says that it would take about 7.2 minutes for the blood to run beyond her body (2-3 tiles) which is where the pool would have to be for any killer to make the full bm print seen in the bundy crime photos.

Now you use words like it was a "HUGE " amount or the blood was running out. etc. and then you just deride him as if he knows nothing about what he talks about.

He did take the time to do this experiement to test his theory of the blood flow and he listed the results. Something that people can evaluate.

I think that if you think his experiement was phony, then you could post your experienment to test your theory about the blood flow so it can be evaluated, instead of tossing his out as irrelevant or useless.
The blood pool was formed in 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/ minutes. Prove what you think.

The blood pool is important because it gives evidence as to the time you think oj could have walked in the blood.
Martin II

[martin II]

netta

Bob thinks he can call wagner a nutty guy because wagner called bob out on his agenda and not have to prove his own theory about the blood pool. In 1 1/2 minutes the blood had not even run out to cover one tile for the killer to make a shoe print.
wagner

bob wants to say there was a 'HUGE' amount of blood. this is true but the issue is HOW MUCH TIME DID IT TAKE FOR THE POOL TO FORM.

Without any proof from bob, i guess wagners experienment will have to be coinsidered.
Martin II

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
The blood pool is important because it gives evidence as to the time you think oj could have walked in the blood.
Martin II The timeline for the blood pooling was answered by Orenthal's footprints. There was enough blood to get on the bottom of his shoes and leave evidence of him at the murder scene.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* The timeline for the blood pooling was answered by Orenthal's footprints. There was enough blood to get on the bottom of his shoes and leave evidence of him at the murder scene.

wagner says NOT IN 1 1/2 minutes.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I didn't see anything in that link relative to earthquake damage, but I could swear I remember that about the courthouse. I'll have to dig around later & see if I can come up with anything. I've also read/heard that part of the reason the trial was moved downtown was due to earthquake damage but I did find this in Darden's book, page 169: "According to policy and practice,such huge cases would always be tried in the dowtown courts building because no other couthouse was big enough or even remotely prepared fo such a behemoth. The case belonged downtown. To move it would have been unethical and manipulative."

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


wagner says NOT IN 1 1/2 minutes.
martin II Wagner's theories/fantasies over time have been proven to be theories/fantasies with no evidence to support them. Experts have testified that the murders could have happened in much less time than wagner speculated.

[fbgweezer]

Toobin, page 117-119: "A variety of factors made a trial in Santa Monica impossible from the outset. First the courthouse there had sustained considerable damage in the Northridge earthquake, which took place just six months before the murders. It was in no shape to receive the onslaught of media and public demands that would accompany the Simpson trial, and damage to the district attorney's offices there had left them all but uninhabitable. Secnd, the county had set up metal detectors and other logistical accoutrements to lengthy, high-publicity cases on the ninth floor of the downtown courthouse, the judges insisted that all such cases be tried there. Third, the D.A.'s office had placed the special-trials division - Marcia Clak's unit- in the Criminal Courts Building just so that it would be near those ninth-floor courtrooms. And finally, there was a grand-jury room in the Criminal Courts Building, but not in Santa Monica; cases indicted by the downtown grand jury usually stayed there for trial."

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by nettathirty
Mandel and Aaronson would not have been able to look up the pathway and see the 2 dead bodies, it was too dark!
Were they also deaf and would not have heard the barking dog?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II



I think that if you think his experiement was phony, then you could post your experienment to test your theory about the blood flow so it can be evaluated, instead of tossing his out as irrelevant or useless.
The blood pool was formed in 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/ minutes. Prove what you think.




martin II, try using a little common sense here.

The initial amount of blood that spurted from Nicole's neck would have probably covered an area big enough for both of Simpson's shoe soles to be saturated. Nicole continued to bleed out as she was dying when Simpson left her and returned to Ron. That minute or so time would have quickly added even more blood to the accumulating blood pool.

I don't have the expertise to even attempt to recreate how blood would flow from a victim who has been nearly decapitated and lay dying and neither did Wagner.

Wagner had no forensic or medical training, that I know of. I'll stick with the real experts and what they say, not Wagner's self serving home experiments to create evidence to support his fantasies.

Dr. Werner Spitz November 8. 1996

Q. Where's the blood coming from?
A. The blood is coming from the two carotid arteries, which are each the diameter of your little finger, which is very big for an artery, and from branches of the carotid artery, and to a significant lesser extent, from severed veins.
Q. Is it coming under pressure or --
A. The arterial pressure is such that if you cut an artery, you would have blood and you let it bleed openly, it's a pulsating hemorrhage that would go up to a 12-foot ceiling.

***
Q. Dr. Spitz, when we concluded, you made a reference to the arteries and blood spurting from arteries. Were you making a specific reference to this case or arteries in general?
A. No, I was answering your question about pressure in the arteries. And this is -- this was a general statement about how much pressure there is in an artery, as opposed to some other blood vessels which don't have this kind of pressure. This is not applicable to this case at all. In other words, yes, there is a lot of pressure in this case, but it didn't go to any ceiling. There was no ceiling in this case.
Q. Now, in this case, in your opinion, from what you've seen and viewed, where did the blood go?
A. She was -- maybe you can help me. She was bent forward; I think she was (demonstrating). She was even closer, I think, a foot above the ground, because the blood comes out, gushes out under great pressure. There is no blood in the vast area around; there is blood down below, running down from the bottom step, down on the ground.
This is where the blood went. The blood shot downward because she was down like so, and she was down like so. That's how the blood the got there. Otherwise, the blood would have been all over the place.
Q. And her head was pulled out?
A. And her head was pulled back.
Q. How?
A. (Witness demonstrates.)
MR. BAKER: With the left hand underneath his nose?
THE WITNESS: Either that way or by the hair. Somehow, the neck was taut; otherwise, you wouldn't get this kind of a gaping wound.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty
Goldman was stabbed multiple times, and his clothing was covered in blood. The killer would have drenched in Goldmans blood.

Had Oj been the killer, when he got in the Bronco the seat would have been covered in Goldmans blood.. In the Bronco, there was only 1 maybe 2 smears of Goldmans blood. WTH





nettathirty, wrong. Most of the Ron's bleeding happened after he was he was dropped to the ground and bled to death.

Simpson most likely killed Ron holding him from behind. What ever blood Simpson got on his clothing would have been on the front of his clothing and his sleeves. When Simpson sat in his Bronco there was no blood on the back of his clothing to transfer to his seats.

And we know that Simpson rolled his sleeves up to prevent any blood on them to transfer to his car. Jill Shively testified that when she saw Simpson his arms were bare.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



This is a photo of NBS gate and walkway, taking by I assume the guy in the photo. The photo was taken days after the murder. Look how dark the walkway is during the day, and imagine what it looks like at night! Mandel and Aaronson would not have been able to look up the pathway and see the 2 dead bodies, it was too dark!
'



nettathirty, Sukru Boztep contradicts your beliefs.

February 8, 1995
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

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Nicole next door neighbor heard a dog barking at 10:15p..



nettathirty, Nicole's next door neighbor, Eva Stein, only estimated the time of 10:15 based on nothing but how much time she thought had past when she was trying to go to sleep. Her time estimate wasn't very reliable. Besides the fact she said she heard dogs barking, not one dog.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Bob,

I wouldn't say it contradicts my belief because this witness attention was directed to the house. Mandel and Aaronson would not have been focused on NBS house, gate or porch!


nettathirty, yes it does contradict what you said.

You said, "Mandel and Aaronson would not have been able to look up the pathway and see the 2 dead bodies, it was too dark!"

It was not too dark. If Mandel and Aaronson looked at Nicole's house as they walked by they would have been able to see Nicole's body. They also would have been able to see any bloody paw prints that they would have been walking over. They testified they saw nothing unusual and never heard any dog barking. The murders had not been committed when they were there.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Bob,

I never believed any of these witnesses could be certain about the dogs, and gate slam.. Just about every condo within that city block had a dog and front or rear gate.. How could anybody in his or her right mind believe that the witnesses could narrow the gate/dog noises to that 1 location baffles me!



nettathirty, yes you do sound baffled.

Did anyone in those condos ever come forward and say they were outside at that time and slammed their gate? No. Did anyone in those condos ever come forward and say their dog was barking that night? No.

The fact is that Heidstra walked his dogs past Nicole's condo three times a day. He knew Nicole's condo. He knew her gate. He knew her dog.

Heidstra was standing in an alley across from Nicole's condo. An alley that was at a higher elevation than Nicole's condo. He was directly across from her condo and could see her tile roof. Every witness who was outside that night testified that the night was exceptionally quiet and still.

Heidstra had doubt that the two male voices he heard came from Nicole's condo. Heidstra said the gate that slammed was Nicole's front gate. No one has ever come forward to contradict Heidstra's testimony. Your excuse that you're baffled only shows the length you will go to deny the truth of what Heidstra told us he witnessed.

You use the same excuse with the other witnesses who contradict your fantasy beliefs. Some people who can not admit to the truth call the witnesses who testify to facts that contradict their beliefs, liars. You just simply say you don't believe them. That's so lame.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Bob,

How do we know this, Bob?


nettathirty, from Shively's testimony.

June 21, 1994

Q. DO YOU RECALL WHAT MR. SIMPSON WAS WEARING?
A. I REMEMBER IT AS BEING SOMETHING DARK. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING BESIDES DARK.
Q. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER THERE WERE LONG OR SHORT SLEEVES?
A. I THINK IT WAS SHORT.
Q. DO YOU RECALL SEEING BEAR ARMS?
A. I DO REMEMBER SEEING BEAR ARMS; RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS SHORT SLEEVED.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Bob,

You are incorrect, one of Nicoles neigbhors and his name escape me said, because of the continuous barking dog he went out and closed his gate!

That to me explains the gate noise.. Goldman and NBS was dead long before the "hey hey hey" and before the bloody foot print was made..


nettathirty, no you're incorrect. You're beliefs are based on false information.

No witness ever said that. You're confused. Wagner tried to change what Karpf said claiming Karpf slammed his gate, but Wagner was wrong. He made that part up.

Not only did Karpf never say that he was talking about a completely different time than when Heidstra said he heard the gate slam. Heidstra testified that when he was in the alley listening to the dogs bark he heard the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo. Seconds later he said he heard Nicole's front gate slam.

Louis Karpf came home about five or so minutes later, about 10:45 after Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco speed away.

Karpf said he parked in his car in his garage, waked through his house and out to the street to get his mail. That's when he saw the dog barking in the street. He said the dog scared him so he retreated back behind his gate. He never said he slammed it.


February 8, 1995 Louis Karpf

Q BY MS. CLARK: YES, SIR. YOU GOT HOME AT 10:45. DID YOU GO DIRECTLY INTO YOUR APARTMENT AND OUT TO THE STREET TO GET TO YOUR MAIL?
A YES, I DID.
Q SO 10:45 OR -47, YOU SAW THE DOG?
A I WOULD SAY THAT'S PRETTY ACCURATE.
Q AND WHERE IN THE STREET WAS THE DOG WHEN YOU SAW IT?
A AT THAT POINT, IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET JUST RUNNING OR WALKING AIMLESSLY.
Q AND BARKING?
A BARKING VERY LOUDLY.
Q AND WHAT DID IT DO WHEN YOU APPROACHED YOUR MAIL BOX?
A IT STARTED TO APPROACH ME, WHICH IT DID SCARE ME. SO I ACTUALLY RETREATED BACK INSIDE MY GATE UNTIL IT MOVED ON.
Q WHEN YOU RETREATED BACK INSIDE YOUR GATE, WHAT DID IT DO?
A AFTER THAT, A FEW, MAYBE 20 SECONDS OR SO, IT STARTED BACK INTO THE STREET WALKING UP TOWARDS MONTANA.
Q WHEN YOU SAW THAT DOG, DID YOU HAPPEN TO SEE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE STREET?
A YES. I SAW SOMEBODY WALKING ACROSS THE STREET WITH A DOG ALSO HEADING NORTH.
Q WAS IT A COUPLE OF PEOPLE OR WAS IT ONE PERSON?
A ONE PERSON. I BELIEVE IT WAS A MAN.
Q A MAN.
A UH-HUH.
Q IS THAT YES?
A YES.

bobaugust

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by nettathirty

Simpson played golf with Bill Clinton, 3 weeks prior to the murders!

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


Originally posted by socaldiva


WTH does this have to do with anything???

socaldiva,

Perhaps netta's comments involve one of the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding Bill Clinton.

In this case popular black figures

One conspiracy theory goes that Vernon Jordan played Golf on Martha's Vineyard, Isl. in massachusetts with Bill Clinton, just months before Ken Starr began investigating Jordan's involvement in the lewinsky scandal.

Ron Brown played Golf with Bill Clinton just months before his plane crashed.

O J Simpson played golf with Bill Clinton just months before he was charged in the brutal death of his former wife, and her friend ron goldman :shrug:




lionthrone :)

[Lionthrone]

Originally posted by socaldiva
Just when I thought it couldn't get more absurd, it does :rolleyes:

socaldiva,

It's just a coincidence of course, but it is interesting :patriot:






Lionthrone :)

[alien]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Alien

There was never any evidence of MF being corrupt or a racist! MF had nothing to hide, nobody he worked with said anything bad about him, not even the black officers in the department.

Thank you for answering me. I understand that is your opinion, but why (in your opinion) would other NG's believe that MF did set OJ up?

[alien]

Originally posted by nettathirty
Goldman was stabbed multiple times, and his clothing was covered in blood. The killer would have drenched in Goldmans blood.

Had Oj been the killer, when he got in the Bronco the seat would have been covered in Goldmans blood.. In the Bronco, there was only 1 maybe 2 smears of Goldmans blood. WTH


OJ was there, but not as the killer!

Netta, if the killer (OJ) was behind Ron and stabbed him in the front, he would not be drenched in the blood because Ron would have bled out the front therefore not that much blood on OJ.

Since you are answering questions, I still want to know why you think OJ was at the killing field? Why would he go there. Why would he not call the police and why would he leave his children in the house to discover their Mother slaughtered? If, as he professes, to love his children so much why would he want them to see that? My opinion is that OJ probably does love his children, but being the sociopath that I believe he is, when he killed Nicole it was all about him. He didn't care who suffered from his consequences.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

Thanks for posting that fbg. I was certain I had heard it somewhere, but I couldn't find the reference.

Okie Dokie ~ majority rules. Thus, I stand corrected!

:hat:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by alien


I think that all of the G's are on the same page. I just had to apologize because I felt that I had offended you.

Have a great afternoon. :)

You really don't know me yet. If I had been offended, let me tell you, you would be the first to know!

:D

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

Alien

There was never any evidence of MF being corrupt or a racist! MF had nothing to hide, nobody he worked with said anything bad about him, not even the black officers in the department.

Man oh Man Netta, have you taken your meds today? You have just contradicted yourself big time. And don't tell me that you are joking!

JMO and MOO!!

:rolleyes:

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Wagner's theories/fantasies over time have been proven to be theories/fantasies with no evidence to support them. Experts have testified that the murders could have happened in much less time than wagner speculated.

fbg

'Not in 1 1/2 minutes' was in referance to it would take more than 1 1/2 minutes for the blood pool to form.

what expert testified that the murders could have taken "much less than 1 1/2 minutes."
Martin II

[martin II]

bob

Spitz talked about how the blood came out.
Did Spitz say how long it took for the blood pool to form?
Martin II

[martin II]

bob

i will have to pull up her testimony but this is what i remember from Steins testimony.

she went to bed at about 10:00.
she had a hard time getting to sleep at that time because of some dog/s barking. but she stayed in bed and fell asleep.

her husband came home and she woke up and heard dog/s barking.

the next morning she asked her husband what time he had arrived the night before and he told her 10;45 she said she had been awake about 30 minutes before her husband came home
which would mean that she was awake and heard the dog/s barking at 10;15pm

i will look it up again.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
what expert testified that the murders could have taken "much less than 1 1/2 minutes." Petrocelli, page 348-49: Henry Lee: "Maybe ten minute, maybe twenty minute. Okay. Anything is possible. I cannot come here to tell youu exactly the time. I do know have a struggle. That's a scientific fact . . . .(Goldman) did not, as described, throat cut in one second. . . . Anything above minute, I don't know."

"There is was. According to Dr. Henry Lee, the killings could have taken one minute and one second.. . . ." "But now Ed got him to admit it could have beenas short as sixty-one second."

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
You are wrong. The fatal wound was his aorta being cut & all of that blood would have remained inside his body for the most part. The blood on the shirt most likely got there as he laid there dying. It did not spurt out of his shirt onto Orenthal, especially he held him from behind. Petrocelli, Spitz testimony page 432: "There is only one cause of death here, and the cause of death her is cuts in the aorta." "Ron's blood did not escape, Spitz continued, it stayed inside him, collecting in a space in the lower back called the retroperitoneum." "Spitz said Ron bled inside. "All other wounds combined caused little bleeding. The bleeding from the aorta was overwhelming, and is, in fact, what killed him."

There would not have been blood all over Orenthal.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
what expert testified that the murders could have taken "much less than 1 1/2 minutes." Petrocelli, Spitz testimony re Nicole's attack, page 430: I think the slashing of the throat was the terminal event, and I think the entire scenario, from the first wound to the last, was less than fifteen seconds."

Petrocell, Spitz testimony re Ron's attack, page 432: "It is my opinion that this struggle took around a minute, give or take."

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
Did Spitz say how long it took for the blood pool to form?
I have been unable to find testimony where Spitz offers an opinion on how long it would have taken to form a blood pool but I'm not sure why you are so preoccupied with this part. Expert testimony is that when Orenthal slit Nicole's throat she could have 'spurted blood up to 12 feet" -- so I assume that the blood on the ground around her would have happened immediately. I'm not an expert on blood flow but then neither was warner. MOO

[Wukong]

I agree that Wagner had no medical background but I would not be so quick to discount the work he did in the area of blood flow. You don't need to be a doctor to do an analysis of this but having an engineering degree helps immensely. The amount of blood in the body and the pressure the blood is under are not secrets. If you know enough information about how much pressure the blood was under and the size of the carotid arteries it is not hard to figure out bleeding rates.

I would implore people to read the work Wagner did on this before trashing him. There is a lot of math involved (calculus) and a lot of explaination of the mechanics of blood flow from a wound in humans. Being an engineer myself I think Wagner did an exemplary job. Here's a snippet from his study and a link to the study. If you read this whole study and still feel Wagner was way off then we'll talk about what you think is wrong with his study:

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/ng_739.htm

FLOW RATES: In order to have a concrete quantitative answer, we need to estimate values for the rate of flow in different parts of the process. We have already estimated that in the first four seconds a pint flows, which is a rate of 15 pints per minute; and in the next eight seconds another pint flows, that is a rate of 7.5 pints per minute.

Thereupon the hemorrhage phase begins, which is a derivative of normal flow. Dr. Lakshmanan tells that under normal conditions flow through the carotid arteries is 200 milliliters per minute (0.422 pints/min). But, this is not a normal situation: Nicole is unconscious when her throat is slit, seconds earlier she has had a very frightening experience (being attacked by a man with a knife), and her blood pressure and cardiac rate are probably both still elevated, even though she is unconscious. Furthermore, with two major vessels open (the carotids) back pressure is significantly reduced, and thus flow rate is higher than normal. So, we will guess that at the beginning of the hemorrhage phase, flow rate is more than double the normal value and we will take a value of 1.0 pints per minute.

But, as she bleeds to death, the body will lower both pressure and cardiac rate in an effort to conserve blood, and the flow rate will fall. We will use as a model the idea that flow rate falls to 40% of the initial value at the end of the hemorrhage phase, as blood volume falls to 40% of normal. That is, we assume that at the end of this phase, Nicole is losing blood at the rate of 0.4 pints per minute. (This is about the normal rate of flow in the uninjured carotid arteries.)

[Wukong]

By the way, I don't agree with a lot of what Wagner says on his site but his study on the blood flow is scientific and thorough with all work shown. This makes it easy to verify and find any problems.

I am posting about Wagners study only because people here are trashing it who have not even read it in detail. I am not saying this has any bearing on the footprints or when OJ stepped in the blood but if you don't educate yourself in the details you can never know what the possibilities are.

Wukong

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by Wukong
"...but if you don't educate yourself in the details you can never know what the possibilities are. Thanks for the link -- I have read it in the past but will make an effort to reread it with this specific area in mind. My intention was to say that wagner was in fact not a blood flow expert -- as I am not -- but common sense tells you that if Nicole could have spurted blood up to 12 feet from the neck wound, there would have been enough blood on the ground for Orenthal to track through. Which is exactly what he did. This sounds like I'm aguing with you and I'm not -- I appreciate your posts on this board.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Petrocelli, page 348-49: Henry Lee: "Maybe ten minute, maybe twenty minute. Okay. Anything is possible. I cannot come here to tell youu exactly the time. I do know have a struggle. That's a scientific fact . . . .(Goldman) did not, as described, throat cut in one second. . . . Anything above minute, I don't know."

"There is was. According to Dr. Henry Lee, the killings could have taken one minute and one second.. . . ." "But now Ed got him to admit it could have beenas short as sixty-one second."

fbg
if you like the 60 seconds for ron add that to the time for nicole.
what is the total time for both?
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Petrocelli, Spitz testimony page 432: "There is only one cause of death here, and the cause of death her is cuts in the aorta." "Ron's blood did not escape, Spitz continued, it stayed inside him, collecting in a space in the lower back called the retroperitoneum." "Spitz said Ron bled inside. "All other wounds combined caused little bleeding. The bleeding from the aorta was overwhelming, and is, in fact, what killed him."

There would not have been blood all over Orenthal.

spitz is full of it.
If rons blood did not escape and it stayed inside him, where did all the blood seen on ron in the pictures come from? on his neck, his shirt, his trousers, and the tiles??
Martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Thanks for the link -- I have read it in the past but will make an effort to reread it with this specific area in mind. My intention was to say that wagner was in fact not a blood flow expert -- as I am not -- but common sense tells you that if Nicole could have spurted blood up to 12 feet from the neck wound, there would have been enough blood on the ground for Orenthal to track through. Which is exactly what he did. This sounds like I'm aguing with you and I'm not -- I appreciate your posts on this board.

you are misreading the testimony. spitz said blood COULD have spurted up 12 feet to the ceiling, he then said this was not the case here because there was no ceiling. he was only giving a example. Nicoles blood did not spurt no 12 feet.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by Wukong
By the way, I don't agree with a lot of what Wagner says on his site but his study on the blood flow is scientific and thorough with all work shown. This makes it easy to verify and find any problems.

I am posting about Wagners study only because people here are trashing it who have not even read it in detail. I am not saying this has any bearing on the footprints or when OJ stepped in the blood but if you don't educate yourself in the details you can never know what the possibilities are.

Wukong

wukong
thank very much for your post.

It seems that some people, when presented with something like wagners detailed experiement, just toss it out, maby because of bobs opinion of wagner. But the problem is that some will not even examine wagners position to see if it is possible and just call him a nut and move on.

fbg
if you can examind wagers theory on blood pool and point out what part of it is not factual please do so.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
fbg
if you can examind wagers theory on blood pool and point out what part of it is not factual please do so. As I stated, I am not qualified to give an expert opinion on blood pooling. What I did state was that irregardless of the amount of time it takes blood to pool, but usin my common sense I can say there was obviously enough time for Orenthal to step in Nicole's blood in his Bruno Maglis and leave footprints.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
Nicoles blood did not spurt no 12 feet. Please give your proof that it did not.

[martin II]

fbg

exactly what part of wagners scientific experiment on blood flow can you prove is faulty or wrong?

what in this experiment can you call fantasy?

Martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
fbg
if you like the 60 seconds for ron add that to the time for nicole.
what is the total time for both? Not very proficient in math? Uh, let me see -- 60 plus 15 is 75.

[martin II]

spitz

"All other wounds combined caused little bleeding."

it did not look like all the blood on ron his clothes and the tiles leading to the front sidewalk was a little bleeding.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
It seems that some people, when presented with something like wagners detailed experiement, just toss it out, maby because of bobs opinion of wagner. You're looking for an argument -- sorry but not in the mood. I am sure to those who are inclined, wagner's experiments, etc., are interesting but his theories/imaginations of the crime do not fit the evidence. Didn't then and certainly don't 10+ years later. Such things as the amount of time for blood to pool in order for Orenthal to step in it are only that -- interesting. The fact of the matter is, Orenthal stepped in Nicole's blood -- wearing his Bruno Maglis and left his size 12, pigeon-toed footprints.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Not very proficient in math? Uh, let me see -- 60 plus 15 is 75.

so take that. 1 minute and fifteen seconds. to kill both of them.

Wagner in his study shows that at this time the blood had not even cleared nicoles body on the tiles. so there would not have been any blood for a killer to step in next to nicole.

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Please give your proof that it did not.

read dr Spitz again.

martinII

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
Wagner in his study shows that at this time the blood had not even cleared nicoles body on the tiles. so there would not have been any blood for a killer to step in next to nicole. What part of this discussion are you not understanding? Both arteries were cut. Do you think she slowly bled? No. The blood could have spurted up to 12 feet which means it was flowing quick and heavy. If I knock over a glass of water, there is an immediate amount of water spilled and as the glass empties, ther would be a pool. There would have been blood around Nicole immediately irregardless of how long it took it to pool.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* You're looking for an argument -- sorry but not in the mood. I am sure to those who are inclined, wagner's experiments, etc., are interesting but his theories/imaginations of the crime do not fit the evidence. Didn't then and certainly don't 10+ years later. Such things as the amount of time for blood to pool in order for Orenthal to step in it are only that -- interesting. The fact of the matter is, Orenthal stepped in Nicole's blood -- wearing his Bruno Maglis and left his size 12, pigeon-toed footprints.

fbg

if the details are available to you and you fail to educatre yourself to them, then it is very possible that your conclusion will be faulty.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
read dr Spitz again. :confused: I quoted Spitz. Spitz said her blood could have spurted -- you said Spitz was full of it. Now, you give proof that it did not.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* As I stated, I am not qualified to give an expert opinion on blood pooling. What I did state was that irregardless of the amount of time it takes blood to pool, but usin my common sense I can say there was obviously enough time for Orenthal to step in Nicole's blood in his Bruno Maglis and leave footprints.

fbg

you have never stated a expert opinion on this thread so why do you belive anyone would be looking for one from you now?
gees.
MartinII

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
:confused: I quoted Spitz. Spitz said her blood could have spurted -- you said Spitz was full of it. Now, you give proof that it did not.

stop playing games. spits said her blood did not spurt 12 feet to a ceiling ' IN THIS CASE' because there was no ceiling.

you cannot take a general example to show blood pressure and then twist it to try to make it sounmd like that is what happened in this case. expecially since spitz said " not in this case"

you read wagner and then prove why he is wrong.
Martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* What part of this discussion are you not understanding? Both arteries were cut. Do you think she slowly bled? No. The blood could have spurted up to 12 feet which means it was flowing quick and heavy. If I knock over a glass of water, there is an immediate amount of water spilled and as the glass empties, ther would be a pool. There would have been blood around Nicole immediately irregardless of how long it took it to pool.

nonsense

martin II

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
stop playing games. spits said her blood did not spurt 12 feet to a ceiling ' IN THIS CASE' because there was no ceiling.
You are being silly. Spitz said "not in this case" only because obviously there was no ceiling.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
What is "educatre"??:confused: Describes martin' knowledge about this case? :D

[martin II]

fbg

i have already posted part of the testimony, gave the link to the full study and directed your attention to exhibit 6. for a detail picture of the flow rate.

what additional proof do you require.
Martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
fbg

you have never stated a expert opinion on this thread so why do you belive anyone would be looking for one from you now?
gees. You'e the one that asked me the question: "Originally posted by martin II "fbg
if you can examind wagers theory on blood pool and point out what part of it is not factual please do so. "

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
i have already posted part of the testimony, gave the link to the full study and directed your attention to exhibit 6. for a detail picture of the flow rate. what additional proof do you require.
Good grief martin -- get a grip. I'm not disputing wagner's pooling theory/experiment. Let me state my position one more time: It doesn't matter how long it would have taken to pool. Obviously there was enough of Nicole's blood on the ground for Orenthal to step in and track.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
I thought maybe he was beginning to speak to us in French :D :lol: I'm wondering if he's seeing highlighted (pink) text again.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by martin II
[B]

wukong
thank very much for your post.

It seems that some people, when presented with something like wagners detailed experiement, just toss it out, maby because of bobs opinion of wagner. But the problem is that some will not even examine wagners position to see if it is possible and just call him a nut and move on.

Or maybe they read it, along with his ridiculous theory
of who committed the crimes and why, and then call
him a nut and move on. Sorry, but some of us are just
cursed with common sense.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by bandit's mom
[BOr maybe they read it, along with his ridiculous theory
of who committed the crimes and why, and then call
him a nut and move on. Sorry, but some of us are just
cursed with common sense. [/B] :beer:

[martin II]

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

wukong
thank very much for your post.

It seems that some people, when presented with something like wagners detailed experiement, just toss it out, maby because of bobs opinion of wagner. But the problem is that some will not even examine wagners position to see if it is possible and just call him a nut and move on.

Or maybe they read it, along with his ridiculous theory
of who committed the crimes and why, and then call
him a nut and move on. Sorry, but some of us are just
cursed with common sense.

as bk says
have it your way
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Good grief martin -- get a grip. I'm not disputing wagner's pooling theory/experiment. Let me state my position one more time: It doesn't matter how long it would have taken to pool. Obviously there was enough of Nicole's blood on the ground for Orenthal to step in and track.

it does matter.

if oj was the killer did he wait around for some minutes after killing them for the blood pool to form and then made a ptint?

if the murders happened some time just before oj arrived then the blood pool would have had time to form for the prints to have been made.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
if the murders happened some time just before oj arrived then the blood pool would have had time to form for the prints to have been made. IF Orenthal arrived after the murders, did he purposely leave his children in harms way or not care that they could have been awakened and walked out to find their mother brutally murdered? He knew they were there -- he said he talked to Sydney.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

Spitz talked about how the blood came out.
Did Spitz say how long it took for the blood pool to form?
Martin II


martin II, no one talked about Nicole's pooling blood other than she bled out a tremendous amount of blood downward and forward when her throat was severed. All of the defense questions about the amounts of blood were related to Ron Goldman not Nicole.

Nicole's blood that pooled around her was and is a non issue, only a fact. People like Wagner made it an issue to try and create fantasy evidence to support his fantasy theory.

The blood that initially spurted out of Nicole's neck when she was nearly decapitated formed a blood pool that Simpson stepped in before going down the walkway to the rear gate.

bobaugust

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by bobaugust



The blood that initially spurted out of Nicole's neck when she was nearly decapitated formed a blood pool that Simpson stepped in before going down the walkway to the rear gate.

bobaugust

Ah, now see, there you go again with that pesky common
sense thing.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

i will have to pull up her testimony but this is what i remember from Steins testimony.

she went to bed at about 10:00.
she had a hard time getting to sleep at that time because of some dog/s barking. but she stayed in bed and fell asleep.

her husband came home and she woke up and heard d