Juditha Brown's Glasses

[nettathirty]

Would you place prescription eye-glasses in a Standard Mailing Envelope?

[nettathirty]

I mean Juditha Brown, was the fashionable type.. She would not have worn cheap eye-wear, and to place her glasses without protection into a letter evelope does not add up?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty
I mean Juditha Brown, was the fashionable type.. She would not have worn cheap eye-wear, and to place her glasses without protection into a letter evelope does not add up?


nettathirty, Juditha Brown called the restaurant and spoke with Karen Crawford. Crawford found the eyeglasses in the street. She wiped them off and told Juditha Brown that she found them. After hanging up the telephone Crawford put the eyeglasses in an envelope, wrote Nicole's name and "prescription glasses" on the envelope and sealed it. About five minutes later she spoke with Nicole on the telephone. She called Ron to the phone and he talked to Nicole. Crawford then gave the eyeglasses to Ron Goldman.

What do you think she should have done with the eyeglasses in that restaurant?

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, Juditha Brown called the restaurant and spoke with Karen Crawford. Crawford found the eyeglasses in the street. She wiped them off and told Juditha Brown that she found them. After hanging up the telephone Crawford put the eyeglasses in an envelope, wrote Nicole's name and "prescription glasses" on the envelope and sealed it. About five minutes later she spoke with Nicole on the telephone. She called Ron to the phone and he talked to Nicole. Crawford then gave the eyeglasses to Ron Goldman.

What do you think she should have done with the eyeglasses in that restaurant?

bobaugust


August,

I would not have put her "prescription glasses" in an scratch ridden envelope..

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

I would not have put her "prescription glasses" in an scratch ridden envelope..



nettathirty, that's funny.

A scratch ridden envelope? What the heck is that?

Putting eyeglasses in a clean envelope will protect them from scratches not cause scratches. Tell us, what would you have put the eyeglasses in?

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust




nettathirty, that's funny.

A scratch ridden envelope? What the heck is that?

Putting eyeglasses in a clean envelope will protect them from scratches not cause scratches. Tell us, what would you have put the eyeglasses in?

bobaugust


August,

"Scratch Ridden" the potential for scratches are Greater, if they are place in an envelope... I'm thinking, the envelope wasn't just for the glasses, but for something else?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

"Scratch Ridden" the potential for scratches are Greater, if they are place in an envelope... I'm thinking, the envelope wasn't just for the glasses, but for something else?


nettathirty, I also wear eyeglasses and wouldn't think twice about them being scratched by putting them in an envelope. Maybe it's because the glasses I buy are always scratch resistant and have been for many years. Most people that I know of that wear eyeglasses have scratch resistant glasses.

It's funny how you're always looking for something sinister about normal things that happened in the Simpson case. Holly just posted a reasonable explanation if Karen Crawford didn't wear eyeglasses. Another reasonable explanation would be what I just told you.,

You still haven't answered my question, what would you have put the eyeglasses in?

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

It's funny how you're always looking for something sinister about normal things that happened in the Simpson case. Holly just posted a reasonable explanation if Karen Crawford didn't wear eyeglasses. Another reasonable explanation would be what I just told you.,

You still haven't answered my question, what would you have put the eyeglasses in?

bobaugust

Bob,

Certainly not an envelope, and would expect more from a Bevely Hills Restaurant.. IMO

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Bob,

Certainly not an envelope, and would expect more from a Bevely Hills Restaurant.. IMO


nettathirty, you still can't answer a simple question. What would you have put the eyeglasses in?

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, you still can't answer a simple question. What would you have put the eyeglasses in?

bobaugust


August,

A cloth napkin, surely an Upscale Beverly Hills restaurant, would have taken more precaution with it's customer personal property.. Not wanting any bad things sad about them..

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

A cloth napkin, surely an Upscale Beverly Hills restaurant, would have taken more precaution with it's customer personal property.. Not wanting any bad things sad about them..



nettathirty, try to look at this from Crawford's viewpoint.

A customer who had dinner at the restaurant calls her about possibly leaving her eyeglasses there. Crawford looks around the table and asks other employees if they had seen them, and then tells the customer they aren't there. The customer asks Crawford to look outside where she had gotten out of her car, and Crawford does. She finds the eyeglasses in the street. Crawford told the customer she would hold them for the customer's daughter to pick up the next day.

Crawford wiped the mud off the eyeglasses, put them in an envelope and wrote on it the daughter's name and what the envelope contained so that anyone working the next day would know what what they were when someone came in asking for them. I see nothing wrong with what she did and if I were that customer I would have been more than grateful to get them back. The fact that they were put in an envelope would not have bothered me at all like it seems to bother you.

But then again you think there was something sinister about this whole innocent and not very unusual event so I'm not surprised.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

I am wondering why this Thread was even allowed to be opened by the Moderator(s) on the OJ Board. I see absolutely no relevance to Juditha Brown's glasses and the double-murder of Nicole and Ron.

Netta -- Questions:

What did you want to accompolish by opening this Thread?

Why do you think that Juditha's Glasses have any relevance to the murders of Nicole and Ron?

Just asking. Just Curious.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

A cloth napkin, surely an Upscale Beverly Hills restaurant, would have taken more precaution with it's customer personal property.. Not wanting any bad things sad about them..

Get serious Netta. These are young adults here. I am not surprised by the paper envelope. Now an adult, I am sure that they would have used a cloth napkin and wrapped the glasses up, but I could be wrong.

JMO and MOO!!

[limakey]

Netta,

I have to agree with 2Late on this one. Besides, glasses have been made to take a lot of punishment. Trust me, you have no idea how hard I tried to break mine. Granted, I was very young but I gave it my best shot! However, as I picked being able to see over vanity, I still have done some pretty stupid things with them---by accident!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
I am wondering why this Thread was even allowed to be opened by the Moderator(s) on the OJ Board. I see absolutely no relevance to Juditha Brown's glasses and the double-murder of Nicole and Ron.

Netta -- Questions:

What did you want to accompolish by opening this Thread?

Why do you think that Juditha's Glasses have any relevance to the murders of Nicole and Ron?

Just asking. Just Curious.


2L8,

It was to cover up the real reason for the visit to Nicoles condo by Ron Goldman... Someone had an interest in the content of the envelope, and it would not have been a homicidal ex-husband..

There was finger print on the lens or the envelope, forgive me it escapes me, which one! I'll research it and get back to you, or if any of you remember you can post which one!

The murders were professionally done, and not by some raging mad exhusband without an alibi.. (GMAB).. The envelope is significant because the killer searched it and left a print on it or the glasses, why would the X-husband do that?

... The OVERWHELMING SIMILARITIES in the Bundy murders and Brett Cantors murder, not to mention the victims in the 2 murders were acquainted, is NO coincident! Cantor owned a club, and like restaurant, clubs tend to be a front for drug smuggling.. (NOT SAYING THAT IS THE CASE), but it is a reasonable inference...

[martin II]

netta

eyeglasses may not have been the only thing in that envelope ron was suppose to be carrying.
Martin II

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by martin II
netta

eyeglasses may not have been the only thing in that envelope ron was suppose to be carrying.
Martin II


martin II

Good to have you back!

There was a print on the lens of Juditha Brown glasses, LE mistakenly (laughing, not a mistake) didn't get the print or didn't make that info public..

There would be NO reason for the homicidal ex-husband to care about the content of the envelope..
" What would OJ be looking for, proof, he's killed them already, NO NEED TO SEARCH the evelope"...

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



martin II

Good to have you back!

There was a print on the lens of Juditha Brown glasses, LE mistakenly (laughing, not a mistake) didn't get the print or didn't make that info public..

There would be NO reason for the homicidal ex-husband to care about the content of the envelope..
" What would OJ be looking for, proof, he's killed them already, NO NEED TO SEARCH the evelope"...


nettathirty, there was no fingerprint on the lens of Juditha Brown's eyeglasses. That's pure unsupported speculation.

And if there was a fingerprint that no one ever saw it was most likely Karen Crawford's since she put the eyeglasses in the envelope.

bobaugust

[jotun]

Originally posted by nettathirty


There was finger print on the lens or the envelope, forgive me it escapes me, which one! I'll research it and get back to you, or if any of you remember you can post which one! The envelope is significant because the killer searched it and left a print on it or the glasses, why would the X-husband do that?


netta

BOTH. There was an
bloody imprint on the envelope. And we can assume a fingerprint on one lens.Will never know.It became 'LOST' Also the bloody fingerprint on the back gate 'LOST'
D.A's motto:
"If it doesn't fit we must lose it"
jotun

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


No, you can't assume that :no:


Socal,

Because LE intentionally mishandled the evidence, and the evidence wasn't properly processed. Then an assumption is all we have to go on, ask Bob. The print did exist, which means that evidence of someone else being at Bundy was concealed by LE..

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Socal,

Because LE intentionally mishandled the evidence, and the evidence wasn't properly processed. Then an assumption is all we have to go on, ask Bob. The print did exist, which means that evidence of someone else being at Bundy was concealed by LE..


nettathirty, not true. There is no evidence that the eyeglasses were intentionally mishandled.

If a print did exist it was probably Karen Crawford's. She was the one who wiped the mud from the eyeglasses and put them in the envelope.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II
netta

eyeglasses may not have been the only thing in that envelope ron was suppose to be carrying.
Martin II

This is just speculation on your part and your opinion only! You have no proof whatsoever to back up what you are saying. Also, it is nothing short of slander on your part to even suggest such a thing. You should be ashamed of yourself. If Ron was carrying anything other than Juditha Brown's glasses in an envelope, then it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the murders of Nicole and Ron and you know it!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


This is just speculation on your part and your opinion only! You have no proof whatsoever to back up what you are saying. Also, it is nothing short of slander on your part to even suggest such a thing. You should be ashamed of yourself. If Ron was carrying anything other than Juditha Brown's glasses in an envelope, then it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the murders of Nicole and Ron and you know it!

JMO and MOO!!

2l
maby you have proof of what was or was not in the envelope.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


2l
maby you have proof of what was or was not in the envelope.

martin II Actually, testimony is that the eyeglasses were/had been in the envelope. Maybe you have proof that there was something else.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

2l
maby you have proof of what was or was not in the envelope.

martin II

IMO, since I didn't make the accusation of what was or wasn't in the envelope and you did, I don't have to show any proof, but you definitely do!

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


IMO, since I didn't make the accusation of what was or wasn't in the envelope and you did, I don't have to show any proof, but you definitely do!


my post
martin II

Originally posted by martin II
netta

eyeglasses may not have been the only thing in that envelope ron was suppose to be carrying.
Martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

my post
martin II

Originally posted by martin II
netta

eyeglasses may not have been the only thing in that envelope ron was suppose to be carrying.
Martin II

And......your point being is?? :confused:

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
. . .ron was suppose to be carrying. Evidence proves that it was the envelope from the restaurant. Evidence proves that the eyeglasses were placed in the envelope. Evidence proves that the envelope was given to Ron for delivery to Nicole. Evidence proves that the glasses and envelope were at the murder scene. I'm not sure what you could mean by your "supposed" statement.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Evidence proves that it was the envelope from the restaurant. Evidence proves that the eyeglasses were placed in the envelope. Evidence proves that the envelope was given to Ron for delivery to Nicole. Evidence proves that the glasses and envelope were at the murder scene. I'm not sure what you could mean by your "supposed" statement.

fbg
i assume ron was carrying the envelope from the resturant i just don't know what was in it and neither do you.imo

martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
i assume ron was carrying the envelope from the resturant i just don't know what was in it and neither do you.imo

martin II There was one envelope and one pair of glasses. The girl at the restaurant sealed the glasses in the envelope. The girl at the restaurant gave the envelope to Ron to deliver to Nicole. The envelope and the glasses were at the murder scene. I don't think it's very hard to deduce that the envelope held the glasses. Anything else regarding that envelope and those glasses are pure fantasy on the part of the NGs.