Evidence that Places OJ Simpson at the Crime Scene

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by tazzybaby
Big Ben,

Are you just dismissing the Mezzaluna employees who testified what time the phone call came in and what time Ron left? That proves the time of the phone call was not 11:00.

:shrug:

Absolutely! Tazzy.

From a subjective view point the demeanor of the employees during that particular area of testimony appeared quite strained and thus very strange in my opinion, after continuous watching of that particular day in question.

However, Ron's timecard alleged a punch out time of 9:33 PM, but the waitress Karen Crawford had initially stated in previous deposing that the management never made the one hour forward adjustment from standard time to daylight savings time on the time clock, thus the time of Ron's departure was probably 10:33 PM.

The reason that I believe it was not changed is because none of the other important time pieces, relative to customer service, were functioning properly. Management never corrected the disparate time and date function associated with the portable waitress order calculators, nor did management bother to assure that the electronic cash register issued a proper time and date when a patron received their receipt for purchase for cash or credit card. The Brown, party of 10, spent well over $200.00 for that evening's informal celebration of Sydney's school recital. That's probably enough to justify the correction of a misunderstanding.

Yet if a customer was required to show a cash receipt with the time and date of a disputed occurance within the Mezzaluna restaurant, he could not affirm his point in dispute due to malfunctioning time pieces, and that is quite strange to me.

Since the management appeared to be too lazy to have the cash register provide proper time and date when dealing with money from patrons, why should one believe that they in fact cared about or corrected the time on the time clock from standard to daylight savings time.

As long as the boss and I had a clear understanding, up dating the time clock would seem to be meaningless.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Absolutely! Tazzy.

From a subjective view point the demeanor of the employees during that particular area of testimony appeared quite strained and thus very strange in my opinion, after continuous watching of that particular day in question.

However, Ron's timecard alleged a punch out time of 9:33 PM, but the waitress Karen Crawford had initially stated in previous deposing that the management never made the one hour forward adjustment from standard time to daylight savings time on the time clock, thus the time of Ron's departure was probably 10:33 PM.

Since the management appeared to be too lazy to have the cash register provide proper time and date when dealing with money from patrons, why should one believe that they in fact cared about or corrected the time on the time clock from standard to daylight savings time.

As long as the boss and I had a clear understanding, up dating the time clock would seem to be meaningless.


Big Ben, once again your opinion is based on false information.

Your opinion as to why you think the time clock was not set properly is not only contradicted by the testimony it tells us you evidently have little experience with a business where employees are paid based on punching in and out of work using a time clock.

The time clock had the correct time. John Debello testified to that fact.

Both Karen Crawford and Tia Gavin testified the only machine at the Mezzaluna restaurant that had the wrong time on it was the NCR machine that printed out the dinner checks.


June 21, 1994 John Debello
Q And did Ronald Goldman punch out that night?
A Yes, he did.
Q What time?
A 9:33, and I initialed his time card.
*
Q What type of clock device do you have, to record the times that an employee clocks out?
A It's an electric clock that is normal in most factories or restaurants. We just put the time card in, and it punches out the time. That's it, it's very simple.
*
Q Do you know when the last time that time clock was checked for accuracy?
A Well, I changed it when the time -- when we changed the time, when it was daylight savings time. So, I pretty much have the clock within a minute or two, I would say, of accurate time.


February 7, 1995 Tia Gavin
Q WITH RESPECT TO THE TIME CLOCK, DO YOU RECALL RESOLVING THAT QUESTION IN YOUR MIND, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS OFF DUE TO DAYLIGHT SAVINGS?
A OH, YES.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU DISCOVER?
A THAT IT WAS NOT OFF AND THAT THERE WAS CONFUSION OF WHETHER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TIME ON THE NCR MACHINE OR THE TIME ON THE TIME CLOCK.
Q BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU SAY THE NCR MACHINE, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED. I THINK THAT'S THE COMPANY THAT MAKES THE COMPUTER. IT'S THE COMPUTER THAT YOU PUT ALL YOUR ORDERS INTO WHEN YOU'RE MAKING ORDERS AND PRINTS THE CHECKS THAT YOU DELIVER TO THE TABLE.
Q KIND OF LIKE THE CASH REGISTER?
A YES.
Q ONLY FANCIER WORD?
A EXCEPT, YEAH, IT DOESN'T HAVE CASH IN IT.
Q SO THAT WAS THE -- THAT WAS THE MACHINE THAT WAS OFF IN TERMS OF TIME?
A YES.
Q SO THE RECEIPTS THAT ARE PRINTED OUT FOR CREDIT PURCHASES OR I GUESS CASH PURCHASES TOO WILL SHOW A TIME FOR THE CUSTOMER THAT IS INCORRECT?
A IT COULD, YEAH. I MEAN IT HAS BEEN OFF QUITE A LOT. I DON'T KNOW WHO REGULATES THAT, BUT --
Q SO IF A CUSTOMER PAYS WITH A CREDIT CARD, THAT MACHINE IS GOING TO PRINT OUT A TIME ON IT THAT IS NOT RELIABLE?
A WHETHER THEY PAY BY CREDIT CARD OR NOT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT RELATED TO THE CREDIT CARD MACHINE, WHICH IS A SEPARATE MACHINE ALTOGETHER. IT IS THE CHECK THAT YOU DELIVER TO THE TABLE. SO IF THEY KEPT A RECEIPT, IF THEY PAID BY CREDIT CARD, IT MIGHT BE THE CREDIT CARD RECEIPT. IF THEY KEPT THEIR CHECK, THEN THAT WOULD HAVE A TIME ON IT AND THAT WOULD MOST LIKELY NOT BE RIGHT, BUT IT COULD BE.
Q ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TIME CARD CLOCK, THE TIME CLOCK THAT YOU PUNCH IN AND OUT OF, THE EMPLOYEES PUNCH IN AND OUT OF, THAT WAS ACCURATE?
A YES.
Q SO THE TIMES THAT YOU'VE JUST TOLD US ABOUT WHEN YOU PUNCH IN AND OUT OF, YOUR TIME CARD, THOSE ARE CORRECT?
A YES.


February 7, 1995 Karen Crawford
Q CAN YOU TELL BY THIS DOCUMENT WHO WAS THE SERVER THAT NIGHT?
A YES, TIA WAS THE SERVER.
Q OKAY. IT INDICATES A NUMBER OF GUESTS AS NINE?
A YES.
Q CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? IS THAT AN ACCURATE AND -- NECESSARILY AN ACCURATE NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE PRESENT IN THAT PARTY?
A NOT ALWAYS. IF THERE ARE A LOT OF CHILDREN IN THE PARTY THEY MAY COUNT TWO CHILDREN AS ONE GUEST.
Q AND WHY IS THAT?
A BECAUSE THEY TEND TO EAT LESS.
Q NOW, YOU CAN SEE ON THAT PIECE OF PAPER THAT IT SAYS, "JUNE 13 AT 7:04 A.M."?
A YES.
Q IS THAT ACCURATE?
A NO, THAT IS INCORRECT.
Q IS THAT TIME OF DAY STAMP ALWAYS INCORRECT?
A AS FAR AS I KNOW AS LONG AS I HAVE WORKED THERE, YES.
*
Q BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. 7:04 A.M.
OKAY. WE ARE SHOWING YOU THE OTHER SIDE OF IT NOW. AT THE TOP OF THIS OTHER SIDE IT SHOWS THE TIME OF 8:18 A.M. ON JUNE 12?
A YES.
Q THAT IS OF COURSE STILL INCORRECT?
A THAT IS STILL INCORRECT, YES.
Q BUT CAN YOU TELL FROM THIS APPROXIMATELY WHEN THE CHECK WAS OPENED AND WHEN IT WAS CLOSED IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN THE TIME THE ORDER WAS PLACED AND THE TIME THAT THE CHECK WAS PAID?
A YEAH. THAT WOULD BE A CORRECT LAPSE OF TIME.
Q SO IT IS AN HOUR AND 14 MINUTES FROM THE TIME THAT THE ORDER WAS PLACED TO THE TIME THAT THE CHECK WAS PAID?
A YES.
Q AND THEN THAT DOESN'T INDICATE THAT THE PARTY NECESSARILY LEFT, DOES IT?
A NO, IT DOESN'T. IT JUST INDICATES WHEN THE CHECK WAS CLOSED OUT BY THE SERVER.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, an estimated time given by someone not concerned with what the Brown's did doesn't tell us when the Brown's started their drive back home.

Bob, Why wouldn't the young waitress who waited on their $200.00 table, or the general manager watching everything in his small restaurant, including a celebrity's former wife, not be aware of the time of departure of a party of 10.

Juditha Brown had no reason to lie about anything in this case. It was 8:30 PM....not 8:45 PM.

To many formal statements about departure and arrival times to the contrary, Bob! A perfect justification to submit the telephone records to the jury.

If the defense had any suspicions that the times on the Brown's records were not correct they would never have stipulated to them. That's reality.

I'm afraid not Bob. There is historical precedent for this type of fraudulent malfeasance.

A few English lawyers, representing British insurance companies, would connivingly enter unscrupulous alliances with adverse lawyers to litigate a fatal accident onboard whaling ships on the high seas. The iniating lawyer would tell the other, lets stipulate to something that we know is not true, i.e. when the time of death occurred, so that we may bypass the jury, and thus enrich ourselves at the expense of the insurance company.

They were able to enrich themselves until the courts caught up to their tricks. Both English and American Courts have addressed the issue and have determined that such stipulations that attempt to deprive the jury of its' lawful obligation to act exclusively in regard to evidence is a trespass into the domain of the trier of fact and is to be considered unlawful.

The fact is that there never was an 11:00 PM telephone call

You have no knowledge of that! The estimated time to travel between point (a) Brentwood and point (b) Dana Point by all credible time measuring agencies supports an 11:00 PM telephone call for the night of that year 06/12/1994.

Simpson's attorneys understood this but you still can't seem to admit it.

It is not apparent that Simpson's attorneys did understand what you allege. Certainly anyone who has seen the "Serpents Rising" webclip of Johnny Cochran's prejudicial argument to not show the bloody photographs to the jury, would be confused by your assertions when they hear Johnnie state, afterall we're not going to show the jury other evidence in the trial we're not going to show them the telephone records. (You can see it for free on YouTube, Bob.)

Evidently you believe the investment in your website and any possible monetary gain you receive is more important than the truth

On the contrary, Bob, nothing is more important to us than the truth, that is why we continue to attempt to reveal it.

Our website, the free webclips, and the full documentary are simply a meager response to the powerful media companies that control most of the American broadcast airways, and attempt to deny us. They appear to be afraid, just like you, from having the fraudulent propaganda they've promulgated to the American public be exposed as a major fraud.
What an embarrassment that would be! I again invite you to www.ojcoverup.com or www.serpentsrising.com, buy something other than the fiction you continue to embrace, Bob.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Bob, Why wouldn't the young waitress who waited on their $200.00 table, or the general manager watching everything in his small restaurant, including a celebrity's former wife, not be aware of the time of departure of a party of 10.

To many formal statements about departure and arrival times to the contrary, Bob! A perfect justification to submit the telephone records to the jury.

I'm afraid not Bob. There is historical precedent for this type of fraudulent malfeasance.

A few English lawyers, representing British insurance companies, would connivingly enter unscrupulous alliances with adverse lawyers to litigate a fatal accident onboard whaling ships on the high seas. The iniating lawyer would tell the other, lets stipulate to something that we know is not true, i.e. when the time of death occurred, so that we may bypass the jury, and thus enrich ourselves at the expense of the insurance company.

They were able to enrich themselves until the courts caught up to their tricks. Both English and American Courts have addressed the issue and have determined that such stipulations that attempt to deprive the jury of its' lawful obligation to act exclusively in regard to evidence is a trespass into the domain of the trier of fact and is to be considered unlawful.

You have no knowledge of that! The estimated time to travel between point (a) Brentwood and point (b) Dana Point by all credible time measuring agencies supports an 11:00 PM telephone call for the night of that year 06/12/1994.

On the contrary, Bob, nothing is more important to us than the truth, that is why we continue to attempt to reveal it.




Big Ben, I offer facts that prove your claims false. You offer nothing legitimate, only opinions.

Tia Gavin didn't testify as to what time she thought the Brown's left the restaurant but she did testify as to what time they arrived. She said it was about 6:45 PM. Karen Crawford testified that although the times on the dinner check were incorrect the time lapse between the opening and closing times on the check was correct. One hour fourteen minutes. Even if that check wasn't opened until 7:00 PM it would have been closed at 8:14 PM. further supporting Juditha Brown's testimony that it was 8:30 PM when they started their drive back home.

Too many statements of their departure? No only different time estimates by employees who were not concerned with the exact time the Brown's left the restaurant. One person who was concerned and actually checked the time was Juditha Brown. It's very telling that you dismiss this key witness because her testimony contradicts your fantasy.

You've been wrong about every claim you've made. Your claims are based on false and misinformation

The fact is that many people have questioned that drive time but instead of using information based on posted speed limits like you did, they actually made the drive at the speeds that normal traffic travels. The fact that this was a Sunday night would also mean less traffic than on a weekday. If you still can't understand this I suggest you can go to the following web page, it's free, were someone who investigated this case for many years documented that fact.

Time to Drive the 405 Freeway
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/405.htm

Your historical precedent for fraudulent malfeasance has nothing to do with the Simpson case or Simpson's attorneys. Simpson's attorneys had nothing to gain by agreeing to the truth of the time telephone calls were made and documented on the Brown's telephone records. If there was any validity to a possible 11:00 PM telephone call that would have been to their advantage to exploit it anyway they could. That is what would prove Simpson innocent and that is what would enrich them. It never happened because there was no 11:00 telephone call to Nicole. Both Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were dead before 11:00 PM. That's an established fact.

Simpson's attorneys had all the same information you have but they understood Ratcliffe's report, which you evidently don't, and they realized the 11:00 PM estimated time given by Lou Brown was a mistaken time estimate. You're the one who still can't seem to comprehend that reality.

If you really care about the truth then maybe you should rethink what you're claiming, since every claim you've made so far has been shown to be false

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by Big Ben
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust
Certainly anyone who has seen the "Serpents Rising" webclip ...

Our website, the free webclips, and the full documentary are simply a meager response to the powerful media companies that control most of the American broadcast airways, and attempt to deny us. They appear to be afraid, just like you, from having the fraudulent propaganda they've promulgated to the American public be exposed as a major [B]fraud.
What an embarrassment that would be! I again invite you to www.ojcoverup.com or www.serpentsrising.com, buy something other than the fiction you continue to embrace, Bob. This is not the forum for you to **** your website -- I'm surprised the moderator is letting you get by with it.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, once again your opinion is based on false information.
Your opinion as to why you think the time clock was not set properly is not only contradicted by the testimony.....
The time clock had the correct time. John Debello testified to that fact.[

Bob, you continue to play a game of verbal gymnastics.

Of course I know what Debello testified to in regard to the time clock, but it doesn't help the integrity or creditibility of this trial, for him to have to come back and correct Tia Gavin who stated that she felt that the time clock had not been changed. This was important in regard to its' relationship to the alleged 11:00 PM phone call.

Debello initally told Vannatter and Lang on 06/13/94 that the Brown Family departed the Mezzaluna at 9:00 PM then he had to come back and state the departure was about 8:40-8:45ish.

Lou Brown initially told the coroner's investigator on 06/13/94, that his wife Juditha talked to Nicole at 11:00 PM, then he had to come back a week later on 06/20/94 and say that they talked between 9:30 and 10:00 PM.

Steven Schwab initially told the police detectives at 5:00 AM 06/13/94, that he saw Nicole's Akita dog at around 11:15 PM the night she was killed, he had to come back later and recollect that he saw the dog at 10:45 PM.

Robert Shapiro offered a stipulation to Marcia Clark, based upon the phone redords that she had given him on 06/30/94 in open court, in Judge Kathleen Kennedy Powell's chamber on 07/08/94. He offered to stipulate to the Juditha- Nicole telephone call at 10:17 PM. He later came back and agreed to stipulate to 9:37 PM as the time of the call.

Faye Resnick stated on the Maury Povich show that she had spoke to Nicole at 10:45 PM, when Maury said to her you mean 9:45 PM don't you, she had to come back and say, yeh! you're right it was 9:45.....

This is another reason that the jury should have been allowed to examine the telephone records. Too much of the come back disease here, Bob.


P.S. Before I forget, Bob... Apparently you are of the opinion that misinformation regarding time and date on the receipt of one's consistent clientele is of lesser significance than an accurate time clock.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, I offer facts that prove your claims false. You offer nothing legitimate, only opinions.

Facts in question are truly not facts at all, Bob, until one can establish the universality of its' truthfulness. You are attempting to do so using the integrity of shady people. You mean no harm, but you harm your appearance and become just simply a pathetic individual trying to sell buttons to the passersby. Poor fellow!

By the way I took time to read the late Dick Wagner piece about the commute. Pure fantasy, Bob. Not because I simply say so, but because of the facts facing the Browns on 06/12/94.

Apparently you just simply dismissed the remarks that I previously made in terms of CalTrans providing us with documentation that the I-405 was under construction in 1994. And guess what they were building? That HOV lane that old Dick and Rose claimed to have been driving down.

As far as doing 50 MPH on Crown Valley Pkwy. Get outta here! That is a downhill freefall with 14 stop lights from the I-5 to the PCH, that are not synchronized. 50 MPH! I doubt it very much, Why would they??? That would be a scary ride, and dangerous to one's driving record with the cops along through that stretch. Old Dickie boy was attempting to dampen Dr. Johnson and staffs challenge of the drive time that made it into the L.A. Times who also considered the Brown's alleged drive to be a serious stretch of the imagination.

I think that who ever wrote that inclusion in Wagners diary had just roled up some ganga, lit it, and laid back to imagine a glorious Sunday drive. I think they may have given you a hit too, bobaugust.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* This is not the forum for you to **** your website -- I'm surprised the moderator is letting you get by with it.

....Weezer, that's quite appropriate.....
Yep! Weezer. That is undoubetedly appropriate. I hear you ...weezer, my bad I'll try to do better.......

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Of course I know what Debello testified to in regard to the time clock, but it doesn't help the integrity or creditibility of this trial, for him to have to come back and correct Tia Gavin who stated that she felt that the time clock had not been changed. This was important in regard to its' relationship to the alleged 11:00 PM phone call.

Debello initally told Vannatter and Lang on 06/13/94 that the Brown Family departed the Mezzaluna at 9:00 PM then he had to come back and state the departure was about 8:40-8:45ish.

Lou Brown initially told the coroner's investigator on 06/13/94, that his wife Juditha talked to Nicole at 11:00 PM, then he had to come back a week later on 06/20/94 and say that they talked between 9:30 and 10:00 PM.

Steven Schwab initially told the police detectives at 5:00 AM 06/13/94, that he saw Nicole's Akita dog at around 11:15 PM the night she was killed, he had to come back later and recollect that he saw the dog at 10:45 PM.

Robert Shapiro offered a stipulation to Marcia Clark, based upon the phone redords that she had given him on 06/30/94 in open court, in Judge Kathleen Kennedy Powell's chamber on 07/08/94. He offered to stipulate to the Juditha- Nicole telephone call at 10:17 PM. He later came back and agreed to stipulate to 9:37 PM as the time of the call.

Faye Resnick stated on the Maury Povich show that she had spoke to Nicole at 10:45 PM, when Maury said to her you mean 9:45 PM don't you, she had to ]come back] and say, yeh! you're right it was 9:45.....

This is another reason that the jury should have been allowed to examine the telephone records. Too much of the come back disease here, Bob.

P.S. Before I forget, Bob... Apparently you are of the opinion that misinformation regarding time and date on the receipt of one's consistent clientele is of lesser significance than an accurate time clock.


Big Ben, yes people make mistakes, mistakes based on different reasons when not under oath and mistakes made when they are under oath. That's the inherent problem of direct evidence Human error.

Estimated times are not real times. They do not tell us when an event happened. It's the order of events that tell us what happened, not estimated times. The only real times we know in this case are times supported by telephone records.

Debello didn't make a mistake about the time clock, he testified that it was correct.

Tia Gavin testified that she was confused about what clock she was originally asked about, she corrected herself in her criminal trial testimony explaining and clarifying that the NCR machine clock, not the time clock, was incorrect. Karen Crawford substantiated that fact in her testimony.

Debello never knew exactly what time the Brown's left the restaurant. After speaking to the police he evidently realized his first estimate was not correct so he changed it when he testified. All of the Mezzaluna restaurant employees gave only estimated times regarding when the Brown's left, not supported real times.

Lou Brown was mistaken about the estimated time he told Claudine Ratcliffe his wife last talked to Nicole. The 11:00 PM estimate was incorrect but he told Ratcliffe what that telephone conversation was about. That's how we know his estimated time was a mistake. We know Juditha had that conversation with Nicole at 9:40 PM, not 11:00 PM.

Steven Schwab was awaken at 5:00 in the morning by the police. Schwab said he was confused, scared and shocked when he was asked questions by the detectives. He testified when asked about what time he got home he first mentioned 11:30 and then said no, it was must have been around 11:00. He testified that he was trying to get a fix on it vaguely. He said their was a lot of crossing and talking going on between his two neighbors and his wife. After the brief interview he went back to bed and when he later awoke he remembered the sequence of events more clearly. He immediately called the police and told them he had given them an incorrect statement.

Shapiro was either trying to pull a fast one on Clark or he was simply mistaken about what the time of calls he remembered. There was a 10 something PM call to Nicole on June 11, not June 12. Shapiro did not come back and agree to a stipulation regarding 9:37 PM, he offered the stipulation and the prosecution agreed.

Faye Resnick evidently misspoke in a television interview.

These were mistakes, not a disease. Every witness makes mistakes or is mistaken. All people make mistakes.

I'm not sure what you're saying about "one's consistent clientele" but if you're referring to the time on the customer checks in the restaurant compared to the time of day on the time clock, yes the time clock is far more significant. The time clock is what documents the hours employees work and how much they get paid. The time on the meal checks is insignificant except for the possible analysis for management of the restaurant.

bobaugust.

[sweet pea 15]

Martin was discussing this with me.

I don't know how anyone can think that there wasn't any evidence that Jason was the murderer or that O.J. was the "only" killer when the police never looked anywhere else!!! It was a beeline for O.J. from the moment they found out that Nicole Brown Simpson was one of the victims. Your first clue was that it took FOUR detectives to notify O.J. that his EX-WIFE had been murdered.

The fact that Dr. Henry Lee is promoting Mr. Dear's theory should tell you something. He was on O.J.'s defense team. He knows a lot of things that went on behind closed doors. It does give Mr. Dear credibility. I'll tell you two extra things that were not in his book.
I saw two pictures. One was a picture of Jason with a knit cap on. One was a picture with Jason's time card for the night of the murders. All his times for the night were punched EXCEPT for the time he left for the night. That time was written in.

Back to the "evidence" at Bundy... how much was there and never collected? Or tested? Like the blood drops on Nicole's back? And the more important BLOOD TRAIL leading out of the FRONT of Bundy?(Thank you WLSP3) Can't collect and test that, can we? How can there be a blood trail going out of the front of Bundy when we have degraded O.J. blood drops and Bruno Magli shoe prints going out towards the back alley?

Or was it collected and tested but someone didn't like the answers they came up with?

JMO

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by sweet pea 15
Martin was discussing this with me.

I don't know how anyone can think that there wasn't any evidence that Jason was the murderer or that O.J. was the "only" killer when the police never looked anywhere else!!! It was a beeline for O.J. from the moment they found out that Nicole Brown Simpson was one of the victims. Your first clue was that it took FOUR detectives to notify O.J. that his EX-WIFE had been murdered.

The fact that Dr. Henry Lee is promoting Mr. Dear's theory should tell you something. He was on O.J.'s defense team. He knows a lot of things that went on behind closed doors. It does give Mr. Dear credibility. I'll tell you two extra things that were not in his book.
I saw two pictures. One was a picture of Jason with a knit cap on. One was a picture with Jason's time card for the night of the murders. All his times for the night were punched EXCEPT for the time he left for the night. That time was written in.

Back to the "evidence" at Bundy... how much was there and never collected? Or tested? Like the blood drops on Nicole's back? And the more important BLOOD TRAIL leading out of the FRONT of Bundy?(Thank you WLSP3) Can't collect and test that, can we? How can there be a blood trail going out of the front of Bundy when we have degraded O.J. blood drops and Bruno Magli shoe prints going out towards the back alley?

Or was it collected and tested but someone didn't like the answers they came up with?

JMO


sweet pea, the supposed blood trail near the front may or may not have been a blood trail. It could have simply been blood splatters from Goldman or from Simpson's knife. Or it could have possibly been blood dripped from the Akita.

If Jason was involved in these murders not only is there not one shred of evidence that points to him but it wasn't the way Dear imagined it. Dear's scenario is not only contradicted by all the known evidence it makes absolutely no sense.

bobaugust

[rovaan]

Originally posted by Big Ben


- snipped-
By the way I took time to read the late Dick Wagner piece about the commute. Pure fantasy, Bob. Not because I simply say so, but because of the facts facing the Browns on 06/12/94.

Apparently you just simply dismissed the remarks that I previously made in terms of CalTrans providing us with documentation that the I-405 was under construction in 1994. And guess what they were building? That HOV lane that old Dick and Rose claimed to have been driving down.

As far as doing 50 MPH on Crown Valley Pkwy. Get outta here! That is a downhill freefall with 14 stop lights from the I-5 to the PCH, that are not synchronized. 50 MPH! I doubt it very much, Why would they??? That would be a scary ride, and dangerous to one's driving record with the cops along through that stretch. Old Dickie boy was attempting to dampen Dr. Johnson and staffs challenge of the drive time that made it into the L.A. Times who also considered the Brown's alleged drive to be a serious stretch of the imagination.

I think that who ever wrote that inclusion in Wagners diary had just roled up some ganga, lit it, and laid back to imagine a glorious Sunday drive. I think they may have given you a hit too, bobaugust. [/B]

You may think that but you would be wrong...very wrong. I rode with Dick, traveling from the Mezzaluna to Dana Point as indicated in his article. It was not difficult to do 50 miles per hour on the Crown Valley Parkway which had light traffic zooming along with us if not going faster. Given we did not know the area, the ride was a little scary but would have been easy for someone familar with the roads. I recall Dick only using the HOV lane for a very short period of time while we traveled and later research indicated that that part of the HOV was there in June of 1994. I still have a record of the time and miles traveled at major exits along the way.

I do not believe OJ comitted the murders and by focusing on a call around 11:00pm, you and others allow the real killer to remain hidden and unknown. If you are interested, go to www.smartfellowspress.com to the current discussion board. If you listen and look around at the site, you might learn some thing.

rovaan

[sweet pea 15]

Originally posted by bobaugust



sweet pea, the supposed blood trail near the front may or may not have been a blood trail. It could have simply been blood splatters from Goldman or from Simpson's knife. Or it could have possibly been blood dripped from the Akita.

If Jason was involved in these murders not only is there not one shred of evidence that points to him but it wasn't the way Dear imagined it. Dear's scenario is not only contradicted by all the known evidence it makes absolutely no sense.

bobaugust

We've already been through this bob. We don't know what the blood drops are from OR who they belong to because they were never collected or tested (that we know of). Which is precisely my point.

And you know darn well I'm not talking about Dear's scenerio. Everyone who has a scenerio of what happened that night has it wrong. Because no one has Rocky Bateman dumping the missing bag in a lake. Or Rocky Bateman leaving Rockingham with two bags in his hand. On camera. Etc. etc..

I'm talking about Jason's rage disorder.

Pulling a knife on his boss. Throwing his girlfriend into a bathtub. Almost choking his girlfriend to death because he was so overcome with rage.

And always carrying his set of chef's knives with him.

Let's see. Rage disorder/chef's knives/victims killed by multiple stab wounds.

You can't say there was not "one shred of evidence" that Jason was the murderer. Just like you can't say "nothing points to anyone else" when you point out O.J.'s guilt. Not when ALL the evidence that was there wasn't collected and tested and was washed away the very next day.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben

Facts in question are truly not facts at all, Bob, until one can establish the universality of its' truthfulness. You are attempting to do so using the integrity of shady people. You mean no harm, but you harm your appearance and become just simply a pathetic individual trying to sell buttons to the passersby. Poor fellow!




Big Ben, If you're referring to the Mezzaluna restaurant employees, you're wrong again. I don't believe Karen Crawford or Tina Gavin were shady people.

Or maybe you think Juditha Brown was shady since she testified to facts that destroy your fantasy, right?

Oh, lets not forget Simpson's attorneys, it's obvious you think they're all shady too or at least Shapiro and Cochran since they offered and agreed to stipulations that destroy your fantasy, right?

I'm sorry to say you're the poor fellow. You're so lost in your fantasy that you can't comprehend simple reality. Not only do you imagine conspiracies everywhere but you're so naive and gullible you blame the attorneys, you blame the witnesses, you blame everyone except the real criminal, Orenthal James Simpson.

Your fantasy has blinded you to the truth of these murders and it's obvious no amount of facts or evidence is going to change your mind.

Good job,

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by sweet pea 15


We've already been through this bob. We don't know what the blood drops are from OR who they belong to because they were never collected or tested (that we know of). Which is precisely my point.

I'm talking about Jason's rage disorder.

Pulling a knife on his boss. Throwing his girlfriend into a bathtub. Almost choking his girlfriend to death because he was so overcome with rage.

And always carrying his set of chef's knives with him.

Let's see. Rage disorder/chef's knives/victims killed by multiple stab wounds.

You can't say there was not "one shred of evidence" that Jason was the murderer. Just like you can't say "nothing points to anyone else" when you point out O.J.'s guilt. Not when ALL the evidence that was there wasn't collected and tested and was washed away the very next day.


Sweet pea, I disagree. Of course we can say Jason wasn't the killer since there is no evidence that points to him.

Your argument that since all of the blood evidence that covered the murder scene wasn't collected is not a realistic argument. No police department that I know of would have collected all that blood. It was obvious that the majority of the blood came from both victims. Other blood that may have not been from the victims was collected, the small drops that were on the walkway, near the bloody shoe prints, and on the rear gate. A blood drop on the bottom of Ron's shoe, blood on the tree, blood on the fence, blood on the rail, blood on the curb, blood on the front gate. No one knew whose blood that was.

All of the other physical evidence was collected. The glove, the hat, the envelope with eyeglasses, the pager, the keys, as well as other evidence that was later found not be connected to the murders. The glove and the hat as well as the victims clothing were all checked for fiber and hair evidence. There was a huge amount of physical evidence collected in this case and no one knew who that evidence would point to.

Just because Jason Simpson had knives and some behavior problems does not make him a killer. There has to be evidence that points to him for that claim to be credible. There was none. All of the relevant physical evidence in this case points only to Simpson. None of it points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rovaan


You would be wrong...very wrong. I rode with Dick, traveling from the Mezzaluna to Dana Point. It was not difficult to do 50 miles per hour on the Crown Valley Parkway... the ride was a little scary .... but would have been easy for someone familar with the roads.

"A little scary"....Damn scary! To think a 70 year old Grandfather and Grandmother would subject their two infant grand babies to a cheap thrill flying down that road. Jeopardizing not only their lives but the lives of their grandchildren, whether they were familiar with the road or not.

Why??? Why would they do something like that? I don't care what thrill seeking you and old adventurous Dick were enjoying. Common sense tells me otherwise or any other rational thinking person to think that Mr. and Mrs. Brown would drive like that with infant children in the car.

As far as your drive along the I-405 was concerned, it took place after which all of the construction work was completed on the I-405. CalTrans had added an addidtional lane that did not exist in 1994, whether HOV or not. We were told by CalTrans that the I-405 highway project to build the north/south HOV lanes was a 5 year project starting in 1993. And 15 miles of the I- 405 between, I believe, the I-110 and the I-605 reduced average speeds in that 15 mile section on virtually any given day to 29 MPH or less. The Browns had no choice, they had to pass through that zone or go a slower route, i.e. the PCH. Again, don't know you, but your claims sound quite preposterous to say the least.

By the way, I've appreciated smartfellows in the past, and we'll take another look. But remember, unlike crotchity bobaugust we haven't been afraid to go to court and demand certain hidden records be produced, and not just quote authors filled with puffery and citing some subjective theory. The paranoia created after we told Simpson to pursue those hidden telephone records is a good indicator of our claims of serious malfeasance regarding this matter, rovaan.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Tia Gavin didn't testify as to what time she thought the Brown's left the restaurant but she did testify as to what time they arrived. She said it was about 6:45 PM.

Bob, a part of me felt somewhat ashamed by calling you out of your name when you chided me for doing it.

However, when I hear you attempt to deny a very important fact regarding the crucial essence of time, relative to the subject matter of which we debate. You are either game playing, or actually feeble minded. I'm beginning to believe that it is more of the latter.

Tia Gavin, the waitress who waited on the Brown party of 10, testified that she saw them leave the Mezzaluna Restaurant "between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45ish" . What's the matter with you man? If you're going to continue this dialogue start taking some genkoba, I don't have time to keep digging in boxes to rebutt your simple faux pas.

You continue to treat the family gathering as if the Browns went to McDonalds. Tia testified that it took time to seat them, and whether she or Ron would serve them. The purchase receipt indicates that they ordered expensive wines, and different exquisite types of pasta dishes, they spent over $217.00. When you dine for that kind of doe, you don't eat and run, bob. You take a couple of hours, you talk, and enjoy being the patriarch of your adorable family. To make your point you always want to suggest that 10 people ate and ran. I simply don't buy it.

[limakey]

Did Claudine Radicliff (sp?), the woman from the corner's officer ever testify in either trial?

Two things to consider about the Browns, their trip home and the phone calls.

It is very possible that a phone call was made from the Browns' home at that time--however, it didn't have to be Mrs. Brown who made it. Only Denise and Domnique went to watch Sydney, so where was Tonya Brown that night? Was she home? Could she have called Nicole's home?

The Browns live in a gated community. Which means that they either had to enter a code to access the community or their had to be someone on duty to let them in. Does anyone know anything about this?

[rovaan]

Originally posted by Big Ben
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rovaan
[B]
-sniped-
Again, don't know you, but your claims sound quite preposterous to say the least.

By the way, I've appreciated smartfellows in the past, and we'll take another look. But remember, unlike crotchity bobaugust we haven't been afraid to go to court and demand certain hidden records be produced, and not just quote authors filled with puffery and citing some subjective theory. The paranoia created after we told Simpson to pursue those hidden telephone records is a good indicator of our claims of serious malfeasance regarding this matter, rovaan.

Even if you were to prove an 11:00pm call, you would have difficulty proving who made the call and who answered on the other end. But the most serious result of finding such a call would be the new charge the LAPD would file against OJ for "consiracy to commit murder" in their quickly devised plan to save face by following the known murder for hire clues- Mario, Wasz, Bateman, etc. You might succeed in getting OJ jailed and the truth of these crimes would still not come out. No one tries to frame a person for a crime during a time he has a solid alibi. You have to ask yourself if you think someone deliberately tried to frame OJ. did they have a back-up plan if he managed to have an alibi. Then ask yourself what the LA district attorney's office would do if they thought they could pin a murder for hire plot on OJ now. Your one track course could lead him to prison. Look at the whole picture not just the quick "he was in the limo and could not have done it" scenario. Don't be surprise if an 11:00pm call suddenly surfaces to re-open the investigation. Getting OJ on a murder for hire plot would work for many people with too much already invested in him being guilty.

rovaan

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Big Ben
*snip*
they spent over $217.00. When you dine for that kind of doe, you don't eat and run, bob. You take a couple of hours, you talk, and enjoy being the patriarch of your adorable family. To make your point you always want to suggest that 10 people ate and ran. I simply don't buy it.

I don't consider $217.00 for 10 people to be a lot of "doe". Nor do I think most people with small children sit & eat for 2 hrs at the end of a long day.

[limakey]

Rovaan,

The police knew where OJ was, they knew when he left, and more importantly, they knew he saw Nicole that night.

There also were other critical timeline witnesses who never took the stand, while I have always believed that Sydney was the most important time line witness--I have to put her at the second most important timeline witness.

The first timeline witness should have been the lady who was standing by her car looking at Nicole and when she was asked to call the police, she did nothing and left. I don't think this witness has ever been identified to the public.

Anyone who wanted to be the hero cop or detective in this case knew they were in a win-win situation. This was the time to finally get the recognition for being a great detective that has been denied to them in promotions. IMO.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
Anyone who wanted to be the hero cop or detective in this case knew they were in a win-win situation. This was the time to finally get the recognition for being a great detective that has been denied to them in promotions. IMO.

So tell me, which cop or detective in this case ended up getting the "recognition for being a great detective"?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by limakey
Rovaan,

The police knew where OJ was, they knew when he left, and more importantly, they knew he saw Nicole that night.

<snipped>

IMO.

I am just baffled. Absolutely baffled. I am not going to ask where you got this information because I don't want a 3-page dissertation. Man oh man!

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben

Bob, a part of me felt somewhat ashamed by calling you out of your name when you chided me for doing it.

However, when I hear you attempt to deny a very important fact regarding the crucial essence of time, relative to the subject matter of which we debate. You are either game playing, or actually feeble minded. I'm beginning to believe that it is more of the latter.

Tia Gavin, the waitress who waited on the Brown party of 10, testified that she saw them leave the Mezzaluna Restaurant "between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45ish" . What's the matter with you man? If you're going to continue this dialogue start taking some genkoba, I don't have time to keep digging in boxes to rebutt your simple faux pas.

You continue to treat the family gathering as if the Browns went to McDonalds. Tia testified that it took time to seat them, and whether she or Ron would serve them. The purchase receipt indicates that they ordered expensive wines, and different exquisite types of pasta dishes, they spent over $217.00. When you dine for that kind of doe, you don't eat and run, bob. You take a couple of hours, you talk, and enjoy being the patriarch of your adorable family. To make your point you always want to suggest that 10 people ate and ran. I simply don't buy it.


Big Ben, I have no idea where you got your information from about Tina Gavin testifying that the Brown's left the restaurant "between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45 ish."

You have quotation marks around that. Where did it come from?

The fact is that Tina Gavin only testified in the criminal trial on February 7, 1995. She was asked by Clark about the time stamp on the credit card receipt that Nicole signed. The machine stamped the incorrect time of 7:12 PM. Gavin answered referring to the time the Brown's arrived at the restaurant. She was never asked what time the Brown's left the restaurant.

February 7, 1995 Tia Gavin
Q DO YOU SEE THE TIME STAMP THERE, 7:12 P.M.?
A YES.
Q IS THAT IN FACT WHEN NICOLE AND HER PARTY LEFT OR PAID?
A NO, THEY COULDN'T HAVE. THEY ARRIVED AT 6:45'ISH, SO --
Q SO THIS TIME IS ALSO INACCURATE?
A YES.

So tell us Big Ben where did you get the quote that you posted? Either you're mistaken or you're tying to pull a fast one on us.


Where did you get your information that the Brown's spent over $217.00?

Q I'M SHOWING YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S -- I'M GOING TO PUT IT ON THE MONITOR. IT IS EASIER -- PEOPLE'S 34.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT?
A YES, I DO. IT IS A CREDIT CARD RECEIPT FROM OUR RESTAURANT.
Q DO YOU SEE THE AMOUNT OF 179.95?
A YES.
Q THAT WAS THE SAME AMOUNT ON PEOPLE'S 33 THAT YOU JUST SAW?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q SO DOES REFLECT THE METHOD OF ACTUAL PAYMENT FOR THE BILL BY NICOLE BROWN?
A YES, IT WOULD.
Q WHAT WAS THE METHOD OF PAYMENT?
A CREDIT CARD AND AMERICAN EXPRESS.
Q AND THE SIGNATURE APPEARS TO BE THAT OF NICOLE BROWN?
A IT SAYS "NICOLE BROWN," YES.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Did Claudine Radicliff (sp?), the woman from the corner's officer ever testify in either trial?

Two things to consider about the Browns, their trip home and the phone calls.

It is very possible that a phone call was made from the Browns' home at that time--however, it didn't have to be Mrs. Brown who made it. Only Denise and Domnique went to watch Sydney, so where was Tonya Brown that night? Was she home? Could she have called Nicole's home?

The Browns live in a gated community. Which means that they either had to enter a code to access the community or their had to be someone on duty to let them in. Does anyone know anything about this?



limakey, maybe you should inform yourself about a topic before you offer us your uninformed opinion about it.

There was no 11:00 PM telephone call on the Brown's telephone records for June 12, 1994.

Claudine Ratcliffe never testified in either trial or in the grand jury, or in the preliminary hearing.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey

The first timeline witness should have been the lady who was standing by her car looking at Nicole and when she was asked to call the police, she did nothing and left. I don't think this witness has ever been identified to the public.




limkey, Where did you get the information that a woman was standing by her car looking at Nicole?

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by limakey
Did Claudine Radicliff (sp?), the woman from the corner's officer ever testify in either trial?

To my knowledge, she did not. Her entries were clear within the autopsy report:

What Lou Brown told her when she called the Browns on the morning of 06/13/94.

and

What Lou Brown told her when he re-thought his initial remarks on 06/20/94.


It is very possible that a phone call was made from the Brown's home at that time--however, it didn't have to be Mrs. Brown who made it.

Juditha stated in her deposition that she, Juditha Brown, made the phone call back to Brentwood's Mezzaluna when she arrived at her residence, from the family's home telephone.


The Browns lived in a gated community, which means that they either had to enter a code to access the community or their had to be someone on duty to let them in.

Wish we had thought of that in 1998, regarding time records at the gate. The gate was manned by a human being, who lifted the gate and lowered the spikes in the roadway. The thought of asking that question, subpoenaing any records at the gate, would have been the thing to do. I will definitely bring it to the attention of the investigative group, it may be too little too late, at this time though.

The driver and I were so shocked as we flew down Crown Valley Pkwy, and reached the busy intersection of Crown Valley and the PCH, and saw the gate and spikes across the entry.

Dumbfounded upon arrival, we recreated a scenario of the Browns making what amounts to a hair raising journey that night, that included flying down the 1-405, Crown Valley Pkwy, across that busy PCH intersection.

The guard seeing them coming through the PCH intersection, had to immediately lift the gate, as the Brown vehicle flew across the spiked roadway, while possibly tipping their hats to the guard as they flew by, coming to a screeching halt in front of the door, with Juditha jumping out and running into the house, not to use the bathroom, but to make a call back to the Mezzaluna Restaurant in order to support bobaugust's absurdly strained timeline of 9:37 PM. Whew!!!

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by Big Ben
in order to support bobaugust's absurdly strained timeline of 9:37 PM. Whew!!! [/B] the testimony and evidence in the trials supports the timeline for the arrival, departure and subsequent telephone calls.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, I have no idea where you got your information from about Tina Gavin testifying that the Brown's left the restaurant "between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45 ish." You have quotation marks around that. Where did it come from?

She was never asked what time the Brown's left the restaurant.

So tell us Big Ben where did you get the quote that you posted? Either you're mistaken or you're tying to pull a fast one on us.

Bob, just for you, I've pulled the video tape no. 21 from the OMIG tape archive, representing the full day of testimony for Feb. 7, 1995.

Marcia Clark: Do you recall what Nicole was wearing?
Tia Gavin: A black dress, with a black blazer.

Marcia: A black halter dress?
Tia Gavin: Yes!

Marcia Clark: Do you remember whether she had a date or an escort?
Tia Gavin: The only gentleman there was her father...........

Marcia Clark: Do you recall what time Nicole and her party left?
Tia Gavin: "Between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45 ish"

Marcia Clark: I'm showing you Peoples Exhibit 29. Can you tell us if you can recognize the person in the photograph.
Tia Gavin: Yes! It's Nicole Simpson.

Marcia Clark: Nicole Brown?
Tia Gavin: Yes.

Marcia Clark: Now you said that they left between 8:30 and 9:00. Did you offer them dessert?
Tia Gavin: Yes, but she said that they were taking the children out for ice cream.

Where did you get your information that the Brown's spent over $217.00?

It's been a few years, so the video tape helped jog my memory too, Bob. You're right the print out of the credit card receipt indicates the actual purchase was for $179.00, however, the video tape shows that underneath the $179.00, Nicole wrote in by hand a$34.00 tip, sorry, my assertion was off by $3.05.

However, that written tip is for almost 20% of the total, and thus is one of the things, in my mind, that continues to defy your logic of the family eating as if they were at a fast food joint.

Another thing that troubles me, is when Nicole said that "we are taking the children out for ice cream". It has always stuck in my mind that it would have been quite cruel to make that announcement in front of her sisters' two young children, but they not be allowed to enjoy ice cream with their cousins. Instead, following this insane time scenario that you seem so desperate to defend, force the other two children to get into the car immediately upon departing the restaurant for the long ride home, while the Ben and Jerry's is staring them in the face. Very, very cruel, Bob!

Bob, I'm beginning to see the problem, they apparently don't allow you to touch the electronic equipment out at the home.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* the testimony and evidence in the trials supports the timeline for the arrival, departure and subsequent telephone calls.

Weezer, go back to sleep. We'll call you when Captain Kangaroo or something of that nature comes on!

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I don't consider $217.00 for 10 people to be a lot of "doe". Nor do I think most people with small children sit & eat for 2 hrs at the end of a long day.

Socaldiva, do you have any children, or more importantly grandchildren?

This was there grandchild's day of excellence, after a wonderful recital on another glorious, sunny, warm, California Sunday afteroon and evening. They were celebrating that day with Nicole's child and the other grandchildren.

Sometimes, if you care, you just suck it up, for the sake of your children. You say to yourself sometimes, I would rather be fishing or doing something else, but today I'm going to just role with it, and enjoy my grandchildren, my children, my family, and try to enjoy and make it a wonderful day.

Besides that, we have the testimony of Tia Gavin who stated that they arrived late for their reservation by about 15-20 minutes late and came into the restaurant at approximately 6:45 -6:50 PM and "left at between 8:30-9:00, 8:45 ish." That's approximately 2 hours, socaldiva..........

If everybody is in a rush why not Mickey Dee's, it sure would have been a lot less expensive than all the unusual items found on the Mezzaluna receipt. Had they done that, there would be no question whatsoever about their intent to make it a fast food stop for the sake of time, and the receipt would have probably said $40.00 instead of $213.95 with a 20% tip included.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rovaan


Even if you were to prove an 11:00pm call, you would have difficulty proving who made the call and who answered on the other end.

Its irrelevant to us as to who answered on the other end. The point in trial, had it been raised, is that it creates reasonable doubt, and 11:00 PM is more consistent with what Lou Brown first told the coroner's investigator of when his wife last spoke to her daughter, Nicole. 11:00 PM is more realistic than the implausible time of a 9:37 PM phone call, if they left the restaurant as Tia Gavin testified at approx. 8:45 PM.


Don't be surprised if an 11:00 PM call suddenly surfaces to re-open the investigation. Getting OJ on a murder for hire plot would work for many people with too much already invested in him being guilty...

I'm not surprised about anything that California or U.S. officials tell the American public anymore to justify an objective. My objective is to succeed in forcing it to come out.

If they, or we, could prove murder conspiracy on OJ Simpson, I'd be standing beside the hangman to make sure that the rope was strong enough and the trap door works....But for me that goes for anyone of these seditious participants, I don't care about their race, creed or color. If OMIG found Simpson involved in conspiracy he'd have to go.

We tried to give Johnnie a chance to come clean, but he became the first cell phone tumor victim that I've known according to what they say.......

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Weezer, go back to sleep. We'll call you when Captain Kangaroo or something of that nature comes on! And your attack on me was for what?

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by Big Ben
[BTo think a 70 year old Grandfather and Grandmother would subject their two infant grand babies to a cheap thrill flying down that road. [/B] now there are two 'infant' grandbabies in the car? The fact remains, the timeline on the telephone calls were supported by testimony and evidence.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Bob, just for you, I've pulled the video tape no. 21 from the OMIG tape archive, representing the full day of testimony for Feb. 7, 1995.

Marcia Clark: Do you recall what time Nicole and her party left?
Tia Gavin: "Between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45 ish"




Big Ben, you're correct, I was mistaken. Tia Gavin did testify that the Brown's left "between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45 ish"

For some reason I missed that when I re read the transcripts but now I see it. Thank you.

Regardless, Tia Gavin's time was only an estimated time, not a real time. This comes down to what witnesses said not only about when the the Brown's left the restaurant but about what they said happened an hour later.

Juditha Brown had no reason to lie about this and she was the one who noted the time they started their drive home.

If you want to talk about the estimated times the Brown's left the restaurant then you should also talk about the estimated times when Juditha and Nicole called the restaurant about the eyeglasses. It's obvious both estimates can't be correct. So which one is right and which was is wrong? The estimated times that the Brown's left the restaurant are not supported by anything except memory. The estimated times that Juditha and Nicole called the restaurant are supported by the Brown's telephone records. Those are the correct times.

Karen Crawford testified that Juditha Brown called the restaurant about 9:30, 9:35. Shapiro than offered a stipulation regarding the Brown's telephone records, that the time of that call was actually 9:37 PM.

Juditha Brown testified that after Karen Crawford found her eyeglasses she told Crawford that she was going to call her daughter to pick them up. Juditha then called Nicole and told her about her eyeglasses. That telephone call was made at 9:40 PM. Cochran agreed to that in a stipulation Clark made. That was the telephone call that Lou Brown told Claudine Ratcliffe about and mistakenly estimated the time as about 11:00 PM.

Crawford testified that about five minutes after speaking with Juditha Brown, Nicole called the restaurant about the eyeglasses and spoke with Ron Goldman. Ron Goldman asked Crawford for the eyeglasses and she saw him leave the restaurant shortly before 10:00 PM.

There was no 11:00 PM telephone call on the Brown's telephone records on June 12, 1994. Only a call at 9:37 PM to the Mezzaluna restaurant and a call to Nicole at 9:40 PM. That was the last time Juditha Brown ever spoke with Nicole.

These facts prove your claims false about when the Brown's started their drive home and the last time Juditha Brown spoke with Nicole.



December 6, 1996 Juditha Brown
Q. Now, did you get in the car, then, and head down towards your house?
A. Yes. I -- we looked for my glasses, still, I know, because I didn't have the glasses in the restaurant. So we looked in the jeep and we didn't see them. And it was 8:30 by that time and the children had to go to bed, so we said, well, let's go; I'll call.
Q. And did you get in the car and head down to Orange County?
A. We drove home. And on the way home, a terrible depression came over me, something I have never experienced. My whole body got really heavy. And I haven't had it before and I haven't had it afterwards. It was --
it was a whole feeling. And as we arrived at home, I shook myself, and I thought, "God, I have to buy a pair of new glasses again." And I went on the phone and I called Mezzaluna.
*
Q. Now, after you got home, you -- I'm sorry -- do you recall who you spoke to at Mezzaluna?
A. It was a woman. No, I don't remember her name.
Q. Do you recall the substance of the conversation?
A. Yes. I said can you -- I know I left my glasses somewhere; could you please check outside. Because I had Justin on my lap, and as I got out of the car, I said, maybe they had fallen out, and there was a puddle in front where we got out. So I said, could you just check there and see if you find my glasses. And she returned and she says, "Yes, I have them." I said, "What luck."
Q. And anything else in that conversation?
A. And I said, "Well I'm going to call my daughter and tell her to pick up the glasses in the morning."
Q. Did you then call Nicole?
A. Then I called Nicole and I said, "You know, I found my glasses over there. Would you please pick them up in the morning.
Q. Okay. Anything else in the conversation?
A. And then she said good night, and "I love you." And I said, "I love you." And those were the last words.


Claudine Ratcliffe's Report.
The decedent 94-05136 was last known to be alive at 2300 Hrs. speaking to her mother on the telephone. Her mother left her eyeglasses at a restaurant that evening and the decedent reportedly advised her mother that she would ask if an employee could bring them to her residence.
Claudine Ratcliffe


February 7, 1995 Karen Crawford.
Q SHORTLY AFTER YOU SAW RON GO TO THE AREA WHERE THE TIME CLOCK IS KEPT THAT EVENING, SHORTLY AFTER THAT, DID YOU GET A PHONE CALL?
A YES, I DID.
Q DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME, APPROXIMATELY, THAT YOU GOT THAT PHONE CALL?
A IT WAS ABOUT 9:30, 9:35.
*

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, IN THE INTERESTS OF SAVING TIME, SINCE I DON'T THINK THIS WITNESS CAN AUTHENTICATE THOSE PHONE RECORDS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY, WE WOULD STIPULATE THAT THE RECORDS ARE ACCURATE AND DEPICT THE TIME THAT THE CALL CAME INTO THE RESTAURANT.


MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE PHONE NUMBER ON THE FIRST LINE THERE WHERE IT SAYS "JUNE THE 12TH, 9:37 P.M., WEST LOS ANGELES" AND THEN THERE IS A PHONE NUMBER, "310 447-8667"?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: AND WHAT PHONE NUMBER IS THAT?
A: THAT IS THE PHONE NUMBER TO MEZZALUNA.
Q: AND THE TIME THAT YOU RECEIVED THAT CALL, THE 9:37, DOES THAT SEEM TO BE ACCURATE, BASED ON YOUR MEMORY?
A: YEAH, IT DOES.
*

Q: DID YOU ASK HER -- DID YOU ASK MS. BROWN WHAT SHE WANTED DONE WITH THOSE GLASSES?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WHAT DID SHE TELL YOU?
A: SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE COULD NOT PICK THEM UP, SHE LIVED TOO FAR AWAY, AND THAT SHE WOULD HAVE HER DAUGHTER PICK THEM UP.
Q: AND WAS IT AFTER THAT POINT THAT YOU SEALED UP THE GLASSES?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU AGREE TO HOLD THEM THERE FOR HER?
A: YES. I TOLD HER I WOULD HAVE THEM BEHIND THE BAR IN OUR LOST AND FOUND AREA.
*

<>AT CONVERSATION WITH MRS. BROWN AND YOU PLACED THE ENVELOPE BEHIND YOU AT THE BAR, DID YOU GET ANOTHER PHONE CALL?
A: YES.
Q: ABOUT HO LONG AFTER THE FIRST PHONE CALL DID YOU GET THE SECOND PHONE CALL?
A: ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
Q: OKAY. WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THEN ABOUT 9:45?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU RECOGNIZE THE PERSON WHO CALLED YOU?
A: UMM, YES, I DID.
Q: WHO WAS THAT?
A: IT WAS NICOLE.
*

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AFTER HE HUNG UP THE PHONE, DID RON SAY SOMETHING TO YOU?
A: YEAH. HE TOLD ME HE WAS GOING TO DROP THE GLASSES OFF AT NICOLE'S.
Q: SO DID YOU GIVE HIM THE ENVELOPE WITH THE GLASSES?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU SEE HIM LEAVE THE RESTAURANT AT SOME POINT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DO YOU RECALL ABOUT WHAT TIME IT WAS?
A: HE LEFT AT ABOUT TEN MINUTES TO 10:00.

July 6, 1995
MS. CLARK: First stipulation, counsel, with respect to the testimony of Juditha Brown: May it be stipulated that Juditha Brown was called as a witness, duly sworn and testified as follows:

at approximately 940 P.M., Juditha Brown telephoned her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson, reaching her at her daughter's residence located at 875 south Bundy drive in the city of Los Angeles; Juditha Brown conversed with Nicole Brown Simpson for approximately 2 minutes; Nicole Brown Simpson stated that she would arrange for the retrieval of Juditha Brown's eyeglasses; this was the last time that Juditha Brown spoke to her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson?

Counsel, may it be so stipulated?
MR. COCHRAN: So stipulated, your Honor.

bobaugust

[martin II]

one thing is for sure, the mamagement at mazzaluna(sp) didn't care very much about correc times for anything.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by martin II
one thing is for sure, the mamagement at mazzaluna(sp) didn't care very much about correc times for anything.imo
martin II

Gee whiz, I doubt they expected to have to help provide a time line relative to a double murder.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Socaldiva, do you have any children, or more importantly grandchildren?

This was there grandchild's day of excellence, after a wonderful recital on another glorious, sunny, warm, California Sunday afteroon and evening. They were celebrating that day with Nicole's child and the other grandchildren.

Sometimes, if you care, you just suck it up, for the sake of your children. You say to yourself sometimes, I would rather be fishing or doing something else, but today I'm going to just role with it, and enjoy my grandchildren, my children, my family, and try to enjoy and make it a wonderful day.

Besides that, we have the testimony of Tia Gavin who stated that they arrived late for their reservation by about 15-20 minutes late and came into the restaurant at approximately 6:45 -6:50 PM and "left at between 8:30-9:00, 8:45 ish." That's approximately 2 hours, socaldiva..........

If everybody is in a rush why not Mickey Dee's, it sure would have been a lot less expensive than all the unusual items found on the Mezzaluna receipt. Had they done that, there would be no question whatsoever about their intent to make it a fast food stop for the sake of time, and the receipt would have probably said $40.00 instead of $213.95 with a 20% tip included.

I wasn't talking about the needs/desires of the adults. I was talking about the children being tired. Typically children of that age can't sit at a restaurant for 2 hrs. especially at the end of a long day & most caring adults would understand that. imo & my post was in response to someone posting that they were lingering over their expensive wines etc.

Who said anything about them being in a rush? that they could have gone to Mickey Dee's? obviously they wanted a nice meal, but that doesn't mean they sit there until the end of time.

I wasn't the poster making a big deal out of the bill. I specifically said I don't think $215.00 for 10 people is a lot of money. To the contrary, I don't think it was a fancy restaurant. Not Mickey Dee's, but certainly not a big deal.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Either it was the gentleman or his wife who actually found the bodies testified they saw a woman standing at her car. I believe you did answer this question a long time ago and dismissed it as a woman being in shock at what she saw. If it wasn't you, maybe Wukong?

The Browns' telephone record was entered into court, but how many records did the Browns' household generate?

And as I posted before, the Browns' telephone records were not the only important ones in this case. What if Nicole called her mother back about the glasses?

Did any one think to ask if the Browns or anyone in their group that night had a cell phone?

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
Did any one think to ask if the Browns or anyone in their group that night had a cell phone?

Cell phones were not used at that time the way they are today, why would they be using cell phones when both parties were home?

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* now there are two 'infant' grandbabies in the car? The fact remains, the timeline on the telephone calls were supported by testimony and evidence.
.

That "facts" are now under serious scrutiny and those who have promulgated accusations of guilt based upon such questionable damning accusations are now under suspicion.

Whose credibility are you trying to depend on in regard to evidence and testimony, Weezer? Hopefully not that of those same L.A. officials whose atrocious conduct has now allowed 3 thousand innocent men to walk free from California Prisons in the year 2000 due to fraud and malfeasance under the color of authority.

Those same officials now have strapped the California taxpayers with billions of dollars in potential lawsuits as a result of these revelations. These innocent men, some sentenced to from 8-26 years in prison, freed because of revelations like those we've uncovered in the Simpson case.

They were freed because of "testimony and evidence" provided by police officers of the L.A.P.D.'s Rampart Precinct proven to be based upon pure lies and planted evidence. Denzell Washington received an Oscar in 2001 for portraying the conduct of certain officers of the Ramparts Precint in "Training Days".

Yep! Ramparts, the precinct that had officers milling around O.J.'s house on Rockingham the night the bloody glove was discovered. As the L.A. Times Newspaper's 2000 article titled:
"O.J. Simpson says from Ramparts to Rockingham"

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Big Ben
*snip*
.
Yep! Ramparts, the precinct that had officers milling around O.J.'s house on Rockingham the night the bloody glove was discovered. [/B]

I think you are WAY off on this one. Rampart would not have been at Bundy or Rockingham :no:

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I think you are WAY off on this one. Rampart would not have been at Bundy or Rockingham :no:

My understanding from the L.A. Times article is that some of them may have been there, whether officially or unofficially. However, as far as I was concerned, seeing the article as it came east to my office, made little difference to me whether they were or not. OJ said that they were and the LA Times wrote a big graphic article about OJ's allegation of police suppression and planting of evidence.

I wasn't then and I'm not now, going to argue over the minutia of whether they were or were not there. We were happy that they were exposed for planting evidence on a big time basis, that would make the lawsuit in pursuit of the telephone records more cogent at the right time.

What was most important is when the police officer Raphael Perez got caught with the drugs from the LAPD and started singing about major malfeasance, planting of evidence, purgery on the witness stand, in terms of officers from his precinct, it was the right time to expose the telephone malfeasance in the courts of California.

The Texas judges and heretofore California judges were previously afraid to entertain the subject matter, but when the police debacle started in the news papers about Ramparts, it was what we needed. I'm glad that it took place in L.A. because without it the information that I've shared with you over the last few weeks would have no anchor of creditibilty for debate. Ramparts gave credence to previous allegations of police misconduct in regard to a hand in destroying innocent people.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I wasn't talking about the needs/desires of the adults. I was talking about the children being tired. Typically children of that age can't sit at a restaurant for 2 hrs. especially at the end of a long day.............

Socaldiva, The significance of your post actually seemed to be centered around time, and therefore I should have made my answer short and sweet.

The waitress and general manager put them in the restaurant from approximately 6:45 PM until 8:45 PM. Now you do the math!

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, you're correct, I was mistaken. Tia Gavin did testify that the Brown's left "between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45 ish"

For some reason I missed that when I re read the transcripts but now I see it. Thank you............................................... .........
.................................................. .......
...............................................

Look Uncle Bob! A simple thank you is enough, if you are addressing me there is no need for you to rewrite the whole transcript of the trial. It's like you're writing the Declaration of Independence. Remember, for 10 years I've been looking at both written and video transcripts of this trial.

You don't change my mind with your brand of Chinese water torture, i.e. bombardment with an over kill of words. Convince yourself that what I'm saying to you is not plausible. Stop writing me so many words, that's a sign of someone not convinced of his own argument.

Lock your doors when I finish talking to you, because I'm afraid that you become so dumbfounded that you might wander out in the street in front of oncoming traffic.

Stop writing so much, go lay down, and think about how these people have undermined the essence of what you have believed in all of your life.

[Charms]

Y'all still chatting about OJ?
Oh well, I guess that's what he wants.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Either it was the gentleman or his wife who actually found the bodies testified they saw a woman standing at her car. I believe you did answer this question a long time ago and dismissed it as a woman being in shock at what she saw. If it wasn't you, maybe Wukong?

The Browns' telephone record was entered into court, but how many records did the Browns' household generate?

And as I posted before, the Browns' telephone records were not the only important ones in this case. What if Nicole called her mother back about the glasses?

Did any one think to ask if the Browns or anyone in their group that night had a cell phone?


limakey, there is no evidence that Nicole owned a cell phone. No one that I know of has ever said or written anything that even suggested it.

Juditha Brown testified that when she called Nicole at 9:40 PM that was the last time she ever spoke with her.

I never said any such thing about the woman Sukru Boztep saw on Bundy after he and Bettina Rasmussen saw Nicole's body.

February 8, 1995
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND WHAT DID YOU DO TO TRY TO CALL 911?
A WE CROSS THE STREET, RAN TO A HOUSE, KNOCKED AT DOOR, RANG THE BELL AND THERE WAS NOBODY THERE AND THERE WAS NO ANSWER. AND THEN WE DECIDE TO GO TO THE NEXT HOUSE, WHICH IS -- I BELIEVE IT'S THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. AND WHEN WE WERE GOING THERE, WE HAD SEEN A LADY. WE TRIED -- WE STOPPED HER AND THEN SAID THAT THERE WAS A PERSON LAYING DOWN THERE AND SHE SHOULD CALL 911, AND SHE SAID, OKAY, SHE WOULD DO THAT AND SHE JUST LEFT BY HER CAR. AND THEN I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T TRUST HER, THAT SHE WOULD CALL THEM. AND WE WENT TO THE OTHER HOUSE AND WE MADE THE MAN, KIND OF OLD MAN CALL 911.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben
[B]

Look Uncle Bob! A simple thank you is enough, if you are addressing me there is no need for you to rewrite the whole transcript of the trial. It's like you're writing the Declaration of Independence. Remember, for 10 years I've been looking at both written and video transcripts of this trial.




Big Ben, I post testimony to support what I say. It's not only for your benefit but for the benefit of other posters and readers who follow these discussions. You may not be able to comprehend what I said but others do.

Your arguments are based on picking and choosing estimated times that fit your fantasy and you ignore other estimated times that contradict your fantasy. Estimated times are not real times and are not reliable unless they're supported by other evidence or the best support possible, telephone records.

The different estimated times as to when the Brown's left the restaurant are not supported by any evidence or any telephone records. They're not real times and they're not reliable times.

The estimated times that were testified to as to when Juditha Brown and Nicole called the restaurant about the eyeglasses are supported. Karen Crawford's estimated times of those telephone calls are supported by the Brown's telephone records.

The fact is that Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna restaurant at 9:37 PM from her home. That fact confirms Juditha Brown's estimate that they started their drive back home about 8:30 PM.

The fact is that after her conversation with Karen Crawford, Juditha Brown called Nicole and told her about her conversation with Crawford and that the eyeglasses were being held for Nicole to pick up. That call was made at 9:40 PM. Juditha Brown testified that was the last time she ever spoke with Nicole. That was the telephone call that Lou Brown told Claudine Ratcliffe about.

That is the evidence in this case. Evidence that both the prosecutors and both of Simpson's defense team's attorneys understood and agreed to. The evidence that proves an 11:00 PM telephone call false. It never happened. It's only a bad fantasy.

bobaugust

[rovaan]

Originally posted by Big Ben
[
-snipped-
"A little scary"....Damn scary! To think a 70 year old Grandfather and Grandmother would subject their two infant grand babies to a cheap thrill flying down that road. Jeopardizing not only their lives but the lives of their grandchildren, whether they were familiar with the road or not.

[/B]

Judith Brown was 62 in 1994. Lou Brown is older but I do not know his age. However, it was Dominque's vehicle they were riding in and she was driving as indicated by Denise's testimony regarding the video showing OJ after the recital. She indicated that both Nicole and Dominique pulled up in their vehicle while the video was being taken of OJ and Lou Brown and OJ kissing Juditha.

From Feburary 6-
Q AND THAT VEHICLE WOULD HAVE BEEN DRIVEN BY YOUR SISTER, DOMINIQUE?
A RIGHT.
Q SO THE SECOND THEN WOULD BE THE ONE DRIVEN BY YOUR SISTER NICOLE?
A RIGHT.

It appears it was not Lou Brown driving that night.

rovaan

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Big Ben
*snip*

OJ said that they were and the LA Times wrote a big graphic article about OJ's allegation of police suppression and planting of evidence.

I wasn't then and I'm not now, going to argue over the minutia of whether they were or were not there.

Hate to tell you this, but OJ says a lot of things that are flat out lies. He's not the least bit credible.

You posted that Rampart was there, as though it was fact. I don't consider that statement to be "minutia". Either they were there or not. If you have something other than OJ's word, please post it.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by rovaan


Judith Brown was 62 in 1994. Lou Brown is older but I do not know his age. However, it was Dominque's vehicle they were riding in and she was driving as indicated by Denise's testimony regarding the video showing OJ after the recital. She indicated that both Nicole and Dominique pulled up in their vehicle while the video was being taken of OJ and Lou Brown and OJ kissing Juditha.

From Feburary 6-
Q AND THAT VEHICLE WOULD HAVE BEEN DRIVEN BY YOUR SISTER, DOMINIQUE?
A RIGHT.
Q SO THE SECOND THEN WOULD BE THE ONE DRIVEN BY YOUR SISTER NICOLE?
A RIGHT.

It appears it was not Lou Brown driving that night.

rovaan

What are you offering, rovaan, an insurance policy or something?

Do you think that death would have been a little kinder had their daughter flipped the SUV they were riding in?

That death maybe would give Lou and Juditha Brown and their two grandchildren a pass, simply because you have pointed out my failure to specify that Dominique might have been driving like a fool down the Crown Valley Pkwy like you claim you and old Dick were doing????

Again, I don't care who was behind the wheel, if they were doing 50 MPH down that parkway, in my opinion, they were driving like a fool. That's my point! You all will invent anything to get Juditha in the house by 9:36 and-a-half to make a phone call.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by socaldiva


Hate to tell you this, but OJ says a lot of things that are flat out lies. He's not the least bit credible.

You posted that Rampart was there, as though it was fact. I don't consider that statement to be "minutia". Either they were there or not. If you have something other than OJ's word, please post it.

I have no direct evidence, nor any direct knowledge of whether the LA Times had determined that it was so or OJ had simply alleged that it was so in newspaper.

When the L.A. Times wrote the large graphic headlines and the TV news cameras began to roll, pointing their lenses at Rampart police officers planting evidence on innocent men and sending them away for unwarranted years to some of the most violent prisons in the state of California, that was the time of movement for us.

The images of hundreds of innocent men, allegedly framed by LAPD officers of the Ramparts Precinct, being allowed to walk free out the front gates of San Quentin, far surpassed whatever interests or uses that our public relations team could get from investigating the truth of the LA Times story. The truth whether explicity true for Simpson's house or not was manifesting what he had always claimed right before the public's eyes on KCAL TV NEWS, or CNN, etc.

The truth was the the U.S. Justice Dept. did something that is very rare in the U.S. and that is to come in and take over the daily oversight of the L.A.P.D. and that far overshadowed any requirements that I felt were necessary to prove about OJ's house.

Ramparts at that point along with OJ himself virtually became "minutia" compared to the BIG picture, that allegations of rampant malfeasance within the L.A.P.D. appeared to be more than just words. And maybe the tapes of Det. Mark Furhman alleging the smell of Black men beaten to death in the basement of L.A.'s police precincts was probably true afterall.
Publicizing the hidden phone records was our main focus and the publicity of the Ramparts malfeasance assisted that effort. Therefore from my south central U.S. purch, an investigation of Ramparts and their presence at OJs house were minutia for me.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben,

Your arguments are based on picking and choosing estimated times that fit your fantasy and you ignore other estimated times that contradict your fantasy. Estimated times are not real times and are not reliable unless they're supported by other evidence or the best support possible, telephone records.


Well, Bob, OJ Simpson asked the Courts to order the telephone company to produce the records. We had him ask the U.S. Dist. Court in San Angelo, TX where the California GTE hard drive had been spirited off to in the wake of the criminal trial. Answer: No.

We asked the U.S. Dist. Court in Los Angeles, they said maybe, but first go back to the California trial court.

The California judge said no.

The Brown famiily initially said yes to the offer, then after 4 days to decide they said no.


You have nothing that has not already been vigorously contradicted. To think that you would condone the behavior of these law enforcement officials to remove these records from his criminal file without ever giving him an audience or considerable courtesy that they were being removed.

[goatgirl]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rovaan
*Snip*



:seeya: Hi Rovann ........its nice to see you posting

~~GoatGirl~~

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben
[
Well, Bob, OJ Simpson asked the Courts to order the telephone company to produce the records. We had him ask the U.S. Dist. Court in San Angelo, TX where the California GTE hard drive had been spirited off to in the wake of the criminal trial. Answer: No.

We asked the U.S. Dist. Court in Los Angeles, they said maybe, but first go back to the California trial court.

The California judge said no.

The Brown famiily initially said yes to the offer, then after 4 days to decide they said no.


You have nothing that has not already been vigorously contradicted. To think that you would condone the behavior of these law enforcement officials to remove these records from his criminal file without ever giving him an audience or considerable courtesy that they were being removed.


Big Ben, Based on Simpson's actions regarding the judgment against him, I doubt if he deserves any courtesy from anyone pertaining to the Brown's telephone records.

It's up to the Brown's and I understand why they don't wish to dignify this ridiculous false claim by releasing their telephone records to anyone. If you wish to see them, all you have to do is look at the prosecution's exhibit of an enlarged photocopy of the Brown's telephone bill showing all of the times and phone numbers for the long distance calls made on June 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th.

If you've never seen it I will be more than happy to put the copy I have of it on my web site for you to download. But since you evidently have the criminal trial taped you should be able to see it yourself.

Isn't it amazing that not one of Simpson's attorneys for either trial has ever gotten involved in this request or even supported it. That alone should tell you what a sham this is.

You say I have nothing that hasn't already been contradicted. You haven't contradicted any of the evidence I presented with anything except your opinions.

bobaugust.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Big Ben
*snip*
Therefore from my south central U.S. purch, an investigation of Ramparts and their presence at OJs house were minutia for me. [/B]

You are using this as an opportunity to rant again the Rampart Division. Problem is, they had no involvement in the double murders being discussed here. IMO

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, Based on Simpson's actions regarding the judgment against him, I doubt if he deserves any courtesy from anyone pertaining to the Brown's telephone records.

Well, I think that he has been extremely generous to his in-laws. He allegedly helped them to get a Hertz franchise down in Newport Beach, helped buy their property down at Monarch Bay, didn't gripe about old Lou collecting allegedly $20, 000 a month to take care of his children. So all in all I feel that he's been quite honorable in regard to them. They communicate with one another. The rest is for public consumption for the wannabee, know-it -all- gawkers, like yourself.

It's up to the Brown's and I understand why they don't wish to dignify this ridiculous false claim by releasing their telephone records to anyone

If I were them, I'd authorize the request to allow GTE to release them so that I could prove that Simpson and his investigators were in fact foolishly "ridiculous".

But on the other hand, I wouldn't if I thought that my ass might wind up doing the rest of my life in the state penitentiary. Lou may be old, but he aint crazy.

Isn't it amazing that not one of Simpson's attorneys for either trial has gotten involved in this request or even supported it. That alone should tell you what a sham it is.

Well tell me, Bob, which of the principals at Enron that helped defraud the employees and loot their pension fund, do you remember driving down to the U.S. Attorney General's office to tell him how pleased he was that an Enron whistle blower had performed admirably in revealing his malfeasance.

Ben, you haven't contradicted any of the evidence I presented with anything except your opinions.

I see your feisty intellectual capacity is starting to return. Yesterday, when I posted Tia Gavin telling you in deed about the Brown's 8:45 PM departure, I thought that you were going to walk out in the street and get hit by a car, you appeared so dumbfounded. You came back though, and started in like a mad fiend writing the Preamble to the United States Constitution.

Amnesia is a sign, however, of the return to normalcy for you, I guess.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by socaldiva


You are using this as an opportunity to rant again the Rampart Division. Problem is, they had no involvement in the double murders being discussed here. IMO

Oh! You got inside information?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

The Browns' have no excuse not to release those phone records, they along with Simpsond are in a "win win" situation.

If the phone records prove Nicole was alive at 11:00 p.m. then this means that the man they have loved for years is not guilty of this crime. It means that, at least for the sake of their grandchildren, their father did not kill their mother.

If those phone records only confirm what has been said, then they have even more proof and could have used this in their custody hearings.

[limakey]

Big Ben,

There is another way to confirm what time Browns' left Mezzaluna. The receipt for the ice cream that Nicole bought that night.

Was their register off as well?

IMO, the receipt from the ice cream store is much more valuable for the Browns' departure then the Mezzaluna's. IMO, of course!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben

Well tell me, Bob, which of the principals at Enron that helped defraud the employees and loot their pension fund, do you remember driving down to the U.S. Attorney General's office to tell him how pleased he was that an Enron whistle blower had performed admirably in revealing his malfeasance.

I see your feisty intellectual capacity is starting to return. Yesterday, when I posted Tia Gavin telling you in deed about the Brown's 8:45 PM departure, I thought that you were going to walk out in the street and get hit by a car, you appeared so dumbfounded. You came back though, and started in like a mad fiend writing the Preamble to the United States Constitution.




Big Ben, your opinions do not change the evidence that proves Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

Your comments regarding why not one of Simpson's attorneys were never involved in the sham you're promoting are meaningless. Enron had nothing to do with the Simpson case.

No, I wasn't dumbfounded about Tia Gavin's time estimate as to when the Brown's left the restaurant, I was concerned how I missed it when reading the transcripts. After you posted what Gavin said I re read the transcript for February 7, 1995 and saw how I made my mistake. That day started with discussions by the attorneys and then Tia Gavin was called to testify. After her testimony Stuart Tanner testified and then Karen Crawford testified. Then Tia Gavin was called again and gave more testimony. When I first scanned the transcripts to find Gavin's testimony I missed her first testimony and read only her second testimony.

Tia Gavin's unsupported time estimate doesn't change Karen Crawford's time estimate as to when Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna restaurant from her home. That telephone call not only proves there was no 11:00 PM telephone call it proves your claims and beliefs false about when the Brown's started their drive home

bobaugust.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
IMO, the receipt from the ice cream store is much more valuable

I doubt there was a receipt for the ice cream. It was probably cash.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Your claims are very weak regarding no 11:00 p.m. phone call. You have based your nonsense on the unbreakable rule that if there was an 11:00 p.m. phone call, it had to be from the Brown home to Nicole's. If Nicole called the Browns' home at 11:00 p.m., of course this call would not be reflected on the Browns' telephone record.

We have two witnesses who said they called Nicole after she got home that night, what time did they call? Faye had to use a public telephone call, did she call collect? What is in Nicole's phone records, not just on that day but what about before or after the murders? What about other cell phone users in the area?

Again, you made the same mistake you always make, you like to cut and paste the testimony that matches your unfounded claims.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
What about other cell phone users in the area?



:confused:

[martin II]

Originally posted by limakey
Big Ben,

There is another way to confirm what time Browns' left Mezzaluna. The receipt for the ice cream that Nicole bought that night.

Was their register off as well?

IMO, the receipt from the ice cream store is much more valuable for the Browns' departure then the Mezzaluna's. IMO, of course!

limakey

Nicole left the resturant with her two children and Sydneys friend(little girl) the father picked the girl up sometimes after nicole and the children were home. i have not been able to find any testimony or quotes from him as to what time he picked his child up.
martinii

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Your claims are very weak regarding no 11:00 p.m. phone call. You have based your nonsense on the unbreakable rule that if there was an 11:00 p.m. phone call, it had to be from the Brown home to Nicole's. If Nicole called the Browns' home at 11:00 p.m., of course this call would not be reflected on the Browns' telephone record.

We have two witnesses who said they called Nicole after she got home that night, what time did they call? Faye had to use a public telephone call, did she call collect? What is in Nicole's phone records, not just on that day but what about before or after the murders? What about other cell phone users in the area?

Again, you made the same mistake you always make, you like to cut and paste the testimony that matches your unfounded claims.



limakey, no my arguments are not weak your inability to comprehend them is weak.

What part of the Brown's telephone records document when Juditha made the calls she testified to making can't you understand? The fact that other people may have called Nicole is completely meaningless to this issue. Nicole's telephone records are completely meaningless to this issue.

No one has ever claimed Nicole called the Brown's home at 11:00 PM. Not even Dr. Johnson and Big Ben are that dense. Maybe you believe in ghosts, since both Ron and Nicole were dead before 11:00 PM.

Your "cutting and pasting" comment is funny. Dumb but funny.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


limakey

Nicole left the resturant with her two children and Sydneys friend(little girl) the father picked the girl up sometimes after nicole and the children were home. i have not been able to find any testimony or quotes from him as to what time he picked his child up.
martinii


martin II, according to Lange and Vannatter's book, Nicole, her two children, and Sydney's friend arrived at Nicole's home about 9:00 PM. Soon after, the friend's mother picked up her daughter.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Your ignorance is simply over whelming. You are more stubborn then 20 mules. I love the fact that each and every time you post your moronic statements about what is relevant in this case and what isn't. Mr. August, your statements have no credibility. Your arguements are so weak they have no credibility that even your fellow G's can't defend unless it is the G's who only make cruel and snide comments. Like you, they add nothing to this board.

Nicole's telephone records don't matter. The fact that two people who claimed to speak with her within two hours of her death, don't matter. Nothing matters as long as you have OJ Simpson being the killer. You are pathic, racially and credibility challenged individual. You refuse to see just how the DA's and media turned people like you into mindless robots just throwing up everything they said and did. Pathic, truly pathic.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Your ignorance is simply over whelming. You are more stubborn then 20 mules. I love the fact that each and every time you post your moronic statements about what is relevant in this case and what isn't. Mr. August, your statements have no credibility. Your arguements are so weak they have no credibility that even your fellow G's can't defend unless it is the G's who only make cruel and snide comments. Like you, they add nothing to this board.

Nicole's telephone records don't matter. The fact that two people who claimed to speak with her within two hours of her death, don't matter. Nothing matters as long as you have OJ Simpson being the killer. You are pathic, racially and credibility challenged individual. You refuse to see just how the DA's and media turned people like you into mindless robots just throwing up everything they said and did. Pathic, truly pathic.


limakey, nice rant. It's funny how you call me names when it's evident you don't know the evidence in this case.

The fact that some people spoke to Nicole sometime before she was killed has nothing to do with the evidence that tells us when she was killed or who killed her.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

What's really ironic Limakey is that you just put up a post filled with anger & name calling after you put just about every "G" on ignore, for far less. Why don't you knock off the personal attacks & stick with the topic?

[fbgweezer]

Snipped*Originally posted by Big Ben
[BWell, Bob, OJ Simpson asked the Courts to order the telephone company to produce the records. We had him ask the U.S. Dist. Court in San Angelo, TX where the California GTE hard drive had been spirited off to in the wake of the criminal trial. Answer: No.

We asked the U.S. Dist. Court in Los Angeles, they said maybe, but first go back to the California trial court.

The California judge said no.

The Brown famiily initially said yes to the offer, then after 4 days to decide they said no.
[/B] Why didn't he ask his 'dream team' for their copy of the phone records they stipulated to?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, according to Lange and Vannatter's book, Nicole, her two children, and Sydney's friend arrived at Nicole's home about 9:00 PM. Soon after, the friend's mother picked up her daughter.

bobaugust

I am confused now Bob. I thought that it was the little girl's father who picked her up, not her mother?

I also would like to know that if the little girl was going to spend the night, why was she then picked up? Never got an answer for that question.

[limakey]

2Late,

The little girl's name was Rachel. Apparently her parents' had a change of plans for the next day. I think both parents went to pick her up and Nicole did spend some time talking with them.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by limakey

Mr. August,

Your ignorance is simply over whelming. You are more stubborn then 20 mules. I love the fact that each and every time you post your moronic statements about what is relevant in this case and what isn't. Mr. August, your statements have no credibility. Your arguements are so weak they have no credibility that even your fellow G's can't defend unless it is the G's who only make cruel and snide comments. Like you, they add nothing to this board.

Nicole's telephone records don't matter. The fact that two people who claimed to speak with her within two hours of her death, don't matter. Nothing matters as long as you have OJ Simpson being the killer. You are pathic, racially and credibility challenged individual. You refuse to see just how the DA's and media turned people like you into mindless robots just throwing up everything they said and did. Pathic, truly pathic.

I didn't think that you would EVER stoop so low as your other NG comrades, but you finally have. This is absolutely the most hateful post that I have ever seen or read on this Board.

And various posters on here say that I DON'T ADD ANYTHING TO THIS BOARD! You've just surpassed me Limakey!

JMO and MOO!!

[limakey]

2Late,

I don't understand your last post. You have posted many times on how I have no credibility, so I'm not sure where you are coming from.

As for my fellow NG's, I don't think they have ever "stooped" to any level at all. They have had the patience to explain over and over again what their issues have been with this case. We even disagree with each other on several issues---which is only fair because we are of different races and genders.

However, none of us have ever stooped to the low of the G's to say, "I don't know how he did it, he just did it!". We have never stooped to the level of saying that everything that doesn't point to OJ Simpson is irrevelant. We have never just accepted any "fact" because they saw it in a photo, read it in a book and last but not least, it was the state experts testified too.

Why are you even bothering to post to a person who has no credibility--unless it is to protect the side that truly has no credibility?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by limakey

2Late,

I don't understand your last post. You have posted many times on how I have no credibility, so I'm not sure where you are coming from.

As for my fellow NG's, I don't think they have ever "stooped" to any level at all. They have had the patience to explain over and over again what their issues have been with this case. We even disagree with each other on several issues---which is only fair because we are of different races and genders.

However, none of us have ever stooped to the low of the G's to say, "I don't know how he did it, he just did it!". We have never stooped to the level of saying that everything that doesn't point to OJ Simpson is irrevelant. We have never just accepted any "fact" because they saw it in a photo, read it in a book and last but not least, it was the state experts testified too.

Why are you even bothering to post to a person who has no credibility--unless it is to protect the side that truly has no credibility?

Good Gawd help us all! :rolleyes:

The above has nothing whatsoever to do with my previous post to you. My post was in response to your post to Bob.

Unfortunately, if I bothered NOT to post to a person who has NO credibility, I'd only be posting to the G's!

JMO and MOO!!

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Snipped* Why didn't he ask his 'dream team' for their copy of the phone records they stipulated to?

Everybody palyed stupid when we put the "Where are they?" question to everyone.

We got tired of fooling around with OJ continuing to diplomatically ask for them from the "DreamTeam!".

**** the "Dream Team!" File for the records and let the chips fall as the may. OJ finally gave the Okay, signed our agreement, we hired a new attorney to file, since the "Dream Team!" continued to procrastinate, OJ left town and hid for 2 weeks until the media heat cooled down.

When he returned the other DTcowards got Johnnie C. to cuss him out for allowing us to pursue them. However, it's out here now and here, is where we want it to be to let you know how your government officials and defense lawyers play fast and loose with rules of evidence..........

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by limakey
Big Ben,

There is another way to confirm what time Browns' left Mezzaluna. The receipt for the ice cream that Nicole bought that night.

Was their register off as well?

IMO, the receipt from the ice cream store is much more valuable for the Browns' departure then the Mezzaluna's. IMO, of course!

Darn it limakey! Where was your behind 7 years ago when we needed you?

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
However, none of us have ever stooped to the low of the G's to say, "I don't know how he did it, he just did it!".

It looks like you are confused. When/where have you even seen a G post this?

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, your opinions do not change the evidence that proves Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

Bob, only because judges have been to cowardly to grant motions to compel production. Never-the-less, we have certainly raised a great deal of legitimate curiosity in several critical locales. People are watching this, Bob, and just think you are truly probably one of the few valiant fighters continuing to keep your finger in the dike. I applaud you, even if your are a madman.

Your comments regarding why not one of Simpson's attorneys were never involved in the sham you're promoting are meaningless. Enron had nothing to do with the Simpson case.

Well Roberto, I would disagree. I think the analogy between the fraud perpetrated by Enron officials to undermine the public trust is quite similiar to lawyers in the Simpson case that too have, in my opinion, undermined the public trust.


No, I wasn't dumbfounded about Tia Gavin's time estimate ....

You weren't? Oh well, you seemed like you were.

Tia Gavin's unsupported time estimate doesn't change Karen Crawford's time estimate as to when Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna restaurant from her home.

It certainly raises serious questions though, based upon the correspondences we recieve. Lou Brown, called our office one day, after the issue first hit Fox News, and told us that all of the people in Orange County where he lived were pissed off with him for telling that 9:37 PM lie.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by limakey
[B]Big Ben,

limakey, I don't know if they well let you see it or not but the YouTube video clip of Johnnie C. talking about concealing those Juditha Brown phone records in our documentary Serpents Rising is very thought provoking.

www.youtube.com/watch/v=oZfbCRZvoyo