Evidence that Places OJ Simpson at the Crime Scene

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob


"martin Ii, of course the judge would have allowed Simpson to put the gloves on after Rubin finished refurbishing them."


Now you know that is not true. you must be kidding.



There is absolutely no way that Rubin knew what size those gloves were before the murders.

There is no way to know if all of the size xlarge gloves were the exact same size in inches. lenght is not the only measurement to be considered when determining what size hand will fit a particular glove. imo
martin ii



martin II, I see no reason why the judge would not have allowed Simpson to put the gloves on after Rubin finished refurbishing them, since all he did was warm and stretch them back out to close to their original size, That is what anyone would do if they were their gloves and they wanted them to fit properly. But I guess we'll never know since it never came up. Once Baker saw what Rubin did he wouldn't let Simpson go near the gloves.

Rubin knew the standard size that those extra large gloves were manufactured to. When he measured the gloves in the condition they were found they were about 10% to 11% smaller than the standard.

I believe what Rubin testified to when he answered questions from both sides about these gloves. Rubin's opinions were were reasonable and credible. I'm sorry but I don't believe that you have any knowledge about these particular gloves except what you imagine. Your opinions about them have no credibility.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, I see no reason why the judge would not have allowed Simpson to put the gloves on after Rubin finished refurbishing them, since all he did was warm and stretch them back out to close to their original size, That is what anyone would do if they were their gloves and they wanted them to fit properly. But I guess we'll never know since it never came up. Once Baker saw what Rubin did he wouldn't let Simpson go near the gloves.

Rubin knew the standard size that those extra large gloves were manufactured to. When he measured the gloves in the condition they were found they were about 10% to 11% smaller than the standard.

I believe what Rubin testified to when he answered questions from both sides about these gloves. Rubin's opinions were were reasonable and credible. I'm sorry but I don't believe that you have any knowledge about these particular gloves except what you imagine. Your opinions about them have no credibility.

bobaugust

BOB

You are repeating yourself.
the gloves did not get wet
the gloves did not shrink from age
the gloves did not fit.

Rubin was a hired gun that had a interest in trying to find a way to support the prosecutions theory. Since there was no provable way, he tried to play games with his measuring tape and his massage exhibition in front of the jury.

i don't think i have ever heard of a case where a judge allowed the prosecution or defense to manipulate the evidence to prove their point. If this civil judge had allowed this, then the world would have known for sure that the judge had a agenda to get oj convicted.imo

PS
What procedural court rules do you know under ca law that would have allowed the judge to do this?
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


BOB

You are repeating yourself.
the gloves did not get wet
the gloves did not shrink from age
the gloves did not fit.

Rubin was a hired gun that had a interest in trying to find a way to support the prosecutions theory. Since there was no provable way, he tried to play games with his measuring tape and his massage exhibition in front of the jury.

i don't think i have ever heard of a case where a judge allowed the prosecution or defense to manipulate the evidence to prove their point. If this civil judge had allowed this, then the world would have known for sure that the judge had a agenda to get oj convicted.imo

PS
What procedural court rules do you know under ca law that would have allowed the judge to do this?
martin II How do you know that the gloves didn't get wet?

How do you know that the gloves did not shrink over time?

How do you know that the gloves did not fit? You put great value in the jury being able to see and judge witnesses for telling the truth by their appearance and/or demeanor and they even said the gloves fit.

What procedural court rule do you know under ca law that would not have allowed the judge to do this?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
How do you know that the gloves didn't get wet?

How do you know that the gloves did not shrink over time?

How do you know that the gloves did not fit? You put great value in the jury being able to see and judge witnesses for telling the truth by their appearance and/or demeanor and they even said the gloves fit.

What procedural court rule do you know under ca law that would not have allowed the judge to do this?

FBG

My quesiton was to bob since he said the judge would allow the demonstration in the civil trial.

i personally have never known a judge to allow any party to conduct a demonstraiton using evidence that has been manipulated by either side. do you know of one/case?

one cannot say the gloves got wet without proof and expect anyone to belive it.

RUBIN said 3 cc of liquid would not cause the gloves to shrink.i agree with him on that point.
imo
martin II

[jotun]

Originally posted by martin II


My quesiton was to bob since he said the judge would allow the demonstration in the civil trial.
martin II

Martin,
The judge in the money trial would NOT allow O.J. to try on the gloves in closing arguements.As Petroselli objected.I posted all the details as reported by Dan Abrams on CTV from my videotape,on another thread months ago.Yet one continues to insist otherwise despite the facts.
jotun

[martin II]

Originally posted by jotun


Martin,
The judge in the money trial would NOT allow O.J. to try on the gloves in closing arguements.As Petroselli objected.I posted all the details as reported by Dan Abrams on CTV from my videotape,on another thread months ago.Yet one continues to insist otherwise despite the facts.
jotun

jotun

thanks for your insight. You are right on.
martin II

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Those telephone records, or any other piece of evidence does have "dignity" rules. This is a record that can either confirm what is believed or contradict what has been called a fact.

I have always, always defended the Browns' on what they sold during the trial. However, I believe it is a fair question to ask where was this dignity when these items were being sold?

Also, you continue focus only the Browns' telephone record. Was their more then one? And what about the other phone records?

If I remember correctly, you like other G's have posted that you didn't want to believe he did it. In fact, someone of you didn't believe it until the criminal trial. And when you came to your conclusion that OJ Simpson was guilty, it wasn't easy for you. I don't believe any G was hoping OJ did it, I don't think any G was happy that he did it--yet, how can you maintain this, when there are records that could make or break the case for either side?

Another point regarding the Browns' dignity, should their dignity take first place over the truth? Should their dignity be allowed to over shadow Sydney and Justin's future?

There is no doubt the Simpsons' came to love OJ Simpson as a son. Wouldn't you think they would do anything they could to at least have some relief that this man they loved did not kill their daughter? That while they were always be angry at OJ for his behavior but at least they could have a little bit of comfort, at least for the sake of their grandchildren. IMO.

[limakey]

GG,

That is the million dollar question(s) on these phone calls. We know what time Simpson called Nicole to speak with Sydney. I do know that Faye gave a wrong time and then covered herself.

We know about what time the little girl was picked up and it is obvious that Nicole did not display any type of distressed. Faye says that she knew Ron was coming over, but if that is the truth then she had to talk to Nicole after her phone calls regarding the glasses.

What I find interesting is that many people have assumed, regardless if it was Simpson or whoever, that Sydney could have only been talking about one phone call---but maybe she wasn't. Maybe she fighting during one phone call was crying during the next.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Those telephone records, or any other piece of evidence does have "dignity" rules. This is a record that can either confirm what is believed or contradict what has been called a fact.

If I remember correctly, you like other G's have posted that you didn't want to believe he did it. In fact, someone of you didn't believe it until the criminal trial. And when you came to your conclusion that OJ Simpson was guilty, it wasn't easy for you. I don't believe any G was hoping OJ did it, I don't think any G was happy that he did it--yet, how can you maintain this, when there are records that could make or break the case for either side?




limakey, of course we're focusing only on the Brown's telephone records because those are the telephone records that Big Ben has made his false claim about.

You ask how can I maintain this when there are records that could make or break this case for either side? It's easy for me because there is no and never has been an 11:00 PM telephone call from Juditha Brown to Nicole on the Brown's telephone bill. Both Ron and Nicole were dead well before 11:00 PM that night.

What you should be asking yourself is why didn't even one of Simpson's criminal trial attorneys ever support this request or make any comment about it. They saw the Brown's actual telephone records. They examined them and checked them out. They stipulated to them as being accurate. If there was any doubt in their mind that this claim had any inkling of credibility don't you think they would have jumped all over it?

And what about Simpson's civil trial attorneys? Wouldn't you think that they would jump all over this if it had even a minute chance of being real? Not one of Simpson's civil trial attorneys ever supported or made any comment about this. Do you really think every one of Simpson's attorneys are participating in a giant conspiracy to hide this?

The 11:00 PM telephone call is pure bull crap. There is no reason that the Brown's should respond to it.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by limakey
GG,

That is the million dollar question(s) on these phone calls. We know what time Simpson called Nicole to speak with Sydney. I do know that Faye gave a wrong time and then covered herself.

We know about what time the little girl was picked up and it is obvious that Nicole did not display any type of distressed. Faye says that she knew Ron was coming over, but if that is the truth then she had to talk to Nicole after her phone calls regarding the glasses.

What I find interesting is that many people have assumed, regardless if it was Simpson or whoever, that Sydney could have only been talking about one phone call---but maybe she wasn't. Maybe she fighting during one phone call was crying during the next.

limakey
how about the possibility that nicole could have talked to Fye and the conversation had something to do with fays drug debt. and or
maby the call could have been from one of fays friends, strangers, that nicole talked about in that 'LETTER'

Faye living at nicoles house, strangers come into nicoles house to see faye that nicole does not like.

Faye is freebasing (she says twice a day. i think it was like she smoked as long as she had product in front of her) at nicoles house so i assume that the strangers were delivering Faye drugs.

Faye not working, Nicole decides that she has had enopugh and organizes a intervention for faye.

Faye runs from nicoles to the rahab leaving her drug debt unpaid.


Nicole is killed.

MARTIN ii

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, you imagine conspiracies everywhere. Cochran and Clark conspiring. Judge Ito conspiring.

Well Bob, they do happen. The U.S. government certainly believes in them. You can get more time for promulgating a conspiracy to commit murder, than the individual appointed to do the murder.

I don't know what you find to be so pristine about Cochran and Clark that they wouldn't participate in such a conspiratorial escapade. I previously cited how English lawyers were creating a new method of determining the cause of death via stipulation in order to get at set aside funds of the big whaling fleets. The preeminent legal author Wigamore on Evidence, talks about it in his treatisease on the subject matter regarding the legitimate use of stipulations.

You didn't know Johnnie Cochran before the Simpson trial, and neither did I, but he created the largest law practise using his name exclusively in the U.S. after the Simpson trial. For one to become the biggest whatever is usually an adequate incentive, I'd think.

Marcia Clark, was a struggling, Deputy District Attorney, amongst the approx. 2,000+or-, in L.A. County. How many of them do you know that become overnight multimillionaires. So I would again contend that this trial, like politics, was set to produce a great deal of "PORK" if it were to go forth.

Oftentimes, certain individuals believe that the potential penalties are far outweighed by the potential rewards.
So do I see potential conspiracies? After doing my home work, Bob, I guess that I do.

Finally I never put the words in quotation marks that you attribute me alleging Cochran said. However, I do believe that my paraphrasing of what Cochran said is extremely accurate.

The conclusion of he, (Cochran), reminding the judge that they were withholding the phone records from the jury, in light of the actual hidden records, is certainly most appropriate. We will never know until we see the actual records from the unbiased third party vendor, GTE/Verizon Telephone Company.

Quit telling limakey that the actual records were presented to the jury, they were not. Until said records are examined for their authenticity by the jury you have no way of proving or concluding that they are not fraudulent. Given what has arisen regarding the Brown's improbable journey time between Brentwood and Dana Point, the phone records are probably erroneous documents.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
one cannot say the gloves got wet without proof and expect anyone to belive it.

Triumph of Justice; Petrocelli; p419: This is from the videotaped deposition of Brenda Vemich: "Vemich authenticated a sales receipt showing that Nicole purchased two pairs of Airs Leather Light gloves, extra large, at the New York store on December 18, 1990. Based on her examination of the murder gloves as well as photographs, she testified that they were, in fact, Airs Leather Light gloves, extra large, the type sold at Bloomingdale's in December 1990. We showed her varius photographs taken of Simpson wearing gloves at football games, and she said those gloves appeared to be Airs Leather Lights."

Same page; narrative: "We then introduced testimony from the photographers who took the photos of Simpson wearing the Leather Light gloves while broadcasting football games. The photos showed Simpson wearing both brown and black gloves in rainy weather, which could be used to help explain the gloves shrinking."

"Richard Rubin was the former general manager and vice president of Airis and an expert on the gloves. Rubin was prepared to say positively that the gloves found at the murder scene and at Rockingham were the same glove type as those Simpson wore in the photos. . . .Rubin explained to us that those gloves had been sitting in evidence for a year and a half, they hadn't been stretched, they hadn't been warmed or worn."

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by jotun


Martin,
The judge in the money trial would NOT allow O.J. to try on the gloves in closing arguements.As Petroselli objected.I posted all the details as reported by Dan Abrams on CTV from my videotape,on another thread months ago.Yet one continues to insist otherwise despite the facts.
jotun Petrocelli expected Baker to have orenthal put on the same show over the gloves.

Triumph of Justice, Petrocelli; p419-420: "We decided to talk to the judge. We didn't want any stunts in front of this jury. We told the judge at sidebar that if Baker intended to have Simpson try on the murder gloves, we wanted no latex gloves underneath. That would distort the fit."

Petrocelli goes on to talk about Rubin's testimony and his manipulating the gloves to make them more pliable and finally slipping one on his hand. After that, Baker wasn't about to let orenthal try the gloves on. He could have -- his attorney did not have him do it.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Petrocelli expected Baker to have orenthal put on the same show over the gloves.

Triumph of Justice, Petrocelli; p419-420: "We decided to talk to the judge. We didn't want any stunts in front of this jury. We told the judge at sidebar that if Baker intended to have Simpson try on the murder gloves, we wanted no latex gloves underneath. That would distort the fit."

Petrocelli goes on to talk about Rubin's testimony and his manipulating the gloves to make them more pliable and finally slipping one on his hand. After that, Baker wasn't about to let orenthal try the gloves on. He could have -- his attorney did not have him do it.

fbg

your post sounds almost word for word what bob had posted.

Anyway, oj had already tried on the gloves in front of the world in the criminal trial and the world saw that they did not fit.
why would he try the gloves on again after Rubin sat on the stand trying his best to OVERSTREATCH the gloves.

Petrocelli was mistaken when he THOUGH baker was going to have oj participate in Petrocellis/Rubins STUNT.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

your post sounds almost word for word what bob had posted.

Anyway, oj had already tried on the gloves in front of the world in the criminal trial and the world saw that they did not fit.
why would he try the gloves on again after Rubin sat on the stand trying his best to OVERSTREATCH the gloves.

Petrocelli was mistaken when he THOUGH baker was going to have oj participate in Petrocellis/Rubins STUNT.imo
martin II


martin II, Rubin was trying to over stretch the gloves?

Your comments about this makes it very clear that you're wild imagination and gullibility far out weight any real expertise or knowledge you claim you may have.

You know absolutely nothing about what happened or what was said in the civil trial yet you feel that you have to offer your foolish uninformed false opinions as to what you think happened. That's funny.

Good job.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, Rubin was trying to over stretch the gloves?

Your comments about this makes it very clear that you're wild imagination and gullibility far out weight any real expertise or knowledge you claim you may have.

You know absolutely nothing about what happened or what was said in the civil trial yet you feel that you have to offer your foolish uninformed false opinions as to what you think happened. That's funny.

Good job.

bobaugust

bob

I know that you THINK that you are the only posted on this board
that has ALL the facts and KNOW all the truth 100% in each case.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

your post sounds almost word for word what bob had posted.

Anyway, oj had already tried on the gloves in front of the world in the criminal trial and the world saw that they did not fit.
why would he try the gloves on again after Rubin sat on the stand trying his best to OVERSTREATCH the gloves.

Petrocelli was mistaken when he THOUGH baker was going to have oj participate in Petrocellis/Rubins STUNT.imo
martin II If bob was quoting Petrocelli's book, it probably does sound word for word since that is what I was doing too.

So you don't believe the jurors who said that the gloves did fit? The same jurors that you said were the ONLY people who could tell if a witness was lying by their appearance/demeanor?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


I don't know what you find to be so pristine about Cochran and Clark that they wouldn't participate in such a conspiratorial escapade.

Marcia Clark, was a struggling, Deputy District Attorney, amongst the approx. 2,000+or-, in L.A. County. How many of them do you know that become overnight multimillionaires. So I would again contend that this trial, like politics, was set to produce a great deal of "PORK" if it were to go forth.

The conclusion of he, (Cochran), reminding the judge that they were withholding the phone records from the jury, in light of the actual hidden records, is certainly most appropriate. We will never know until we see the actual records from the unbiased third party vendor, GTE/Verizon Telephone Company.

Quit telling limakey that the actual records were presented to the jury, they were not. Until said records are examined for their authenticity by the jury you have no way of proving or concluding that they are not fraudulent. Given what has arisen regarding the Brown's improbable journey time between Brentwood and Dana Point, the phone records are probably erroneous documents.


Big Ben, it's not that I find anything pristine about Cochran and Clark, the fact is if there was some kind of conspiracy to hide an 11:00 PM telephone call than that conspiracy would involve a lot more people than just Cochran and Clark. A huge amount of people. From GTE to every attorney in this case. To all the witnesses who testified to events that happened.

A giant unrealistic conspiracy for what reason? To get Simpson by ignoring documented proof of his innocence? Nothing you have said makes any sense. The only thing that is clear about your fantasy beliefs is that you evidently understand that based on all of the known evidence Simpson was proved to be the killer. So you promote this fantasy 11:00 PM telephone call and blame Simpson's attorneys for somehow selling him out. Funny.

The fact is it was Vannatter who called Clark involving her in this case, asking her about the search warrant he was writing. David Conn, Clarks boss, later offered her the case.

The fact is no telephone records were hidden. Your distorted interpretation of what Cochran actually said is based only on your deceiving tactic of taking Cochran words out of context. It's you who is conspiring. Conspiring to play dumb and make ridiculous claims.

I told limakey the truth that the jury was shown the prosecution exhibit.

Did the jury see Kato Kaelin's telephone records?
Did the jury see the limousine telephone records?
Did the jury see Simpson's telephone records?

As far as I know the ONLY telephone records that were shown to the criminal trial jury was the enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone records.

The Brown's driving time between Brentwood and Dana Point was not improbable. You created a fantasy based on incorrect estimated times of when they started that drive and then claim that their is something wrong with telephone records that document and support what the witnesses from the Mezzaluna and Juditha Brown testified to about the telephone calls from Juditha and Nicole.

Everything you claim is based on some kind of reverse logic where fantasy is real and reality is fake.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben,.... that conspiracy would involve a lot more people than just Cochran and Clark. A huge amount of people. From GTE to every attorney in this case. To all the witnesses who testified to events that happened.

Believe it or not several of the prosecution's witnesses have some of the most assinine contradictions in their testimony that, for all intent an purposes, would have either exonerated Simpson at the very beginning or created serious reasonable doubt, starting with that of Steven Schwab, and his inital 11:15 PM akita sighting.

California is noted for their massive conspiracies, remember Coentelpro?
The problem with you is that you want me to sit back and time after time allow you to provide plausible excuses for individuals who recant their initial testimony, whereby the net effect is to ultimately destroy the reputation of this man Simpson. I could go along with one, maybe two, but you wind up having to develop pitiful excuses for everyone, Bob.



A giant unrealistic conspiracy for what reason? To get Simpson?....

Maybe to get you, Bob. The net effect of the psychic impact upon the nation that the Simpson case has had on America has been astounding to say the least.

The Simpson trial appears to be an experimental exercise to explore the volatility of the American mind and how to control it.

This matter may ultimately have been related to post 9/11 events.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben

Believe it or not several of the prosecution's witnesses have some of the most assinine contradictions in their testimony that, for all intent an purposes, would have either exonerated Simpson at the very beginning or created serious reasonable doubt, starting with that of Steven Schwab, and his inital 11:15 PM akita sighting.

The Simpson trial appears to be an experimental exercise to explore the volatility of the American mind and how to control it.

This matter may ultimately have been related to post 9/11 events.


Big Ben, all witness may make mistakes when trying to recall details about something that wasn't important to them at the time it happened. That's not signs of a conspiracy, that's reality. There were no contradictions in what Schwab testified to.

The police woke Schwab up pounding on his door a about 5:00 AM. When they told him that the dog he found was somehow connected to a homicide Schwab explained how he was nervous and scared. When he was asked approximately what time he found the dog he said he was confused and at that point rattled off a couple of different times. He was not clear as to what time the events had taken place. He said he wasn't even clear what day it was at that point.

Schwab explained the first time he mentioned was 11:30 and then he said no, it must have been around 11:00. He said he was trying to get a fix on it vaguely but every one who was there were all cross talking. After the brief interview he went back to bed and when he later woke up he remembered more clearly what the sequence of events was. Schwab said he then called the police and told them he gave an inaccurate statement and wanted to correct it.

When the Akita was following Schwab and his dog waked home he said he saw a police car drive by and he flagged it down. He told the patrol officer about the Akita because he was concerned about the lost dog. The officer told him he should continue home and not to worry, he would take car of it.

That police officer later came forward when he heard about Schwab's testimony and realize it was him. The report that he made at the time of the encounter with Schwab supported what Schwab testified to and was given to the defense to review. Clark would have called the officer to testify if the defense had any questions about it. They didn't and he was never called.

The reality is that there was no grand conspiracy involving the attorneys, the police, and the witnesses in this case. The problem here is you and your inability to comprehend reality, trying to blame everyone else but the actual killer in this case, Orenthal James Simpson.

Your comments how the Simpson trial appears to you to be "an experimental exercise to explore the volatility of the American mind and how to control it." and that your fantasy conspiracy "may ultimately have been related to post 9/11 events" is so off the wall that I'm not sure I even want to ask you to explain what you mean.

You are so lost in la la land, that I'm actually embarrassed for you.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
If bob was quoting Petrocelli's book, it probably does sound word for word since that is what I was doing too.

So you don't believe the jurors who said that the gloves did fit? The same jurors that you said were the ONLY people who could tell if a witness was lying by their appearance/demeanor?

fbg

anyone that watched the trial live on tv was in a better position to judge the demeanor and attitude of the witnesses as opposed to someone that read the transcripts.

The jury was there every day and observed every witness so this puts them in a better position than you who did not watch the trial live on tv. imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I guess they would not fit or belong to anyone in the house, because they did not fit.


Yes, they did fit. That's why he had the same size in the house.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by jotun


Martin,
The judge in the money trial would NOT allow O.J. to try on the gloves in closing arguements.As Petroselli objected.I posted all the details as reported by Dan Abrams on CTV from my videotape,on another thread months ago.Yet one continues to insist otherwise despite the facts.
jotun


jotun, are you saying Simpson wanted to try on the gloves during closing arguments and Judge Fujisaki wouldn't allow it? If that's not what you're saying, just what are you saying?

On what day did Judge Fujisaki not allow Simpson to try on the gloves and when do you think Petrocelli objected to it?

Lets hear some specifics please, A clarification and a date would help to support what you're trying to say.

I've read through the closing arguments and I don't recall reading anything close to what you're claiming.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

I know that you THINK that you are the only posted on this board
that has ALL the facts and KNOW all the truth 100% in each case.

martin II


martin II, no I'm certainly not the only poster who is informed about the facts and evidence in this case, specifically all the information and evidence that became known after the criminal trial. Nor am I the only poster who understands the truth that Simpson was the killer.

What I and other posters do know is that you and some other posters here are not very informed. And when we do inform you of the facts you are not aware of and correct your mistaken comments, even posting the testimony that contradicts what you say, you still continue to repeat the same errors, the same false claims, and the same false accusations.

What's that all about?

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, no I'm certainly not the only poster who is informed about the facts and evidence in this case, specifically all the information and evidence that became known after the criminal trial. Nor am I the only poster who understands the truth that Simpson was the killer.

What I and other posters do know is that you and some other posters here are not very informed. And when we do inform you of the facts you are not aware of and correct your mistaken comments, even posting the testimony that contradicts what you say, you still continue to repeat the same errors, the same false claims, and the same false accusations.

What's that all about?

bobaugust

bob
your facts include your 'MABY HE DID' 'HE PROBERBLY DID' 'HE MUST HAVE" and it includes faulty testimony by some prosecution witnesses which you call small "mistakes?imo
matrtin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by tazzybaby



Yes, they did fit. That's why he had the same size in the house.

tazzy hi

would you agree that size ex-large in a glove made by company A
would fIT a hand differently than another glove in size ex-large made by company B.?
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II


tazzy hi

would you agree that size ex-large in a glove made by company A
would fIT a hand differently than another glove in size ex-large made by company B.?
martin II

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't fit. It means it can fit differently. And, would you agree that if someone were to buy a pair for someone without having the person there to try them on they would get the same size as all the other gloves the person has?

[martin II]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Yes, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't fit. It means it can fit differently. And, would you agree that if someone were to buy a pair for someone without having the person there to try them on they would get the same size as all the other gloves the person has?

tazzy hi

yes

If i were to buy some gloves for my daughter i would ask her what size she wears and she would proberbly say size small in most gloves.

Depending on the manufacture and the specs. they used in making the gloves the gloves may or may not fit.

Gloves are one of the most retured items to stores after christmans and the reason is mostly fit problems imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Yes, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't fit. It means it can fit differently. And, would you agree that if someone were to buy a pair for someone without having the person there to try them on they would get the same size as all the other gloves the person has?

tazzy ii

nope. it means that gloves made by company A exlarge may not fit because the specs are smaller. There are three measurement used in making gloves. Length from top to tip of fingers--height of
each glove finger and width of glove fingers.(and the position of the thunb cup)

This measurement varies from one manufacturer to another. so all gloves marked ex large do not fit all ex large hands. Therefore the requirement in many instances that the gloves be tried on. imo
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

bob

I know that you THINK that you are the only posted on this board
that has ALL the facts and KNOW all the truth 100% in each case.

martin II

Yeah, he is and he does. You're just jealous because you will never be as knowledgeable as Bob or as respected. In the first place, you lack credibility, except with your Birds of a Feather, of course!

:chicken: :chicken: :chicken:

JMO and MOO!!

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, all witness may make mistakes when trying to recall details about something that wasn't important to them at the time it happened. That's not signs of a conspiracy, that's reality. There were no contradictions in what Schwab testified to.

Your comments how the Simpson trial appears to you to be "an experimental exercise to explore the volatility of the American mind and how to control it." and that your fantasy conspiracy "may ultimately have been related to post 9/11 events" is so off the wall that I'm not sure I even want to ask you to explain what you mean.

You are so lost in la la land, that I'm actually embarrassed for you.


Bob, I was merely trying to respond to your limited presumptive question: "A giant unrealistic conspiracy for what reason? To get to Simpson?"

I know, better than you, that presenting broader subjective theories, that might be algorithmically connected by objectivity, may simply be to formidable for those who are plagued with severe miopic disorders. I thought that your lead-in gave me an opportunity to try though, no matter how unproductive.

Never-the-less, we did not include in the documentary video segments immediately post 9/11, of Jay Leno jokingly comparing islamic costumed images of the alleged murderer, O.J. Simpson to Osama Bin Laden to his millions of viewers.

Nor did we include an extended discussion of Fox News' Judge Napolitano comparing a hypothetical trial of Osama Bin Laden to that of O.J. Simpson if held in the U.S. The results of the Simpson aftermath in the media and that of 9/11 unquestionably has poisoned the minds of millions of Americans. The toxin has sink deeply into the psyche of our deepest taboo, that which concerns our stereotypes regarding race and skin color.

Historically this has been the easiest way in America to lead a group of people in a normally resistant direction, simply by throwing a rock at the crowd and pointing in the direction of someone who doesn't look like them, and shouting emphatically, 'He did it!'

I doubt that under normal circumstances the U.S. citizenry would vote to give up all of their Federally protected guarantees via "The Patriots Act" other than by a form of unbeknownst contrived emotional manipulation.

You have a very steely, hard core determination, concealed in the feeble mind of a cyclops. Undoubtedly, it appears to serve you well in the simple day-to-day environment that you find yourself. However, I'm afraid that despite your protests of incredibility, the mountain of contradictions and conflicts will continue to challenge your neatly packaged elementary conclusions regarding the Simpson case.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by martin II
*snip*

it means that gloves made by company A exlarge may not fit because the specs are smaller.

Another moot point. The gloves in question were Aris & Ruben worked for Aris & testified that the gloves in question would fit Orenthal.

[martin II]

tazzy hi


court tv

Richard Rubin, a former executive of Aris Isotoner, identified the gloves worn by Simpson during his broadcasting days as extra-large Aris Lights, a model featuring a lighter weight leather and special stitching.

Rubin, testifying for a fourth time in the trial, said that only 300 pairs of the gloves were manufactured, and that between 200 and 240 were sold, in 1990, all of those at Bloomingdale's.

The state contends that Nicole Brown Simpson bought her husband two pairs of Aris gloves -- color and size unspecified by the sales slip -- in December 1990.

But on cross-examination, Rubin conceded that he could not say the gloves from the videotapes were the same as those retrieved from South Bundy Drive and North Rockingham Avenue. Defense attorney Robert Blasier also suggested that Rubin was prejudiced against Simpson. He produced a letter from the witness to prosecutors saying, "Maybe I can make it to the victory party."

Blasier also suggested that Rubin did not try to determine whether similar gloves could have been made elsewhere, such as in Europe.

martin II

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by martin II
*snip*

But on cross-examination, Rubin conceded that he could not say the gloves from the videotapes were the same as those retrieved from South Bundy Drive and North Rockingham Avenue.

So what? Toss out the video then. He testified that the gloves in the courtroom would fit Simpson.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by tazzybaby



Yes, they did fit. That's why he had the same size in the house.

I was speaking of the evidence gloves, not the ones he did not try on and how could you know they fit, if he did not try them on.

[martin II]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I was speaking of the evidence gloves, not the ones he did not try on and how could you know they fit, if he did not try them on.

william

I assume that the other gloves oj had at his house could have been golf gloves--gardening gloves--work gloves-- football gloves
etc. maby all with a exl-arge tag but definately each pair would fit differently and would have no relationship to the gloves believed to have been used in the murders that were tried on in the trial.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
your facts include your 'MABY HE DID' 'HE PROBERBLY DID' 'HE MUST HAVE" and it includes faulty testimony by some prosecution witnesses which you call small "mistakes?imo
matrtin II


martin II, I use qualifying words when I speculate about what I believe could have happened based on the facts that were testified to. Your problem is that you are very uninformed about those facts.

Yes there were small mistakes made by witnesses in this case. The question is why do you continue to repeat errors that you have been corrected on? Why do you continue to repeat the same false claims and accusations based on those errors?

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, I use qualifying words when I speculate about what I believe could have happened based on the facts that were testified to. Your problem is that you are very uninformed about those facts.

Yes there were small mistakes made by witnesses in this case. The question is why do you continue to repeat errors that you have been corrected on? Why do you continue to repeat the same false claims and accusations based on those errors?

bobaugust

yassa boss

martin II:D

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben

Bob, I was merely trying to respond to your limited presumptive question: " A giant unrealistic conspiracy for what reason? To get to Simpson?"


Big Ben, you sure have one heck of an imagination. You have taken one mistaken time estimate as to when a telephone call was made given by grieving parents after learning about the brutal murder of their daughter and blown it up to some giant conspiracy by the media and the government of our country to deceive the American public. Wow.

A time estimate that these parents later realized was wrong and changed. A time estimate proved to be wrong by telephone records, and by the facts relating to that telephone call that every witness in this case testified to including the victims mother.

But it seems you don't let small things like the truth get in the way of your fantasies. You just continue to deny the reality of the simple facts in this case by offering delusional conspiracies blaming everyone in the world for these murders except for the one person who actually committed them, Orenthal James Simpson.

Nice job.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

yassa boss

martin II:D

WTH? What kind of response is that? It definitely says a lot of who you really are and what an *** you really are! If any of us G's would have said that to you, we wouldn't be hearing the end of it and we'd probably be banned! I think you owe Bob an apology ~ BIG TIME!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


WTH? What kind of response is that? It definitely says a lot of who you really are and what an *** you really are! If any of us G's would have said that to you, we wouldn't be hearing the end of it and we'd probably be banned! I think you owe Bob an apology ~ BIG TIME!

JMO and MOO!!


2l

you need to stop jumping all over the threads looking to start arguments between posters. imo

martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

2l

you need to stop jumping all over the threads looking to start arguments between posters. imo

martin II

You need to stop looking to start arguments between posters. Your post to Bob was uncalled for and you know it, but you're not man enough to understand that nor make an apology. I didn't post the above to Bob. You did. I have a right to my opinion. If the truth hurts and the shoe fits...oh well. Too Bad. So Sad!

JMO and MOO!!

[Charms]

If OJ had been acquitted of murdering his first wife ( Marguerite) who is AA.. would he still be a person of discussion? :shrug:

[martin II]

Originally posted by Charms
If OJ had been acquitted of murdering his first wife ( Marguerite) who is AA.. would he still be a person of discussion? :shrug:

charms

i doubt it very much.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Charms
If OJ had been acquitted of murdering his first wife ( Marguerite) who is AA.. would he still be a person of discussion? :shrug: With all other circumstances being the same, YES!

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
With all other circumstances being the same, YES!

If O. J. had been White and accused of mudering his African American wife, would there be as much outrage over the not guilty verdict?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I was speaking of the evidence gloves, not the ones he did not try on and how could you know they fit, if he did not try them on.


Hi William,

They were in HIS drawer in HIS bedroom. Whose else's would they be? And, why would he keep gloves that don't fit in his drawer? And, where would the ones that do fit be? Why didn't he produce those and say "look, I wear this size"? They have pictures of him wearing gloves that are a tight fit and a little small.

You are making excuses.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II


*snip*

and would have no relationship to the gloves believed to have been used in the murders that were tried on in the trial.imo
martin II

Yes, they would. They were the same size as all the other gloves in his house. That's a relationship. They found a receipt where Nicole bought the same exact type of gloves. They had pictures of him wearing the same kind of gloves. So, yes, they definately had a relationship to the gloves.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by William Anthony


If O. J. had been White and accused of mudering his African American wife, would there be as much outrage over the not guilty verdict?

If OJ were white and "ran" in the bronco....it would have been the same circus. I also believe there would have been as much outrage.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by tazzybaby



Hi William,

They were in HIS drawer in HIS bedroom. Whose else's would they be? And, why would he keep gloves that don't fit in his drawer? And, where would the ones that do fit be? Why didn't he produce those and say "look, I wear this size"? They have pictures of him wearing gloves that are a tight fit and a little small.

You are making excuses.

My post was not concerning ownership, it was concerning fit.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


If OJ were white and "ran" in the bronco....it would have been the same circus. I also believe there would have been as much outrage.

"OJ..... "ran". Where was he running to, when you first had the opportunity to see him allegedly "running" in the bronco?

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, you sure have one heck of an imagination.

Well Bobsky, my conclusions mirror those encounters I have seen in my lifetime, and I rather suspect that our life experiences would have us on different sides of the table in regard to the meaning of "Protect and to Serve".

I would speculate that your experiences have been quite different from mine, and may very well contribute to my perception of your extreme miopic view points and tunnel vision.

You have taken one mistaken time estimate .... blown it up to some giant conspiracy by the media and the government of our country to deceive the American public. Wow.

I have taken a mariad of irregular coincidences in the Simpson case that, taken as a whole, create a probability number well beyond that of the billion-to-one statistics for OJ's alleged DNA.

There was no need for these continuous revisions of time testimony, along with the resistance subsequently by the Browns, encouraged by others, to prevent an unbiased investigative examination of the particular time discrepancy associated with this matter.

The OMIG investigators had no axe to grind, however, the sound of the nay sayers and public lynchmen was resounding as a result of an innocent inquiry. The outcry has simply exaccerbated what was heretofore a miniscule point of review. Now we must see, along with the millions who feel the same outrage.

As I said to you before, do not allow your cyclopic eye to narrow your perspective. You look very foolish sticking your finger in the dike as the wall you so valiantly attempt to protect is on the verge of crumbling, the seige of the driven forces, threaten to sweep you away.

Stop your foolish meanderings and join in our call for GTE to produce the telephone records, Bob.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben

Stop your foolish meanderings and join in our call for GTE to produce the telephone records, Bob.


Big Ben, sure I will join you if you can give credible answers to some simple questions.

If as you believe that Juditha Brown never told Nicole about her missing eyeglasses until 11:00 that night how do you explain the fact that those eyeglasses were found at the murder scene in a blood splattered envelope with Nicole's name written on it?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


"OJ..... "ran". Where was he running to, when you first had the opportunity to see him allegedly "running" in the bronco?


Big Ben, Schiller wrote Simpson left Kardashian's house before the police arrived to arrest him. Cowlings was driving Simpson to the Bel Air Church so to he could kill himself there.

bobaugust

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by Big Ben


"OJ..... "ran". Where was he running to, when you first had the opportunity to see him allegedly "running" in the bronco?

Well, we don't know where he was for several hours. So, I can't answer where he was "running" to. But, I do know that he was a fugitive. I don't care what word you want to use. He left the house and fled from turning himself in.

[martin II]

Originally posted by tazzybaby



Hi William,

They were in HIS drawer in HIS bedroom. Whose else's would they be? And, why would he keep gloves that don't fit in his drawer? And, where would the ones that do fit be? Why didn't he produce those and say "look, I wear this size"? They have pictures of him wearing gloves that are a tight fit and a little small.

You are making excuses.

tazzy hi

please review.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/analysis.html



"But on cross-examination, Rubin conceded that he could not say the gloves from the videotapes were the same as those retrieved from South Bundy Drive and North Rockingham Avenue. Defense attorney Robert Blasier also suggested that Rubin was prejudiced against Simpson. He produced a letter from the witness to prosecutors saying, "Maybe I can make it to the victory party"

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Well, we don't know where he was for several hours. So, I can't answer where he was "running" to. But, I do know that he was a fugitive. I don't care what word you want to use. He left the house and fled from turning himself in.

tazzy hi
i thought they were trying to go the nicoles grave but was stopped when they saw le at the grave site.

But after getting over the the stress of the moment. they went to rockingham. If oj had really wanted to kill himself for what ever reason, he had the opportunity. imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II


tazzy hi

please review.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/analysis.html



"But on cross-examination, Rubin conceded that he could not say the gloves from the videotapes were the same as those retrieved from South Bundy Drive and North Rockingham Avenue. Defense attorney Robert Blasier also suggested that Rubin was prejudiced against Simpson. He produced a letter from the witness to prosecutors saying, "Maybe I can make it to the victory party"

martin II

And, what does that mean? He was comparing to a video tape. Of course he couldn't say for sure. But, he made a professional educated opinion. They looked the same and they fit small. Exactly as the gloves that they did have. And, why couldn't Simpson produce those and put the issue to rest?

Even the jurors weren't fooled by Simpson :rolleyes:


The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody."

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/evidence/glove/ojglove9.jpg

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


tazzy hi
i thought they were trying to go the nicoles grave but was stopped when they saw le at the grave site.

But after getting over the the stress of the moment. they went to rockingham. If oj had really wanted to kill himself for what ever reason, he had the opportunity. imo
martin II


martin II, according to Kardashian, Simpson did try but the gun jammed.

bobaugust

[martin II]

tazzy hi

If your quotes attributed to the jourors is accurate then they must have thought that the gloves fitting or not fitting was not that important in the grand scheme of things as they all voted oj not guilty.

Without oj being caught with the gloves on or in his posession on 6/12 it is not possible to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he had them on when nicole and ron was killed. It is only speculation.

martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
tazzy hi

If your quotes attributed to the jourors is accurate then they must have thought that the gloves fitting or not fitting was not that important in the grand scheme of things as they all voted oj not guilty.

Without oj being caught with the gloves on or in his posession on 6/12 it is not possible to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he had them on when nicole and ron was killed. It is only speculation.

martin II


martin II, no it's supported speculation. The blood and fiber evidence found on one of the gloves points to Simpson wearing the gloves.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

How did the police know the dog Swab found was somehow connected the murders?

And you are wrong about the cops that he flagged down, at least according to Marcia Clark. She said the cop went on vacation or something like that and never knew it was an issue until much later. I believe her question to him, was something like, "what was he watching, the weather channel".

Now, the couple who found the dog may have told the police who Scwab was and where he lived, however, they were pounding on his door before the cops went to Rockingham?

And as far as I know, no one from the animal shelter nor the police officers testified about night.

Another point, didn't the lady across the street call the cops about the dog? So another fair question is why were the police in that area, at that time? Was it their normal patrol route? Did they respond to a telephone about bodies on the west side? Were they responding to the old lady's call about barking dog?

Which was it?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Simpson's defense team may have or may not have known about these telephone records. However, they still had to follow their client's wishes. Mr. Simpson would not budge from this, he refused to let Sydney take the stand.

At that time of the prelim hearing, maybe those were the only phone calls available at the time. However, what do Nicole's records say? They could have shown the Browns' phone records every single day, however, it doesn't mean that no one made a call to or from Nicole's home after you say she was dead.

Very simple logic, a phone call from Nicole to her mother would not show up on her Parent's telephone bill.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

How did the police know the dog Swab found was somehow connected the murders?

And you are wrong about the cops that he flagged down, at least according to Marcia Clark. She said the cop went on vacation or something like that and never knew it was an issue until much later. I believe her question to him, was something like, "what was he watching, the weather channel".

Now, the couple who found the dog may have told the police who Scwab was and where he lived, however, they were pounding on his door before the cops went to Rockingham?

And as far as I know, no one from the animal shelter nor the police officers testified about night.

Another point, didn't the lady across the street call the cops about the dog? So another fair question is why were the police in that area, at that time? Was it their normal patrol route? Did they respond to a telephone about bodies on the west side? Were they responding to the old lady's call about barking dog?

Which was it?


limakey, the patrol officers suspected the dog was connected to the murders when they saw blood on the dog and Boztep told them the dog led him and his wife to Nicole's house.

Schwab didn't flag down cops. He flagged down one officer. That officer made a report at the time but never associated the incident with the Simpson case until he heard about Schwab's testimony in the criminal trial. He then came forward.

Ron Phillips sent Brad Roberts to interview Boztep and his wife while the West LA detectives were waiting for the Robbery Homicide detectives to arrive at Bundy.

Well you got one partially right, no one from the animal shelter testified about the Akita but Officer Riske did.

Yes the lady across the street did call the police about the Akita that was barking and running back and forth across the street.. Elsie Tistaert testified that the police told her to call Animal Shelter but the line was busy and she never got through to them. So she .just tried ignoring the noise. She went to bed but after midnight someone was ringing her door bell and that scared her so she called 911. After reporting it she stayed on the line with 911 waiting for someone to arrive when they eventually told her that there was something big going on across the street and they would send one of the officers over to her house. She didn't know that it was Boztep who had been ringing her door bell after he discovered the bodies.

Riske and Terrazas were responding to the 911 call when they were flagged down by Boztep.

February 9, 1995

MS. CLARK: THERE WAS A REPORT OF AN INTERVIEW CONDUCTED ON FEBRUARY 8TH, TURNED OVER TO COUNSEL ON FEBRUARY 8TH. I'M SHOWING A COPY OF THAT TO COUNSEL NOW CONCERNING THE TESTIMONY -- PROPOSED TESTIMONY OF OFFICER BENJAMIN JONES. HE WAS THE OFFICER WHO WAS ON PATROL THE NIGHT THAT STEVE SCHWAB GOT THE DOG, FOUND NICOLE'S DOG AND CALLED ANIMAL SHELTER FOR HIM. WE HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY HIM. HE CAME FORWARD WHEN HE HEARD ABOUT THE INCIDENT TESTIFIED TO BY STEVEN SCHWAB, REALIZING THAT IT WAS HIM. WE HAVE THE POLICE REPORT AND IT HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO COUNSEL AND WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL HIM AS A WITNESS AT THE CONCLUSION OF OFFICER RISKE'S TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: WE WILL ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE REPORT AND THEN WE WILL TAKE IT UP AT THAT TIME.
MR. COCHRAN: YES.
MS. CLARK: WELL, IT WAS FAXED TO COUNSEL YESTERDAY, SO THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN COPY.
MR. COCHRAN: WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT, BUT YOUR HONOR, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY -- I AM CONFUSED.
THIS WAS AN OFFICER WHO DID THIS ON JUNE 12, 1994, AND WE ARE GETTING A REPORT
YESTERDAY. WE WILL TAKE IT UP AFTERWARDS. LET'S RESUME WITH CROSS-EXAMINATION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: OKAY. CAN I HAVE MY COPY BACK?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?
MS. CLARK: THAT IS IT, YOUR HONOR.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Simpson's defense team may have or may not have known about these telephone records. However, they still had to follow their client's wishes. Mr. Simpson would not budge from this, he refused to let Sydney take the stand.

At that time of the prelim hearing, maybe those were the only phone calls available at the time. However, what do Nicole's records say? They could have shown the Browns' phone records every single day, however, it doesn't mean that no one made a call to or from Nicole's home after you say she was dead.

Very simple logic, a phone call from Nicole to her mother would not show up on her Parent's telephone bill.


limakey, do you have any idea what Big Ben is claiming?
;
It sure sounds like you don't by your comments.

The prosecution obtained the Brown's telephone records during the preliminary hearing and presented them in open court. They turned them over to Simpson's attorneys to examine and check out. In the preliminary hearing and then in the criminal trial Simpson's attorneys made and accepted several stipulations regarding these telephone records. They knew what calls were on them and what time those calls were made that's why they agreed to those stipulations.

After learning of his daughter's death Lou Brown was interviewed by the coroner investigator Claudine Ratcliffe. Lou Brown told Ratcliffe that his wife last talked to Nicole about 11:00 PM when she called Nicole telling her about her eyeglasses that were found at the restaurant. Lou Brown was mistaken about the 11:00 time.

Karen Crawford testified in the grand jury that Juditha Brown called her about the missing eyeglasses between 9:30 and 9:45 PM. She testified she found the eyeglasses in the street in front of the restaurant. She said Juditha Brown told her that Nicole would pick them up. Crawford testified that about five minutes after that telephone call Nicole called about the eyeglasses and asked to speak to Ron Goldman. Before Ron left work about ten minutes to 10: 00 PM he asked Crawford for the eyeglasses telling her he was going to drop them off at Nicole's.

When the prosecutors obtained the Brown's telephone records from GTE they showed she had called the Mezzaluna Restaurant at 9:37 PM and then called Nicole at 9:40 PM. That was the last time she ever spoke with Nicole. Juditha Brown testified to those facts as well as starting their drive back home at 8:30 PM. Both Shapiro and Cochran stipulated that those times were accurate. Judge Ito told the jury that when the attorneys agree to to a certain fact they are to accept that as evidence in this case.

Big Ben believes that the time of 11:00 PM was the real time that Juditha Brown called and spoke with Nicole and the Juditha and every other witness who testified about this all lied. He claims it was all a conspiracy by the prosecutors, Simpson attorneys, the judge, GTE, and all of the witnesses and it proves Simpson innocent because he was, as Big Ben claims, in the limousine going to the airport at 11:00 PM.

Got it?

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, no it's supported speculation. The blood and fiber evidence found on one of the gloves points to Simpson wearing the gloves.

bobaugust

bob
fiber from a non existant piece of clothing.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


And, what does that mean? He was comparing to a video tape. Of course he couldn't say for sure. But, he made a professional educated opinion. They looked the same and they fit small. Exactly as the gloves that they did have. And, why couldn't Simpson produce those and put the issue to rest?

Even the jurors weren't fooled by Simpson :rolleyes:


The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody."

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/evidence/glove/ojglove9.jpg

tazzy hi
don't you think a video shot can be stopped for examination
martin ii

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Big Ben
My god, someone told me you folks were over here. As an investigator in the Simpson matter and one of the producers of the documentary "Serpents Rising: An Independent Investigation of the OJ Simpson Murder Trial" many comments I've read here are extraordinary, in light of what we've actually uncovered, to say the least. I'll give you one for instance: Many of you have discussed the infamous Bruno Magli shoes that supposedly made the bloody prints at the murder site. Anyone, make your case about placing OJ in them at the murder site...........

You know, this reminds me of what I was talking about with George Clooney, when we woke up in bed this morning. I said, "George, my great big bundle of lovin', people make all sorts of unbelievable claims from the anonymity of the Internet. And, by the way, I can't wait until we release our new video, 'Eros Rising: The True Story of the Passions of barskin and George.'"

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
fiber from a non existant piece of clothing.
martin II


martin II, fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt. Fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's jeans, 1 unusual x-shaped fiber consistent with the Bronco carpeting, and the same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on Simpson's socks.

bobaugust

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Big Ben


You got to look beyond OJ, ...V! Many experiments and exercises were begun on a preliminary basis. Forget about personalizing it in regard to O.J. Just think about the valuable information that mad scientists have learned about certain reactions of the American public's psyche when and if confronted with a perceived extreme outrage. The OJ matter may have ultimately been a calculated primer for a subsequent major event.

:lol: You're a cuckoo, Ben! Don't ever change, babe. I mean it.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by barskin&co.


You know, this reminds me of what I was talking about with George Clooney, when we woke up in bed this morning. I said, "George, my great big bundle of lovin', people make all sorts of unbelievable claims from the anonymity of the Internet. And, by the way, I can't wait until we release our new video, 'Eros Rising: The True Story of the Passions of barskin and George.'" LOL -- thanks for the laugh!

[limakey]

Kate,

I think there is a huge misconception regarding the police's conduct during the Simpson case. First and foremost, no one has a problem with OJ Simpson being the prime suspect in this case. Those officers had every reason to believe that he was somehow involved in this and from what, IMO, they knew early on, OJ's departure to Chicago was just a tad too pat for them.

There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that those officers as well as the four lead detectives believed that OJ Simpson was the killer. They had too much on their side not to have this feeling.

However, you have to remember that the LAPD and the DA's laid all their cards on the media's table before the prelim hearing was even started. How can the DA of LA make a second round of television interviews explaining all of his misinformation? How do you go back and say, "well, it has come to our attention that evidence was missed at the crime scenes and it appears that Mr. Simpson may have had an accomplice?"

Were they out to get OJ Simpson, IMO, no, I think they were out to get the person who they believed murdered Ron and Nicole and when key evidence was a total no show, when the glove detective had more baggage then the LA airport, they knew they were in trouble.

I don't believe Vanatter, Philips and Lange had any other motive then getting the guy they believed did it. I'm sure that if you sat down with any experienced, hardened detective they will all tell the same story, that rage, murder, greed, hate, lust is pretty much equal across the board. A cop from a huge city like LA and NYC will also tell you that a person's fame and wealth doesn't make them more then a human being, above committing any crime. Which is why I find the excuse given to police that they were "star struck" is very, very lame. Sure, no one wants to believe a famous person could almost cut off the head of their ex, but do we really want to believe that even a poor person could do the same? Aren't you just as sickened by child abuse in rich families as you are in poor families? Different weapons maybe used, the results are always the same. IMO.

[weepy willa]

I'M still trying to figure out after the gloves had been tested for blood,why did they give JACK THE RIPPER/O.J. rubber gloves before he tried on the leather ones?.:shrug:

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey
Which is why I find the excuse given to police that they were "star struck" is very, very lame.

How do you find that lame? Police officers are notorious for not giving tickets to celebrities because of their status.

Kate

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Well, we don't know where he was for several hours. So, I can't answer where he was "running" to. But, I do know that he was a fugitive. I don't care what word you want to use. He left the house and fled from turning himself in.

I'm using your words, filled with your own exuberance. He "ran", that's what you said.

When I saw him he must have been headed for the border of Canada, doing 40 MPH with 9 or 10 police cars doing 35 MPH behind him, because he was going north on the I-405.

Just try to make your point, without the hyperbole. You're not talking to a society that didn't have access to a visual media, we all saw the Bronco "chase" or whatever you want to call it.

O.J. in my opinion was simply another Hollywood celebrity like most of the others that have been used to special treatment in regard to turning themselves in to the Law. This isn't the first time, California laws were made to protect the investment of movie producers and their star/celebrities .

That is why GTE (California) could use an obscure California law that GTE (Texas) was unaware of to protect the Brown's phone records from being subpoenaed from the San Angelo, TX archive dept. of GTE, Inc. A law virtually unheard of in any other state in the U.S. So Simpson wasn't getting anything different than many other
celebrities who have gotten into trouble in Southern California, especially.

[martin II]

Originally posted by weepy willa
I'M still trying to figure out after the gloves had been tested for blood,why did they give JACK THE RIPPER/O.J. rubber gloves before he tried on the leather ones?.:shrug:

willa
i think for some reason the defense and the prosecution agreed that this was the way to do it. The judge had to agree.

martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben
[B]



O.J. in my opinion was simply another Hollywood celebrity like most of the others that have been used to special treatment in regard to turning themselves in to the Law. This isn't the first time, California laws were made to protect the investment of movie producers and their star/celebrities .




Big Ben, as I posted before, Schiller wrote Simpson left Kardashian's house before the police arrived to arrest him. Cowlings was driving Simpson to the Bel Air Church so to he could kill himself there.

Most hollywood celebrities who may avoid turning themselves in are not being arrested for murder.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by weepy willa
I'M still trying to figure out after the gloves had been tested for blood,why did they give JACK THE RIPPER/O.J. rubber gloves before he tried on the leather ones?.:shrug:

That would indicate that the prosecution was not sure of their own results or that they suspected that Simpson may have contacted a disease, which they had not tested for, from the gloves. Either way it suggests a weakeness in their case, imho.

[martin II]

Originally posted by William Anthony


That would indicate that the prosecution was not sure of their own results or that they suspected that Simpson may have contacted a disease, which they had not tested for, from the gloves. Either way it suggests a weakeness in their case, imho.

william
If memory serves me correctly i think the prosecution did not want to chance that the gloves would be contaminated during the demo. imo

However with those xx large MITS on the end of ojs wrist, those gloves would not have fit even if Darden had greased ojs hands first.

anyone that can palm a football would never be able to fit some regular dress gloves.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


That would indicate that the prosecution was not sure of their own results or that they suspected that Simpson may have contacted a disease, which they had not tested for, from the gloves. Either way it suggests a weakeness in their case, imho.


Wrong. The reason that Simpson wore latex gloves was that Cochran demanded it as part of his agreement to let Simpson put the murder gloves on.

June 15, 1995
MR. COCHRAN: Well, the only problem is that I wouldn't want--he would have to have gloves on underneath--I mean try the gloves on without the rubber gloves, that he use the latex gloves we used. And I'd like to approach--we'd like to approach. We have one other item I would like to put on the record.

THE COURT: Sure. Don't go away, Mr. Rubin.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this, I think that this is an inappropriate time for it. I think it's inappropriate at this point. My client has no objection basically, but the problem is, he doesn't want to do it with the TV cameras trained on him, all that sort of thing. I think that--I'm not sure how I want to phrase this objection. First of all, I don't want him to have to do it without having latex gloves on, and I think the evidence is such that I would like to ask more questions of this witness. This witness says he thinks anything from a medium to extra large is going to fit him. That will be helpful to us.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, as I posted before, Schiller wrote Simpson left Kardashian's house before the police arrived to arrest him. Cowlings was driving Simpson to the Bel Air Church so to he could kill himself there.

Most hollywood celebrities who may avoid turning themselves in are not being arrested for murder.

bobaugust

bob
again, they left Kardashians house and headed to nicoles grave but ran into the police at the site so they retreated and were driving around when someone heard the news and notified the cops that the bronco was on that highway linned with people yelling go oj -go oj -go oj
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
again, they left Kardashians house and headed to nicoles grave but ran into the police at the site so they retreated and were driving around when someone heard the news and notified the cops that the bronco was on that highway linned with people yelling go oj -go oj -go oj
martin II


martin II, I see you know more about this than Kardasian knew, right?

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Big Ben/Bob,

I have been travelling the past few weeks and have not had time to post. I had read the discussion between you concerning the size of the BM footprints at Bundy. If I recall, Ben had taken the position that the shoes were not size 12 because the whole footprint left on the walk was smaller. Ben apparantly did not understand that the shoe size was not ultimately determined by the total length of the shoe print in blood left behind by the person donning the shoes.

The size was determined by measuring the pattern on the bottom of the shoe. All sizes of the Silga sole had the same exact pattern. The only difference was the aspect ratio of the pattern, or the distance between the parallel lines in the pattern. The measurement between the lines of the pattern are different for each size and the pattern of the bloody footprint matched the Silga sole in size 12 (43 if you prefer). The overall length of the bloody footprint had nothing to do with determining the exact shoe size in the end.

The bloody footprints at Bundy were left by a Bruno Magli, American size 12, of which the percentages tell us were statistically in favor of being worn by OJ Simpson.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Wukong
Big Ben/Bob,

I have been travelling the past few weeks and have not had time to post. I had read the discussion between you concerning the size of the BM footprints at Bundy. If I recall, Ben had taken the position that the shoes were not size 12 because the whole footprint left on the walk was smaller. Ben apparantly did not understand that the shoe size was not ultimately determined by the total length of the shoe print in blood left behind by the person donning the shoes.

The size was determined by measuring the pattern on the bottom of the shoe. All sizes of the Silga sole had the same exact pattern. The only difference was the aspect ratio of the pattern, or the distance between the parallel lines in the pattern. The measurement between the lines of the pattern are different for each size and the pattern of the bloody footprint matched the Silga sole in size 12 (43 if you prefer). The overall length of the bloody footprint had nothing to do with determining the exact shoe size in the end.

The bloody footprints at Bundy were left by a Bruno Magli, American size 12, of which the percentages tell us were statistically in favor of being worn by OJ Simpson.


Wukong, thanks, I also posted Bodziak's testimony where he explained how he determined the size of the shoes using patterns over the impressions. Bodziak also explained how the heels are distinctly different and no other heel in the other sizes could have made that impression.

The only other poster I ever heard make that same argument of measuring a partial imprint by comparing it to the size of the tiles the impression was photographed on was our old buddy Prien. Prien also argued the fictitious 11:00 PM telephone call. I don't believe that Big Ben is Prien since Big Ben is far more articulate than Prien, but I wonder which one of these geniuses was the originator of the partial shoe print theory that they both think proves Simpson couldn't have left them. My money is on Prien.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob

did you see the Geraldo interview of Furhman last night on Fox.
Saturday 18th?

Furhman went after Vanhatter and Lang pretty hard and they slammed him right back.imo

martin II

[martin II]

bob

Vanhatter said that Furhmans NOTES made at the crime scene
showed his lack of knowledge and experience about murder cases/this case. The contents were useless and all over the place.
according to Lang/vanhatter. imo

martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

bob
again, they left Kardashians house and headed to nicoles grave but ran into the police at the site so they retreated and were driving around when someone heard the news and notified the cops that the bronco was on that highway linned with people yelling go oj -go oj -go oj
martin II
Yeah, sure. If that's the case, then why...

"In the Ford Bronco, detectives had found a travel bag containing among other things, Simpson's passport, a disguise kit consisting of a fake moustache and beard and a .357 magnum revolver. Cowling was also found to be carrying $8,000 in cash, which had been given to him by Simpson..."
Pretty incriminating stuff to me, but that's...

JMO and MOO!!

[StarShine]

What was the name of the criminologist who originally measured those gloves right after the murder? I have the transcripts somewhere on my computer but it would take my too long to find that part of the transcript. She testified as to the measurements of the gloves and amazingly they were actually measured smaller than they were on the day of the demonstration in court.

So I gather they didn't shrink but actually got bigger.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Wrong. The reason that Simpson wore latex gloves was that Cochran demanded it as part of his agreement to let Simpson put the murder gloves on.

June 15, 1995
MR. COCHRAN: Well, the only problem is that I wouldn't want--he would have to have gloves on underneath--I mean try the gloves on without the rubber gloves, that he use the latex gloves we used. And I'd like to approach--we'd like to approach. We have one other item I would like to put on the record.

THE COURT: Sure. Don't go away, Mr. Rubin.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this, I think that this is an inappropriate time for it. I think it's inappropriate at this point. My client has no objection basically, but the problem is, he doesn't want to do it with the TV cameras trained on him, all that sort of thing. I think that--I'm not sure how I want to phrase this objection. First of all, I don't want him to have to do it without having latex gloves on, and I think the evidence is such that I would like to ask more questions of this witness. This witness says he thinks anything from a medium to extra large is going to fit him. That will be helpful to us.

bobaugust

The prosecution was able to object to the use of laytex, if they were sure that there was no communicable disease in the blood or that the glove definitively belonged to Simpson. The fact that they did not object suggests that they were on a fishing expedition, which, in the view of the majority of reasonable thinking people I have spoken with, backfired.

[martin II]

Originally posted by StarShine
What was the name of the criminologist who originally measured those gloves right after the murder? I have the transcripts somewhere on my computer but it would take my too long to find that part of the transcript. She testified as to the measurements of the gloves and amazingly they were actually measured smaller than they were on the day of the demonstration in court.

So I gather they didn't shrink but actually got bigger.

starshine

i will look. could it be Mazzola (sp)

martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


The prosecution was able to object to the use of laytex, if they were sure that there was no communicable disease in the blood or that the glove definitively belonged to Simpson. The fact that they did not object suggests that they were on a fishing expedition, which, in the view of the majority of reasonable thinking people I have spoken with, backfired.


I see, first you imagine what the prosecutors may have been thinking and then you attempt to tell us what you think it means.

It's no wonder you're so confused. Funny.

bobaugust

[Zold1]

Originally posted by Wukong
[B]

The problem is that only the Bruno Magli with the Silga sole was sold in the United States. Lord sold shoes mainly in Europe, none in the U.S. Only 40 store in the U.S. carried the Bruno Magli and each store typically had only one pair of Bruno Magli with American size 12 Lasts with the size 46 Silga sole. Obviously this is not a very common shoe. But it seems OJ owned a pair, go figure. There was a photograph of him wearing them in a Bills publication 6 months before the murders.

But as you so succinctly pointed out, I can not put OJ in those shoes with 100% certainty. But then again, you can't put anyone else in them either. What I can't figure out is how these rare shoes just happened to be owned by both OJ and the "Killer". What are the odds?

It was proven that Nicole often gave OJ's clothing and shoes to Charity, Wukong. It was very interesting that one of those receipients was a guy named Mark Furhman (No relation to THE Mark Furhman). Hollywood is a small world, eh? Who knows where clothing of the stars and celebrities go. They certainly don't hang onto them until thread bare. In fact after looking at the shoe prints it appears to me that someone with a very large foot tried to wear those shoes that were running over. "Foot too fat for shoe." or...shoe was broken down and running over. JMO
but I don't think the shoes prove anything. OJ most likely was not in them.

[quote] I can not put OJ in those shoes with 100% certainty. [/COLOR]

I agree.

[StarShine]

Originally posted by martin II


starshine

i will look. could it be Mazzola (sp)

martin II

It was Susan Brockbank. Thanks for looking anyway. I am reading her testimony now.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



I see, first you imagine what the prosecutors may have been thinking and then you attempt to tell us what you think it means.

It's no wonder you're so confused. Funny.

bobaugust

Bob

Why did the prosecutions office put Darden up to requesting this demonstration from OJ if they did not know that the gloves would
fit without any problem. They should have been sure of the outcome before sticking Darden out there on that stick.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

did you see the Geraldo interview of Furhman last night on Fox.
Saturday 18th?

Furhman went after Vanhatter and Lang pretty hard and they slammed him right back.imo

martin II


martin II, I only saw a small portion of that program, the part where Fuhrman said he believes there was a conspiracy in this case. A conspiracy for some reason to keep Brad Roberts from testifying.

bobaugust

[Zold1]

Originally posted by Big Ben
I'm not talking about partial prints, the prints that were on the sidewalk tiles at 875 So. Bundy, were apparently adequate enough to allow those that you consider to be so up-right to claim that they were size 12. There were several heel to toe prints on the way to the back gate, and a few fit neatly inside the 11 and-a-half by 11 and-a-half inch square sidewalk tiles. I've seen Simpson's appendages and I can assure you his foot even without the aid of a tennis shoe will not fit inside those tiles. I think that it is highly disengenuous of you to attempt to downplay the evidence that the FBI agent himself states in his book. If he had honestly presented that info at trial about 19 different U2887 possibilities, it would have plundered the prosecution's case. Even the L.A. Times treated the assertion of the discovered 19 shoe brands more seriously than you are, so stop your subjective rambling about something some of these charlatans have said under oath. Give me that much, and I'll be fair and give you a gold star when you make an uncontestable point......... [/B]

Oh gosh yes. Thank you for reminding me. I saw those footprints inside those tiles also. No way was that OJ's footprint.

[Zold1]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Wukong, question: There aren't that many lakes in Southern California. The State of California is a different matter (of course), but if we knew where Rocky was camping, we could pinpoint the lake pretty easy.

If Mario "has evidence that Rocky threw a bag containing evidence into a lake the day after the murders," why didn't he alert the LAPD, who I am sure would have dredged the lake to find this extremely important evidence? I don't know Mario from Adam, but this important information seems like a bombshell to me and I am pretty skeptical that something wasn't done about it. :shrug:

Also, if AC's girlfriend told her that "evidence was sitting at the bottom of a lake," why wasn't he interrogated by the LAPD? And why was he allowed to go on his merry way without so much as being charged as an "accessory to murder, double-murder?" :shrug:

JMO and MOO!!

What would be difficult in researching that? Since AC's girlfriend was busted in Dunsmuir, it seems feasible the bag would have been thrown into Shasta Lake in Northern California. Wow. The lake is HUGE! The only thing she had on her was prescription pills issued to OJ Simpson. Anyone could have stolen them from his medicine cabinet, including the moocher guy Kato Kailen.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Zold1


It was proven that Nicole often gave OJ's clothing and shoes to Charity, Wukong. It was very interesting that one of those receipients was a guy named Mark Furhman (No relation to THE Mark Furhman). Hollywood is a small world, eh? Who knows where clothing of the stars and celebrities go. They certainly don't hang onto them until thread bare. In fact after looking at the shoe prints it appears to me that someone with a very large foot tried to wear those shoes that were running over. "Foot too fat for shoe." or...shoe was broken down and running over. JMO
but I don't think the shoes prove anything. OJ most likely was not in them.

[quote] I can not put OJ in those shoes with 100% certainty. [/COLOR]

I agree.


Zold1, it wasn't Nicole who gave Simpson's clothing away, it was Simpson. The Fuhrman he was talking about was a door man at his New York apartment.

It was proved in the civil trial that Simpson owned the a pair of the exact same size and kind of shoes that left the shoe prints at Bundy.

bobaugust

[Zold1]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


:lol: Hysterical!

:beer: Excellent Diva!

What size shoe does Jason wear?

[Zold1]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, no not very possible at all.

The reality is that all of the evidence tells us there were only three people at Bundy that night, the two victims and Simpson. There is no relevant physical evidence that points to anyone else.

The fact is that Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes are consistent with making those bloody shoe prints. We know that Simpson wore those exact size and make shoes. The fact that Simpson lied under oath about wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes he was shown wearing in a photograph and was then impeached by thirty additional authenticated photographs confirms his guilt.

bobaugust

What?! :eek: Well that's that I guess. No evidence required. LOL!

[Zold1]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, do you see the word "proof" anywhere in my post?

I said all of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. Nothing points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates Simpson.

If you think you know of some relevant physical evidence that points to someone other than Simpson then by all means inform us.

bobaugust

Wow! I am flabberghasted. After nine months of being shut up in little hotel rooms, forced to listen to every iota of evidence up close and personal, looking at the blood and guts of the case and only YOU know the truth. What about the jurors who said this case reeks of untruthful b.s. The JURY eliminated Simpson. Sorry you didn't get paid.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


Bob

Why did the prosecutions office put Darden up to requesting this demonstration from OJ if they did not know that the gloves would
fit without any problem. They should have been sure of the outcome before sticking Darden out there on that stick.
martin II


martin II, the prosecutors office had nothing to do with it.

Clark wrote about this in her book. She knew that the defense would probably ask for Simpson to wear a pair of latex gloves underneath. Since the AIDS crisis, anything bloodstained required protection. She believed latex would screw the fit up so they had asked Aris to send them duplicates of their Airs Leather Lights, extra large, just like the ones found at the crime scene to try on Simpson when the time was right.

Rubin was Darden's witness and Clark didn't know until that morning that Rubin was going to testify. She asked Darden where the duplicate gloves were, but he didn't know. So she started asking others and was told they were on the way to the court. The box arrived and Darden told the court he wanted to question Rubin first to establish that the new gloves were the exact same size, make, and model as the killer's gloves.

When Darden took the gloves out of the box and showed them to Rubin, Rubin said they were Aris gloves but not Aris Light gloves. Darden had never checked them out ahead of time but he still wanted to go ahead and let Simpson try on the actual murder gloves. Clark argued with him saying that the Latex would will screw the fit up and they can't do this. She told him lets wait and do it when they get the right gloves. Darden insisted they go ahead..

Clark kept arguing, "Don't do it. This is a trap!" Darden wouldn't listen saying, "This is my witness, and I say we have to put them on him now before they do."

Cochran of course had no objection but laid down his terms that Simpson wear latex gloves.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Zold1


Wow! I am flabberghasted. After nine months of being shut up in little hotel rooms, forced to listen to every iota of evidence up close and personal, looking at the blood and guts of the case and only YOU know the truth. What about the jurors who said this case reeks of untruthful b.s. The JURY eliminated Simpson. Sorry you didn't get paid.


Zold1, I wasn't speaking about the jurors, I was addressing the evidence.

Every single piece of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson. Nothing points to anyone else. There isn't one single shred of legitimate evidence that eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Zold1


What?! :eek: Well that's that I guess. No evidence required. LOL!


Zold1, the over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers of Simpson at the same football game nine months before the murders is the evidence Simpson owned the exact size and style shoes that are consistent with leaving the bloody shoe prints.

One of those photographs was published in a monthly publication seven months before the murders.

bobaugust

[Zold1]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Zold1, I wasn't speaking about the jurors, I was addressing the evidence.

Every single piece of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson. Nothing points to anyone else. There isn't one single shred of legitimate evidence that eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

I wasn't aware they had investigated anyone else, Bob. Heading for Rockingham and climbing the fence led me to believe they already had it figured out by the time they got there. I surely wish that bloody fingerprint on the back gate had not been supressed, don't you?

[Zold1]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Zold1, the over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers of Simpson at the same football game nine months before the murders is the evidence Simpson owned the exact size and style shoes that are consistent with leaving the bloody shoe prints.

One of those photographs was published in a monthly publication seven months before the murders.

bobaugust

Irregardless I think too much time was spent talking about shoes and boy scout knives. They are irrelevant unless you can put the man at the scene of the crime with a boy scout knife in his hand. They couldn't do that and they couldn't prove OJ did anything to anyone. Nicole had way too much baggage and lived a dangerous life which included a new boyfriend that even Faye Resnick could not name. The threats Nicole received and the secrecy of the stalker that Mark Furhman and Vanatter investigated prior to the homicides were such a secret that to this day no one knows who the stalker was.

There was more left UNSAID about this case than the foolish crap presented by Clark and Darden. Ichabod.

[StarShine]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Zold1, the over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers of Simpson at the same football game nine months before the murders is the evidence Simpson owned the exact size and style shoes that are consistent with leaving the bloody shoe prints.

One of those photographs was published in a monthly publication seven months before the murders.

bobaugust

Were they the only Bruno Maglis ever purchased in that size? And where was it established that the shoes were purchased by OJ?

And how does one decide the size of shoes from a picture?:confused:

And why didn't the prosecution use those photos in the criminal trial since they obviously were aware of their existence?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by StarShine


Were they the only Bruno Maglis ever purchased in that size? And where was it established that the shoes were purchased by OJ?

And how does one decide the size of shoes from a picture?:confused:

And why didn't the prosecution use those photos in the criminal trial since they obviously were aware of their existence?


StarShine, the prosecution was not aware of those photographs in the criminal trial.

Triumph of Justice,
"Scull had taken a marvelous picture of Simpson. In a phenomenal stroke of good luck for us and rotten luck for Simpson the print in the end zone reflected up from the ground and revealed the pattern on the sole of the right shoe. After receiving permission from the FBI we gave the print to Bill Bodziak. Using high resolution photography
techniques Bodziak was able to blow up the photo and actually see the Silga sole treads, the same pattern as the bloody shoeprints leading down the footpath away from Nicole's and Ron's bodies.

Bodziak explained how he used eighteen points of comparison between the shoe in that photograph and a Bruno Magli exemplar and found them to be exactly the same."

Bodziak didn't determine the size of the shoes from the photograph. It was determined Simpson wore size 12 shoes by Simpson's other shoes. as well as the shoe salesman who sold Simpson shoes.

bobaugust

[Zold1]

*snip*
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. [/B]

OMG, this just :flamemad: me off. I screamed for years about the way Rampart conducted themselves. We've discussed it for years and when the Feds finally called a Ricco I was relieved. Mark Furhman knows more than he has opened up to state and Vanatter and Phillips have some "splaining" to do. They are busy putting Furhman down as a "greenhorn." Wet behind the ears, snot nosed know nothing. They will rue the day they didn't let him in. His partner Brad Roberts is really yet to be heard from. He's allegedly the one who "found" all of the evidence Phillips and Vanatter say they found, cutting out the peons. After all they were big dick(s). Even in retirement Chief Gates held some clout over the "good ole boys" and MF toed the line, backing down on his heated rhetoric on CNN.

Most Interesting.

I believe the statements of Rampart being there means they hung out at OJ's residence from time to time, and one of them took home a blonde to the suana or swimming pool. He was the alcoholic friend who now works real estate and prior to either was a guard for Rockingham and Bundy? and still had his buddies at the Security Service place he had worked, and whom responded with a key to OJS gate at Rockingham. Not that gates stop Rampart. Over the fence and through the estate to find the turkey there (Mr. Kato Kailen). Sharp eyes and keen investigative skills (LOL) located a teeny spot of blood on the inside of the Bronco and a "glove" behind Kato's hacienda. Thus the famous
THUMP THUMP THUMP. :rolleyes:

[StarShine]

Originally posted by bobaugust



StarShine, the prosecution was not aware of those photographs in the criminal trial.

Triumph of Justice,
"Scull had taken a marvelous picture of Simpson. In a phenomenal stroke of good luck for us and rotten luck for Simpson the print in the end zone reflected up from the ground and revealed the pattern on the sole of the right shoe. After receiving permission from the FBI we gave the print to Bill Bodziak. Using high resolution photography
techniques Bodziak was able to blow up the photo and actually see the Silga sole treads, the same pattern as the bloody shoeprints leading down the footpath away from Nicole's and Ron's bodies.

Bodziak explained how he used eighteen points of comparison between the shoe in that photograph and a Bruno Magli exemplar and found them to be exactly the same."

Bodziak didn't determine the size of the shoes from the photograph. It was determined Simpson wore size 12 shoes by Simpson's other shoes. as well as the shoe salesman who sold Simpson shoes.

bobaugust

If the shoe salesman sold Simpson shoes, how come he didn't testify to selling him those "ugly *****ed shoes"? Or did he testify in the Civil