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 trial?

As far as the prosecution not knowing about those pictures, I don't believe it. The NE was approached during the "criminal trial" with those pictures and refused to buy them. What about the camera that allegedly took those pictures being conveniently "stolen"? And why were the pictures shipped to England?

[Zold1]

Originally posted by martin II


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

Yes, and Nicole had been invited to get out of the house and stay with another "friend" to which she declined. There was something coming down and the "friend" was aware of it. I'm trying to remember if that was Cora or Kardashien's ex-wife. There was brief testimony on that in deposition I believe by Cora. Cora is the one who impressed on my mind what a dangerous life Nicole was living with Fay while they were trolling the neighborhood issuing Hollywood Hello's. There was also the prior boyfriend from Mezzaluna whom OJ caught through the open window of Nic's residence and again in the swimming pool cabana, while the kids were swimming without adult supervision. I'm positive I would have been a worse reactive, particularly since he had already lost a child to drowning. I'm not sure how OJS got to be the dirty bad guy while all these people planning and scamming and picking his pockets, hung out like flies, including Heidie Fleiss, later to hiss like snakes losing their worm holes.
Mother in law and Father in law hanging on with hands outstretched and taking taking taking, to turn against him when the chips were down. Who didn't discriminate when it cost $10,000 a month to care for the children while he was incarcerated though. Fighting tooth and toe nail to maintain the custody, never a bad word from OJ about his experience in plucking his children from their clutches. No bad word while the Judge deemed the children not to be around Denise Brown and very questionable regarding Lou Brown's dealings. Lotza unanswered questions that will always remain so until the "children" start demanding answers.

Ignored is the limo that pulled up and had Nicole hanging on some unidentified individual, with her in a white bathrobe according to witnesses- while body guards stood around. (Marcus Allen leaving town?) Ignored are the skate boarders who stated there were people peering into Nicoles residence through the fence.

I hate it that I'm starting to remember all the salacious details I had forgotten. All while I am to understand Rampart officers are running brothels downtown. Give me a break. I will be surprised if GollyWood Town and surrounding area doesn't break off and fall into the ocean from the evil hoards of filthy lucre that drives the cogs and turns the wheels who run the town.

[Zold1]

Originally posted by StarShine


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 trial?

As far as the prosecution not knowing about those pictures, I don't believe it. The NE was approached during the "criminal trial" with those pictures and refused to buy them. What about the camera that allegedly took those pictures being conveniently "stolen"? And why were the pictures shipped to England?

Yes, StarShine. All of the alleged gotcha photo's were shipped to England. If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, it just may be a quacker.

[Zold1]

Originally posted by bobaugust



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

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

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

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

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

bobaugust.

Thank you. And where might I find the telephone records from OJS home; Nicole Brown Simpson's home; and the calls made from the rehab center by Faye Resnick... which would have permanently established the time for Nicole Brown Simpson. I'm sure since Ron Goldman was meeting friends out of town that evening he would have went home from Mezzaluna and took a shower, changed his clothing and that would have taken some time. He borrows a girl friends car and drives it to Nicoles, planning to get with his friends later. Poor Ron Goldman was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I have no doubt he was a nice guy doing chores for a celebrity's wife with stars in his eyes. He did not plan to be a waiter forever, only until he was discovered. :cool:

[Zold1]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I was simply pointing out that big ben's exhaustive investigation seemed to fall a little short.

I don't know about that, Wheezer. I don't think Mr. Ben is telling us everything he knows. It looks to me like he has spent a great deal of time and effort to indulge some details which make sense. We should always maintain an open mind. I enjoy reading all of your posts. There has been a lot of confusing rhetoric interjected in the media and people with broad agenda's or something to hide like to confuse the issues.

I can hardly wait to discover the true killer or killers and in no way do I believe it was OJ Simpson. He's now offered himself up to be another ball to kick and I hope they kick up some dirt while they are falling over the goal posts.

[Zold1]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, try to control yourself.

It doesn't matter what the exhibit manifest says. The prosecution exhibit that was entered into evidence in the criminal trial during Karen Crawford's testimony is an enlarged copy of the Brown's actual telephone bill. It shows the long distance calls by time and telephone numbers made on the night of the murders.

Karen Crawford originally estimated the time that Juditha and Nicole called the restaurant when she testified in the grand jury and the preliminary hearing. The Brown's telephone records confirm and document her estimated times. In the criminal trial during her testimony Shapiro offered a stipulation that the records shown on the prosecution exhibit were accurate and depict the time the call came into the restaurant. From that point on Juditha's call to the Mezzaluna restaurant that she made from her house as soon as she arrived home from the restaurant was always referred to by it's documented time, 9:37 PM.

That's reality. Your claims are pure fantasy.

If there was any question as to the authenticity of the records Simpson's defense would have raised them. Cochran and company were not as stupid as you seem to think they were and neither were Baker and company. The jury didn't have to be given the telephone records. They were instructed by the court and rightly so that in a situation where the attorneys stipulate and agree to a certain fact, they were to accept that as evidence in the case.

By the way the link you posted doesn't work.

bobaugust

If I recall those telephone records I saw, they was a handwritten entry over top of the record that I submit was tampered with by some overzealous prosecutor, or someone else with something to hide. I'm going to go and re-examine that site you offered.

[StarShine]

Okay I found it. June 28, 1995 testimony by Susan Brodrick.

"MR. BLASIER: The evidence gloves just a couple days ago were the same size approximately as they were a year ago, correct?

MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, there was a little bit of variation. Right glove was actually a little bit bigger--the Rockingham glove was a little bit bigger than it was a year ago, correct?

MS. BROCKBANK: Yes."

So I gather that they didn't shrink.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by StarShine


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 trial?

As far as the prosecution not knowing about those pictures, I don't believe it. The NE was approached during the "criminal trial" with those pictures and refused to buy them. What about the camera that allegedly took those pictures being conveniently "stolen"? And why were the pictures shipped to England?


Star Shine, the shoe salesman from Bloomingdales did not say he sold Simpson the Bruno Maglis. He only testified to what size Bruno Magli's Simpson would have worn.

June 20, 1995 Mark Poser

MR. GOLDBERG: And over this period of time that you say that the shoes were generally dress casual shoes?
MR. Poser: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What size did the Defendant take?
MR. Poser: Size 12.
**
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you had sold the Defendant--if you had--if the Defendant had wanted to purchase Bruno Magli shoes from you, the Lorenzo style, would you have sold him size 12 shoes?
MR. Poser: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And he took size 12 in every shoe that you sold?
MR. Poser: As I recall, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And was it your business to know someone's shoe size when you were selling them shoes?
MR. Poser: Definitely, yes.

The prosecutors didn't know about the any of these photographs at the time of the criminal trial. The Scull photograph became known when it was published in the National Enquirer after the criminal trial was over. An expert from the FBI, Gerald examined the negatives and the photographs and found no evidence of fraud. he determined that the photograph was genuine and authentic.

In the civil trial Simpson and his attorneys called it a fake using a not so every expert. Robert Groden, who testified what methods he used and how he concluded the photograph was altered. Gerald Richards used state of the art instruments and measuring equipment to produce precise measurements proving the reliability of the negative explaining that copy machine enlargements such as the one Groden had made at Kinko's create distortions that render useless all measurements taken from them. Richards gave simple, obvious explanations to all the other fictional abnormalities listed by Groden. The Scull photographs and negatives are authentic.

Later in the civil trial the over thirty Flammer photographs became known. Over thirty photographs taken as the same football game that Scull had taken his photographs. The Flammer photographs and negatives were authenticated and given to Simpson's defense attorneys. Every photograph showed Simpson wearing the exact same clothing and the exact same Bruno Magli shoes that the Scull photographs showed. One of Flammer's photographs was published seven months before the murders. A copy of that publication was entered into evidence.

The Flammer photographs confirmed that the Scull photographs were authentic. The published photographed proved that they were authentic.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Zold1


Yes, and Nicole had been invited to get out of the house and stay with another "friend" to which she declined. There was something coming down and the "friend" was aware of it. I'm trying to remember if that was Cora or Kardashien's ex-wife. There was brief testimony on that in deposition I believe by Cora. Cora is the one who impressed on my mind what a dangerous life Nicole was living with Fay while they were trolling the neighborhood issuing Hollywood Hello's. There was also the prior boyfriend from Mezzaluna whom OJ caught through the open window of Nic's residence and again in the swimming pool cabana, while the kids were swimming without adult supervision. I'm positive I would have been a worse reactive, particularly since he had already lost a child to drowning. I'm not sure how OJS got to be the dirty bad guy while all these people planning and scamming and picking his pockets, hung out like flies, including Heidie Fleiss, later to hiss like snakes losing their worm holes.
Mother in law and Father in law hanging on with hands outstretched and taking taking taking, to turn against him when the chips were down. Who didn't discriminate when it cost $10,000 a month to care for the children while he was incarcerated though. Fighting tooth and toe nail to maintain the custody, never a bad word from OJ about his experience in plucking his children from their clutches. No bad word while the Judge deemed the children not to be around Denise Brown and very questionable regarding Lou Brown's dealings. Lotza unanswered questions that will always remain so until the "children" start demanding answers.

Ignored is the limo that pulled up and had Nicole hanging on some unidentified individual, with her in a white bathrobe according to witnesses- while body guards stood around. (Marcus Allen leaving town?) Ignored are the skate boarders who stated there were people peering into Nicoles residence through the fence.

I hate it that I'm starting to remember all the salacious details I had forgotten. All while I am to understand Rampart officers are running brothels downtown. Give me a break. I will be surprised if GollyWood Town and surrounding area doesn't break off and fall into the ocean from the evil hoards of filthy lucre that drives the cogs and turns the wheels who run the town.


Zold1, it seems you rely on rumors, fabrications and unsupported stories while you evidently aren't very informed about the actual relevant physical evidence that proves Simpson was the killer.

bobaugust

[Ames]

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

Hi, I am a newbie to this board (I am usually found over at the JB boards)....anyway, thanks for posting this. I had forgotten about OJ wearing the latex gloves while trying on the leather gloves during the trial, until I saw a clip on the news last night. It is my opinion that the latex gloves, most definately, would have made putting those leather gloves on...no matter how thin the latex gloves was, it was still an extra layer...that would have made putting the leather gloves on alot harder. I think that Johnny Cochran knew this, too! IMO

[StarShine]

BA, you mentioned fibers matched to OJ in a prior post. Do you really believe OJ put on a sweat suit and then put on expensive Bruno Maglis to complete his so-called "killing outfit".:confused:

[StarShine]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Star Shine, the shoe salesman from Bloomingdales did not say he sold Simpson the Bruno Maglis. He only testified to what size Bruno Magli's Simpson would have worn.

June 20, 1995 Mark Poser

MR. GOLDBERG: And over this period of time that you say that the shoes were generally dress casual shoes?
MR. Poser: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What size did the Defendant take?
MR. Poser: Size 12.
**
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you had sold the Defendant--if you had--if the Defendant had wanted to purchase Bruno Magli shoes from you, the Lorenzo style, would you have sold him size 12 shoes?
MR. Poser: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And he took size 12 in every shoe that you sold?
MR. Poser: As I recall, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And was it your business to know someone's shoe size when you were selling them shoes?
MR. Poser: Definitely, yes.

The prosecutors didn't know about the any of these photographs at the time of the criminal trial. The Scull photograph became known when it was published in the National Enquirer after the criminal trial was over. An expert from the FBI, Gerald examined the negatives and the photographs and found no evidence of fraud. he determined that the photograph was genuine and authentic.

In the civil trial Simpson and his attorneys called it a fake using a not so every expert. Robert Groden, who testified what methods he used and how he concluded the photograph was altered. Gerald Richards used state of the art instruments and measuring equipment to produce precise measurements proving the reliability of the negative explaining that copy machine enlargements such as the one Groden had made at Kinko's create distortions that render useless all measurements taken from them. Richards gave simple, obvious explanations to all the other fictional abnormalities listed by Groden. The Scull photographs and negatives are authentic.

Later in the civil trial the over thirty Flammer photographs became known. Over thirty photographs taken as the same football game that Scull had taken his photographs. The Flammer photographs and negatives were authenticated and given to Simpson's defense attorneys. Every photograph showed Simpson wearing the exact same clothing and the exact same Bruno Magli shoes that the Scull photographs showed. One of Flammer's photographs was published seven months before the murders. A copy of that publication was entered into evidence.

The Flammer photographs confirmed that the Scull photographs were authentic. The published photographed proved that they were authentic.

bobaugust

I believe the prosecution knew about these photos because I believe it was in one of the books written by someone on the prosecution side. I cannot for the life of me remember just who it was but they stated that they didn't introduce it because they couldn't prove that they were the actual shoes that left the footprints. It might have been in Darden's book, but I really don't recall and I am not going back to reading any more books about this case anymore.

[Zold1]

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.

I think everyone is discounting the dog walker Heidstra. I agree that it was briefly BEFORE ELEVEN that Nicole was murdered and Heistra heard the loud noises and slaming of the gate while he was standing in the alleyway. He went on home and observed cars not car fleeing the area with people going different ways. There was a jacket hanging on the kitchen chair, not Nicole's and sheer speculation of who that belonged to, that possibly someone else was there hiding in the closet. That is only an unsubstantiated tidbit of mysterious flavor to an ugly murder. It is obvious whomever killed Nicole and Ron never entered the home since there was no blood on the carpets. The door was left open for Nicole to run out to let Ron in the gate and is how the non vicious Akita got out in the violent activity that occurred.

Heistra returned home in time for the news at 11:00 p.m. Nicole was alive up to and possibly past 10:45=10:50. Then it got quiet with a lot of smoke and mirror testimony to follow. This is when OJS was in the shower and packing his bags for his trip, packing his bags outside to the driveway and the only nervous person in the bunch was one Kato Kaelin. I wonder why he was so spooked. I guess because he found himself home alone?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by StarShine
Okay I found it. June 28, 1995 testimony by Susan Brodrick.

"MR. BLASIER: The evidence gloves just a couple days ago were the same size approximately as they were a year ago, correct?

MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, there was a little bit of variation. Right glove was actually a little bit bigger--the Rockingham glove was a little bit bigger than it was a year ago, correct?

MS. BROCKBANK: Yes."

So I gather that they didn't shrink.



StarShine, when Clark questioned Brockbank on redirect she showed her a photograph of when she measured the gloves on June 21 pointing out the hem of the glove. Brockbank explained that the actual hem was loose and the actual edge of the leather was now at the rim of that opening rather than the fold that would be there if the hem was in place.

Regardless, the measurements Brockbank made of the gloves does not tell us how much smaller the gloves were from their original size only the difference in size between when she first measured them and then and then after Simpson put them on his hands on June 15, . Rubin told us that amount when he measured them before Simpson put them on in the criminal trial on June 15, 1995.

November 6, 1996

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Have you seen those gloves prior to today, Mr. Rubin?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And you saw them over a year ago, actually, in Mr. Simpson's criminal trial; is that correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you have an opportunity at that time to measure the length of those gloves?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You measured those gloves at this time. What was the length of the gloves when you measured them, if you recall?
A. Nine and three-eighths inches long.
Q. Approximately an inch less than the standard length?
A. Approximately.
Q. What percent is smaller than the standard extra large would that have made them at this time?
A. Between 10 and 11 percent.
Q. And what would you attribute, or could you attribute that differential of the 10 or 11
percent to anything?
THE WITNESS: Combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by StarShine


I believe the prosecution knew about these photos because I believe it was in one of the books written by someone on the prosecution side. I cannot for the life of me remember just who it was but they stated that they didn't introduce it because they couldn't prove that they were the actual shoes that left the footprints. It might have been in Darden's book, but I really don't recall and I am not going back to reading any more books about this case anymore.


StarShine, I've read over 25 books about the Simpson case and I've don't recall reading where the prosecutors knew about the Scull photograph, although I only skimmed Darden's book.

But the fact is that it was in the civil trial that Simpson lied about wearing those shoes. The over thirty Flammer photographs show Simpson posing with many members of the Buffalo Bills Monday Morning Quarterback Club who hired Flammer to take those photographs that day. Some of the photographs show Simpson posting with dignitaries from the Buffalo Bills who then bought those photos a short time after that game.

That September 1993 Buffalo Bills football game was honoring Simpson on the anniversary of his running record. A TV news sideline video taken at that time was also shown in court, again showing Simpson wearing the exact clothes the Scull and Flammer photos show him wearing.

Simpson was impeached by all of those authenticated photographs.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob
rubin only gave one measurement from top to one finger.To be accurate he should have measured all of the fingers as the lab tech did.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Zold1


Thank you. And where might I find the telephone records from OJS home; Nicole Brown Simpson's home; and the calls made from the rehab center by Faye Resnick... which would have permanently established the time for Nicole Brown Simpson. I'm sure since Ron Goldman was meeting friends out of town that evening he would have went home from Mezzaluna and took a shower, changed his clothing and that would have taken some time. He borrows a girl friends car and drives it to Nicoles, planning to get with his friends later. Poor Ron Goldman was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I have no doubt he was a nice guy doing chores for a celebrity's wife with stars in his eyes. He did not plan to be a waiter forever, only until he was discovered. :cool:


Zold1, you can read about them in the transcripts but other than that I don't know that you can obtain any of those telephone records or see them.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
rubin only gave one measurement from top to one finger.To be accurate he should have measured all of the fingers as the lab tech did.imo
martin II


martin II, I believe Rubin knew how to measure the gloves and measured them correctly.

November 6, 1996 Richard Rubin

Q .(BY MR. KELLY) Is there -- with the extra large Aris gloves, is there a standard length of that glove for the extra large?
A. In the manufacturing process, there is a pattern; and if it came out perfectly, it would be around ten and three-eighths inches long.
Q. Is there usually some variation on that length?
A. Every piece of leather will have a little bit different flexibility and elasticity to it, so there can be a variance. But the standard would be ten and three-eighths in a finished product.
*

Q. Did you have an opportunity at that time to measure the length of those gloves?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You measured those gloves at this time. What was the length of the gloves when you measured them, if you recall?
A. Nine and three-eighths inches long.
Q. Approximately an inch less than the standard length?
A. Approximately.
Q. What percent is smaller than the standard extra large would that have made them at this time?
A. Between 10 and 11 percent.

bobaugust

[Heyes]

Originally posted by Ames


Hi, I am a newbie to this board (I am usually found over at the JB boards)....anyway, thanks for posting this. I had forgotten about OJ wearing the latex gloves while trying on the leather gloves during the trial, until I saw a clip on the news last night. It is my opinion that the latex gloves, most definately, would have made putting those leather gloves on...no matter how thin the latex gloves was, it was still an extra layer...that would have made putting the leather gloves on alot harder. I think that Johnny Cochran knew this, too! IMO

Not to mention the lousy acting the killer attempted. Big bad football star looked like he was in near crippling pain as he tried on those gloves. :rolleyes:

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



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

bob

you can get the transcrip if you kike i think.

Vanhatter and Lang lit into him full blast.
Geraldo had furhman on and brought in certain clips of Vanhatter
and Lang to refute what Furhman was saying.

Vanhatter said the little swiss army knife box meant nothing to the case and that they found out about it in furhmans book.
Lang said furhman and roberts were pissed because they were not the lead detectives.

Vanhatter said that it was he that found the blood at Rockingham .
Furhman said not so. That it was roberts that found the blood on the bronco. imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



StarShine, I've read over 25 books about the Simpson case and I've don't recall reading where the prosecutors knew about the Scull photograph, although I only skimmed Darden's book.

But the fact is that it was in the civil trial that Simpson lied about wearing those shoes. The over thirty Flammer photographs show Simpson posing with many members of the Buffalo Bills Monday Morning Quarterback Club who hired Flammer to take those photographs that day. Some of the photographs show Simpson posting with dignitaries from the Buffalo Bills who then bought those photos a short time after that game.

That September 1993 Buffalo Bills football game was honoring Simpson on the anniversary of his running record. A TV news sideline video taken at that time was also shown in court, again showing Simpson wearing the exact clothes the Scull and Flammer photos show him wearing.

Simpson was impeached by all of those authenticated photographs.

bobaugust

bob
wrong because there was no photo showing all of the bottom of ojs shoe sole.imo
martin II

[StarShine]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
wrong because there was no photo showing all of the bottom of ojs shoe sole.imo
martin II

That's a good point.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
wrong because there was no photo showing all of the bottom of ojs shoe sole.imo
martin II


martin II, you know that the Scull photograph showed enough of the sole for Bodziak to determine that it was the same Silga soles that were consistent with making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

You know that Silga sole was the only one used in the manufacturing of Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes.

Why are you making your ridiculous claim?

bobaugust

[Zold1]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Zold1, it seems you rely on rumors, fabrications and unsupported stories while you evidently aren't very informed about the actual relevant physical evidence that proves Simpson was the killer.

bobaugust

Actually, Bob... I rely on FACTS and there are NO FACTS and NO relevant physical evidence that proves Simpson the killer. I only spent several years on the OJS Board watching for all this alleged evidence. THERE WAS NONE. That is why the jury discharged the case. You cannot prove someone guilty without bonefide evidence. I watched every day of the so called trial of the century to be quite disappointed. I didn't know OJS from an Adams Apple since I'm no sports fan. I was in Vegas having a great time when the news hit the airways. It did not mean a thing to me. I've watched and listened and read the books provided by the prosecution and "good friend Resnick."

ICHABOD. Simpson is 100% not guilty. You can try the rest of your life to find something, but it isn't there. He's an idiot I'll submit, but he is no killer.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by Zold1
Actually, Bob... I rely on FACTS and there are NO FACTS and NO relevant physical evidence that proves Simpson the killer. Simpson is 100% not guilty. You can try the rest of your life to find something, but it isn't there. He's an idiot I'll submit, but he is no killer. There are NO FACTS that there was anyone else at the murder scene except Nicole and Ron and their murderer: orenthal james simpson, the Butcher of Brentwood.

But you are right about one thing, he is an idiot.

[Zold1]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Zold1, you can read about them in the transcripts but other than that I don't know that you can obtain any of those telephone records or see them.

bobaugust

Well don't you think that is lopsided investigation? We know nothing about her other contacts that night. Very sad. They would have set a bonefide time line, or if they did and it didn't fit prosecutions theory it gets buried or carted to someone's home instead of being secured in house like it should have been. With that case STILL OPEN none of the evidence should be destroyed, supressed or done away with. This is an active case. I cannot fanthom finding a man responsible who was found not guilty of a murder. This society and justice system is sick.

[Zold1]

Originally posted by StarShine
BA, you mentioned fibers matched to OJ in a prior post. Do you really believe OJ put on a sweat suit and then put on expensive Bruno Maglis to complete his so-called "killing outfit".:confused:

Brilliant thought processing. LOL! :beer:

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, you know that the Scull photograph showed enough of the sole for Bodziak to determine that it was the same Silga soles that were consistent with making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

You know that Silga sole was the only one used in the manufacturing of Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes.

Why are you making your ridiculous claim?

bobaugust

bob
not true.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by Zold1


Brilliant thought processing. LOL! :beer:


:beer:

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, you know that the Scull photograph showed enough of the sole for Bodziak to determine that it was the same Silga soles that were consistent with making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

You know that Silga sole was the only one used in the manufacturing of Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes.

Why are you making your ridiculous claim?

bobaugust

bob

you cannot look at the TIP of a right shoe sole and then decide what the rest of the sole looks like. Unless you want to use your regular "MABY IT WAS", "COULD BE", "I THINK SO" OR " IT MUST HAVE BEEN"
imo
martin II

[Zold1]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
what grade of leather were the Aris gloves made of if not thin nappa or carbretta. take you pick
MARTIN ii

Immaterial IMHO. Nicole had purchased several pair of gloves for her friends and OJ for Christmas one year. The kids could have dragged them around, or they may not even have belonged at Bundy or Rockingham. The fact is the gloves didn't fit. The only fit from the trial was the one thrown by prosecution for getting sucked into making fools of themselves.

Ichabod.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by StarShine
BA, you mentioned fibers matched to OJ in a prior post. Do you really believe OJ put on a sweat suit and then put on expensive Bruno Maglis to complete his so-called "killing outfit".:confused:
This has been discussed ad nauseum. You would know that if you had taken the time to read all of the Threads on this Board to familiarize yourself before you started posting.

What part of "OJ wasn't going to Bundy that night to make a fashion statement" don't any of you NG's understand? And, most importantly, what relevance does it have to the murders of Nicole and Ron? None! Nada! Zilch!

As I previously stated to Martin II, what did he want OJ to wear? A black tie tuxedo with the whole works? Geez, GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

[StarShine]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

This has been discussed ad nauseum. You would know that if you had taken the time to read all of the Threads on this Board to familiarize yourself before you started posting.

What part of "OJ wasn't going to Bundy that night to make a fashion statement" don't any of you NG's understand? And, most importantly, what relevance does it have to the murders of Nicole and Ron? None! Nada! Zilch!

As I previously stated to Martin II, what did he want OJ to wear? A black tie tuxedo with the whole works? Geez, GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

Well excuse me!! I didn't know you were the moderator on this board. I don't have to read every post here to voice my opinion or ask a question.

And I don't need you to give me sarcastic remarks. Go pick on someone else or learn to post a little more tactfully.

SHEESH!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Ames


Hi, I am a newbie to this board (I am usually found over at the JB boards)....anyway, thanks for posting this. I had forgotten about OJ wearing the latex gloves while trying on the leather gloves during the trial, until I saw a clip on the news last night. It is my opinion that the latex gloves, most definately, would have made putting those leather gloves on...no matter how thin the latex gloves was, it was still an extra layer...that would have made putting the leather gloves on alot harder. I think that Johnny Cochran knew this, too! IMO
How refreshing! Thank you. Someone new to the Board that actually introduces themselves, unlike some Posters who come here, jump in and immediately start shredding (and I don't mean document shredding either).

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by StarShine

Well excuse me!! I didn't know you were the moderator on this board. I don't have to read every post here to voice my opinion or ask a question.

And I don't need you to give me sarcastic remarks. Go pick on someone else or learn to post a little more tactfully.

SHEESH!!

:rolleyes: SHEESH!! Typical response from an NG. If I was the Moderator here, you and a lot of others wouldn't be posting. As far as I can see, your post didn't state that it was your opinion or anything else for that matter. Don't like my sarcastic remarks? Too Bad. So Sad. Boo Hoo! They're my opinions, which I also have a right to make!

You want tactful? Then you need to post on another Board. You should be the last one to complain about posting "a little more tactfully." We'll see just how "tactful" you are as you post on!

JMO and MOO!!

[jotun]

Originally posted by bobaugust
Big Ben,

MR. COCHRAN: --I don't think the jury needs to see these again. They've seen these photographs before. I see no reason for that at this point. We're not going to show them any of the other exhibits at this point and we didn't show them the--we're not going to show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. I have discussed them with Mr. Simpson and it's--he understands these stipulations and it's agreeable to him at this point, and he appreciates that we will be reserving his rights under the stipulation regarding the phone records until a later time.


bobaugust

Big Ben,

I vaguely remember Johnnie saying his and being taken aback.BUT.
Why would Johnnie
hide a 11 o'clock
phone record. Could it be that maybe he was embarrased because he really didn't check . Johnnie and O.J. this day were upset because Marcia was laughing at the death photos.

As you can read O.J. didn't waive his right to the phone records despite the stipulation.

jotun

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by StarShine
BA, you mentioned fibers matched to OJ in a prior post. Do you really believe OJ put on a sweat suit and then put on expensive Bruno Maglis to complete his so-called "killing outfit".:confused:


Starshine, that's exactly what Simpson. Do you actually think he was trying to dress to look good to commit murder?

The fact is that Simpson chose all dark colored clothing for concealment in the dark. Clothing that he could dispose of. He wore an old dark colored knit hat, old dark colored gloves, a black cotton sweatsuit that was bought for him for the exercise video he made two weeks before the murders, dark colored socks and old dark colored shoes.

The fact that the shoes may be expensive to you does not mean they were expensive to Simpson. These Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes were basically glorified hush puppies. Simpson had probably last worn then when he attended a football game some 9 months before the murders. Simpson's closet was filled with shoes, it was no big deal for him to dispose of these.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

you cannot look at the TIP of a right shoe sole and then decide what the rest of the sole looks like. Unless you want to use your regular "MABY IT WAS", "COULD BE", "I THINK SO" OR " IT MUST HAVE BEEN"
imo
martin II


martin II, Bodziak looked at more than the tip of the shoe sole. Besides the fact is that in Bodziak's investigation into what kind of shoes left those prints he found that all Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes were manufactured using the exact kind of Silga sole that was consistent with making the bloody shoe prints.

Triumph of Justice,
"After receiving permission from the FBI we gave the (Scull) 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."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Zold1


Actually, Bob... I rely on FACTS and there are NO FACTS and NO relevant physical evidence that proves Simpson the killer. I only spent several years on the OJS Board watching for all this alleged evidence. THERE WAS NONE. That is why the jury discharged the case. You cannot prove someone guilty without bonefide evidence. I watched every day of the so called trial of the century to be quite disappointed. I didn't know OJS from an Adams Apple since I'm no sports fan. I was in Vegas having a great time when the news hit the airways. It did not mean a thing to me. I've watched and listened and read the books provided by the prosecution and "good friend Resnick."




Zold1, actually all of the blood found at Bundy, in Simpson's Bronco, and on the killer's right hand glove came from only three people, the two victims and Simpson. Nicole's blood was found on Simpson's socks.

Simpson's hair was found on Ron's shirt. The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Goldman's shirt and on the killers right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks.

Photographs show Simpson wearing the exact kind of gloves the killer wore, and the exact kind of shoes the killer wore.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Zold1


Well don't you think that is lopsided investigation? We know nothing about her other contacts that night. Very sad. They would have set a bonefide time line, or if they did and it didn't fit prosecutions theory it gets buried or carted to someone's home instead of being secured in house like it should have been. With that case STILL OPEN none of the evidence should be destroyed, supressed or done away with. This is an active case. I cannot fanthom finding a man responsible who was found not guilty of a murder. This society and justice system is sick.


Zold1, no I don't think this was a lopsided investigation.

Evidence Dismissed,
"Lange and Vannatter were deluged by telephone calls, ranging from the LAPD high command and reporters to potential sources who want to offer information. These tips, usually provided anonymously, cause the LAPD to open a "clue book" for what would become 518 clues, 50 of which pointed to a variety of motives and suspects having nothing to do with Simpson. ALL fifty of these tips were investigated.

As to the telephone records, they were entered into evidence, and the relevant times were stipulated to in the criminal trial. Is I said I have no idea how or who can obtain this evidence. Just because it's not available to the public does not mean it's not available.

bobaugust

[StarShine]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Starshine, that's exactly what Simpson. Do you actually think he was trying to dress to look good to commit murder?

The fact is that Simpson chose all dark colored clothing for concealment in the dark. Clothing that he could dispose of. He wore an old dark colored knit hat, old dark colored gloves, a black cotton sweatsuit that was bought for him for the exercise video he made two weeks before the murders, dark colored socks and old dark colored shoes.

The fact that the shoes may be expensive to you does not mean they were expensive to Simpson. These Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes were basically glorified hush puppies. Simpson had probably last worn then when he attended a football game some 9 months before the murders. Simpson's closet was filled with shoes, it was no big deal for him to dispose of these.

bobaugust

Thank you for your adult response. I still don't believe that there has ever been any connection to any clothing of Simpson's matching those fibers but I admire your ability to respond in a sensible manner without being condescending. Some people around here should learn to follow your lead.

:seeya:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by jotun


Big Ben,

I vaguely remember Johnnie saying his and being taken aback.BUT.
Why would Johnnie
hide a 11 o'clock
phone record. Could it be that maybe he was embarrased because he really didn't check . Johnnie and O.J. this day were upset because Marcia was laughing at the death photos.

As you can read O.J. didn't waive his right to the phone records despite the stipulation.

jotun


jotun, the fact is that the times shown on the Brown's telephone records were stipulated to are the evidence in this case.

There was no 11:00 PM telephone call, only a mistaken time estimate when Lou Brown told Ratcliffe about the telephone call his wife made to Nicole the last time she ever spoke with her. Lou Brown told Ratcliffe that was when Juditha Brown told Nicole about her eyeglasses that were found at the restaurant.

After speaking with her mother Nicole immediately called the restaurant and spoke with Ron Goldman who said he would drop her mother's eyeglasses off on his way to meet his friends that night.

We know the times of those calls from Karen Crawford who first spoke to Juditha Brown and then to Nicole about five minutes later. The Brown's telephone records support Karen Crawford's and Juditha Brown's testimony documenting the actual time the calls were made.

Johnnie Cochran didn't make any mistake. Simpson's defense was given those telephone records to examine and check out. Both Cochran and Shapiro agreed to those times in different stipulations. That's reality.

The fact is that both Ron and Nicole were dead before 11:00 PM. That's reality.

bobaugust

[StarShine]

Before I go BA, one other question or such I say observation. If OJ wore black shoes and black clothing to conceal himself in the dark, don't you think perhaps using a white car to go to Bundy defeated that purpose?

[martin II]

starshine

Most people select clothing/shoes based on their habit of being well dressed or just putting on anything.

I think by HABIT oj would have put on sneakers to go with a sweat suite rather than sweat suite and expensive DRESS shoes.

martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by StarShine
Before I go BA, one other question or such I say observation. If OJ wore black shoes and black clothing to conceal himself in the dark, don't you think perhaps using a white car to go to Bundy defeated that purpose?

Not really, when his only other option was a bright red ferrari. I think we can all agree that a Bronco of any color is far more common than a ferrari.

Kate

[martin II]

Originally posted by StarShine
Before I go BA, one other question or such I say observation. If OJ wore black shoes and black clothing to conceal himself in the dark, don't you think perhaps using a white car to go to Bundy defeated that purpose?


starshine

i agree. most of Nicoles neighbors had seen oj at bundy many times before in that bronco.

if someone had seen him in sweat suite and cap stepping out of that white bronco they would have said 'HI OJ"
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Zold1


Immaterial IMHO. Nicole had purchased several pair of gloves for her friends and OJ for Christmas one year. The kids could have dragged them around, or they may not even have belonged at Bundy or Rockingham. The fact is the gloves didn't fit. The only fit from the trial was the one thrown by prosecution for getting sucked into making fools of themselves.

Ichabod.


Zold1, most reasonable thinking people who are familiar with thin leather skin tight gloves understand that the gloves did fit Simpson. Not a good fit since he made sure not to stretch them to fit because he didn't want them to look like they fit him.

If Simpson's life had depended on those gloves fitting him, they would have. He would have pulled them on his hands stretching them to fit. That's what always has to be done for skin tight gloves to fit properly.

In the civil trial when Rubin testified he was given permission to put his hands in the gloves. They had been sitting in evidence for a year and a half, they hadn't been stretched, they hadn't been warmed or worn. As Rubin testified he refurbished the gloves by putting the lining back in the fingers and then by pulling the gloves on his hands stretching them back to close to their original size. Rubin continued to work these dried up bloody gloves right there on the witness stand. This went on for a while, and he had a pair of nicely warmed and pliable gloves in hand before Baker
made him take them off.

Simpson wouldn't go near them. The defense decided to play the tape of the glove demonstration in the criminal trial.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by StarShine
Before I go BA, one other question or such I say observation. If OJ wore black shoes and black clothing to conceal himself in the dark, don't you think perhaps using a white car to go to Bundy defeated that purpose?


StarShine, Simpson's white Bronco was not unusual in Brentwood. Based on the choice of cars he had to drive it was the least noticeable choice then his black Bentley or red Ferrari.

When Simpson was driving the Bronco he wasn't concerned about being seen. His clothing didn't make any difference. Simpson dressed for concealment in the dark after he got out of his car and made his way down the dark walkway to the front of Nicole's condo.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II



starshine

i agree. most of Nicoles neighbors had seen oj at bundy many times before in that bronco.

if someone had seen him in sweat suite and cap stepping out of that white bronco they would have said 'HI OJ"
martin II


martin II, it wouldn't have mattered what Simpson was wearing if he ran into one of Nicole's neighbors before he entered Nicole's rear gate. If that had happened Simpson would not had gone ahead with his plan.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by Heyes


Not to mention the lousy acting the killer attempted. Big bad football star looked like he was in near crippling pain as he tried on those gloves. :rolleyes:

heyes

I think the extra wide width of oj' s hand (palm width) made it impossible for him to get his fingers in that glove.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, it wouldn't have mattered what Simpson was wearing if he ran into one of Nicole's neighbors before he entered Nicole's rear gate. If that had happened Simpson would not had gone ahead with his plan.

bobaugust

bob
for some here oj is quite stupid one day and quite smart the next.

If oj had wanted to kill nicole there would have been many other
opportunities and ocassions to do so without risking being seen
by some neighbor, or someone that may have been visiting nicole,(Like the Dr that picked up his child) or one of the many people passing by nicoles condo. especially since he knew he would only have about 10 minutes to do everything required and be home at 10:25 for the limo. I guess some say he was just stupid that night. Remember you say he only had a tiny 4 inch little pin knife that he used to cut these people up.IMO
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

BOB


If you know. was the swiss army knife BOX that you believe the 4 inch knife came in admitted into evidence in the criminal trial??

Vanhatter said on Geraldo that the swiss army knife box furhman talked about meant NOTHING to the case. imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, it wouldn't have mattered what Simpson was wearing if he ran into one of Nicole's neighbors before he entered Nicole's rear gate. If that had happened Simpson would not had gone ahead with his plan.

bobaugust

bob
if oj was inside the yard killing people and Stein, the next door neighbor had looked out the window and saw his bronco or saw him getting back into the bronco it would have been too late.imo

martin II

[William Anthony]

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

You continue to be confused. I did not say that what they were thinking only offered a reasonable reason why they did not object to the laytex.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



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

So, I was right that the prosecution was concerened about communicable blood disease, and they made several other mistakes, according to your post.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II
BOB


If you know. was the swiss army knife BOX that you believe the 4 inch knife came in admitted into evidence in the criminal trial??

Vanhatter said on Geraldo that the swiss army knife box furhman talked about meant NOTHING to the case. imo
martin II Now LE is righteous? LOL

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Now LE is righteous? LOL

fbg
nope not at all.

just asking a question as a result of what vanhatter said on Geraldo about Faurhman and the swiss army knife BOX.

Do you know if it was entered into evidence in the crimninal trial as the box that the killers knife was packaged in??

martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
nope not at all.

just asking a question as a result of what vanhatter said on Geraldo about Faurhman and the swiss army knife BOX.

Do you know if it was entered into evidence in the crimninal trial as the box that the killers knife was packaged in??

martin II oh martin -- you are so very transparent. You've been on this board for years belittling LE and specifically calling Vannatter and Lange liars, blah, blah, blah. Now, because they are arguing with Fuhrman, you're quoting them for the truth. Does this mean that all of the other stuff they testified to is now truth? The fact of the matter is, there is a police photo of a swiss army knife box sitting on orenthal's bathtub.

How about you look it up and let us know if the box was entered into evidence in the criminal trial as the box that the killers knife was packaged in?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by StarShine

Thank you for your adult response. I still don't believe that there has ever been any connection to any clothing of Simpson's matching those fibers but I admire your ability to respond in a sensible manner without being condescending. Some people around here should learn to follow your lead.

:seeya:
:lol: :rolleyes:

Yeah, I'd say this post is quite "tactful" ~ NOT! This isn't kindergarten. Grow up!

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, it wouldn't have mattered what Simpson was wearing if he ran into one of Nicole's neighbors before he entered Nicole's rear gate. If that had happened Simpson would not had gone ahead with his plan.

bobaugust

Again, you have read someone's mind. LE does not need anyone but you and the medium.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, the police were let into Simpson's house by Arnelle Simpson. They did obtain a search warrant before the house was searched.

bobaugust

I think Martin was referring to a person's curtilage.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by martin II
*snip*


If oj had wanted to kill nicole there would have been many other
opportunities and ocassions to do so without risking being seen
by some neighbor, or someone that may have been visiting nicole,(Like the Dr that picked up his child) or one of the many people passing by nicoles condo.

Obviously none of these people saw any murderer, so it was successful in that regard.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
oh martin -- you are so very transparent. You've been on this board for years belittling LE and specifically calling Vannatter and Lange liars, blah, blah, blah. Now, because they are arguing with Fuhrman, you're quoting them for the truth. Does this mean that all of the other stuff they testified to is now truth? The fact of the matter is, there is a police photo of a swiss army knife box sitting on orenthal's bathtub.

How about you look it up and let us know if the box was entered into evidence in the criminal trial as the box that the killers knife was packaged in?

weezer

you are twisting my post AGAIN.

I never offered what Vanhatter and LANG said was true.
I posted their words as spoken on Geraldo.

I was surprised that Vanhatter stated that the swiss army knife box meant absolutely nothing to the case and i was seeking a comment from BOB as to whether the box was intered into evidence in the case. I did not ask you because i know you don't
have a clue on the subject.imo


martin II

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by martin II


weezer

you are twisting my post AGAIN.

I never offered what Vanhatter and LANG said was true.
I posted their words as spoken on Geraldo.

I was surprised that Vanhatter stated that the swiss army knife box meant absolutely nothing to the case and i was seeking a comment from BOB as to whether the box was intered into evidence in the case. I did not ask you because i know you don't
have a clue on the subject.imo


martin II

Why would you even post something if you haven't even considered whether or not it is true?

Earlier today you asked Tazzy for a link & now you are asking Bob whether the knife box was entered into evidence, can't you do your own :read: ??

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
for some here oj is quite stupid one day and quite smart the next.

If oj had wanted to kill nicole there would have been many other
opportunities and ocassions to do so without risking being seen
by some neighbor, or someone that may have been visiting nicole,(Like the Dr that picked up his child) or one of the many people passing by nicoles condo. especially since he knew he would only have about 10 minutes to do everything required and be home at 10:25 for the limo. I guess some say he was just stupid that night. Remember you say he only had a tiny 4 inch little pin knife that he used to cut these people up.IMO
MARTIN ii


martin II, there you go again, giving us your theory of what happened and then telling that it doesn't make sense. Funny.
Of course what you say doesn't make sense, you made it up.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
BOB


If you know. was the swiss army knife BOX that you believe the 4 inch knife came in admitted into evidence in the criminal trial??

Vanhatter said on Geraldo that the swiss army knife box furhman talked about meant NOTHING to the case. imo
martin II


martin II, for about the tenth time, the empty Swiss Army Knife box was never collected, only photographed.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
if oj was inside the yard killing people and Stein, the next door neighbor had looked out the window and saw his bronco or saw him getting back into the bronco it would have been too late.imo

martin II


martin II, but that didn't happen did it?

Anyone can imagine an "if" for every crime that's committed. "If" you were a reasonable thinking person and had any common sense, you might be able to understand the truth of these murders. But that "if" won't happen either.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Again, you have read someone's mind. LE does not need anyone but you and the medium.


No, not mind reading, just common sense.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


So, I was right that the prosecution was concerened about communicable blood disease, and they made several other mistakes, according to your post.


No, you were wrong. The fact that Clark didn't object to the use of latex gloves had nothing to do with what you imagined.

Clark wrote, "Since the AIDS crisis, anything bloodstained required protection."

bobaugust

[Heyes]

Originally posted by martin II


heyes

I think the extra wide width of oj' s hand (palm width) made it impossible for him to get his fingers in that glove.imo
martin II

Didn't ya catch his facial expressions? He certainly isn't an oscar winner. Talk about over acting. This guy can take the hits on the football field yet one little pair of gloves had him in this kind of pain? It really was pathetic. Yet some people bought it. :shrug:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


You continue to be confused. I did not say that what they were thinking only offered a reasonable reason why they did not object to the laytex.


Your explanations and opinions are not only unreasonable they are wrong.
You wrote,
"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."

"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."


Your explanation that because the prosecutors did not object suggests that they were on a fishing expedition is wrong. Your opinion that because the prosecution allowed Simpson to wear latex gloves it showed a weakness in the prosecution case is wrong.

Clark wrote that she believed "the court would never let anyone try on the bloody gloves without wearing latex gloves beneath them. Since the AIDS crisis, anything bloodstained required protection."

Clark also wrote that she knew that latex gloves would affect the fit of the gloves and that Simpson could make the fit appear too tight. That's why she wanted Simpson to only try on the duplicate gloves.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


So, I was right that the prosecution was concerened about communicable blood disease, and they made several other mistakes, according to your post.


Yes, Darden made mistakes, but the prosecution was not concerned about communicable blood disease, they were concerned about the fit of the gloves over latex gloves.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob

Clarke wanted oj to try on gloves that were not the murder gloves??? What would that prove.?
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by Heyes


Didn't ya catch his facial expressions? He certainly isn't an oscar winner. Talk about over acting. This guy can take the hits on the football field yet one little pair of gloves had him in this kind of pain? It really was pathetic. Yet some people bought it. :shrug:

heyes

OJ could not get his EXTRA WIDE HANDS into those FINE LIGHT ARIS DRESS LEATHER GLOVES. imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II


heyes

OJ could not get his EXTRA WIDE HANDS into those FINE LIGHT ARIS DRESS LEATHER GLOVES. imo
martin II

Hi Martin,

Even the jurors knew he was acting. He was making them not fit.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, for about the tenth time, the empty Swiss Army Knife box was never collected, only photographed.

bobaugust

BOB
So Vanhatter was correct when he said the swiss army knife box
that furhman talked about had ABSOLUTELY NO meaning to the case. I assume that Vanhatter and Lang did not belive that the murder knife came from that box, otherwise they would have collected it and brought it before the jury.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



No, not mind reading, just common sense.

bobaugust

The only thing common about the sense you use is what you call "unsupported speculation and fantasy", imho.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II


BOB
So Vanhatter was correct when he said the swiss army knife box
that furhman talked about had ABSOLUTELY NO meaning to the case. I assume that Vanhatter and Lang did not belive that the murder knife came from that box, otherwise they would have collected it and brought it before the jury.imo
martin II WTH? this must not fit into the conspiracy to frame orenthal theory the NGs tout or they'd be all over this. Besides, you don't believe anything LE had to say about this case so why are you so quick to buy into Vannatter's statement about it not having anything to do with the murders?

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



No, you were wrong. The fact that Clark didn't object to the use of latex gloves had nothing to do with what you imagined.

Clark wrote, "Since the AIDS crisis, anything bloodstained required protection."

bobaugust

She was able to argue that the glove had been tested for aids and no virus was detected or she could have objected to the experiment in total due to the use of laytex-they were pulling clothes off a clothing rack, which ultimately did not fit. How can you argue that the glove fit and then claim, as did the prosecution, that they would have fit if not for the laytex? Another example of your circular arguments, imho.

[Ames]

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.

I think so too!

[Ames]

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:

This was Johnny Cochran's brilliant idea....and IMO...he knows/knew that OJ was guilty, and that those gloves would most likely fit, without the rubber gloves underneath. (And with OJ spreading out his fingers...just to make double sure that they didn't fit). I seriously didn't believe that there were people out there, that actually thought that OJ was innocent, until I stumbled upon this board.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Ames


I think so too!

American history proves that your belief may be incorrect, imo.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Ames


This was Johnny Cochran's brilliant idea....and IMO...he knows/knew that OJ was guilty, and that those gloves would most likely fit, without the rubber gloves underneath. (And with OJ spreading out his fingers...just to make double sure that they didn't fit). I seriously didn't believe that there were people out there, that actually thought that OJ was innocent, until I stumbled upon this board.

I respect the way you express your thoughts as your opinions. I do not know how many posters think that Simpson is innoncent and I personally believe he was not guilty as charged.

[Ames]

Originally posted by Heyes


Not to mention the lousy acting the killer attempted. Big bad football star looked like he was in near crippling pain as he tried on those gloves. :rolleyes:

LOL..yes he did. How about when he was asked to stand up (when one of the witnesses said that they saw someone that night near the scene that looked to be about OJ's size). I watched it again on the news the other night...he had this stupid smirk on his face when he stood. (Not exactly the look of a man grieving the loss of the mother of his children). He looked smug, almost as if to say..."Hey people, look at me...I am OJ Simpson, the famous football player". When he sat down, he was laughing. (Reminded me of Scott Peterson at his trial). I can think of only ONE reason that OJ was found innocent...and if I write it, I will be banned....or bashed for being "prejudiced". So, I will just keep it to myself, and let the other posters figure it out for themselves. (IMO)

[Ames]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I respect the way you express your thoughts as your opinions. I do not know how many posters think that Simpson is innoncent and I personally believe he was not guilty as charged.

Thanks! I never put out a post without stating (IMO). Because I know that EVERYONE has their own opinion...and that not everyone agrees with each other. I don't understand your statement...please explain "I do not know how many posters think that Simpson is INNOCENT and I personally believe he was NOT GUILTY as charged". (IMO)

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Ames


Thanks! I never put out a post without stating (IMO). Because I know that EVERYONE has their own opinion...and that not everyone agrees with each other. I don't understand your statement...please explain "I do not know how many posters think that Simpson is INNOCENT and I personally believe he was NOT GUILTY as charged". (IMO)

What I am saying is that my opinion is that the criminal trial verdict was the correct one based on the prosecution's failure, imo, to sustain its burden of proof.

[Ames]

Originally posted by William Anthony


What I am saying is that my opinion is that the criminal trial verdict was the correct one based on the prosecution's failure, imo, to sustain its burden of proof.


Oh, okay...gottcha. Thanks for explaining...I was confused (LOL).

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by William Anthony


What I am saying is that my opinion is that the criminal trial verdict was the correct one based on the prosecution's failure, imo, to sustain its burden of proof.

I read just this morning that Howard Weitzman (OJ's first atty in the murder case) thinks the criminal jury got it WRONG.

[Ames]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I read just this morning that Howard Weitzman (OJ's first atty in the murder case) thinks the criminal jury got it WRONG.


Hmmmmm...you THINK? LOL (IMO)

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
WTH? this must not fit into the conspiracy to frame orenthal theory the NGs tout or they'd be all over this. Besides, you don't believe anything LE had to say about this case so why are you so quick to buy into Vannatter's statement about it not having anything to do with the murders?

weezer
why is it that i have to tell you the same thing 2-3 times before you get it.

Vanatter and Lang had it out with the split tounge talking out of
the side of his neck M Furhman on the Geraldo show i think it was saturday or sunday. If you did not see it, then maby you should request the transcript of the show since you seem to be interested and continue to mistake my post on the issue.

I never said anything about believing Vanhatter, lang or furhman.

Since bob has on many ocassions used that swiss army knife box as PROOF that the 4" knife, (that some think was used in the murders) was origionally packaged in that box. I was wondering
if that box was ever entered into evidence in the case. bob has informed me that it was not used in the case. so now i know his theory about the box was just an idea he had and not proof of anything. imo

Ps Vanhatter and Lang ripped Furhman apart on many issues during this show and you should have seen the LOOK on Furhmans face as they contradicted almost all of his claims.


MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
WTH? this must not fit into the conspiracy to frame orenthal theory the NGs tout or they'd be all over this. Besides, you don't believe anything LE had to say about this case so why are you so quick to buy into Vannatter's statement about it not having anything to do with the murders?
weezer

did you see the Geraldo show???

martin II

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I read just this morning that Howard Weitzman (OJ's first atty in the murder case) thinks the criminal jury got it WRONG.

Hi Socaldiva,

I just now saw that. He should have some inside details too since he was the first attorney to represent him.

Howard Weitzman, the attorney who briefly represented Simpson immediately after the murders, wouldn't comment on whether the book's content resembled an actual confession.

"I've held the opinion for a long time that the criminal jury came to the wrong decision," Weitzman said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/473489p-398265c.html

[martin II]

Originally posted by Ames


This was Johnny Cochran's brilliant idea....and IMO...he knows/knew that OJ was guilty, and that those gloves would most likely fit, without the rubber gloves underneath. (And with OJ spreading out his fingers...just to make double sure that they didn't fit). I seriously didn't believe that there were people out there, that actually thought that OJ was innocent, until I stumbled upon this board.

Ames

Cnn issued a poll just before the trial started that said about 85%
of white people believed oj was guilty and about the same number of blacks thought that he was innocent.

I am puzzled as to why you didn't believe that there were people out there that thought oj was innocent considering whites and blacks had made their opinions well known.

imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by martin II

weezer

did you see the Geraldo show???

martin II LOL -- no. That show is not on my watch list.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
Ps Vanhatter and Lang ripped Furhman apart on many issues during this show and you should have seen the LOOK on Furhmans face as they contradicted almost all of his claims. Did he look like Kardashian did when the verdict was read?

[Ames]

Originally posted by martin II


Ames

Cnn issued a poll just before the trial started that said about 85%
of white people believed oj was guilty and about the same number of blacks thought that he was innocent.

I am puzzled as to why you didn't believe that there were people out there that thought oj was innocent considering whites and blacks had made their opinions well known.

imo
martin II

You got a point there. But do these people REALLY think that he is innocent, or that he is innocent because he is some sort of "superhero" in some people's eyes? In other words...deep down they know he is guilty, but think that he shouldn't be held accountable for whatever reason. Its just hard for ME to imagine anyone thinking that OJ is REALLY innocent, no matter what the poll says. I had actually heard an african american say on tv, that even IF OJ was guilty, that he shouldn't go to jail....for reparation for the slave days. HUH? (IMO)

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II

weezer

did you see the Geraldo show???

martin II

Can we get a link to the transcripts, Martin.

Thanks!

:seeya:

[martin II]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Hi Socaldiva,

I just now saw that. He should have some inside details too since he was the first attorney to represent him.

Howard Weitzman, the attorney who briefly represented Simpson immediately after the murders, wouldn't comment on whether the book's content resembled an actual confession.

"I've held the opinion for a long time that the criminal jury came to the wrong decision," Weitzman said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/473489p-398265c.html

tazzy hi

This would be some kind of a busted deal if oj's children end up with the money and the Browns and Goldmans end up having rejected ALL THE PROFITS from the publishing companys sale of the books. I wonder what additional surprises will surface in the next week or so.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by Ames


You got a point there. But do these people REALLY think that he is innocent, or that he is innocent because he is some sort of "superhero" in some people's eyes? In other words...deep down they know he is guilty, but think that he shouldn't be held accountable for whatever reason. Its just hard for ME to imagine anyone thinking that OJ is REALLY innocent, no matter what the poll says. I had actually heard an african american say on tv, that even IF OJ was guilty, that he shouldn't go to jail....for reparation for the slave days. HUH? (IMO)

Ames

Why would you doubt that the black people that thought he was innocent were any less firm in their belief than the whites that thought that he was guilty?
martin II

[Ames]

Originally posted by martin II


Ames

Why would you doubt that the black people that thought he was innocent were any less firm in their belief than the whites that thought that he was guilty?
martin II

Because I just don't see how ANYBODY...black or white...could look at all of that evidence...and say that he is NOT GUILTY! It makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Unless, of course, you are blinded to what is in front of your face, by predjudices, or the love of football, or its hero....or the fact that he is a "celebrity". Thats the only reasons that I can figure, why there are people out there that actually think that OJ is "innocent". No other possibilities even make sense. IMO

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

Clarke wanted oj to try on gloves that were not the murder gloves??? What would that prove.?
martin II


martin II, Clark knew the court would not let anyone try on the bloody gloves without wearing latex beneath them. Latex would screw up the fit. So she asked the glove manufacturer to send them duplicates f their Aris Leather Lights, extra large, just like the ones found at the crime scene, to try on Simpson when the time was right.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Can we get a link to the transcripts, Martin.

Thanks!

:seeya:

Tazzy

why would i have a link to the Geraldo show. It was a live tv show
on fox news Saturday on sunday.

http://www.foxnews.com

you would have to look for Geraldo and see if he is offereing transcripts.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Did he look like Kardashian did when the verdict was read?

wezer

not at all. Vanhatter looked very agitated when Geraldo asked him quesitons about furhman.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


She was able to argue that the glove had been tested for aids and no virus was detected or she could have objected to the experiment in total due to the use of laytex-they were pulling clothes off a clothing rack, which ultimately did not fit. How can you argue that the glove fit and then claim, as did the prosecution, that they would have fit if not for the laytex? Another example of your circular arguments, imho.


Clark didn't make any arguments about this to the court, Rubin wasn't her witness. Darden was the attorney who was questioning Rubin. The prosecutors had decided before not to let Simpson try on the bloody gloves because they knew that he would have to wear latex gloves underneath them. They also knew that because these gloves fit skin tight that Simpson could easily make it look like they didn't fit.

Their strategy was to have a duplicate pair of the exact same kind and size gloves that Simpson could try on. If the time was right that was what they would ask Simpson to try on. Darden was to question Rubin to establish the make and size of the bloody gloves before Simpson was to put on the duplicates. But it didn't happened that way. Darden didn't have the duplicates when he started questioning and when he got them to show Darden the manufacturer had sent the wrong pair.

The only circles are in your head. Clark never said the gloves wouldn't fit Simpson, only that the latex gloves would make the fit of the skin tight gloves more difficult to put on. "Simpson had splayed his hands like a two year old to keep the gloves from being pulled down over his fingers. No one had come up with a way to keep Simpson from pulling those shenanigans."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


BOB
So Vanhatter was correct when he said the swiss army knife box
that furhman talked about had ABSOLUTELY NO meaning to the case. I assume that Vanhatter and Lang did not belive that the murder knife came from that box, otherwise they would have collected it and brought it before the jury.imo
martin II


martin II, Im sorry to say that I've come to the conclusion that you actually have a serious memory problem. You can't seem to retain information and if you don't keep asking the same questions over and over you post your opinons using the same false information.

Vannatter and Lange not only didn't conduct the search of Simpson's house, they weren't there at the time of the search.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by jotun


Big Ben,

I vaguely remember Johnnie saying this and being taken aback.BUT.
Why would Johnnie
hide a 11 o'clock
phone record. Could it be that maybe he was embarrased because he really didn't check . Johnnie and O.J. this day were upset because Marcia was laughing at the death photos.

As you can read O.J. didn't waive his right to the phone records despite the stipulation.

jotun

jotun, I am not in a position to speculate on what Johnnie C. might have been thinking. The OMIG investigators were trying to get through all of the red tape to speak to Johnnie about this before the 13th Pan Afican Film Festival screened "Serpents Rising" in L.A. in Feb. 2005.

We couldn't make the connection. It was a "have your agent speak to my agent type of thing". The viewers became mad when the film got to the part with Johnnie saying 'we're not going to show the jury the phone records'. A few important people who were there knew Cochran and vowed to confront him about the phone records remark, however, a short while after it was announced that he had brain cancer, further removing him, and finally he was dead.

If one were to substitute the words phone records for bloody photos in Johnnie C. prejudicial-versus-probative sec. 352 argument to Judge Ito, one could understand the prejudicial nature of showing unconnected bloody photos to the jury, however, we still can gather only one meaning of prejudicing the jury had they been provided an opportunity to examine the actual telephone records.

If the records indicated an 11:00 PM phone call was occurring between Nicole and her mother Juditha then OJ was in the back seat of a Limo being chaufeurred to LAX international airport. This would have been highly prejudicial and criminally indicting, and that's what I believe that Johnnie C. was trying to tell the court conspirators. In essence, he appeared to be saying: (paraphrasing) 'come on people, remember our unholy alliance, we agreed that we would have honor amongst thieves, and now the prosecution is betraying that committment'.

I'd encourage you to analyze the Serpents Rising clip on YouTube that shows Johnnie C. slipping up in making this remark in July/1995 for some reason it has become the hottest of the four clips that we posted.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, Im sorry to say that I've come to the conclusion that you actually have a serious memory problem. You can't seem to retain information and if you don't keep asking the same questions over and over you post your opinons using the same false information.

Vannatter and Lange not only didn't conduct the search of Simpson's house, they weren't there at the time of the search.

bobaugust

bob

Well we now know that YOUR swiss army box was never even entered into the case and it was of no more importance than
the flower pot on ojs front porch.

Vanhatter told geraldo as plain as day that it was HE that found the blood drops at rockingham.
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Originally posted by Ames


Because I just don't see how ANYBODY...black or white...could look at all of that evidence...and say that he is NOT GUILTY! It makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Unless, of course, you are blinded to what is in front of your face, by predjudices, or the love of football, or its hero....or the fact that he is a "celebrity". Thats the only reasons that I can figure, why there are people out there that actually think that OJ is "innocent". No other possibilities even make sense. IMO

Ames

There are many people that have different opinions of the case other than what you have stated as your position.

The most qualified people to determine if oj was guilty or not guilty was the 12 people on the jury.

Actually i know many whites that belive oj was not guilty.
martin II

[Ames]

Originally posted by martin II


Ames

There are many people that have different opinions of the case other than what you have stated as your position.

The most qualified people to determine if oj was guilty or not guilty was the 12 people on the jury.

Actually i know many whites that belive oj was not guilty.
martin II

Yes, I know of one white too, that believes in OJ's innocence...and I asked her if she was CRAZY. IMO

[martin II]

Originally posted by Ames


Yes, I know of one white too, that believes in OJ's innocence...and I asked her if she was CRAZY. IMO

ames
sometimes it is beneficial for one to expand his/her friendship circle.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II




The most qualified people to determine if oj was guilty or not guilty was the 12 people on the jury.



martin II, actually the most qualified people to determine if Simpson was the killer were the civil trial jurors. Not only did they have all the evidence that the criminal trial jurors had but they had additional evidence and the advantage of seeing and hearing Simpson testify.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

Well we now know that YOUR swiss army box was never even entered into the case and it was of no more importance than
the flower pot on ojs front porch.

Vanhatter told geraldo as plain as day that it was HE that found the blood drops at rockingham.
MARTIN ii


martin II, If Simpson had killed both Ron and Nicole with a flower from a flower pot you would be right, but you're wrong.

Vannatter was the first to see the blood drops on Simpson's driveway. That's what he testified to.

bobaugust

[Ames]

Originally posted by martin II


ames
sometimes it is beneficial for one to expand his/her friendship circle.imo
martin II

I have plenty of friends...and they all think that OJ did it...well...with the exception of one, and she thinks that KATO did it, geesh. I am a newbie, and I am not here to argue with anyone. Everybody has a right to their opinion...and mine just happens to be that OJ is as guilty as sin. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by bobaugust


martin II, actually the most qualified people to determine if Simpson was the killer were the civil trial jurors. Not only did they have all the evidence that the criminal trial jurors had but they had additional evidence and the advantage of seeing and hearing Simpson testify.

bobaugust

Ditto! I totally agree (IMO)

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Ames


I have plenty of friends...and they all think that OJ did it...well...with the exception of one, and she thinks that KATO did it, geesh.

Same here. I only know of one person personally that thinks OJ is innocent & she isn't white or AA. I'm glad you've joined us Ames :seeya:

[deputydi]

Originally posted by bobaugust
<snip>Clark also wrote that she knew that latex gloves would affect the fit of the gloves and that Simpson could make the fit appear too tight. That's why she wanted Simpson to only try on the duplicate gloves.

bobaugust
This was a disaster waiting to happen and the prosecution team should have known it. Duplicate gloves might have been a good idea in theory, but I doubt Judge Ito would have allowed it. In fact, I thought he had ruled on this and his ruling was not favorable to the pros. IMO, this could have been a big issue on appeal had he been convicted.

[Ames]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Same here. I only know of one person personally that thinks OJ is innocent & she isn't white or AA. I'm glad you've joined us Ames :seeya:

THANK YOU! I am glad that I have joined you guys too. How many posters on here actually think that OJ is innocent? Just curious! Like I said before, I didn't join this board to argue with anyone...but to see what everyone's thoughts are on OJ. My cousin was murdered by her husband, when the OJ verdict was read....her sister cried, because she was so upset. That trial was nothing but a circus...IMO OJ trying on those gloves (while wearing latex gloves!)...made me feel like I was watching a comedy. It was absolutely ridiculous! The fibers, the cut on OJ's finger, the evidence in the bronco, need I go on? Sheesh...what more do they need? He is as guilty as they come...IMO IMO IMO

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Ames


THANK YOU! I am glad that I have joined you guys too. How many posters on here actually think that OJ is innocent? Just curious! Like I said before, I didn't join this board to argue with anyone...but to see what everyone's thoughts are on OJ. My cousin was murdered by her husband, when the OJ verdict was read....her sister cried, because she was so upset. That trial was nothing but a circus...IMO OJ trying on those gloves (while wearing latex gloves!)...made me feel like I was watching a comedy. It was absolutely ridiculous! The fibers, the cut on OJ's finger, the evidence in the bronco, need I go on? Sheesh...what more do they need? He is as guilty as they come...IMO IMO IMO

I'm trying to think how many posters here think he's innocent, I think it's about 5. I know what you mean about not wanting to argue, but some are very protective of the idea of Simpson being innocent. imo. I'm sorry to hear about your cousin. I agree the criminal trial was a circus & Ito should have taken control of that courtroom. Ridiulous is right. Seldom do you have so much evidence, yet they let him walk!

[goatgirl]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ames
[B]
*snip*

THANK YOU! I am glad that I have joined you guys too. How many posters on here actually think that OJ is innocent? Just curious! Like I said before, I didn't join this board to argue with anyone...but to see what everyone's thoughts are on OJ. My cousin was murdered by her husband, when the OJ verdict was read....her sister cried, because she was so upset. That trial was nothing but a circus...

Hi Ames & welcome aboard!

I am GoatGirl :) and for many reasons, I sit on the fence w/ regards to Oj.

I am sorry to hear about your cousin, that's really sad.

see you around the boards!
~~peace~~~

~~Goatgirl~~

:seeya:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by deputydi

This was a disaster waiting to happen and the prosecution team should have known it. Duplicate gloves might have been a good idea in theory, but I doubt Judge Ito would have allowed it. In fact, I thought he had ruled on this and his ruling was not favorable to the pros. IMO, this could have been a big issue on appeal had he been convicted.


deputydi, I don't recall Ito making that kind of ruling but Clark wrote that after she told Darden that the duplicates were on the way Darden asked to approach the bench. Darden told the judge he would like to lay the foundation that the duplicate are the exact same size, similar make and model so that perhaps they can have Simpson try them on at some point.

Cochran objected saying ,"If Mr. Simpson testifies and we want to have him try the gloves on in evidence, that's one thing... Are you going to allow them to have the defendant try duplicates on?"
"I think it would be more appropriate for him to try the other gloves on," Ito put in. He meant, of course, the bloody gloves.

Clark wrote, "I did not like the way this was going. We had to steer the discussion back to the duplicates. When Rubin took the stand, Ito allowed Chris to question him outside the presence or the jury, about the duplicate gloves he'd brought." But when Darden got the duplicates out of the box and Rubin looked at them he said, "They're Aris gloves, but these are not Aris Light gloves that were like the ones we're talking about.

Clark told Darden to forget this whole thing, but Darden insisted that they go ahead and let Simpson try on the bloody gloves. Clark could do nothing but sit back and watch.

bobaugust

[mnoffki]

Maybe someone has mentioned this already. Honestly, I read only about two pages of posts here, but I do have a few questions. Forgive my ignorance and memory of the trial, here as well. I am no leather expert, but I have lived in Southern California and unless one is an avid skiier, the opportunities to wear gloves are few and far between. So, unless OJ was somewhere cold with those gloves not too long before the murders and wore them in enough, they wouldn't have had a chance to mold and fit his hands, would they?

Another question, the glove may not have fit, but if they were relatively new, and possibly a gift, would they have to? If you are going to wear gloves to commit a crime, the tighter the better so long as circulation isn't interrupted just for the sake of agility. And why not wear those gloves that are ill fitting and tight for a bloody crime when they are going to be discarded?

I have a pair of nice leather gloves that I wear during the winter and I know that it takes a while to get them on the first few times I put them on each year.

I don't believe for a minute that OJ is innocent, but those are the glove questions that have nagged at me for some time. I hate that this case was so focused on a glove. Too many factors involved here IMO.

[martin II]

Originally posted by mnoffki
Maybe someone has mentioned this already. Honestly, I read only about two pages of posts here, but I do have a few questions. Forgive my ignorance and memory of the trial, here as well. I am no leather expert, but I have lived in Southern California and unless one is an avid skiier, the opportunities to wear gloves are few and far between. So, unless OJ was somewhere cold with those gloves not too long before the murders and wore them in enough, they wouldn't have had a chance to mold and fit his hands, would they?

Another question, the glove may not have fit, but if they were relatively new, and possibly a gift, would they have to? If you are going to wear gloves to commit a crime, the tighter the better so long as circulation isn't interrupted just for the sake of agility. And why not wear those gloves that are ill fitting and tight for a bloody crime when they are going to be discarded?

I have a pair of nice leather gloves that I wear during the winter and I know that it takes a while to get them on the first few times I put them on each year.

I don't believe for a minute that OJ is innocent, but those are the glove questions that have nagged at me for some time. I hate that this case was so focused on a glove. Too many factors involved here IMO.

mnoffki

My post about the gloves molding to fit ones hands was in response to a poster saying that the gloves got WET while oj was wearing them.

If oj had on these gloves when they got wet they would initially streatch from the moisture and would mold to the shape of his hands as they were drying from the water that day.

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, If Simpson had killed both Ron and Nicole with a flower from a flower pot you would be right, but you're wrong.

Vannatter was the first to see the blood drops on Simpson's driveway. That's what he testified to.

bobaugust

bob
that is what vanhatter said during the Geraldo show. That he saw them as the daylight was breaking. To my surprise Furhman
then claimed that Brad had been the one that found them.

In case you did not see the show;

Geraldo had furhman on for a few minutes allowing him to attack oj for the interview/book and talk about his part in the crime scene and rockingham etc etc

After he had made certain comments, Geraldo then switched to Vanhatter and Lang by remote camera to get their responses.
I am not sure Furhman knew that Vanhatter/Lang were waiting
by remote.
So Geraldo switched back and forth between Furhman and Vanhatter/lang and it was obvious to me that there was bad blood between furhman and these two. imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I read just this morning that Howard Weitzman (OJ's first atty in the murder case) thinks the criminal jury got it WRONG.

He like the rest of America is entitled to his opinion. I am not concerned with rather the jury rendered a correct verdict, so much as I am with the fact that the jury considered the evidence and fulfilled their legal obligation to the best of their ability on the evidence presented them during the trial.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Ames


You got a point there. But do these people REALLY think that he is innocent, or that he is innocent because he is some sort of "superhero" in some people's eyes? In other words...deep down they know he is guilty, but think that he shouldn't be held accountable for whatever reason. Its just hard for ME to imagine anyone thinking that OJ is REALLY innocent, no matter what the poll says. I had actually heard an african american say on tv, that even IF OJ was guilty, that he shouldn't go to jail....for reparation for the slave days. HUH? (IMO)

You will find many outrageous remarks made by many outrageous people. There are the remarks made by the comedian who played Kramer as an example. There are many who killed slaves and Black Americans who have escaped justice. I do not see the outrage on this board over those verdicts or lack thereof. Do not misunderstand, I do not condone any guilty person escaping justice. I do however expect an equal amount of outrage over the treatments.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Your explanations and opinions are not only unreasonable they are wrong.
You wrote,
"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."

"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."


Your explanation that because the prosecutors did not object suggests that they were on a fishing expedition is wrong. Your opinion that because the prosecution allowed Simpson to wear latex gloves it showed a weakness in the prosecution case is wrong.

Clark wrote that she believed "the court would never let anyone try on the bloody gloves without wearing latex gloves beneath them. Since the AIDS crisis, anything bloodstained required protection."

Clark also wrote that she knew that latex gloves would affect the fit of the gloves and that Simpson could make the fit appear too tight. That's why she wanted Simpson to only try on the duplicate gloves.

bobaugust

Bobbie, you are wrong again. I stated that the prosecutions failure to object "suggests" they were on a fishing expedition. It obviously showed a weakeness in their case when they allowed him to try on the gloves without knowing whether they would fit or not. Clark, I am sure has herad of the "best evidence rule" and knew that no court/judge would allow the prosecution to have him try on another/duplicate pair of gloves, since the question was whether or not those specific gloves fit, not alleged duplicate gloves. You may accept what she writes as the gospel, but I am certain that people, who know of legal concepts, realize that she just made an excuse for the prosecution's stupendous blunder.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Yes, Darden made mistakes, but the prosecution was not concerned about communicable blood disease, they were concerned about the fit of the gloves over latex gloves.

bobaugust

I do not think Darden was the lead prosecutor on the case.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Clark didn't make any arguments about this to the court, Rubin wasn't her witness. Darden was the attorney who was questioning Rubin. The prosecutors had decided before not to let Simpson try on the bloody gloves because they knew that he would have to wear latex gloves underneath them. They also knew that because these gloves fit skin tight that Simpson could easily make it look like they didn't fit.

Their strategy was to have a duplicate pair of the exact same kind and size gloves that Simpson could try on. If the time was right that was what they would ask Simpson to try on. Darden was to question Rubin to establish the make and size of the bloody gloves before Simpson was to put on the duplicates. But it didn't happened that way. Darden didn't have the duplicates when he started questioning and when he got them to show Darden the manufacturer had sent the wrong pair.

The only circles are in your head. Clark never said the gloves wouldn't fit Simpson, only that the latex gloves would make the fit of the skin tight gloves more difficult to put on. "Simpson had splayed his hands like a two year old to keep the gloves from being pulled down over his fingers. No one had come up with a way to keep Simpson from pulling those shenanigans."

bobaugust

Come now bobbie, even people who watch TV law shows know that lawyers discuss their arguments with lawyers on their side.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by mnoffki
Maybe someone has mentioned this already. Honestly, I read only about two pages of posts here, but I do have a few questions. Forgive my ignorance and memory of the trial, here as well. I am no leather expert, but I have lived in Southern California and unless one is an avid skiier, the opportunities to wear gloves are few and far between. So, unless OJ was somewhere cold with those gloves not too long before the murders and wore them in enough, they wouldn't have had a chance to mold and fit his hands, would they?

Another question, the glove may not have fit, but if they were relatively new, and possibly a gift, would they have to? If you are going to wear gloves to commit a crime, the tighter the better so long as circulation isn't interrupted just for the sake of agility. And why not wear those gloves that are ill fitting and tight for a bloody crime when they are going to be discarded?

I have a pair of nice leather gloves that I wear during the winter and I know that it takes a while to get them on the first few times I put them on each year.

I don't believe for a minute that OJ is innocent, but those are the glove questions that have nagged at me for some time. I hate that this case was so focused on a glove. Too many factors involved here IMO.

I think the glove became a central issue after the demolition of the blankety blank MF.

[mnoffki]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I think the glove became a central issue after the demolition of the blankety blank MF.

Good point.

Sad, really.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by William Anthony


You will find many outrageous remarks made by many outrageous people. There are the remarks made by the comedian who played Kramer as an example. There are many who killed slaves and Black Americans who have escaped justice. I do not see the outrage on this board over those verdicts or lack thereof. Do not misunderstand, I do not condone any guilty person escaping justice. I do however expect an equal amount of outrage over the treatments.

I don't believe you see the outrage on this forum simply because it is a forum regarding OJ Simpson.

I am personally outraged anytime I feel that justice has not been served, regardless of the color of an individual's skin. There was a trial in North Carolina some years ago in which a man raped and beat his estranged wife while he videotaped the crime. Both the victim and defendant were white.

The jury saw the videotape at trial and yet handed out an aquittal. I was, and remain, outraged.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by Ames


THANK YOU! I am glad that I have joined you guys too. How many posters on here actually think that OJ is innocent? Just curious! Like I said before, I didn't join this board to argue with anyone...but to see what everyone's thoughts are on OJ. My cousin was murdered by her husband, when the OJ verdict was read....her sister cried, because she was so upset. That trial was nothing but a circus...IMO OJ trying on those gloves (while wearing latex gloves!)...made me feel like I was watching a comedy. It was absolutely ridiculous! The fibers, the cut on OJ's finger, the evidence in the bronco, need I go on? Sheesh...what more do they need? He is as guilty as they come...IMO IMO IMO

Hi Ames and welcome to the forum!

On this forum you will find many varying opinions. I was on the fence for a long period time and had no issues with the criminal trial verdict. In following the civil trial, and inundating my mind with research, I formed a very firm opinion in his guilt which I hold to this day.

Arguing on the forum is okay, as long as it remains civil. Several people push the envelope at times, but it's par for the course in such a heated topic.

The "glove demonstration"... I do not think they fit, and that actually clinched it for me that they were indeed his gloves based on the fact that when he used to do football commentary he would wear the same type of gloves and they didn't fit him then either.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I don't believe you see the outrage on this forum simply because it is a forum regarding OJ Simpson.

I am personally outraged anytime I feel that justice has not been served, regardless of the color of an individual's skin. There was a trial in North Carolina some years ago in which a man raped and beat his estranged wife while he videotaped the crime. Both the victim and defendant were white.

The jury saw the videotape at trial and yet handed out an aquittal. I was, and remain, outraged.

Kate

Kate,

As I suspected from the time we began posting, you are not like some of the posters on this board. I understand that this is the Simpson forum and perhaps my post would have been better posted on the thread of the role of race in the CJS, but I was responding to the comment attributed to Blacks and the fact that whoever this person is he does not speak for all Blacks and some of us still seek equality without divisiveness.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Bobbie, you are wrong again. I stated that the prosecutions failure to object "suggests" they were on a fishing expedition. It obviously showed a weakeness in their case when they allowed him to try on the gloves without knowing whether they would fit or not. Clark, I am sure has herad of the "best evidence rule" and knew that no court/judge would allow the prosecution to have him try on another/duplicate pair of gloves, since the question was whether or not those specific gloves fit, not alleged duplicate gloves. You may accept what she writes as the gospel, but I am certain that people, who know of legal concepts, realize that she just made an excuse for the prosecution's stupendous blunder.


Yes I know you wrote that prosecutors failure to object "suggests" they were on a fishing expedition. That's why you are wrong. They didn't object because they knew that wearing latex underneath bloody gloves would have been a requirement.

This blunder was unfortunately Darden's and Darden's alone. He later took the responsibility for it. Clark wrote that she had tried to stop Darden and also wrote why she believed it happened.

"The accolades Brian got for his handling of Dr. Lucky irked the hell out of Chris. He'd never liked Brian much , but now that Kelberg was being hailed as a returning hero, Chris's competitive instincts were aroused. He wanted to score a coup of his own. He wanted to do the glove demonstration at what he thought would be the most dramatic possible moment. During Rubin's testimony. Problem was, we hadn't received the duplicate gloves."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I think the glove became a central issue after the demolition of the blankety blank MF.


You would be right if June came after September.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob

1. Darden was the jr prosecutor on the case. His demonstrations
had to have the approval of the senior prosecutor. imo

2. Do you belive the rules would have allowed oj to try on some DUPLICATE set of gloves that were NOT the gloves found at Bundy and Rockingham and then call if proof that the murder gloves fit?? i don't think so. imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
His demonstrations had to have the approval of the senior prosecutor. Wrong and he didn't.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
that is what vanhatter said during the Geraldo show. That he saw them as the daylight was breaking. To my surprise Furhman
then claimed that Brad had been the one that found them.

In case you did not see the show;

Geraldo had furhman on for a few minutes allowing him to attack oj for the interview/book and talk about his part in the crime scene and rockingham etc etc

After he had made certain comments, Geraldo then switched to Vanhatter and Lang by remote camera to get their responses.
I am not sure Furhman knew that Vanhatter/Lang were waiting
by remote.
So Geraldo switched back and forth between Furhman and Vanhatter/lang and it was obvious to me that there was bad blood between furhman and these two. imo
martin II


martin II, I didn't see that entire show only a portion when Fuhrman was on.

Fuhrman wrote in his book that after he returned to Rockingham after going back to Bundy to check the match of the gloves, his partner Brad Roberts had arrived. He wrote that he showed Roberts the Bronco. It was Brad Roberts who then saw the bloodstains inside the Bronco. They called Vannatter over and showed him. Vannatter returned to the Ashford gate and Fuhrman and Roberts watched Rokahr photograph the blood spot on the door.

Fuhrman wrote that Roberts made another observation, he saw the drops of blood on the street on the driver's side of the Bronco leading toward the Rockingham gate. He wrote the gate was unlocked. They walked through the gate observing more drops of blood on the driveway, He wrote, "To my knowledge, this was the first time anyone had gone through the gate from the street that morning."

Fuhrman was wrong about that being the first time anyone had gone through that gate that morning.

When he and Phillips were at Bundy checking the match of the glove, Vannatter wrote that he walked across Simpson's driveway expecting the criminalist and the photographer to arrive. He said dawn was breaking and it was getting light outside. As the shadows continue to abate, Vannatter looked down on the pavement near the Bentley and the Saab and saw a red spot.

He put his glasses on and bent down to examine it. It appeared to be a drop of blood. Looking ahead towards the gate he saw another, and then several others. He followed the trail of blood into the street to the rear of the Bronco. With more light around now Vannatter peered inside the locked Bronco from the passenger side window and saw blood smears on the passenger side of the console and on the driver's side door. Retracing the blood spots he saw blood drops leading right to Simpson's front door.

That's when Vannatter said Simpson became a strong suspect.

bobaugust

[martin II]

i was wondering what event took place to cause so much of this anger from furhman towards Vanhatter/lang and then towards Furhman.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

1. Darden was the jr prosecutor on the case. His demonstrations
had to have the approval of the senior prosecutor. imo

2. Do you belive the rules would have allowed oj to try on some DUPLICATE set of gloves that were NOT the gloves found at Bundy and Rockingham and then call if proof that the murder gloves fit?? i don't think so. imo
martin II


martin II, I haven't read anywhere that Darden had to get permission from Clark as to how he handle his witnesses.

The prosecution believed that that if they established the fact that the duplicate gloves were the same exact size and model as the murder gloves, only new not old, then Simpson would have no problem putting them on his bare hands. It would be up to the judge to decide to let Simpson try on any glove.

The problem came when it was found that the gloves sent by Aris were not the same gloves. At that point Clark told Darden not to continue but to wait, but Darden decided to go ahead and ask Simpson to try on the bloody gloves disregarding Clark's objections. Rubin was his witness and he believed he could do what ever he wanted to do.

Does that answer your question about getting approval?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Yes I know you wrote that prosecutors failure to object "suggests" they were on a fishing expedition. That's why you are wrong. They didn't object because they knew that wearing latex underneath bloody gloves would have been a requirement.

This blunder was unfortunately Darden's and Darden's alone. He later took the responsibility for it. Clark wrote that she had tried to stop Darden and also wrote why she believed it happened.

"The accolades Brian got for his handling of Dr. Lucky irked the hell out of Chris. He'd never liked Brian much , but now that Kelberg was being hailed as a returning hero, Chris's competitive instincts were aroused. He wanted to score a coup of his own. He wanted to do the glove demonstration at what he thought would be the most dramatic possible moment. During Rubin's testimony. Problem was, we hadn't received the duplicate gloves."

bobaugust

Clark may claim that it was Darden' fault alone, but we all know the truth about a prosecution with multiple prosecutors. As usual blame the Black.:)