Evidence that Places OJ Simpson at the Crime Scene

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by William Anthony


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.:) LOL--you crack me up. Darden wrote in his book that he was goaded by the defense to do it and he fell for it.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



You would be right if June came after September.

bobaugust

I am now totally convinced as to your reading problem. My post had nothing to do with when the evidence was presented, but had to do with when the fit of the glove took central stage and the importance of the believe, be it right or wrong, that the gloves did not fit. I can count on you to misunderstand and that is the problem with your interpretation of the transcripts, imo.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving and give the transcripts a break.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
LOL--you crack me up. Darden wrote in his book that he was goaded by the defense to do it and he fell for it.

That does not obviate the lead prosecutor's role in the demonstration.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by William Anthony


That does not obviate the lead prosecutor's role in the demonstration. don't know about that -- just know that Darden said he did it on his own and that the other prosecutors were upset with him about it.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
don't know about that -- just know that Darden said he did it on his own and that the other prosecutors were upset with him about it.

Hindsight is 20/20. What about forethought. The truth is the prosecution did not know how the glove would fit and surmised it would fit him, imo.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I am now totally convinced as to your reading problem. My post had nothing to do with when the evidence was presented, but had to do with when the fit of the glove took central stage and the importance of the believe, be it right or wrong, that the gloves did not fit. I can count on you to misunderstand and that is the problem with your interpretation of the transcripts, imo.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving and give the transcripts a break.


That's funny. No there is no problem with my reading only a problem with your writing.

You wrote the words. If what you wrote is not what you really meant to say, how are we supposed to know that? I only responded to what you wrote, not to what you now say you really meant to say.

Happy thanksgiving to you.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Hindsight is 20/20. What about forethought. The truth is the prosecution did not know how the glove would fit and surmised it would fit him, imo.


And it did.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



That's funny. No there is no problem with my reading only a problem with your writing.

You wrote the words. If what you wrote is not what you really meant to say, how are we supposed to know that? I only responded to what you wrote, not to what you now say you really meant to say.

Happy thanksgiving to you.

bobaugust

Here is my post;

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

Tell me where in there I say which came first the demonstration or the demolition. See how words can be interpretted differently?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by William Anthony

As usual blame the Black.:)

I'm really disappointed in this comment from you.

Christopher Darden stated in his book, and has held firm, that his decision regarding the "glove demonstration" was spontaneous and that he had not consulted anyone about it.

Are you suggesting that he is just saying that?

Regardless, that is what his statement is and thus people are only "blaming" the person who has openly admitted responsibility.

Kate

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Here is my post;

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




The glove became an issue in June. Fuhrman's so called "demolition" happened in September. Does June come after September?

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



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


bob'
I think both sides plan stratergy before the days activities take place. I also think the lead prosecutor is the senior attorney in the group and has the responsibility to approve or reject any planned actions of any member.

I think darden accepted the blame rather than be seen as trying to shift blame to other team members.

martin II

[martin II]

bob
if the judge had allowed oj to try on gloves that were not gloves found in the original evidence colleciton, that would have been a serious item for appeal imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II



bob'
I think both sides plan stratergy before the days activities take place. I also think the lead prosecutor is the senior attorney in the group and has the responsibility to approve or reject any planned actions of any member.

I think darden accepted the blame rather than be seen as trying to shift blame to other team members.

martin II


martin II, what you think is meaningless and contradicted by what Clark wrote and what Darden wrote.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
if the judge had allowed oj to try on gloves that were not gloves found in the original evidence colleciton, that would have been a serious item for appeal imo
martin II


martin II, I doubt that. But I'm glad that you realize that a new pair of gloves the same size and style as the killer's gloves would have fit Simpson perfectly.

Good for you.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, I doubt that. But I'm glad that you realize that a new pair of gloves the same size and style as the killer's gloves would have fit Simpson perfectly.

Good for you.

bobaugust


bob
every pair of gloves are different especially when you are talking about a inch difference. you should know that.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II



bob
every pair of gloves are different especially when you are talking about a inch difference. you should know that.
martin II


martin II, yes there could be slight differences in size but no one ever said it could be as much as an inch.

It also could have been that the duplicate gloves may have been smaller than the murder gloves when they were new. But the fact is the murder gloves were extra large, the largest size these gloves were manufactured in and the duplicates were extra large. There were many photographs showing Simpson wearing these exact same kind of gloves.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, yes there could be slight differences in size but no one ever said it could be as much as an inch.

It also could have been that the duplicate gloves may have been smaller than the murder gloves when they were new. But the fact is the murder gloves were extra large, the largest size these gloves were manufactured in and the duplicates were extra large. There were many photographs showing Simpson wearing these exact same kind of gloves.

bobaugust

bob
i just find it hard to belive that a photo of oj wearing some gloves on a football field with the camerman a distance from him can
allow you to tell the difference of one black glove to another. imo

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, I doubt that. But I'm glad that you realize that a new pair of gloves the same size and style as the killer's gloves would have fit Simpson perfectly.

Good for you.

bobaugust
\
bob

hahaha
you know i said nothing to indicate that i realized any such thing.
martin II

[Ames]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


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

Hi...THANK YOU for the welcome. I have always thought that OJ was guilty, due to the overwhelming evidence. It baffles me that the jury thought that he was "innocent". I wonder how many of them thought that he was guilty, but voted on his innocence anyway, because of who he was? IMO BTW...HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
i just find it hard to belive that a photo of oj wearing some gloves on a football field with the camerman a distance from him can
allow you to tell the difference of one black glove to another. imo

martin II


martin II, evidently you didn't see the photographs. 10 to 15 feet is not a great distance away.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, evidently you didn't see the photographs. 10 to 15 feet is not a great distance away.

bobaugust

http://www.nydailynews.com/

[martin II]

bob
Above is the picture of the gloves taken from about 2-3 feet.
They look like regular black leather gloves to me that one could buy from a local flea market or Macys.

no way to tell if they were Aris because there is no logo identifying them.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, I doubt that. But I'm glad that you realize that a new pair of gloves the same size and style as the killer's gloves would have fit Simpson perfectly.

Good for you.

bobaugust

bob

Rubin said he determined the SIZE of the glove by mearurung from the top of the glove to the tip of the finger and i think he said it was
9 1/2 or 9 3/4 inch long

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
Above is the picture of the gloves taken from about 2-3 feet.
They look like regular black leather gloves to me that one could buy from a local flea market or Macys.

no way to tell if they were Aris because there is no logo identifying them.
martin II


martin II, thanks for the link, the picture shows how Simpson splayed his hands like a two year old to keep the gloves from being pulled down over his fingers. About the only people he fooled that these gloves didn't fit him were people who wanted to be fooled.

The photograph on this web page is made from a video tape and then reproduced on a web page. It's quality can't be compared to an original photograph taken by a still camera. Of course the gloves look like any kind of gloves to you because you are not an expert about Aris gloves and know nothing about them. Rubin was and he could tell from the stitching what kind of Aris gloves they were looking at original photographs taken at different football games.

Chris Darden wrote about Simpson trying on the gloves.
In Contempt,
"He was bull****ting and I hoped everyone could see that, hoped the jury could see it. But as I glanced quickly around the courtroom, I saw that everyone else was staring at his hands and not his face.

At First, his eyebrows were arched and his mouth set, nervous, like someone about to dive off a bridge. Then he broke into a weird, relieved smile, unlike any I'd seen in any of the old football footage or any of his movies, a smile that I think was close to the real O.J. Simpson as I'd ever seen, as he'd surprised even himself.

(My God, I'm getting away with it.)"

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

Rubin said he determined the SIZE of the glove by mearurung from the top of the glove to the tip of the finger and i think he said it was
9 1/2 or 9 3/4 inch long


martin II, the bloody gloves size was extra large. That's the point. The duplicate gloves were the same size the bloody gloves were when they were new, not the measured size of the bloody gloves after the murders since they were smaller based on a combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage.

They had to be stretched on Simpson's fingers to fit the way they originally fit him before the murders.

Rubin said 9 3/8" long.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, the bloody gloves size was extra large. That's the point. The duplicate gloves were the same size the bloody gloves were when they were new, not the measured size of the bloody gloves after the murders since they were smaller based on a combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage.

They had to be stretched on Simpson's fingers to fit the way they originally fit him before the murders.

Rubin said 9 3/8" long.

bobaugust

bob

it does not matter what size the gloves were. if that ex large did not fit then they were too small for oj wide hands
do you believe that one can tell if a goove can fit a particular hand by measuring from top to tip of the finger as rubin did.

martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

it does not matter what size the gloves were. if that ex large did not fit then they were too small for oj wide hands
do you believe that one can tell if a goove can fit a particular hand by measuring from top to tip of the finger as rubin did.

martin II


martin II, Rubin didn't measure the gloves to see if they would fit Simpson, he measured them to see how much they had shrunk compared to the standard size they were manufactured.

The bloody gloves were extra large. That was Simpson's size. If he had pulled the bloody gloves stretching them on his fingers they would have fit him better despite the latex gloves he was wearing.

It's very simple, if Simpson's life had depended on the gloves fitting him, they would have fit him. If in this case he didn't want them to look like they fit him, he made it look like they didn't fit him by doing nothing to make them fit. Only very gullible people can't seem to understand this.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, Rubin didn't measure the gloves to see if they would fit Simpson, he measured them to see how much they had shrunk compared to the standard size they were manufactured.

The bloody gloves were extra large. That was Simpson's size. If he had pulled the bloody gloves stretching them on his fingers they would have fit him better despite the latex gloves he was wearing.

It's very simple, if Simpson's life had depended on the gloves fitting him, they would have fit him. If in this case he didn't want them to look like they fit him, he made it look like they didn't fit him by doing nothing to make them fit. Only very gullible people can't seem to understand this.

bobaugust

bob
the problem with your theory is that there was no proof that OJ would wear size Extra Large in those Airis gloves. He may have worn extra large in some OTHER gloves but it was not proven that he wore extra large in THAT AIRIS glove.

oj jad a very wide HAND (palm area) i think it was wider than the normal hand. This area ,palm, is important in a hand being able to fit a glove.imo

http://www.leatherglovesonline.com/pages2/sizes.htmYour

how to measure a hand for gloves.

martin II

bob
the link seems not to work so here are instructions

To find out your glove size, measure (in inches) around your hand with a tape measure at the place indicated by the red line (just below the knuckles). You should use your dominant hand, the right if you are right-handed, and the left if you are left-handed.

[martin II]

try the link again

http://www.leatherglovesonline.com/pages2/sizes.htm



this one is good

martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
the problem with your theory is that there was no proof that OJ would wear size Extra Large in those Airis gloves. He may have worn extra large in some OTHER gloves but it was not proven that he wore extra large in THAT AIRIS glove.




martin II, This is not my theory, this is what Rubin testified to. Rubin testified that he reviewed Simpson's hands and that Simpson would wear between a large in some styles and an extra large in other styles.

The bloody gloves were an extra large. If Simpson wore only a large in those gloves than he would have had no problem putting on a size extra large that had shrunk to a large.

bobaugust

[jotun]

Originally posted by 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

Martin,
Simple.PLANTING!!!
Vanatter and Lange know
Fuhrman planted the glove.Fuhrman and Lange know Vanatter planted the blood on the sock.As do we.They all know, as do we, that the swatches were switched. They all know it was a drug hit and that Ron was a drug dealer.Had been since he was a teen.As do we.It's not anger but FEAR.

jotun

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, This is not my theory, this is what Rubin testified to. Rubin testified that he reviewed Simpson's hands and that Simpson would wear between a large in some styles and an extra large in other styles.

The bloody gloves were an extra large. If Simpson wore only a large in those gloves than he would have had no problem putting on a size extra large that had shrunk to a large.

bobaugust

bob you miss the point.

oj had very large hands(palms) larger than most people so the airs fine leather gloves were made for people with normal size hands for each size. normal size large normal size ex large etc.

Ojs hand were larger than Aris size exlarge. Therefore when he tried to put the murder gloves on, his very large PALMS would not
allow his fingers to get into place in those little fine leather Aris dress gloves made for average normal size hands imo

martin II

Rubin may have examined ojs hands but he obviously did not understand the size of ojs very large PALMS.

[jotun]

Originally posted by bobaugust



jotun, the fact is

There was no 11:00

We know the times of those calls from Karen Crawford

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

bobaugust

All,
Once again ba trots out one of his top 10 EXCUSES of why the evidence doesn't fit.That he posts over and over and over.Who is he trying to convince US or THEM or himself?

Karen Crawford-the undercover COP.
Most likely a male or 2 also.Mezzuluna was a cover for drugs.They would sell them and hand them over in a doggie-bag.

Maybe not 11 but certainly 10:47.
Remember the clock hadn't been set ahead for DST
so 9:47 was now 10:47. That's why the "record" was obviously faked.Why not bring in someone from the telephone company to verify?.Like was done for the 89 incident.
Because nobody would LIE about it for them.So Ron couldn't have left until 10:50.
Not enough time to get home, eat, change and get himself to Bundy to get killed by O.J. before 11.Who would have had no time being seen by Park at 10:54.

Nicole certainly didn't have much time to get killed with a 10:47 phone call, before 11. O.J.certainly had no time to kill her and get back before being seen at 10:54. Takes at least 6 minutes to drive from Bundy to Rockingham.
Vanatter drove it showed the jury the tape with no objection by the defence.And how long for a novice kill.with 2 fighting victims. Defensive wounds on Nicole"s and Ron's hands.Look at the autospy report.

O.J. IS INNOCENT.

jotun

[Wukong]

Jotun,

So if Nicole wasn't killed until after 11:00, then I guess she just left the Akita roam the streets barking his head off for an hour and a half without trying to get him in the house? Doesn't make sense, just like your "theory".

[jotun]

Originally posted by Big Ben


jotun,
speak to Johnnie about this
We couldn't make the connection. 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.

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

Big Ben,
I have been upset about the phone records since I first heard about them.

[Also about the Grand Jury that was NOT going to indite O.J. when Shapiro, Dershowitz and Ulleman got it dismissed.Went to a judge instead of 22 jurors.]

Johnnie was in town for another book signing soon after.Had met him at his 1st.That's the question I had for him.'WHY AREN'T YOU HELPING O.J. WITH THESE PHONE RECORDS"????? Was not going to leave without a satifactory answer.Watched every minute of that trial.Johnnie was my barometer.So knew all his dodges etc. Unfortunally didn't get to go. Sorry!!! For O.J. his kids,for me and you and your brother Doc.

Makes me mad also.
Still I find it hard to believe that Johnnie would enter into a 'unholy alliance' against O.J.Darden was so insulted that Johnnie CHOSE O.J.over him.Do believe it of Shapiro tho. Remember Marcia waving those records and never producing them.Imagine. 'You don't want this to end do you Bob?" "NOOOOOOOO." They ignored each other from then on.

I can't get the youtube.
Had been rereading
'Double Crossed for Blood' before all this 'IF I DID IT" came up.

jotun

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by jotun


Martin,
Simple.PLANTING!!!
Vanatter and Lange know
Fuhrman planted the glove.Fuhrman and Lange know Vanatter planted the blood on the sock.As do we.They all know, as do we, that the swatches were switched. They all know it was a drug hit and that Ron was a drug dealer.Had been since he was a teen.As do we.It's not anger but FEAR.

jotun
You cannot substantiate any of the above whatsoever! It is just another delusional post of yours in a long, long line of ridiculous and assinine theories that you continue to post ~ ad nauseum! Spare us, please!

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob you miss the point.

oj had very large hands(palms) larger than most people so the airs fine leather gloves were made for people with normal size hands for each size. normal size large normal size ex large etc.

Ojs hand were larger than Aris size exlarge. Therefore when he tried to put the murder gloves on, his very large PALMS would not
allow his fingers to get into place in those little fine leather Aris dress gloves made for average normal size hands imo

martin II

Rubin may have examined ojs hands but he obviously did not understand the size of ojs very large PALMS.


martin II, your the one who doesn't understand about Simpson's wide palms, not Rubin.

Triumph of Justice,
"Simpson, he (Rubin) said, had an extra-wide palm but not long fingers. It was easy for a person with such a hand to make a glove look like it didn't fit, just stretching out the palm and fingers would make putting them on very difficult. 'Imagine trying to put a pair of pants on a crying infant,' he told us. That, combined with the drag created by the latex gloves Simpson had been wearing, make it almost impossible."

"He looked at the cutter number on each and verified that they were mates. They were a fit, he said, but they were 'one inch short in the wrist.'"

As to you ridiculous comment that these gloves were not made for people like Simpson and that's why he couldn't get his fingers into them only shows again you have no idea what you're talking about. The many photographs of Simpson wearing the exact kind of gloves, Aris Leather Lights, contradicts your false uninformed beliefs. Photographs that showed the gloves fit on Simpson's fingers just fine but looked a little short on his wrist. That was because of his extra wide palms.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob

if you have ANY picture of oj wearing the murder gloves SHOW IT NOW or stop making up stuff about it and expect people to belive it.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

if you have ANY picture of oj wearing the murder gloves SHOW IT NOW or stop making up stuff about it and expect people to belive it.imo
martin II

OMG give it up! There were muliple pictures of Simpson wearing the Aris gloves.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I'm really disappointed in this comment from you.

Christopher Darden stated in his book, and has held firm, that his decision regarding the "glove demonstration" was spontaneous and that he had not consulted anyone about it.

Are you suggesting that he is just saying that?

Regardless, that is what his statement is and thus people are only "blaming" the person who has openly admitted responsibility.

Kate

My response was made in jest as indicated by the smile. However, there are those on the board, who have stated that M. Clark requested Darden not to do the experiment. That was the comment to which I was referring and the fact that Darden was not the lead prosecutor and did not have final authoruity. I have not read any of the books in regard to the case. If Darden wants to take full credit, then I am not the one to call him a liar. I think your posts disagrees with the posts of others, and having found you to be fair thus far, I will accept what you say. Perhaps, my humor may be a tad off color:). I will attempt to make it clear when I am joking from here on out. I trust that you enjoyed your holiday and hope that my comment did not make it any less pleasurable for you.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I'm really disappointed in this comment from you.

Christopher Darden stated in his book, and has held firm, that his decision regarding the "glove demonstration" was spontaneous and that he had not consulted anyone about it.

Are you suggesting that he is just saying that?

Regardless, that is what his statement is and thus people are only "blaming" the person who has openly admitted responsibility.

Kate

I looked back and found a post that concerened Clarke's knowledge of a glove demonstration. Perhaps, she did not consent to the use of laytex, but she clearly had prior knowledge of a glove demonstration. That prior knowledge, imo, speaks volumes to her role in the demonstration. I think the ultimate blame lies with the prosecution team.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



And it did.

bobaugust

The problem may not be with your reading but with your eyesight.:) To everyone this is a joke.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



The glove became an issue in June. Fuhrman's so called "demolition" happened in September. Does June come after September?

bobaugust

The glove becam evidence in June, and, as you should be aware, we were speaking of the fit of the glove. The glove became a "central issue", after it apparently did not fit and the blankety blank MF had been totally demolished, imho, on the stand. Thus, creating a reasonable doubt about how the glove was allegedly found at the alleged location.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Ames


Hi...THANK YOU for the welcome. I have always thought that OJ was guilty, due to the overwhelming evidence. It baffles me that the jury thought that he was "innocent". I wonder how many of them thought that he was guilty, but voted on his innocence anyway, because of who he was? IMO BTW...HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!!!

The jury did not vote on his innocence, only that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, your the one who doesn't understand about Simpson's wide palms, not Rubin.

Triumph of Justice,
"Simpson, he (Rubin) said, had an extra-wide palm but not long fingers. It was easy for a person with such a hand to make a glove look like it didn't fit, just stretching out the palm and fingers would make putting them on very difficult. 'Imagine trying to put a pair of pants on a crying infant,' he told us. That, combined with the drag created by the latex gloves Simpson had been wearing, make it almost impossible."

"He looked at the cutter number on each and verified that they were mates. They were a fit, he said, but they were 'one inch short in the wrist.'"

As to you ridiculous comment that these gloves were not made for people like Simpson and that's why he couldn't get his fingers into them only shows again you have no idea what you're talking about. The many photographs of Simpson wearing the exact kind of gloves, Aris Leather Lights, contradicts your false uninformed beliefs. Photographs that showed the gloves fit on Simpson's fingers just fine but looked a little short on his wrist. That was because of his extra wide palms.

bobaugust

If the jury decided the gloves worn by the killer did not fit, then they were forced to acquit, to paraphrase someone superior in the art of argument than you and I.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by jotun


Big Ben,
I have been upset about the phone records since I first heard about them.

Johnnie was in town for another book signing soon after.That's the question I had for him.'WHY AREN'T YOU HELPING O.J. WITH THESE PHONE RECORDS"?????

Still I find it hard to believe that Johnnie would enter into a 'unholy alliance' against O.J.

I can't get the youtube.
Had been rereading
'Double Crossed for Blood' before all this 'IF I DID IT" came up.

jotun

Sorry, jotun, you can't get www.youtube.com. You're the second person that told me that they just missed confronting Johnnie. However, he has been confronted. Mary Cox, the African-American attorney you see in the documentary "Serpents Rising" confronted him in her law office in Wash. D.C. back in 2000. She was booted out subsequently from that firm which, I believe, became one of the many national Cochran Law Firm franchises.

Johnnie C. did what he did, you have to get over it. It didn't hurt nor shock you as much as it did myself. I hurt for days, but we have him on tape, so get to youtube, and see it for yourself, so that your hurt can dissipate.

Just got off of a telephone three-way. Doc Johnson, the author of 'Double Crossed for Blood' is mad as hell about OJ's action with Murdoch and Regan. He claims that the book cites multiple assailant theory, and other stuff, he wants to sue. His brother says no, not yet.

Doc is the one who told OJ about multiple assailants, OJ was as dense as a rock and didn't believe Doc J at first. He couldn't fathom who or how the victims had been killed. It was Doc J's analysis of the autopsy report exit wounds of Dr. Golden that made OJ start to come around. He began to believe in Doc J more, certainly after Doc's brother came to Simpson and told him that DDA Hodgman had clandestinely removed the telephone records from his case file earlier in 1998. He never signed for them at the Exhibit Dept., and took them home, or at least away from the courthouse.

These are the records that bobaugust is mad about us not accepting as the verified truth. He has condemnded us for using Simpson to demand that the telephone company, GTE, produce a certified copy from the hard disk archive in San Angelo, TX where these conspirators whisked them off, immediately after putting their deceitful acts into motion.

This is treacherory and seditious behaviour of the highest order against all that our Constitutional guarantees provide. These people have undermined our faith in America for their own pecuniary interests, regardless of their power and authority, their racial, ethnic or religious background. They are all caught up in this unbelievably widening conspiracy to undermine our system of justice. We will not stand down.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by William Anthony


The jury did not vote on his innocence, only that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof.

It is obvious to me that the prosecution met it's burden of proof, which is why the vast majority of people consider Simpson a double murderer.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I looked back and found a post that concerened Clarke's knowledge of a glove demonstration. Perhaps, she did not consent to the use of laytex, but she clearly had prior knowledge of a glove demonstration. That prior knowledge, imo, speaks volumes to her role in the demonstration. I think the ultimate blame lies with the prosecution team.

Yes, Marcia Clark was planning on a glove demonstration, but not at that time and not with those gloves. She had asked the manufacturer to send a duplicate pair.

Chris Darden did decide, without first discussing it with anyone, to do the demonstration with the actual evidence gloves at a time when no one had prepared for it.

So, it is correct that the demonsration was of Chris Darden's own doing without consulting with Marcia Clark or any other prosecutor on the team.

To confirm my statements I did go back and check my sources. Both Marcia Clark and Chris Darden's books reflect the same.

Kate

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by jotun


All,
Once again ba trots out one of his top 10 EXCUSES of why the evidence doesn't fit.That he posts over and over and over.Who is he trying to convince US or THEM or himself?

Karen Crawford-the undercover COP.
Most likely a male or 2 also.Mezzuluna was a cover for drugs.They would sell them and hand them over in a doggie-bag.

Maybe not 11 but certainly 10:47.
Remember the clock hadn't been set ahead for DST
so 9:47 was now 10:47. That's why the "record" was obviously faked.Why not bring in someone from the telephone company to verify?.Like was done for the 89 incident.
Because nobody would LIE about it for them.So Ron couldn't have left until 10:50.
Not enough time to get home, eat, change and get himself to Bundy to get killed by O.J. before 11.Who would have had no time being seen by Park at 10:54.

Nicole certainly didn't have much time to get killed with a 10:47 phone call, before 11. O.J.certainly had no time to kill her and get back before being seen at 10:54. Takes at least 6 minutes to drive from Bundy to Rockingham.
Vanatter drove it showed the jury the tape with no objection by the defence.And how long for a novice kill.with 2 fighting victims. Defensive wounds on Nicole"s and Ron's hands.Look at the autospy report.

O.J. IS INNOCENT.

jotun


jotun, no, I don't offer excuses I offer the facts and the evidence, you offer only false claims and false accusations.

There is no evidence that Karen Crawford was an undercover cop.

The time clock at the Mezzaluna Restaurant wasn't an hour off, it was set at the correct time.

If Simpson's defense attorneys had challenged the authenticity of any of the telephone records in this case than the prosecutors would have brought in witnesses from the telephone company to testify. Simpson's attorneys were given all of the actual telephone records to examine and check out. They never raised any question about their authenticity. That's why they agreed to the times shown on them in several stipulations made in the criminal trial. Simpson's civil trial defense attorneys never raised any question about the authenticity of any of the telephone records.

The drive between Bundy and Rockingham is normally about a five minute drive. Late on a Sunday night with very little or no traffic by someone who is speeding it could easily have been made in less than five minutes.

Simpson didn't fight both victims at the same time. He could very well have fought with Nicole first who was knocked unconscious just before Ron arrived. When Ron arrived surprising Simpson, he was killed. Simpson than returned to his unconscious wife and sliced her throat.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


This is treacherory and seditious behaviour of the highest order against all that our Constitutional guarantees provide. These people have undermined our faith in America for their own pecuniary interests, regardless of their power and authority, their racial, ethnic or religious background. They are all caught up in this unbelievably widening conspiracy to undermine our system of justice. We will not stand down.


Big Ben, what you have on tape is nothing sinister. The problem is yours. You took Cochran's words out of context and then put your own ridiculous interpretation on them.

The only conspiracy about these telephone records is a conspiracy of ignorance by people who can accept the reality of what witnesses in this case testified to and the actual evidence that was found. Witnesses who tell us what and when events happened before, during, and after the murders were committed. Physical evidence that all points to one person and only one person, Orenthal James Simpson, who was the only other person at Bundy at the time both victims were killed.

This conspiracy of ignorance tries to blame everyone else except for the proven killer. Ignorant claims that evidence was planted. Ignorant claims that the LAPD conspired by committing crimes. Ignorant claims about other killers. Ignorant claims that all of the witnesses lied. Ignorant claims that Simpson's defense attorneys conspired against him.

This has nothing to do with anyone undermining our system of justice, it has to do with false claims and false accusations made by people who are completely out of touch with reality.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


The glove becam evidence in June, and, as you should be aware, we were speaking of the fit of the glove. The glove became a "central issue", after it apparently did not fit and the blankety blank MF had been totally demolished, imho, on the stand. Thus, creating a reasonable doubt about how the glove was allegedly found at the alleged location.


Maybe in your mind but not based on when these events actually happened. But I understand since most of your knowledge about this case is based on your memory and as we've all seen your memory isn't very credible.

There is no evidence that the glove was planted, there is only evidence that Simpson dropped it when he returned from Bundy.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


If the jury decided the gloves worn by the killer did not fit, then they were forced to acquit, to paraphrase someone superior in the art of argument than you and I.



Right an argument made to gullible people and only gullible people believed it.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




Right an argument made to gullible people and only gullible people believed it.

bobaugust

bob

I agree that you do seem to be excessively gullible.

martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Extremely EXCELLENT post, Bob. You just keep on getting better and better!

As you so eloquently posted, "This has nothing to do with anyone undermining our system of justice, it has to do with false claims and false accusations made by people who are completely out of touch with reality."

Unfortunately, it will never change because "they" won't change! It'll just be the same 'ol sh*t coming from them, but just a different day!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

bob

I agree that you do seem to be excessively gullible.

martin II

As I read it, Bob wasn't asking for your agreement or approval of ANYTHING!

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

I agree that you do seem to be excessively gullible.

martin II


martin II, I'm glad that you agree that anyone who fell for Cochran's ridiculous rhymes are gullible people.

It's obvious you and William Anthony believed them as well as you were both evidently fooled by Simpson's act when he put the gloves on. That makes you guys the gullible ones, not me.

Thanks for making that clear.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by bobaugust




The only conspiracy about these telephone records is a conspiracy of ignorance by people who can accept the reality of what witnesses in this case testified to and the actual evidence that was found.


Another missed spell check correction:

This should read,

The only conspiracy about these telephone records is a conspiracy of ignorance by people who can't accept the reality of what witnesses in this case testified to and the actual evidence that was found.

bobaugust

[Ames]

Originally posted by William Anthony


The jury did not vote on his innocence, only that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof.

The prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof?? That is bull...IMO. They proved, WAY BEYOND a shadow of a doubt, that OJ killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. The jury had blinders on...IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by socaldiva


It is obvious to me that the prosecution met it's burden of proof, which is why the vast majority of people consider Simpson a double murderer.

DITTO! I totally agree!!!

[Ames]

Originally posted by William Anthony


If the jury decided the gloves worn by the killer did not fit, then they were forced to acquit, to paraphrase someone superior in the art of argument than you and I.

If the gloves don't fit...you must acquit....wonder how long Cochran rehearsed that line? IMO

[jotun]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Sorry, jotun, you can't get www.youtube.com. You're the second person that told me that they just missed confronting Johnnie. However, he has been confronted. Mary Cox, the African-American attorney you see in the documentary "Serpents Rising" confronted him in her law office in Wash. D.C. back in 2000.

Johnnie C. did what he did, you have to get over it. but we have him on tape


Big Ben,
Am very aware of Mary Cox.Saw her tell off G. Rivera on his show.96? O.J. called her the next day.When she did tv interviews, O.J.called in a few times.
WHAT did Johnnie say to Mary when confronted????

It DID shock me when Johnnie spoke of NOT showing the phone records.I also have it on tape.

jotun

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Ames


If the gloves don't fit...you must acquit....wonder how long Cochran rehearsed that line? IMO

Yeah, that & that dopey knit cap demonstration. "Dream Team" my backside.

[Ames]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Yeah, that & that dopey knit cap demonstration. "Dream Team" my backside.

LOL...my thoughts exactly!

[Zold1]

Originally posted by bobaugust



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

Yes, thank you for the chance to respond, BobAugust. With reference to the blood found on Simpson's socks that was full of the preservative EDTA leads me to believe it did not come directly from Nicole or Ron. Therefore, the blood must be discounted and was obviously discounted by the Jury.

Blue Black fibers also can come from contaminated crime scenes that match police uniforms. There was absolutely no proof any of those fibers came from anything OJS wore that fateful night.

Even should one believe those shoes were something OJS owned and the gloves were also his, there is Nothing to put them on OJ. They mean nothing. No one even bothered to use caution in trolling the area crawling with police and other personnel that fateful night. The crime scene was dismissed as a mess and a new one began at Rockingham. I recall Johnnie Cochran's 15 points of questionable evidence.

[Zold1]

Herein lies some truth:

JOHNNY COCHRAN'S 15 POINTS OF REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE SIMPSON CASE
1. Why...did the blood...show up on the sock almost two months after a careful search for evidence and shy, as demonstrated by Dr. Lee and Professor MacDonell, was the blood applied when there was no foot in it?

2. Why was Mark Fuhrman, a detective who had been pushed off the case, the person who went by himself to the Bronco, over the fence to interrogate Kato to discover the glove and the thump-thump-thump area?

3. Why was the glove still moist when Fuhrman found it if Mr. Simpson had dropped it seven hours earlier?


4. If Mark Fuhrman...would speak so openly about his intense genocidal racism to a relative stranger such as Kathleen Bell, how many of his co-workers, the other detectives in this case, were also aware that he lied when he denied using the n-word, yet failed to come forward?

5. Why did the prosecution not call a single police officer to rebut police photographer Rokahr's testimony that Detective Fuhrman was pointing at the glove before - before Fuhrman went to Rockingham? That is, around 4:30 in the morning.

6. If the glove had been dropped on the walkway at Rockingham 20 minutes after the murder, why is there no blood or fiber on that south walkway or on the leaves the glove was resting on. Why is there no blood in the 150 feet of narrow walkway, on the stucco walk abutting it?

7. For what purpose was Vannatter carrying Mr. Simpson's blood in his pocket for three hours and a distance of 25 miles instead of booking it down the hall at Parker Center?

8. Why did Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg, in a desperate effort to cover up for the missing 1.5 milliliters of Mr. Simpson's blood, secretly go out to the home of police nurse Thano Peratis without notice to the defense and get him to contradict his previous sworn testimony at both the grand jury and the preliminary hearing?

9. Why if, according to Ms. Clark, he walked into his own house wearing the murder clothes and shoes is there not any soil or so much as a smear or drop of blood associated with the victims on the floor, the white carpeting, the doorknobs, the light switches, and his bedding?

10. If Mr. Simpson had just killed Mr. Goldman in a bloody battle involving more than two dozen knife wounds - where Mr. Goldman remained standing and struggling for several minutes - how come there is less than seven-tenths of one drop of blood consistent with Mr. Goldman found in the Bronco?

11. Why following a bitter struggle alleged with Mr. Goldman were there no bruises or marks on O.J. Simpson's body?

12. Why do bloodstains with the most DNA not show up until weeks after the murder?

13. Why did Mark Fuhrman lie to us?

14. Why did Phil Vannatter lie to us?

15. Given Professor MacDonell's testimony that the gloves would not have shrunk no matter how much blood was smeared on them, and given that they never shrank on June 21, 1994 until now, despite being repeatedly frozen and thawed, how come the gloves just don't fit?

[Zold1]

Originally posted by socaldiva


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

Really?! Then you obviously did not hear about this lawsuit. I don't believe it to be rumor or innuendo at that price.....

According to internal LAPD documents, between 1994 and 2000 Chrisman tapped computer files on scores of celebrities, including Meg Ryan, Kobe Bryant, O.J. Simpson, Larry King, Drew Barrymore, Dionne Warwick, Farrah Fawcett,
Cindy Crawford, Elle Macpherson and Berry Gordy.

LT. FRANK SPANGLER SEZ HE GAVE THIS GUY THE TASK OF MAPPING CELEBS IN THE WEST L.A. AREA!

The lawsuit, filed in federal court by Chrisman's former girlfriend, said Chrisman had collected the data for financial gain, but LAPD investigators say they could not pin down a motive.

"We just don't know," said Deputy Chief James McMurray, until recently the chief of internal affairs. "There was all sorts of rumor and speculation."Officials say unauthorized access alone violates department regulations, and no motive needs to be shown.

Whatever the motive, the case prompted worried debate during a closed session of the City Council on March 19, when council members voted unanimously to pay $387,500 to settle the lawsuit. According to sources, the council also directed its staff to study the liability the city might face as a result of unauthorized computer use by Chrisman or possibly by other officers.

The suit by Cyndy Truhan, ex-wife of former Dodger Steve Garvey, alleged that Chrisman had violated her privacy by using LAPD computers to secretly investigate her, as well as hundreds of other people, and that he had made a significant side income by selling the information to tabloids. In settling the suit, the city admitted no wrongdoing by Chrisman or the LAPD.

Councilman Dennis Zine said he and other council members found the Chrisman case disturbing and are concerned that the city might be at risk for more legal action. The LAPD has no monitoring system to detect unauthorized computer use, officials said.

"How many other situations do we have like this?" Zine asked. "How does this go unchecked? We're spending almost $400,000 of taxpayer money on this one suit, and God knows how many more will come down the line."

Zine, who was a police officer for more than 30 years, said council members had held a long discussion in closed session. "This wasn't a case of, 'Let's pass this and thank you very much.' I had some serious questions and my colleagues joined me in those questions," he said.

[Zold1]

Wasn't Candace Garvey a friend of Nicole Brown Simpson's?

I understand the attorney for Chrisman is Christopher Darden who cannot understand whut the fuss was all about. For the amount of settlement, I should think he, a former prosecutor, would find out to help him in the future as a defense attorney, wouldn't you?

[Zold1]

Plus! I find this absolutely appalling as a tax payer and a person who has been seeking the stalker of Nicole Simpson. It was apparent no one was talking and Vanatter or Lange and Mark Furhman are the ones responding to that stalker, telephone threatening person. Who wuz it?

Police apparently became aware of Chrisman's computer activity only by accident.

In March 2000, Truhan called the LAPD to accuse Chrisman of coming to her home and roughing her up in a dispute related to their recently ended three-year relationship. The case did not result in criminal charges, but it set off an internal affairs investigation of Chrisman's activities on and off duty.

In her suit, Truhan said Chrisman had "used his position as an officer to find her new telephone numbers and addresses" and to stalk her after she had broken off the relationship.

While they were still dating, according to the suit, Chrisman had told her that he could plant unflattering stories about her in tabloids and had threatened her with bodily harm if she told anyone that he was making money as a tipster for the National Enquirer and other publications.

Sources said phone records obtained by the LAPD show numerous calls from Chrisman to Cindy Solomon, a Los Angeles-based senior reporter for the National Enquirer. Solomon declined to say whether she knows the officer. "I know where you're going with this and I can't comment," she said.

Enquirer Editor David Perel acknowledged that his paper pays some sources, but said his reporters do not buy information from police officers. Major newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, prohibit reporters from paying sources for information.

WELL....DUH!?

[Zold1]

Originally posted by goatgirl




Hi 2l8

interesting theory :)

I could be wrong ....but I am not sold on the idea Nicole was romantic w/ Ron ....

I think it would be interesting to know who cancelled the plans for the sleep over, I think it would explain alot more....

~~GoatGirl~~
:seeya:

Thank You GG for asking that question. I would really like to know why the Dentist took his family and moved to Arizona the next day. Something scary in L.A.? Couldn't be OJ. He was in the air or in jail.

[Zold1]

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

So if Furhman's partner found all the evidence in the case, then I wonder what Furhman was rattling off that if HE went down so did the CASE goes Bye-Bye since HE had found all of the evidence!???

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Zold1


Yes, thank you for the chance to respond, BobAugust. With reference to the blood found on Simpson's socks that was full of the preservative EDTA leads me to believe it did not come directly from Nicole or Ron. Therefore, the blood must be discounted and was obviously discounted by the Jury.

Blue Black fibers also can come from contaminated crime scenes that match police uniforms. There was absolutely no proof any of those fibers came from anything OJS wore that fateful night.

Even should one believe those shoes were something OJS owned and the gloves were also his, there is Nothing to put them on OJ. They mean nothing. No one even bothered to use caution in trolling the area crawling with police and other personnel that fateful night. The crime scene was dismissed as a mess and a new one began at Rockingham. I recall Johnnie Cochran's 15 points of questionable evidence.


Zold1, you are mistaken. There was no EDTA preserved blood ever found in Nicole's blood stain on Simpson's socks.

In the civil trial Dr. Cotton testified to test results when she compared that blood stain to the blood in Nicole's autopsy sample that proved that Nicole's blood was not planted on Simpson's socks.

Deedrick testified that the blue black cotton fibers found on Ron's shirt, the killer's right hand glove, and Simpson's socks were all exactly the same. There were no uniformed officers who saw the right hand glove at Rockingham or Simpson's socks.

No one ever saw a second glove at Bundy. Not the patrol officers who first arrived and not any of the other detectives or officers who arrived at Bundy after them. There was no second glove at Bundy. All of the blood and fiber evidence on that glove points to Simpson and no one else.

Triumph of Justice,
Dr. Cotton explained that when blood is drawn for testing by labs, it is preserved with the chemical EDTA, which stops the DNA in the blood from degrading. (Degradation is simply the breaking down of a chemical into its component parts over time.) But when she compared the degradation levels of Nicole's autopsy vial, Dr. Cotton found the autopsy vial contained the more degraded blood. The blood on the sock was fresher and richer in DNA content than the blood in the vial. Once blood has degraded, it is impossible to raise its DNA count; you can't pony it back up. Under the conspiracy theory, the blood used to plant on the sock came from Nicole's autopsy vial, but that blood had a lower DNA count than the blood on the sock. Nicole's blood was fresher when it spurted out and splashed onto Simpson's sock as he was killing her than two days later when the coroner collected it. This completely destroyed the notion of any planting; its impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again. Nicole's blood on the sock could not have been planted.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Aren't you making a huge mistake by assuming that all the "tips" the police received regarding this case all pointed away from OJ Simpson as the killer? How many defendants are now in jail because of "tips" that broke a case for a DA?

However, even making that very wrong assumption that all these tips had to be in Simpson's favor, it does not provide any comfort when the police ignored several "tips" right from the start. Such as what Sydney heard that night, her bed time, the receipt for the ice cream, just to name a few?

We also know that another person, saw the bodies before the couple who testified about it. I'd say that was a big "tip".

Another big tip, that phone call at the police station. Not even you can possibly believe that it was a female reporter asking about two bodies on the West Side.

First and foremost, a reporter is always looking for the one story that will make their career. There is no way a real reporter would have first called the wrong police station and second, just accepted what she was told.

Do you really believe that had the police been aware of the murders when the phone call came in they would have actually told her about it?

Secondly, didn't the police officer say he called the correct station? And if he didn't, why the hell not? What if someone calls the wrong police they lose their rights to have the police investigate because it wasn't within their boundaries?

You are slipping!

BTW, I was just scanning Fuhrman's book when I saw a picture of the inside of the washing machine. Funny thing, he says Brad Roberts first found this, when he did he testify about what he saw at the scene, at either trial?

[limakey]

Wukong,

As you know, I find any reference to Kato the dog to be rather silly. If you give the dog the emotion of anger and grief then you also have to give it the emotion of fear and knowing when to keep out of danger.

However, IMO, there are two interesting points about the dog that I don't if ever has been discussed. One, the dog had a leash on it when it was found, didn't it? What was done with this leash? Was it processed for evidence?

The second thing, the blood on the dog's underbelly. Isn't it possible the blood on the dog's underbelly could have been a direct result of someone, somehow, "holding" the dog down? I realize that others may feel the dog may have just layed in Nicole's blood, but that doesn't make sense with all the barking and pacing the dog did.

IMO

[limakey]

GG,

Nicole and Ron's relationship is another aspect of this case of where way too many people went out of their way to either convince the public that they were a couple or they were not a couple. It appears to me that the DA's were not going to budge on Ron just being at the wrong place at the wrong time in regards to bringing the glasses over.

However, what difference would it make to them if Nicole and Ron were lovers? It doesn't change the fact they are both still dead.

While I know this opens a big can of worms, but the DA's motive for the killings was really, really weak. However, had they combined it with a crime a passion, I think they would have had more evidence for the motive.

IMO, if Simpson is the killer and he loses it with Nicole because of her behavior toward him, there is no way, that when he "sees" Ron that night he automatically thinks of him as nothing more then a witness to his crime and therefore he must be killed too. In other words, if Simpson is the killer, it makes no difference if Ron was Nicole's lover or not. The way the scene was set up inside the house, no one could be blamed for thinking that Nicole did have plans that night for male company.

[limakey]

What exactly does it mean when both sides "stipulate" to any evidence in a case? Does it mean that the evidence, itself is beyond any form of contestment? That there is no way to prove that there is other evidence that either stregthens it or counters it?

A stipulation is nothing more then an agreement between both sides that the subject evidence is simply off limits.

Mr. Simpson was Mr. Cochran's client. Regardless of what any of his defense lawyers thought about phone records and how they could be used to Simpson's advantage doesn't matter if Mr. Simpson tells them not to go there.

For the NG's who are angry at Johnnie regarding these phone records, remember one thing, OJ is fully aware that by contesting those phone records, he and his defense team was basically handing over the identities of witnesses who know that OJ Simpson is not the killer.

Both sides had witnesses who ran away to protect themselves and or their families. The only way this fear makes sense is that at the very least, Simpson did not act alone during the commission of the crime and even if he was the only one convicted in this crime, there was still his accomplice or accomplices to worry about.

If Mr. Simpson is the sole killer and his sole motive was a domestic violence and/or a crime a passion, again, any witness coming forward had nothing to fear. Especially during the civil trial. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by socaldiva


It is obvious to me that the prosecution met it's burden of proof, which is why the vast majority of people consider Simpson a double murderer.

I cannt speak of what is obvious to you, only that the jury disagreed with your conclusion.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Yes, Marcia Clark was planning on a glove demonstration, but not at that time and not with those gloves. She had asked the manufacturer to send a duplicate pair.

Chris Darden did decide, without first discussing it with anyone, to do the demonstration with the actual evidence gloves at a time when no one had prepared for it.

So, it is correct that the demonsration was of Chris Darden's own doing without consulting with Marcia Clark or any other prosecutor on the team.

To confirm my statements I did go back and check my sources. Both Marcia Clark and Chris Darden's books reflect the same.

Kate

I will only say that I believe that Clark was the senior prosecutor and could have forced Darden not to do a demonstration with which she so strongly opposed. I will only say that, to me, all, who let the demonstration proceed, share in the culpability. I think that at the time he announced his decision to do the demonstration, if memory serves me correctly, Ms. Clark was present. If she was the senior prosecutor and could not control Darden, then that speaks to her ability, which is another matter. I hope you understood that my remark was in jest and that you did enjoy your Holiday.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Ames


If the gloves don't fit...you must acquit....wonder how long Cochran rehearsed that line? IMO

Long enough for the jury to render a favorable verdict.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I will only say that I believe that Clark was the senior prosecutor and could have forced Darden not to do a demonstration with which she so strongly opposed. I will only say that, to me, all, who let the demonstration proceed, share in the culpability. I think that at the time he announced his decision to do the demonstration, if memory serves me correctly, Ms. Clark was present. If she was the senior prosecutor and could not control Darden, then that speaks to her ability, which is another matter. I hope you understood that my remark was in jest and that you did enjoy your Holiday.

Hi William,

I am going to eat a little crow here and agree that you are correct. She certainly could have, and should have, forced the demonstration not to continue.

I do understand and accept that your remark was in jest. I appreciate that you even took the time to explain to me what your thought process behind the remark was.

My Holiday was wonderful and I hope that yours was as well.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Yeah, that & that dopey knit cap demonstration. "Dream Team" my backside.

Hope you Holiday was enjoyable. While I cannot speak to any attributes of your backside, I can say that the simplest argument and demonstration is often the best.:) In case those of you may not be aware, this post is in jest as to the portion, which may be interpreted as a suggestion that Socaldiva demostrate her backside.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Hi William,

I am going to eat a little crow here and agree that you are correct. She certainly could have, and should have, forced the demonstration not to continue.

I do understand and accept that your remark was in jest. I appreciate that you even took the time to explain to me what your thought process behind the remark was.

My Holiday was wonderful and I hope that yours was as well.

Kate

Thank you very much and it suddenly got better.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by jotun


Big Ben,
Am very aware of Mary Cox.Saw her tell off G. Rivera on his show.96? O.J. called her the next day.When she did tv interviews, O.J.called in a few times.
WHAT did Johnnie say to Mary when confronted????

It DID shock me when Johnnie spoke of NOT showing the phone records.I also have it on tape.

jotun

jotun, she told us that Johnnie C. was extremely nervous becuase it was like his first movement towards the east coast to build the nationally franchised chain of what is now the Johnnie Cochran Law Firm. Her bosses, even moreso, since Mary C. has always been kind of the loose cannon to speak her mind. The senior partners didn't care about this OJ stuff, their immediate interest appeared to be how much money could be brought in if their law firm became associated with the Cochran name. Mary C. was expendable because her continued presence with the firm was a potential embarrassment for the D.C. law firm. I believe that she took a professorship up in Boston in the aftermath.

Johnnie is not the only one to have been nervous when confronted with the question. Atty Doug McCann ran into Shapiro after being seen on FOX re: those phone records, McCann reported the same nervous behaviour. F. Lee was allegedly confronted by someone at a barbershop, who got back to Doc, and Bailey was alleged to have become totally unglued. Lou Brown told Doc's brother when the matter blew up on FOX that his neighbors were disbelieving of their drive claims and mad that he wouldn't agree to show Simpson the telephone records. California Highway Patrol Commanders were red faced when Doc's brother told them of the alleged Brown's drive time and asked their permission to allow a CHIPS lieutenant responsible for that stretch of highway, who was willing to be taped saying the drive was impossible. CalTrans officials were upset and gave Doc highway documents indicating the impossibility that year in '94 due to a major highway construction project right in the path of the Brown's return trip home on the I-405.

Other Calif. officials have done their best to smother this PR embarrassment and, in my opinion, keep it on the west side of the Rocky Mountains. Only a relatively few people nationally saw the controversial debates with Doc and Mary Cox on FOX and Court TV. Even if they saw it, they were removed from the preliminary local heat in L.A. that led up to the national TV invitations by FOX and Court TV.

However, the controversy refuses to go away, regarding those telephone records and the Brown's drive time to make that crucial telephone call.

[limakey]

Big Ben,

Have you had any chance to ask anyone regarding the gated community the Browns lived in, what their security was at that time? Was a guard on duty that night? I would love to see the security records for that day.

If you think about it, even the Browns leaving home would have been useful in regards to a timeline. IMO.

Also, isn't it possible that the defense team would have put other people in danager had they persued the telephone records. I always found it odd how only the Browns records were used, what about Nicole's? Ron's? Something isn't right, that is for sure.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey
What exactly does it mean when both sides "stipulate" to any evidence in a case? Does it mean that the evidence, itself is beyond any form of contestment? That there is no way to prove that there is other evidence that either stregthens it or counters it?

A stipulation is nothing more then an agreement between both sides that the subject evidence is simply off limits.


In a court of law, when both sides stipulate it means that it is now considered a fact.

Kate

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by limakey
What exactly does it mean when both sides "stipulate" to any evidence in a case? Does it mean that the evidence, itself is beyond any form of contestment? That there is no way to prove that there is other evidence that either stregthens it or counters it?

A stipulation is nothing more then an agreement between both sides that the subject evidence is simply off limits.
IMO.

limakey, a very good question! A stipulation, based upon my previously assigned research of the matter in '99, is supposed to be offered when based upon something that is accepted as a universally known and undisputed fact, i.e. the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west.

However, whenever evidence that would support the truth of the fact is in dispute, requires authentification or is contradictory, it can only be examined for its voracity by the "trier of fact", meaning the jury. This is in accordance with the FRE (Federal Rules of Evidence) and the URE (Uniform Rules of Evidence) from which the FRE takes its wording after 1965.

The problem that I have found during my research is that California has some very strange laws that, in my opinion, were intended to facilitate the protection of California's valuable asset, the movie stars or celebrities of the billion dollar motion picture industry.

In 1953 national jurists and preeminent legal scholars decided that it was high time that all of the states gather in Wash. D.C., to construct one uniform code regarding the rules of evidence, (URE), in order to eliminate the hodge podge of local common laws throughout each state in the U.S.; it lasted for 12 years.

California along with several southern states refused to participate, instead California chose to hold thier own inner state conference on restructuring the rules of evidence.

In 1966 Calif. annullled an amendment to the California Constitution, I believe it was Article 6 sec. 12, that forbid Calif. judges from interferring with juries regarding the examination of evidence. In other words, from doing the very thing that Judge Ito did to his jurors in his courtroom on Feb. 7, 1995.

On Feb. 7, 1995, Judge Ito instructed the jury, pursuant to sec. 1.02, of the BAJI (Cal. Book of Approved Jury Instructions), that even though he had told them they were not obligated to believe anything that lawyers on either side of the table had to say, whenever opposite lawyers stipulate to a fact, the jury must accept the stipulation (without question) as evidence in the trial.

This is how the lawyers slipped the unseen, unexamined telephone records past the jury, in both trials. The jury appeared awed by the majesty of the judge on his bench, and possibly the celebrity of the trial itself, and simply did not realize, in my opinion, their sacred duty.

They have an obligation that has been past down over 800 years from clause 39 of the Magna Charta, that grants them their designated role as the 'Trier of Fact'.

This is what the English noblemen who took their own lives into their hands by capturing King John were determined to extract and to preserve. They were tired of being subjected to the whims extemporaneous and unfair judgements of a King or his apponted judge who was not only the "trier of law" but until that day on the plains of Runnymeade, was also the "trier of fact" as well.

Despite the fashionably attired attorneys in Simpson's trial, their eloquence, and whatever else they have that influences the bobaugusts of the world. They had no legitimate authority in a common law court to bypass the jury, only the "trier of fact" the jury was entitled to determine the truth of the telephone records. Anybody who says that these attorneys or this judge had a right to withhold these disputed telephone records from the jury is consummately and absolutely mistaken, pursuant to the rules of common law and the U.S. Constitution.

I am upset that we have allowed the diversion of race and other deceptions promulgated by these charlatans to undermine the most important clause, 39, that has withstood the tests of time and has become one of the most fundamental guaranteed protections under our U.S. Constitution.

In spite of what bobaugust and his minions of deception may plead, I must stand firm, that despite some of its historical shortcomings the model for the adversarial system of justice that is practised within the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, and Australia is still, in my opinion, the best and should not be destroyed by these incalcitrant nay sayers. The benefits of this model of justice should be practised whether it is for the benefit of OJ Simpson or your own brother or sister.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by limakey
Big Ben,

Have you had any chance to ask anyone regarding the gated community the Browns lived in, what their security was at that time? Was a guard on duty that night? I would love to see the security records for that day.

If you think about it, even the Browns leaving home would have been useful in regards to a timeline. IMO.

Also, isn't it possible that the defense team would have put other people in danager had they persued the telephone records. I always found it odd how only the Browns records were used, what about Nicole's? Ron's? Something isn't right, that is for sure.

Yes, they had a guard shack with a young man prepared to lift the gate and lower the potential tire shredding teeth that one would have to pass over.

I'm not clear as to whom you are referring when you are speaking of endangering other people. My feeling is that this was and still is a sea of danger from many perspectives; actual lethal danger. Now, after uncovering what we have, and watching the mysterious deaths of those who have gone on well before the normal expiration of their life expectancy, I can appreciate those who live so close to the lion's mouth and have chosen to deal with us discreetly, or in some instances, not at all. I used to get very angry because I couldn't understand why they wanted to talk but refused to come forth. Now I know, and I apologize to any of those that I may have displayed a sense of total disdain.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I cannt speak of what is obvious to you, only that the jury disagreed with your conclusion.

The jurors were idiots & mocked by the vast majority of the populace.

Aren't you one of the posters that claim that Simpson "probably did it"? If so, I'd say the state formed your opinion. Unless it was the toothfairy :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Despite the fashionably attired attorneys in Simpson's trial, their eloquence, and whatever else they have that influences the bobaugusts of the world. They had no legitimate authority in a common law court to bypass the jury, only the "trier of fact" the jury was entitled to determine the truth of the telephone records. Anybody who says that these attorneys or this judge had a right to withhold these disputed telephone records from the jury is consummately and absolutely mistaken, pursuant to the rules of common law and the U.S. Constitution.

I am upset that we have allowed the diversion of race and other deceptions promulgated by these charlatans to undermine the most important clause, 39, that has withstood the tests of time and has become one of the most fundamental guaranteed protections under our U.S. Constitution.



First, let me commend you on your well-done research on the topic of the Rules of Evidence. I have one problem. If the records were disputed, then why was there a stipulation? With a stipulation, it is my understanding that both sides have agreed that it is a fact and I do not see any problem with Ito informing the jury of the stipulation. I agree that bobaugust has a limited knowledge as to legal concepts and this may lead to, imho, his misguided opinions. I do not think that any discussion of the role that race plays in the CJS or in the trial was a diversion. I fail to see how race undermined the Constitutional protections and look forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by socaldiva


The jurors were idiots & mocked by the vast majority of the populace.

Aren't you one of the posters that claim that Simpson "probably did it"? If so, I'd say the state formed your opinion. Unless it was the toothfairy :rolleyes:

When I say that he probably did it, I mean that, if the standard of proof was by a preponderance of the evidence, then he should have been found guilty, but, since the standard was beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury decided that he was not guilty. I will not call either the criminal or civil jurors idiots. What I find most interesting is the race of the people who mock the verdicts.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by William Anthony
*snip*

What I find most interesting is the race of the people who mock the verdicts.

I find it interesting that you assume that only white people mock the criminal jury.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I find it interesting that you assume that only white people mock the criminal jury.

I find it interesting that you misquoted my post, whether intentionally or not. Show me where I say that only white people mock the criminal jury? What I can say is by your post;

"The jurors were idiots & mocked by the vast majority of the populace."

that Whites are the majority in America and if that is why you thought that I said only White people mock the jury, you are wrong in your assumption and with your response as to my post.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by William Anthony
*snip*

I find it interesting that you misquoted my post

I did not misquote your post. If you weren't talking about white people, just what race were you talking about?

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I did not misquote your post. If you weren't talking about white people, just what race were you talking about?

Whatever race makes up the "vast majority" of those who mock. It was your post. Do you know or can you provide a link?

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, what you have on tape is nothing sinister. The problem is yours. You took Cochran's words out of context and then put your own ridiculous interpretation on them.

No Bob, I placed Cochran's words, "We didn't show...we're not going to show the jury the telephone bills or whatever" in the context of his pleading to the court on that particular date in July of 1995.

Johnnie was making a 352 argument. The 352 argument is one in which a California attorney pleads to a judge why he feels that certain evidence, if introduced, at trial could prejudice the jury. Therefore, one must explain, if one replaced the defense's desire not show bloody photographs with the intent not to show the jury the telephone records, how the latter could or would possibly prejudice the jury.

The only conspiracy about these telephone records is a conspiracy of ignorance by people who can't accept the reality of what witnesses in this case testified to and the actual evidence that was found.

Questioning witness testimony and/or evidence, after the fact, is not unusual for investigators to do, Bob. Barry Scheck has quite a successful program, "Innocense Project", that has helped to salvage the innocense of several condemned men by questioning the testimony and the evidence.

This conspiracy of ignorance tries to blame everyone else except for the proven killer. Ignorant claims that evidence was planted.

The Serpents Rising documentary shows what occurred because of the LAPD officer Raphael Perez's testimony in 2000, that Ramparts Police Precinct had sent over 3,000 innocent men to prison by the use of planted evidence, Bob. Others alleged that Ramparts officers had visited OJ's house on the night of the murders.

Ignorant claims that the LAPD conspired by committing crimes.

Well we all saw on video tape, Bob, how they handled Rodney King, or the young man with handcuffs whose face the police officer pummeled after slamming his body onto the trunk of the police car. We saw the policeman with his knee across the throat of the recent Mexican fellow out there in L.A. that two officers had effectively subdued. Bob, you got to get yourself a TV, even a small one will help you keep up with the debate, my man.

Ignorant claims about other killers. Ignorant claims that all of the witnesses lied. Ignorant claims that Simpson's defense attorneys conspired against him.

We call it the way that we see it, Bob. Certainly if the rest of the world has an uneasiness about these persistent irregularities, don't you think that you should take pause and see which way the wind is blowing. You need to check yourself, you're the one who is beginning to look really ignorant and foolish. The world is hitting your wall like a punishing tide demanding answers, and you keep giving these flimsy explanations. I told you, you are like some old fool trying to keep his finger in the dike of a crumbling wall. You know that fool 2L84AD8 can't give you any intelligent assistance. You're going to drown, man!

This has nothing to do with anyone undermining our system of justice, it has to do with false claims and false accusations made by people who are completely out of touch with reality.

Oh, I think it is desperately becoming about undermining our system of justice. People are beginning to tire of that same old menu that you keep offering. You can't continue to offer excuses for all of these serious irregularities. 1 or 2 maybe, but all of these, I'm afraid not, Bob.

You're beginning to sound like one of those old Mississippi status quo judges, Bob, who would say, "Now son, we're going to make sure you get a fair trial before a jury of your peers, then we're going to take you out back and hang you!"

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by Big Ben

SNIPPED

Oh, I think it is desperately becoming about undermining our system of justice. People are beginning to tire of that same old menu that you keep offering. You can't continue to offer excuses for all of these serious irregularities. 1 or 2 maybe, but all of these, I'm afraid not, Bob.

You're beginning to sound like one of those old Mississippi status quo judges, Bob, who would say, "Now son, we're going to make sure you get a fair trial before a jury of your peers, then we're going to take you out back and hang you!" [/B]

:beer:

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Whatever race makes up the "vast majority" of those who mock. It was your post. Do you know or can you provide a link?

More games from W.A. I think a wide variety of races understand that Orenthal is a double murderer. You are the one that characterized it as a race thing, not I.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


More games from W.A. I think a wide variety of races understand that Orenthal is a double murderer. You are the one that characterized it as a race thing, not I. he's always pushing his agenda. . .

Hope you've had a good holiday.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Zold1
Herein lies some truth:

JOHNNY COCHRAN'S 15 POINTS OF REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE SIMPSON CASE


Zold1, some of these questions are based on false information. All of these questions have reasonable answers.

1. The tiny dark blood stains on the dark colored socks could not be seen under normal light unless someone was specifically looking for them. The small stains were only seen when the socks were later examined for blood under high intensity lighting.

The defense had provided Dr. Lee second generation photographs of the socks and he had not been able to see clearly the condition the socks were in when before they were recovered. When he was shown a clearer photograph it showed that the socks were inside out and the toe fo the sock was touching the ankle. Dr. Lee agreed that would be a logical, rational explanation for how a microscopic stain of blood got from one side of the sock to the other.

2. Fuhrman and Phillips went to Rockingham at the request of Det. Lange so that after Simpson was notified of his ex wife's death they could stay and help him recover his children who had been taken to their police station. When the police were waiting for some kind of response from the house Fuhrman saw the Bronco and went over to check it out.

When the decision was made by the Robbery Homicide detectives to enter Simpson's estate Fuhrman volunteered to climb over the thick, five foot high, vine covered stone wall because he was the junior officer and the youngest officer there.

After the detectives awakened Kaelin Fuhrman stayed to talk to him while the other three detectives went to Arnelle's room. Fuhrman question Kaelin and after leaning about the noises Kaelin heard on his back wall by a possible intruder, he and Kaelin followed the other three detectives into Simpson's house through the rear door. Fuhrman found Vannatter and told him to hear what Kaelin was saying. Fuhrman then left the house to check out he noises for himself.

3. The glove had been on the dark path through out the cool night. Fuhrman said it was looked sticky and moist, he never touched it. Dennis Fung testified that when he saw the glove there were areas that had a sheen or shininess, but it was his opinion the blood was dry.

4. Kathleen Bell testified that Fuhrman spoke those words in 1985. Fuhrman had been working gangs units back then. That's the way cops talked. This had absolutely nothing to do with his job in 1994 or the way he talked then. Nor did it have anything to do with Simpson's guilt or innocence.

5. Vannatter asked Fuhrman to return to Bundy and look at the glove there to make sure it was a match. He was to have it photographed and then return to Rockingham bringing the photographer with him. And that's what he did.

At the time Rokahr testified about taking a photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove he was on off duty status because of his poor health and he was under heavy medication. Rokahr was mistaken about the time he took that photograph.

6. There is no reason why there should be any fibers or blood on the leaves around the glove. No blood was ever seen on any natural surface such as leaves, dirt, or grass.

7. Vannatter never carried Simpson's blood sample in his pocket nor did he ever carry it for 3 hours. Vannatter left his office with Simpson's blood sample contained in an analyzed evidence envelope. Vannatter left his office at about 4:30 PM and drove directly to Rockingham. Television cameras recorded his arrival at 5:17 PM. and recorded Vannatter approaching Simpson's front door, meeting Dennis Fung, and handing him the evidence envelope at 5:20 PM.

8. The Prosecution Responds, Hang Goldberg
"About a week before John Gerdes's testimony and while I was preparing for Henry Lee, Neufeld asked me to stipulate that Thano (Peratis) was unavailable. This would make his transcript admissible. In court that day I stated that the prosecution would be willing to agree that Thano was unavailable as a witness if Judge Ito would allow us to introduce an interview with Thano in which he contradicted hs previous testimony. I said that Evidence Code section 1202 allowed this. Neufeld apparently didn't know what I was talking about. "Well, it's this unique little thing we have in California called the Evidence Code," Judge Ito said sarcastically.

Interestingly, weeks earlier Gerald Uelmen had conceded that the prosecution could introduce an interview with Thano. He said, If the prosecution wanted to introduce an interview of Peratis "to rebut or impeach (Peratis prior testimony), they can do that during their rebuttal case." Apparently, Uelmen and Neufeld disagreed on this point. The media experts, who were shocked that the judge allowed the videotape interview, also must have missed Uelmen's concession."

9. Most of the blood on the bottom of Simpson's shoes was transferred to the walkway at Bundy. The bloody shoe prints faded out about half down the walkway to the rear gate. The remainder of blood in the grooves of the sole of his left shoe transferred to Simpson's Bronco carpet leaving a large partial bloody shoe print. When Simpson got back to Rockingham he walked across his neighbor's property to reach the lowest point of his fence, behind his guest house. Any remaining blood in the grooves of the soles of his shoes would have been transferred to the grass and dirt he walked across. After scaling his fence he walked back down the south path to get to his driveway and then across his driveway to get to his front door. By the time he entered his house there wasn't any more blood on the bottom of his shoes to transfer.

10. If Simpson killed both of his victims from behind them. Any blood on his clothing would have been on the front of his clothing and his sleeves. When he got into his Bronco there was no blood on the back of his clothing so no blood got on his seats. When Jill Shively encountered Simpson she said that his arms were bare. Simpson could very well have rolled up his sleeves so that no blood on them would have transferred to his Bronco. Before Simpson left his Bronco he attempted to wipe up any blood he saw on the center console leaving only blood stains. Because it was dark in the car Simpson never knew his tiny blood drops splattered all over the inside, on the inside driver's door, the instrument panel, and the steering wheel.

11. Simpson held Goldman from behind him with his left arm wrapped around Goldman's neck while he stabbed and cut him with the knife in his right hand. According to Dr. Spitz the killing wound happened early in the struggle, a stab to Goldman's left flank that cut his aorta. Goldman would have immediately weakened but continued to struggle until Simpson dropped him to the ground to bleed to death. Simpson was bigger, stronger, angry, and armed with a weapon in a very small enclosure. Goldman never had a chance.

12. The blood on the ground on porous cement degraded quickly. The blood that dried on the painted metal of the rear gate that was collected weeks later was less degraded based on the difference in surfaces.

13. Mark Fuhrman didn't think he was lying based on the questions that Bailey asked him about saying the "n" word in the last ten years.

14. Vannatter never lied.

15. Richard Rubin measured the gloves during the criminal trial. They were size extra large, old gloves and were about 10%, 11% smaller than standard. Rubin testified that was due to a combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Aren't you making a huge mistake by assuming that all the "tips" the police received regarding this case all pointed away from OJ Simpson as the killer? How many defendants are now in jail because of "tips" that broke a case for a DA?

However, even making that very wrong assumption that all these tips had to be in Simpson's favor, it does not provide any comfort when the police ignored several "tips" right from the start. Such as what Sydney heard that night, her bed time, the receipt for the ice cream, just to name a few?

We also know that another person, saw the bodies before the couple who testified about it. I'd say that was a big "tip".

Another big tip, that phone call at the police station. Not even you can possibly believe that it was a female reporter asking about two bodies on the West Side.

First and foremost, a reporter is always looking for the one story that will make their career. There is no way a real reporter would have first called the wrong police station and second, just accepted what she was told.

Do you really believe that had the police been aware of the murders when the phone call came in they would have actually told her about it?

Secondly, didn't the police officer say he called the correct station? And if he didn't, why the hell not? What if someone calls the wrong police they lose their rights to have the police investigate because it wasn't within their boundaries?

BTW, I was just scanning Fuhrman's book when I saw a picture of the inside of the washing machine. Funny thing, he says Brad Roberts first found this, when he did he testify about what he saw at the scene, at either trial?


limakey, no you're making a huge mistake thinking that something legitimate ever pointed to someone else. It didn't.

No one knows what Sydney said that night and a receipt for the ice cream is meaningless.

There is no evidence that another person saw the bodies.

The supposed reporter who asked about two bodies called the Wilshire Police station. Sergeant Merrin testified that was not an unusual call.

Brad Roberts was never called as a witness by either side.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



limakey, no you're making a huge mistake thinking that something legitimate ever pointed to someone else. It didn't.

No one knows what Sydney said that night and a receipt for the ice cream is meaningless.

There is no evidence that another person saw the bodies.

The supposed reporter who asked about two bodies called the Wilshire Police station. Sergeant Merrin testified that was not an unusual call.

Brad Roberts was never called as a witness by either side.

bobaugust

if furhman said that brad roberts found MOST of the evidence, why didn't the prosecution call him.???
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey

IMO, if Simpson is the killer and he loses it with Nicole because of her behavior toward him, there is no way, that when he "sees" Ron that night he automatically thinks of him as nothing more then a witness to his crime and therefore he must be killed too. In other words, if Simpson is the killer, it makes no difference if Ron was Nicole's lover or not.


limakey, if Simpson was standing over his unconscious ex wife after physically attacking her when Ron Goldman surprised him, walking in and yelling at Simpson, that may very well have been what caused Simpson to attack Ron.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by William Anthony

I do not think that any discussion of the role that race plays in the CJS or in the trial was a diversion. I fail to see how race undermined the Constitutional protections and look forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject.

W.A.
I would say under normal circumstances you would have as solid a point as one could defend. However, this trial was everything but normal as a year long media event and thus permitted our investigators to go deeply behind the curtain to review what continues to be promulgated and discussed actively as the truth 12 years after the criminal trial has ended.

This case is not unlike others whereby a stipulation had been rendered and accepted by the court, in order for attorneys to circumvent the jury for their own benefit, what-so-in-ever the benefits might be, only to find after post-examination that manipulation of the facts were involved. I believe that it was Wigamore on Evidence, who discussed the protocol of how stipulations should be offered. It may have been Wigamore or one of those old dusty books on evidence that pointed out how 19th century lawyers that were on small retainers with whaling companies knew that those companies had put money secretly aside in case of certain types of injuries to sailors at sea. The plaintiff counsels were often informed by defense counsel for the whaling companies that the pile of money existed and that both attorneys could get their legal fees paid by the accessing the pile of money, if they were secretly willing to circumvent an incumbent problem; i.e. redefining how and when death occurred. When the court's finally discovered what was going on, they ruled that such actions amounted to lawyers trespassing into the domain of the court either in violation of the domain of the trier of law or the domain of the trier of fact.

Our post examination, indicates that the telephone time of Juditha Brown's telephone call to her daughter Nicole was in dispute from day one, as it was reported by her father initially to the coroner's investigator on June 13, '94 and included within the autopsy report on Nicole as being 11:00 PM as the last known time of her being alive.

We have F. Lee Bailey on video tape on the CBS Morning show during the morning of June 20, '94, with Paula Zahn and Harry ?. Bailey is stating that the defense has an iron clad alibi because the father had told the coroner that Nicole was alive and on the telephone at 11:00 PM talking to her mother. We also have the father, Lou Brown, subsequently going back to the coroner's office later that day on June 20, '94 to change the initial time from 11:00 PM to between 9:30 PM and 10:00 PM as time of that last telephone conversation. (Contradiction and Dispute)

We have a certified copy of the court stenographer who was in Judge Kathleen K. Powell's closed chambers along with M.Clark, B. Hodgman, and R. Shapiro. Wherein, Shapiro offers an initial stipulation on July 8, '94 that the
the Juditha Brown initial telephone call was made at 10:17 PM the evening of June 12, '94. Marcia Clark had temporary amnesia as to the time of the phone call even though she made what Shapiro previously referred to in open court 7 days earlier as a grandstand performance.

We have Marcia Clark subsequently introducing a posterboard with the initial phone call now at 9:37 PM from Juditha Brown to Nicole on June 12, '94.
(Contradiction)

We have Johnnie Cochran's video taped remarks on July 6, '94, in defense of not displaying the prejudicial bloody photos to the jury. Johnnie C. remarks , afterall "we didn't....We're not going to show the jury the telephone bills...."
(Contradiction)

In light of the concealed evidence now revealed I think that race has been a very convenient diversion, this very sensitive taboo, given America's history, should not have been, but was exploited to facilitate the very effect that has occurred.

It has provided the conspirators with a raw and sensitive camoflague to facilitate escape from their malfeasance, knowing that it would cause people to erupt in anger, preoccupy their time with subjective analysis, and create further delay through disdain and inuendo whenever their prior assertions of fact were to be examined under the light.

This Simpson trial may have been a trial balloon, an experiment for a broader purpose for future events to come. The subsequent calls of Americans after the Simpson trial to revamp the way that justice is administered by the U.S., I don't think has fallen upon deaf ears.

After the softening of our intellect, I think that we may have given certain people the prototype to justify subsequent activities in violation of the basic accordances of law around the world. We've found now that if you frighten people using race as a catalyst the normal procedures of legislative and judicial protocol will give way to facilitate the granting of plenipotentiary power or an effective brand of martial law.

[jotun]

Originally posted by Big Ben


jotun, she told us that Johnnie C. was extremely nervous becuase it was like his first movement towards the east coast to build the nationally franchised chain of what is now the Johnnie Cochran Law Firm.

Johnnie is not the only one to have been nervous when confronted with the question. Atty Doug McCann ran into Shapiro after being seen on FOX re: those phone records, McCann reported the same nervous behaviour. F. Lee was allegedly confronted by someone at a barbershop, who got back to Doc, and Bailey was alleged to have become totally unglued.


Big Ben,
Can you do better than Johnnie was nervous because of his new firm? Again.
WHAT DID HE SAY?????
About the records.IF I had been able to confront him as planned.
Would remember his words and actions.

Also what was the MOTIVE for hiding the phone-records??? Can understand Shapiro but not F.Lee. WHAT DID THEY SAY?????

F.Lee is the most experienced and the most vocal on O.J.'s innocence.But he did say
'EVERY lawyer in this
case KNOWS O.J. IS INNOCENT.

jotun

[limakey]

Big Ben,

It appears that Simpson made it very clear to his team that Sydney was not even to be questioned about what she heard and saw that night. When Johnnie started questioning Lange about it, a side bar was called and that is when Clark said that only