Evidence that Places OJ Simpson at the Crime Scene [Archive] - Page 5

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The murders happened late on a Sunday evening. There was very little pedestrian or automobile traffic on Bundy at that time. There were people who walked their dogs at night, that's why Heidstra was there to hear the voices, but there is no evidence that anyone else was outside near Nicole's condo at that time to hear what was happening.

The trainer for the video, Richard Walsh, also testified that through out the day Simpson did push-ups, punching, twisting, forward and backward movements, lateral movements. bending form the knees, shoulder movements, lats, backs, bicep curls and more.

In fact they worked the whole day. Walsh said,

July 19, 1995
MR. WALSH: Well, towards the end of the day--we had been going a long time. The two girls behind me were very physically fit and used to this type of activity. Nobody is used to 12-hour days of exercise. They were. Two men behind me, young men in their 30's, they were beat. I mean they were gone. And they're in better shape, at least in my opinion, than OJ was, and there are times I thought he was not going to be able to finish many times. I talked with Playboy prior to shooting, not able to get him better prepared for it, and somehow, you know, when "Action" was said, he somehow dug down and was able to pull it out.

Dr Robert Huizenga examined Simpson three days after the murders.

July 17, 1995
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you were asked on Friday if there was anything that you found which prevented Mr. Simpson from being physically capable of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. You were asked that question on Friday, weren't you?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I was.
MR. KELBERG: And your answer was no, there was no such limitation, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.

bobaugust

Show the cross, but you do not have to, because most remember that he testified Simpson had difficulty, and, like another poster, I am tired of reading one-sided (my personal opinion) posted testimony.

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Or they could have been from someone who wore that cap on the night of the murders.

Deedrick said there was no way to know how long those six fragments had been in the hat.

There were 12 hairs that were found that were consistent with Simpson's hair that were were found inside and outside the hat that were naturally shed or didn't have a root. Some of them were full length. One of Simpson's hairs was also found on Ron's shirt.

Simpson's defense never suggested that the unidentified six fragments may have come from someone else who wore that hat that night but that's probably another example of what you think is "reasonable doubt." Right?

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Martin,

When you let bias, as some seem to do, cloud your logic, you do not consider all the possibilities.

When someone has very limited knowledge of the evidence in this case and hasn't the common sense to understand the difference between a realistic possibility and an unlikely possibility they wind up saying the ridiculous things you and martin II say.

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Yes, you were wrong in your interpretation of words, which tends to prove my point about transcripts, and, now you want to change the facts as to Ron recognizing Simpson. This again is the problem with the prosecution's case, imh&ro.

This has nothing to do with the transcripts. I used the word "yell" because Heidstra testified that he heard the voices over the barking of two dogs. I really don't think that's an unreasonable interpretation since Heidstra was in the alley behind a house across the street from Nicole's condo.

As to changing the facts, I've changed nothing. What we are talking about is all speculation not fact. The only fact is that what Heidstra said he heard.

This has nothing to do with the prosecution case. Robert Heidstra was a defense witness not a prosecution witness. The problem is yours not being able to make logical reasonable inferences.

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Show the cross, but you do not have to, because most remember that he testified Simpson had difficulty, and, like another poster, I am tired of reading one-sided (my personal opinion) posted testimony.

The cross examination doesn't change the testimony I've posted.

I'm also tired of reading all of your misinformed opinions. If you think that the testimony from these witnesses changed when they were cross examined then you post it. You only remember what you want to remember. You don't remember this because you only heard what you wanted to hear based on your bias.

bobaugust

jotun

11-29-2006, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Zold1

The problem with you Jotun is that you are using common sense with true facts of this case.
Of course we now know the gardener/handiman confessed to the murder but was also ignored because he is not a rich uppity arrogant black dude. Not so much as a polygraph for him as he sits rotting in a prison. That would sure throw a cog in the wheel, eh?

Zold1
Thank you.As do you.

WHATTTTTTT. I never KNEW the gardener/handiman CONFESSED!!!!!
[Would explain the worn glove.]
Could you fill in all the details please?????

jotun

Ames

11-29-2006, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Geez! I just asked a simple question. Sorry, it wasn't dripping with honey, but I didn't think that I was actually posting to a child. Had I known, I would have posted it differently, trust me!

JMO and MOO!!

You weren't posting to a child. But YOU sure are acting like one. How RUDE!

Ames

11-29-2006, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You are beginnig to incur the wrath of the disciples.:) This comment is made in jest

Okay, now you know that I have been nothing but NICE to you, because you are NICE to me. I was only rude to whathisface/whatsherface....(can't remember all of those letters and numbers)....because they were rude to me first. They shouldn't dish it out, if they can't take it. IMO IMO

Ames

11-29-2006, 10:43 PM

Ames

11-29-2006, 10:44 PM

OH GOOD GRIEF....I didn't mean to post that twice...I hit the wrong key by mistake. SORRY GUYS...

Zold1

11-29-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Yes, we do. And, he was found responsible by a jury of peers.

:seeya:

Uh... yes. Blood Money I recall. No one could tell Nic what to do. So many people who don't listen. :rose:

Zold1

11-29-2006, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by jotun

Zold1
Thank you.As do you.

WHATTTTTTT. I never KNEW the gardener/handiman CONFESSED!!!!!
[Would explain the worn glove.]
Could you fill in all the details please?????

jotun

I read it here, Jotun. Never saw it anywhere else. But it fits. Supposedly a serial killer.

socaldiva

11-30-2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Ames
OH GOOD GRIEF....I didn't mean to post that twice...I hit the wrong key by mistake. SORRY GUYS...

No problem. Glad to see you posting :seeya:

Zold1

11-30-2006, 12:55 AM

Okay, I went to find the link on other suspects thread:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?threadid=267547&perpage=40&highlight=worked%20for%20Nicole&pagenumber=2

BeeBee talking to Goatgirl.

Glen Rogers

2L8 4A D8

11-30-2006, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Okay, now you know that I have been nothing but NICE to you, because you are NICE to me. I was only rude to whathisface/whatsherface....(can't remember all of those letters and numbers)....because they were rude to me first. They shouldn't dish it out, if they can't take it. IMO IMO

If you can't remember 3 letters and 4 numbers, you need to go back to kindergarten. Oh, I can dish it out. You just can't take it. If any "G" (and only a "G") can tell me that my original post was offensive and give me a reasonable explanation of why it was offensive, I will apologize to you for being so RUDE!

Until then, please don't post to me and I will do the same! Or, in the alternative, you can put me on Ignore!

2L8 4A D8

11-30-2006, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Ames

You weren't posting to a child. But YOU sure are acting like one. How RUDE!

I should have answered this post first. Excuse me!

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my original post to you, absolutely nothing. You just want to make a mountain out of a molehill, which is a typical trait of an NG.

You're the one acting like the child, over nothing. You need to put on your big girl panties and stop with the whiny cry-baby cr@p! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

11-30-2006, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Zold1
Okay, I went to find the link on other suspects thread:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?threadid=267547&perpage=40&highlight=worked%20for%20Nicole&pagenumber=2

BeeBee talking to Goatgirl.

Glen Rogers
1. He was not the gardener/handyman

2. It was never proved by anyone that he confessed that he was the murderer of Nicole and Ron

3. There was never any evidence at Bundy to show that he was ever there that fateful night. None. Nada. NIL. Zilch.

4. It is only hearsay, innuendoes, fantasy, unfounded speculation with no support to substantiate the theory and wishful thinking on the part of certain Posters that Glen Rogers was the killer of Nicole and Ron

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

When someone has very limited knowledge of the evidence in this case and hasn't the common sense to understand the difference between a realistic possibility and an unlikely possibility they wind up saying the ridiculous things you and martin II say.

bobaugust

You have provided no evidence only theories of what might have happened, but I guess that you arrogantly assume that you are the only one entitled to say this might or this may have happened, and your self proclaimed and highly questionable claim to superior intelligence, as to what is realisitic and ridiculous, is rancorous, imo.

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 07:50 AM

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

I should have answered this post first. Excuse me!

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my original post to you, absolutely nothing. You just want to make a mountain out of a molehill, which is a typical trait of an NG.

You're the one acting like the child, over nothing. You need to put on your big girl panties and stop with the whiny cry-baby cr@p! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!

Excuse me for butting in and not listening to the chruch song, but some comments deserve universal responses, inho, Typical of some Gs, imho. When faced with the evidence, they say its nothing.

martin II

11-30-2006, 08:24 AM

martin II

11-30-2006, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

I should have answered this post first. Excuse me!

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my original post to you, absolutely nothing. You just want to make a mountain out of a molehill, which is a typical trait of an NG.

You're the one acting like the child, over nothing. You need to put on your big girl panties and stop with the whiny cry-baby cr@p! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!

It seems to me that you could have used words other than big girl panties when addressing another woman on this open tread.
imo
martin II

fbgweezer

11-30-2006, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by martin II

It was stated that glen rogers was a painter that once painted nicole house by a poster that read the book.
martin II did he paint the Bundy house?

martin II

11-30-2006, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
did he paint the Bundy house?

I did not read the book so i don't know if it was the bundy condo
or the house at G.G.
I think Bee BEE could tell you. do you know?

martin II

2L8 4A D8

11-30-2006, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Excuse me for butting in and not listening to the chruch song, but some comments deserve universal responses, inho, Typical of some Gs, imho. When faced with the evidence, they say its nothing.

This has nothing to do with my original post to whatshername. I also specifically asked for no responses from any NG's. Thus, I will just consider the source that, as usual, you have your mouth in gear before your brain shifts in!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

11-30-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by martin II

It seems to me that you could have used words other than big girl panties when addressing another woman on this open tread.
imo
martin II

You don't like it? Too bad! This is stated all over the Boards/Threads from time to time. A lot of Posters use it, not just me. If you would push yourself away from the OJ Simpson Board where you spend 24/7, you would know that!

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

This has nothing to do with my original post to whatshername. I also specifically asked for no responses from any NG's. Thus, I will just consider the source that, as usual, you have your mouth in gear before your brain shifts in!

JMO and MOO!!

I will tell you the same thing that I told bobaugust, you are old enough for your wants to hurt and fyi, you do not run the board, and I am neither your slave, servant nor employee. Hence, when you post to me henceforth try to keep that in the space between your ears.

fbgweezer

11-30-2006, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I will tell you the same thing that I told bobaugust, you are old enough for your wants to hurt and fyi, you do not run the board, and I am neither your slave, servant nor employee. Hence, when you post to me henceforth try to keep that in the space between your ears. forgot the lesson of that church song didn't you?

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
forgot the lesson of that church song didn't you?

No, my dear,

Just did not follow it for the following reason,

"Excuse me for butting in and not listening to the chruch song, but some comments deserve universal responses, inho, Typical of some Gs, imho. When faced with the evidence, they say its nothing. '
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or did you forget my post?

bobaugust

11-30-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You have provided no evidence only theories of what might have happened, but I guess that you arrogantly assume that you are the only one entitled to say this might or this may have happened, and your self proclaimed and highly questionable claim to superior intelligence, as to what is realisitic and ridiculous, is rancorous, imo.

All of my scenarios are speculative based on the known evidence in this case. You wouldn't know that because you aren't very well informed about the known evidence.

If you question something I've speculated about, simply state what it is and I will be happy to inform you as to what evidence, if any, supports it. I've always been open to constructive criticism and any valid point that might contradict what I have speculated about.

bobaugust

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

All of my scenarios are speculative based on the known evidence in this case. You wouldn't know that because you aren't very well informed about the known evidence.

If you question something I've speculated about, simply state what it is and I will be happy to inform you as to what evidence, if any, supports it. I've always been open to constructive criticism and any valid point that might contradict what I have speculated about.

bobaugust

If the evidence as you say is know, oh highly intelligent person, then you would not preface them with maybe this happened and could have or might have. You would argue, as the prosecution should have, the evidence shows. I must remember the adage about arguing with a fool, not calling you one, just something I must keep in mind, Oh, all-kinowing one.

bobaugust

11-30-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

If the evidence as you say is know, oh highly intelligent person, then you would not preface them with maybe this happened and could have or might have. You would argue, as the prosecution should have, the evidence shows. I must remember the adage about arguing with a fool, not calling you one, just something I must keep in mind, Oh, all-kinowing one.

The evidence does show us what happened but not how it happened.

No one knows how the killings actually happened except for the one person still living who was there, Simpson.

All anyone else can do is speculate based on that known evidence offering reasonable and logical inferences in possible scenarios. On this discussion group unless that speculation is prefaced with maybes, ifs, could haves, and might haves some posters here think it is being said as fact.

bobaugust

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The evidence does show us what happened but not how it happened.

No one knows how the killings actually happened except for the one person still living who was there, Simpson.

All anyone else can do is speculate based on that known evidence offering reasonable and logical inferences in possible scenarios. On this discussion group unless that speculation is prefaced with maybes, ifs, could haves, and might haves some posters here think it is being said as fact.

bobaugust

If your first statement was true, then the evidence would have been that two people were murdered. That is a fact, not evidence.
The evidence then must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the peson accused committed the murders as the prosecution's theory claims the murders were committed. The prosecution cannot say, the evidence will not show you how the murders happened, so you are free to speculate that they happened in any manner so long as you arrive at the conclusion that the defendant did them. This is not a trial and never should be, Oh, most intelligent of all beings. You have claimed knowledge of the truth and the facts and criticized anyone who disagreed, claiming that they were engaged in unsupported speculation. You must part us, who are not so favored with your knowledge of truth and facts, Oh, most esteemed of all intelligent people and tells us assetrively what you know the truth and the facts to be, without your qualifying maybe and could be. Live up to your claims and tell us exactly what happened, Oh, most informed of all human beings.

bobaugust

11-30-2006, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

If your first statement was true, then the evidence would have been that two people were murdered. That is a fact, not evidence.

The evidence is that there were only three people at Bundy that night, the two victims and Simpson.

bobaugust

jotun

12-01-2006, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Zold1

I read it here, Jotun. Never saw it anywhere else. But it fits. Supposedly a serial killer.

Zold1
You mean Glen Rogers.Am very aware of him. Saw him run a road block and get arrested LIVE on tv.

jotun

William Anthony

12-01-2006, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The evidence is that there were only three people at Bundy that night, the two victims and Simpson.

bobaugust

You believe that is what the evidence shows and a reasonable inference can be drawn that he was there at sometime prior to the night of the murders, either visiting Nicole or her children. I am speaking of the evidence in the criminal trial. If you have some evidence that places him there on that night, other than what was considered during the criminal trial, then tell me what you think that evidence is.

tazzybaby

12-01-2006, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Zold1

Uh... yes. Blood Money I recall. No one could tell Nic what to do. So many people who don't listen. :rose:

Are you talking about the Blood Money OJ just received? Are you suggesting Nicole caused her own death?

:confused:

fbgweezer

12-01-2006, 01:52 PM

William Anthony

12-01-2006, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Good Gawd! :rolleyes:

If you are trying to call on the Lord and Savior, then I think you are making a step in the right direction.

Big Ben

12-01-2006, 03:04 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, you took Cochran's words completely out of context. Your interpretation is not only ridiculous it's meaningless.

Au contraire, Roberto! Cochran's words were taken completely within the context of his argument to the judge. Apparently many people disagree with your counter-assertions based upon the enormous response that this particular webclip is receiving at YouTube. It has strangely jumped to a 4:1 viewer response over 2 clips and a 2:1 rate over the 3rd clip.

Judging from the response rate, I think that the general public is judging by what they see. Too bad that you haven't made a video clip to present your feeble minded rebuttal of what you allege that Cochran really means.

As far as I know none of the telephone records were shown to the jury except Juditha Brown's that were used in a prosecution exhibit.

So what if the others weren't shown to the jury? They certainly were not, in my opinion, as crucial as the time establishing the window of time for which the defendant was alleged to have committed the murders.

However, with that said, this alleged crucial record should have been entered into the Exhibit Dept. as telephone records like all the other periphally and less than crucial records were. Instead it was entered on the Exhibit Dept. manifest as "Ex. 35- a posterboard claimed to be the Juditha Brown phone records". And if the wording of Ex. 35 is what I say it is, do you have a plausible excuse for this irregularity as well?

So tell us Big Ben, what makes the mistaken 11:00 PM time more credible to you than the mistaken 10:17 time?

The condition of the I-405 the night the Browns made the journey, the heavy construction work ongoing to expand the lanes increasing to an HOV lane. The 15 mile stretch of the I-405 intersected by two other freeways whereby the construction caused expected traffic congestion and slowdown to 29 MPH in that stretch according to CalTrans documents we, OMIG, acquired.

Also reaffirmed by, Shapiro, he reports that he spoke to Juditha about the time of arrival in his book and that she vehemently insisted, initially, after 2 or 3 pressing inquiries, that she arrived home at approximately 11:00 PM.

I think that Shapiro may have been offering what he perceived to be a reasonable compromise of 10:17 PM or approximately a 45 minute cutback as opposed to the ridiculous hour and-a-half, back to 9:37 PM, in the closed chambers of Judge Kathleen Kennedy Powell on July 7, 1994 during the Preliminary Hearings.

But the charlatans who pulled this scam would have it no other way, confident in their deception, that they could blind the American public by tapping into the shallow covered bigotry which is always there to be found, if exploited effectively.

Big Ben

12-01-2006, 03:32 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by William Anthony

However, the argument does not include any reason for the defense to engage in the manipulation of that specific evidence and suggests that the prosecution intentionally distorted or tampered with exculpatory evidence.

In California, for some reason so many legal protocols appear to be strange and maybe was chosen purposely, years before this matter, to be that way. It is strange to me that the media never picked up on Johnnie C. having been the prior boss over every one of the prosecutors and the judge as a former L.A. Prosecutor. I don't know the truth of it, however, we were told that only former D.A.'s with the endorsement of the L.A.P.D. become superior court judges, the rest struggle in the less than stellar municipal court system.

The judicial incestial relationships should have been enough that lawyers and judges should have been trying to recuse themselves. The relationship simply provided a better staged battle, a mock trial for public consumption.

Given those presumptions, I cannot see Cochran conceding or acquiescing to not introducing the phone records, when he could have made a formidable argument that the photos were more prejudicial than probative.

Unfortunately, that appears to be the conclusion that so many of us arrive at when seeing Johnnie C. do just what one would presume he would not do as a defense attorney in the Serpents Rising/YouTube webclip.

William Anthony

12-01-2006, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben
[QUOTE]Originally posted by William Anthony

However, the argument does not include any reason for the defense to engage in the manipulation of that specific evidence and suggests that the prosecution intentionally distorted or tampered with exculpatory evidence.

In California, for some reason so many legal protocols appear to be strange and maybe was chosen purposely, years before this matter, to be that way. It is strange to me that the media never picked up on Johnnie C. having been the prior boss over every one of the prosecutors and the judge as a former L.A. Prosecutor. I don't know the truth of it, however, we were told that only former D.A.'s with the endorsement of the L.A.P.D. become superior court judges, the rest struggle in the less than stellar municipal court system.

The judicial incestial relationships should have been enough that lawyers and judges should have been trying to recuse themselves. The relationship simply provided a better staged battle, a mock trial for public consumption.

Given those presumptions, I cannot see Cochran conceding or acquiescing to not introducing the phone records, when he could have made a formidable argument that the photos were more prejudicial than probative.

Unfortunately, that appears to be the conclusion that so many of us arrive at when seeing Johnnie C. do just what one would presume he would not do as a defense attorney in the Serpents Rising/YouTube webclip.

Thank you for responding. I had no knowledge of the tenuous political relationship of the parties involved and now, may understand better the quid pro quo that could have taken place as a favor to be exercised at some future time. If that was the case, then JC was even more skillful than I gave him credit. He must have known that he had the case won at the time he conceded.

bobaugust

12-01-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You believe that is what the evidence shows and a reasonable inference can be drawn that he was there at sometime prior to the night of the murders, either visiting Nicole or her children. I am speaking of the evidence in the criminal trial. If you have some evidence that places him there on that night, other than what was considered during the criminal trial, then tell me what you think that evidence is.

That's funny. You make a false statement and then you evidently think that's a valid reason to ignore all of the evidence that was found at Bundy. And then you ask for new evidence? Why? So you can dream up some other fantasy to eliminate that evidence also using "your reasonable doubt"?

As to limiting the evidence only to what was known during the criminal trial, no I won't do that. That's your handicap, not ours. The evidence that was found at Bundy was never shown to could have possibly been left there at an earlier time. Simpson testified that the last time he was at Nicole's was a week earlier.

* It was testified that Simpson's blood drops were fresh blood, not old blood.
* Simpson's hair was not only found in the hat found at Bundy it was found on Ron Goldman's shirt.
* The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt were found on Simpson's socks.
* Nicole's fresh blood was found on Simpson's sock.
* The bloody shoe prints were made by shoes that Simpson was proved to have previous worn were made with Nicole's fresh blood.
* A witness saw what could have been Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy.
* Another witness identified Simpson driving his Bronco at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente.
* Both victims blood was found in Simpson's Bronco.
* A partial bloody shoe print made from Nicole's blood was found in Simpson's Bronco.
* The matching glove found at Simpson house had both victims blood on it as well as Simpson's blood. It had the same blue black fibers on it that were found on Simpson's socks. It had fibers on it consistent with the Bronco carpet. It had Nicole's hair on it. It had Ron's hair on it. It had fibers on it from Ron's clothing.

Your turn William, what evidence do you know of that points to anyone else other than Simpson and the two victims?

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-01-2006, 04:24 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, I don't have any confidence in anything Dr. Johnson says just based on the ignorant law suit he filed.

Dr. Michael Baden changed his position during the civil trial to state that he now believed that more than one assailant was involved in the murders of the two victims. He made those remarks the same week, late Dec. 1996 or Jan. '97, that Dr. Johnson sat down to lunch and presented his multiple assailant analysis of the autopsy reports to OJ's civil attorneys Baker et al. Bob, Is Dr. Baden ignorant too?

Dr. Golden, Dr. Lakshmanan, and Dr. Spitz all testified that all of the wounds on both victims were consistent with having been made by one single edge knife. They all opined that the killer was right handed.

Come on Bob, go to the documentary Serpents Rising, and it will show you Dr. Golden stating during his testimony in the prelims under cross by Shapiro, "Could two knives had of caused the stab wounds on these victims?"

Dr. Golden's answer was a resounding, "Yes!"

Long after they dispensed with Dr. Golden, 10 months later Dr. Lakshmanan under cross-exam testified that multiple knives could have caused the knife wounds on the victims' bodies.

Therefore, I am puzzled by what type of minutia you are trying to spin into a technicality to win another feeble point. However, the benefit of the video documentary is that it eliminates narration and for the most part shows these charlatans caught up in their own malfeasance.

I am not a physician and do not claim any expertise about this subject but based on what I know about Dr. Spitz and his impressive credentials, I find his opinions credible.

Bob, I am not an accountant and do not claim any expertise about this subject, but based on what I know about Enron, and the impressive credentials of its CFO, Jeffrey Skilling and its CEO, I find their opinions about the growth potential of Enron to be credible and feel that my investment is in safe and competent hands.

I have lost any and all sense of trepidation that a good investigator would have, and knowing of your long sense of good faith belief in others, I too see no need for independent examination and as a result of your influence on me, will probably do as you and continue to throw all caution to the wind in my future decisions, whatsoever they may be, Bob.

William Anthony

12-01-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

That's funny. You make a false statement and then you evidently think that's a valid reason to ignore all of the evidence that was found at Bundy. And then you ask for new evidence? Why? So you can dream up some other fantasy to eliminate that evidence also using "your reasonable doubt"?

As to limiting the evidence only to what was known during the criminal trial, no I won't do that. That's your handicap, not ours. The evidence that was found at Bundy was never shown to could have possibly been left there at an earlier time. Simpson testified that the last time he was at Nicole's was a week earlier.

* It was testified that Simpson's blood drops were fresh blood, not old blood.
* Simpson's hair was not only found in the hat found at Bundy it was found on Ron Goldman's shirt.
* The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt were found on Simpson's socks.
* Nicole's fresh blood was found on Simpson's sock.
* The bloody shoe prints were made by shoes that Simpson was proved to have previous worn were made with Nicole's fresh blood.
* A witness saw what could have been Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy.
* Another witness identified Simpson driving his Bronco at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente.
* Both victims blood was found in Simpson's Bronco.
* A partial bloody shoe print made from Nicole's blood was found in Simpson's Bronco.
* The matching glove found at Simpson house had both victims blood on it as well as Simpson's blood. It had the same blue black fibers on it that were found on Simpson's socks. It had fibers on it consistent with the Bronco carpet. It had Nicole's hair on it. It had Ron's hair on it. It had fibers on it from Ron's clothing.

Your turn William, what evidence do you know of that points to anyone else other than Simpson and the two victims?

bobaugust

Who testifed that it was "fresh blood" and show the testimony. The hair could have come from a transfer due to the inept crime scene processing. We have discussed the socks, but how could the blood have been fresh since the socks were not tested until some time afterward. Shoes like those that simpson wore in the distant past. Were the shoes collected? We have discussed what was seen and not seen in the Bronco and by whom. There is reasonable doubt as to everything you have posted and, therefore, I do not need a turn, but the unidentified hairs found in the cap, could mean it was worn by someone else on the night of the murders.

bobaugust

12-01-2006, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben

Au contraire, Roberto! Cochran's words were taken completely within the context of his argument to the judge. Apparently many people disagree with your counter-assertions based upon the enormous response that this particular webclip is receiving at YouTube. It has strangely jumped to a 4:1 viewer response over 2 clips and a 2:1 rate over the 3rd clip.

Judging from the response rate, I think that the general public is judging by what they see. Too bad that you haven't made a video clip to present your feeble minded rebuttal of what you allege that Cochran really means.

So what if the others weren't shown to the jury? They certainly were not, in my opinion, as crucial as the time establishing the window of time for which the defendant was alleged to have committed the murders.

However, with that said, this alleged crucial record should have been entered into the Exhibit Dept. as telephone records like all the other periphally and less than crucial records were. Instead it was entered on the Exhibit Dept. manifest as "Ex. 35- a posterboard claimed to be the Juditha Brown phone records". And if the wording of Ex. 35 is what I say it is, do you have a plausible excuse for this irregularity as well?

The condition of the I-405 the night the Browns made the journey, the heavy construction work ongoing to expand the lanes increasing to an HOV lane. The 15 mile stretch of the I-405 intersected by two other freeways whereby the construction caused expected traffic congestion and slowdown to 29 MPH in that stretch according to CalTrans documents we, OMIG, acquired.

I think that Shapiro may have been offering what he perceived to be a reasonable compromise of 10:17 PM or approximately a 45 minute cutback as opposed to the ridiculous hour and-a-half, back to 9:37 PM, in the closed chambers of Judge Kathleen Kennedy Powell on July 7, 1994 during the Preliminary Hearings.

But the charlatans who pulled this scam would have it no other way, confident in their deception, that they could blind the American public by tapping into the shallow covered bigotry which is always there to be found, if exploited effectively.

Big Ben, that's funny trying to argue that your false beliefs are not false because the number of views of your dishonest video has increased. Based on that reasoning I guess since my web site views increased well over 20 times the normal amount before Simpson's book deal became public must prove that Simpson was the killer, right? Funny.

You claim that there was something sinister because the Brown's telephone records weren't shown to the jury yet the fact is that the only telephone records that were shown to the jury were the Brown's telephone records.

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the prosecution exhibit. The prosecution exhibit included an enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone bill and was entered into evidence as (PEO'S 35 FOR ID = BOARD/JUDITHA BRN PHONE RCDS) It was followed by a stipulation made by Robert Shapiro.

February 7, 1995

MS. CLARK: IT IS ENTITLED "JUDITHA BROWN PHONE RECORD, JUNE 12, 1994."
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, IN THE INTERESTS OF SAVING TIME, SINCE I DON'T THINK
THIS WITNESS CAN AUTHENTICATE THOSE PHONE RECORDS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS
WITNESS' TESTIMONY, WE WOULD STIPULATE THAT THE RECORDS ARE ACCURATE AND
DEPICT THE TIME THAT THE CALL CAME INTO THE RESTAURANT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT STIPULATION AGREEABLE TO THE PEOPLE?
MS. CLARK: YES, THAT STIPULATION IS AGREEABLE. THANK YOU.

Your accusation that Shapiro made up the time of 10:17 PM as some sort of compromise is as ridiculous and false as the rest of your delusional claims. I'm sorry to say that you're the only charlatan here. You're the one who has created a scam with your dishonest tactics and false claims and accusations.

Everything you claim is contradicted by real facts the and the real evidence in this case. There was no 11:00 PM telephone call. There was no 10:17 PM telephone call. The fact is that the Brown's started their drive home at about 8:30 PM and had no problem making it back home that Sunday night about an hour later. As soon as she got in her house, Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna Restaurant at 9:37 PM. She then called and spoke with Nicole at 9:40 PM. That was the last time she ever spoke with Nicole.

That's the evidence in this case and neither you nor anyone else has ever offered anything legitimate that contradicts it except fantasies, ignorance, and delusions.

bobaugust

mindtwist

12-01-2006, 05:36 PM

this is my first time here and i have thoroughly enjoyed the arguments and banter. until i am sure of the rules and regs of this site i respectfully withhold my opinion. but i will say that it is very easy to see who are the informed and who are the not so informed on this subject!! keep up the good work vernin and bob. respectfully mindtwist

bobaugust

12-01-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Who testifed that it was "fresh blood" and show the testimony. The hair could have come from a transfer due to the inept crime scene processing. We have discussed the socks, but how could the blood have been fresh since the socks were not tested until some time afterward. Shoes like those that simpson wore in the distant past. Were the shoes collected? We have discussed what was seen and not seen in the Bronco and by whom. There is reasonable doubt as to everything you have posted and, therefore, I do not need a turn, but the unidentified hairs found in the cap, could mean it was worn by someone else on the night of the murders.

* Dennis Fung testified that the blood was fresh.
* Simpson testified that the last time he had been at Bundy was a week before the murders..
* Dr. Cotton testified that Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock was less degraded than the blood on her autopsy sample. (My previous post about Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock was incomplete. Her blood was fresh, not preserved, when it stained Simpson's sock.)
* The bloody shoe prints were made by the same size shoes Simpson wore. Simpson's shoes were disposed of but over thirty authenticated photographs show Simpson wearing shoes with the exact kind of sole that the killer wore.
* Deedrick testified that the six unidentified hair fragments found in the hat may have been Simpson's old hair.
* There is no evidence that Simpson's hair found on Ron's shirt was transferred there because of evidence handling.

You don't need a turn because there is no relevant physical evidence found at Bundy that points to anyone else except the two victims and Simpson. Nothing you claim is "reasonable doubt" only unlikely, unsubstantiated, remote imagined possibilities. Your fantasy claims are not evidence of anything, only excuses you use when you can't contradict the actual evidence and reasonable inferences that prove Simpson was at Bundy that night.

November 4, 1996 Fung
Q. Did Detective Lange point out to you any particular items of evidence that he wanted collected?
A. Yes, he did. He showed me keys, a pager, glove, and a cap in the caged area, and then there was a series of blood drops along the north side of the Bundy house.
Q. And these blood drops that you described, what condition did they appear to you to be in?
THE WITNESS: The blood drops appeared to be fairly fresh, meaning that they were red and had a slight tacky appearance to them.

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

Big Ben

12-02-2006, 03:13 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Neither you nor anyone else has ever offered anything legitimate that contradicts it except fantasies, ignorance, and delusions.

Yeah Bob, you refer, I presume, to Doctor Johnson's/(Simpson's) lawsuit as ignorant, regarding the production of the GTE telephone records. We found that the records had been removed surrepticiously from Simpson's criminal case file, where they should be. We'd like to now see the records directly from GTE's archive. You base your enlightenment upon the "impressive credentials" of others, whose books you buy/or abscound with from the library.

You claim that there was something sinister because the Brown's telephone records weren't shown to the jury yet the fact is that the only telephone records that were shown to the jury were the Brown's telephone records.

You don't know if they were the actual Brown's records and your premise is certainly suspiciously undermined by the judge's admonition to the jury that disallowed the jury from examining the authenticity of those records, Exhibit 35.

The prosecution exhibit included an enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone bill and was entered into evidence as (PEO'S 35 FOR ID = BOARD/JUDITHA BRN PHONE RCDS).

The Custodian of Records on the exhibit manifest for Simpson's case describes, "35 Evidence-( hand written:LG CHART)-Posterboard Entitled Juditha Brown Phone Records". Regarding the differences in titling of all phone records, the response was that the employees title exhibits as accurately as reflects what is deposited within the Exhibit Department, and not what is entered at trial.

The fact is that the Brown's started their drive home at about 8:30 PM. As soon as she got in her house, Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna Restaurant at 9:37 PM.

You have no direct knowledge of departure. According to three restaurant employees they left at no earlier than 8:40-8:45 PM and the manager initially stated on June 13, 1994, that the Brown's departed at approx. 9:00 PM. As far as a 9:37 PM arrival from Brentwood to Dana Point, it didn't happen on that night.

11:00 PM is more consistent with the highway conditions for the I-405 for the evening of June 12, 1994.

I am not as accepting of good faith and "impressive credentials" as you. As the late Ronald Reagan would say, "Trust but verify!"

Big Ben

12-02-2006, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by jotun

Big Ben,
Thanks.Now that's a MOTIVE.One I suspected all along!!! Ever since Shapiro,Dershowitz,and Ulleman got the Grand Jury dismissed.22 jurors.Went to a prelim instead.1 judge.Their EXCUSE.The jury might indite O.J. SO!! Learned much later they were NOT going to indite. Bet they knew it.
Know the d.a.'s DID. Were so pleased to get that jury dismissed.
Think O.J.caught on.Too late.So with Johnnie he felt he had a chance. But IMO everyone had an AGENDA.It became all about THEM. The lawyers,the judge,the families,pundits and the media.They loved the circus.
O.J.was incidential.Even the books.None had a photo of O.J.'s gorgeous face.Only their own. He was used by everyone and still is.

jotun WOW! You really want to get B.A. riled.

William Anthony

12-02-2006, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

THE WITNESS: The blood drops appeared to be fairly fresh, meaning that they were red and had a slight tacky appearance to them.

Snipped

bobaugust

So, no one testified that the blood was fresh only that it appeared to be "fairly fresh", and that my dear self-proclaimed most assured and intelligent one is simply speculation. Show me the testimony of the person, who testified that to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty Simpson's blood and all the other evidence found at Bundy, which you promulgate proves Simpson was there on the night of the murders, was deposited on the night of the murders. And the testimony on which you rely is the testimony of the person you admit made mistakes?

William Anthony

12-02-2006, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben
WOW! You really want to get B.A. riled.

I did not realize that, if one calls me Bill, then bobaugst and I have the same initials. In any event, if the post to which you replied is true, I am riled. Since I do want to become a lawyer, I cannot fault them for wanting to pad the bill, but at the expense of someone's future does alarm and anger me.

William Anthony

12-02-2006, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Deedrick testified that he found six hair fragments that did not match Simpson. All of the naturally shed hairs with roots found on that hat did match Simpson.

The fragments of unidentified hair could have been very old hair from Simpson or they could have been from someone else who had worn that hair sometime in the past.

bobaugust

Unsupported speculation, "could have been...from Simpson", or could have been from anyone unidentified, reasonable doubt.

William Anthony

12-02-2006, 08:48 AM

bobaugust

12-02-2006, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

Dr. Michael Baden changed his position during the civil trial to state that he now believed that more than one assailant was involved in the murders of the two victims. He made those remarks the same week, late Dec. 1996 or Jan. '97, that Dr. Johnson sat down to lunch and presented his multiple assailant analysis of the autopsy reports to OJ's civil attorneys Baker et al. Bob, Is Dr. Baden ignorant too?

Come on Bob, go to the documentary Serpents Rising, and it will show you Dr. Golden stating during his testimony in the prelims under cross by Shapiro, "Could two knives had of caused the stab wounds on these victims?"

Dr. Golden's answer was a resounding, "Yes!"

Long after they dispensed with Dr. Golden, 10 months later Dr. Lakshmanan under cross-exam testified that multiple knives could have caused the knife wounds on the victims' bodies.

Big Ben, Dr. Baden's opinion about a second assailant was based on false information about the shoe prints he and Dr. Lee found at Bundy. Dr. Lee would later testify that the shoe prints he and Dr. Baden had seen and photographed on June 25 were not shown in crime scene photographs taken on June 13. They were made sometime later after the crime scene was processed.

When Dr. Baden was asked to assume that fact he agreed based on that fact all the bloody shoe prints found at Bundy the day after the murders were consistent with only one person.

Dr. Baden also testified that all the knife wounds inflicted in this double murder are consistent with having been delivered by one knife.

I'm sorry but your documentary is a sham. Yes Dr. Golden testified that two knives could have caused the stab wounds to the victims but that's completely meaningless since Dr. Golden also testified that one knife could have caused all the stab wounds on both victims. Both Dr. Lakshmanan and Dr. Spitz also testified that all of the wounds on both victims were consistent with having been made with one knife.

Your argument about more than one knife is completely meaningless since there isn't one single shred of legitimate evidence that points to another assailant. All of the relevant physical evidence at Bundy points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. If you think you know of any legitimate evidence that points to a second killer, please inform us.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-02-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben
You base your enlightenment upon the "impressive credentials" of others, whose books you buy/or abscound with from the library.

You don't know if they were the actual Brown's records and your premise is certainly suspiciously undermined by the judge's admonition to the jury that disallowed the jury from examining the authenticity of those records, Exhibit 35.

The Custodian of Records on the exhibit manifest for Simpson's case describes, "35 Evidence-( hand written:LG CHART)-Posterboard Entitled Juditha Brown Phone Records". Regarding the differences in titling of all phone records, the response was that the employees title exhibits as accurately as reflects what is deposited within the Exhibit Department, and not what is entered at trial.

You have no direct knowledge of departure. According to three restaurant employees they left at no earlier than 8:40-8:45 PM and the manager initially stated on June 13, 1994, that the Brown's departed at approx. 9:00 PM. As far as a 9:37 PM arrival from Brentwood to Dana Point, it didn't happen on that night.

Big Ben, I base my enlightenment on the reality of what was presented in the criminal trial. The reality that Simpson's criminal defense attorneys were given the telephone records to examine and authenticate. The reality that they then made and agreed to every stipulation regarding the relevant times of telephone calls shown on those records. The reality that an enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone bill was shown to the jury.

The jury does not authenticate evidence. The fact is that Simpson's attorneys agreed by stipulation that all the telephone records in this case were accurate and correct. The only telephone records that jury saw were the Brown's telephone records because they were used in a prosecution exhibit.

The prosecution decided the name of the exhibit they entered into evidence as PEO'S 35 FOR ID = BOARD/JUDITHA BRN PHONE RCDS. None of the other telephone records were used in an exhibit.

The fact is that the witnesses from the Mezzaluna restaurant only estimated the times that they thought the Brown's may have left the restaurant. There was no reason that any of them would have remembered the exact time the Brown's left. They were busy working and not concerned about that.

The fact is that Juditha Brown was aware of the time they started their drive back home because of her concern for the small children and what time they had to go to bed. Juditha Brown testified that time was 8:30 PM.

The fact is that Karen Crawford estimated the time she received Juditha and Nicole's telephone calls and she and other employees estimated the time that Ron Goldman left the restaurant with Juditha Brown's eyeglasses. They were aware of those events because it had to do with what was happening in the restaurant and remembered those times. The fact is that the Brown's telephone records documented the actual time of those calls and they support the times Karen Crawford estimated.

Your beliefs are based on a mistaken time estimate of a telephone call that was later corrected, while you dishonestly ignore witness time estimates regarding the calls that were made just before and just after that call. Time estimates that are all supported by telephone records that document the actual time the calls were made.

Your claims about the fictitious 11:00 PM telephone call not doesn't make any sense and it's been proven false.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-02-2006, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

So, no one testified that the blood was fresh only that it appeared to be "fairly fresh", and that my dear self-proclaimed most assured and intelligent one is simply speculation. Show me the testimony of the person, who testified that to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty Simpson's blood and all the other evidence found at Bundy, which you promulgate proves Simpson was there on the night of the murders, was deposited on the night of the murders. And the testimony on which you rely is the testimony of the person you admit made mistakes?

Fung's testimony about this was never contradicted or disputed by Simpson's attorneys.

No witness was asked the questions that you seem to need the answers to. Not asked by the prosecutors and not asked by Simpson's defense attorneys. The problem is you, William Anthony. You have shown us many times that you aren't capable of comprehending reasonable supported explanations as to what the evidence means in this case. You have shown us many times what your idea of reasonable doubt is. You think any doubt no matter how unlikely is reasonable.

You seem to think that just because you can imagine some fantasy as an alternate explanation that somehow creates doubt in your mind. I'm sorry to tell you that it only shows us how foolish you are. You're fantasy arguments are not supported by anything except your imagination and they have no credibility.

All of the relevant physical evidence found at Bundy proves Simpson was there.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-02-2006, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Unsupported speculation, "could have been...from Simpson", or could have been from anyone unidentified, reasonable doubt.

Maybe reasonable doubt if that was the only evidence in this case, but it's not. Simpson's hair evidence is only additional evidence that points to Simpson as the killer. There is no legitimate evidence of another person being at Bundy except for the two victims and Simpson.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-02-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Fung's testimony about this was never contradicted or disputed by Simpson's attorneys.

No witness was asked the questions that you seem to need the answers to. Not asked by the prosecutors and not asked by Simpson's defense attorneys. The problem is you, William Anthony. You have shown us many times that you aren't capable of comprehending reasonable supported explanations as to what the evidence means in this case. You have shown us many times what your idea of reasonable doubt is. You think any doubt no matter how unlikely is reasonable.

You seem to think that just because you can imagine some fantasy as an alternate explanation that somehow creates doubt in your mind. I'm sorry to tell you that it only shows us how foolish you are. You're fantasy arguments are not supported by anything except your imagination and they have no credibility.

All of the relevant physical evidence found at Bundy proves Simpson was there.

bobaugust

You, oh self-assured wise on, do not seem to understand that, if an attorney asks that we only have your word as to the time you say the evidence was collected and you were trying to be accurate in the times that you collected items, then the record disputes the testimony, which you of such superior intellect should have gleamed from your mystical powers while reading the transcripts. The answer is that no witness testtified to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the evidence was deposited on the night of the murders. The prosecution should have asked and the defense had no obligation to assist them, as I am sure of someone of your self-procalimed intelligence is aware. Therefore, the prosecution's failure amounted to reasonable doubt as to when Simpson could have or could not have been there and who else could and could not have been there. The question again is not was Simpson there, but when, which, if you will allow me, oh most gifted one, imho, raises reasonable doubt due to the prosecution's failure.

William Anthony

12-02-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Maybe reasonable doubt if that was the only evidence in this case, but it's not. Simpson's hair evidence is only additional evidence that points to Simpson as the killer. There is no legitimate evidence of another person being at Bundy except for the two victims and Simpson.

bobaugust

The fact that there were other unidentified hairs is trully exculpatory evidence, imho.

limakey

12-02-2006, 11:46 AM

Mr. August,

Mr. Simpson handed the LAPD and the DA's their case during his 30 minute interview with them, so why didn't they use any of this in his criminal trial?

Why didn't Petrocelli use it?

According to you, he gave them all the evidence they needed to nail him down and put him on death row, so why wasn't it used?

limakey

12-02-2006, 11:51 AM

Big Ben,

Don't know if you know this but Dr. Spitz refused to get involved in the criminal trial. In fact, no highly known and acccredited Dr. would help the DA's. Marcia & Chris were a tad puzzled why they all came out of the woodwork for the civil trial.

Another point, both the DA's and the civil trial lawyers knew that both Nicole and Ron had unusual markings on their bodies. The best guess was that it either came from a ring or from something on the handle of the knife.

To the best of my knowledge, while both the DA's and the civil trial lawyers requested all of OJ's rings, they found nothing. They also were never able to identify which knife handle could have left those markings.

Ames

12-02-2006, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

If you can't remember 3 letters and 4 numbers, you need to go back to kindergarten. Oh, I can dish it out. You just can't take it. If any "G" (and only a "G") can tell me that my original post was offensive and give me a reasonable explanation of why it was offensive, I will apologize to you for being so RUDE!

Until then, please don't post to me and I will do the same! Or, in the alternative, you can put me on Ignore!

Yes, you WERE rude! You were being a smart a-- with your first comment to me. Anyway, I can put you on Ignore? Will do....

Ames

12-02-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

You're the one acting like the child, over nothing. You need to put on your big girl panties and stop with the whiny cry-baby cr@p! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!

Sounds like you need to CHANGE your big girl panties....maybe the reason that you are being so crabby, is because you have pooped in yours.

martin II

12-02-2006, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Big Ben,

Don't know if you know this but Dr. Spitz refused to get involved in the criminal trial. In fact, no highly known and acccredited Dr. would help the DA's. Marcia & Chris were a tad puzzled why they all came out of the woodwork for the civil trial.

Another point, both the DA's and the civil trial lawyers knew that both Nicole and Ron had unusual markings on their bodies. The best guess was that it either came from a ring or from something on the handle of the knife.

To the best of my knowledge, while both the DA's and the civil trial lawyers requested all of OJ's rings, they found nothing. They also were never able to identify which knife handle could have left those markings.

limakey

I doubt the marks on their bodies came from the handle of that little 3 inch pen knife some belive the killer used. imo
martin II

socaldiva

12-02-2006, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by martin II

limakey

I doubt the marks on their bodies came from the handle of that little 3 inch pen knife some belive the killer used. imo
martin II

Wrong again. No one has ever said anything about a "3 inch pen knife" being used.

martin II

12-02-2006, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Big Ben,

Don't know if you know this but Dr. Spitz refused to get involved in the criminal trial. In fact, no highly known and acccredited Dr. would help the DA's. Marcia & Chris were a tad puzzled why they all came out of the woodwork for the civil trial.

Another point, both the DA's and the civil trial lawyers knew that both Nicole and Ron had unusual markings on their bodies. The best guess was that it either came from a ring or from something on the handle of the knife.

To the best of my knowledge, while both the DA's and the civil trial lawyers requested all of OJ's rings, they found nothing. They also were never able to identify which knife handle could have left those markings.

limakey
Maby the answer as to why Dr.Spitz did not testify for the proecution is that he did not want to be crossexamined by THAT defense team on his opinions. Or he felt the evidence was shakey.imo
martin II

martin II

12-02-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Sounds like you need to CHANGE your big girl panties....maybe the reason that you are being so crabby, is because you have pooped in yours.

Ames

That is really funny.:lol:

martin II

bobaugust

12-02-2006, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You, oh self-assured wise on, do not seem to understand that, if an attorney asks that we only have your word as to the time you say the evidence was collected and you were trying to be accurate in the times that you collected items, then the record disputes the testimony, which you of such superior intellect should have gleamed from your mystical powers while reading the transcripts. The answer is that no witness testtified to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the evidence was deposited on the night of the murders. The prosecution should have asked and the defense had no obligation to assist them, as I am sure of someone of your self-procalimed intelligence is aware. Therefore, the prosecution's failure amounted to reasonable doubt as to when Simpson could have or could not have been there and who else could and could not have been there. The question again is not was Simpson there, but when, which, if you will allow me, oh most gifted one, imho, raises reasonable doubt due to the prosecution's failure.

No, not the prosecution failure, your failure to comprehend reality.

bobaugust

Ames

12-02-2006, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by martin II

Ames

That is really funny.:lol:

martin II

LOL...gee...thank you!!! I just get sick and tired of someone posting something innocent, and having another poster make a smart butt comment. Its totally uncalled for. Everyone else on this board has been nothing but nice to me. Thank you nice people!!!

bobaugust

12-02-2006, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Mr. Simpson handed the LAPD and the DA's their case during his 30 minute interview with them, so why didn't they use any of this in his criminal trial?

Why didn't Petrocelli use it?

According to you, he gave them all the evidence they needed to nail him down and put him on death row, so why wasn't it used?

limakey, Petrocelli did use Simpson's statements that he made in his initial interview to contradict his story changes, fabrications, and lies.

Clark wrote that she understood that there were some good arguments to be made from Simpson's answers but she believed that most of his statement was a disaster because of the soft ball questions and Simpson's answers that the defense would use to for "sympathy grabbing."

But if Simpson had testified in the criminal trial and said what he said in the civil trial the prosecutors would probably have also used his initial statement to impeach him.

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-03-2006, 12:11 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Your claims about the fictitious 11:00 PM telephone call not doesn't make any sense and it's been proven false.

Are you alright, Bob. You're beginning to write and sound like you've been foaming at the mouth. "It's been proven false"??? By who?

Big Ben, I base my enlightenment on the reality of what was presented in the criminal trial.

Yeh! That reality is crumbling in your mind every night that you try to go to sleep. Even those that you tout for their voracity fumble when confronted with these contradictions regarding the travel time. You better buy the documentary, Bob,www.ojcoverup.com.

The reality that Simpson's criminal defense attorneys were given the telephone records to examine and authenticate.

That constitutes a usurption of the primary obligation and responsibility of the trier of fact (jury). I've repeated that enough to you, Bob.

The fact is that Simpson's attorneys agreed by stipulation that all the telephone records in this case were accurate and correct.

As did Lord of London attorneys who, were on retainer, initiated, and mutually agreed to untruthful facts through stipulations in the 1800s in order to access huge piles of money set aside to compensate sailor's wives as a result of freek accidents at sea.

(1.) Bob's lunacy: There was no reason...that any of The... witnesses from the Mezzaluna restaurant ...... would have remembered the exact time the Brown's left. They were busy working and not concerned about that....

(2.) Bob's lunacy: ....employees estimated the time that Ron Goldman left the restaurant .....They were aware of those events because it had to do with what was happening in the restaurant and remembered those times.

What an idiotic remark. Either they are too busy to remember or they are not, you only get one, so which one of these foolish assertions do you want, Roberto.

The fact is that Juditha Brown was aware of the time they started their drive back home...and... testified that time was 8:30 PM.

The Fact is! She also twice told Shapiro after telling his investigators that she arrived home at approximately 11:00 PM. (Page 33- Shapiro's Search for Justice.

Your beliefs are based on a mistaken time estimate of a telephone call that was later corrected..

Conveniently corrected, Bob!

Big Ben

12-03-2006, 12:21 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben,

If you think you know of any legitimate evidence that points to a second killer, please inform us.

Voila! www.ojcoverup.com or www.serpentsrising.com !

limakey

12-03-2006, 01:19 AM

Mr. August,

Are you kidding me, what did OJ Simpson say that was sympathy grabbing? Softball questions by two experienced, hard core detectives? No, they knew they had nothing, were getting nothing and were smart enough to stop it.

Mr. Simpson saying he was not at Nicole's home some weeks before the murder is not sympathy grabbing. He gave them Paula's phone call, the one you said that is proof he was lying. Tell me Mr. August, what did Mr. Simpson say that was sympathy grabbing?

limakey

12-03-2006, 01:28 AM

Big Ben,

I know you answered this question before, but, I'm still a tad confused. The defense agreed stipulated to one phone record, that was one of the Browns. However, does this mean they could not have introduce another phone record of the Browns or Nicole's phone records? Another other phone records that would have open the door to any later phone calls made to and/or from Nicole's home?

I don't know if you remember this but Stewart Tanner was very vague on the stand. He would never really give a time on what time he called Ron that night or what time they were to meet that night.

After the criminal trial, the Goldmans were given Ron's answering machine or the tape from his machine. If you read the Goldmans' book, I believe that this could have been used by the DA's, yet, again it wasn't. I wonder why.

limakey

12-03-2006, 01:36 AM

Mr. August,

Lets be real, shall we, do you really think any police department or any DA office is ever going to introduce any evidence that may conflict with their case? Isn't that really why we have two sides represented in a trial?

And to be fair, we know how many mistakes that were made in this case. You may consider them to be harmless or mistakes that really have no meaning---however, what about the mistakes that were made that we know nothing about?

As you know, the DA's are suppose to hand over they have to the defense, we know the defense is also suppose to turn over their stuff to the DA's. We know that both sides play the "hide" game, then spend countless minutes in court calling the other side for hiding this or whatever. However, we also know that in most cases that are overturned, it is because of evidence that was hid by the DA's or the police department or both. We also know that in many cases, that cases are also overturned when a police officer has not been truthful in their testimony.

How can you be so sure that we know about every piece of evidence? How can you prove that every "mistake" in this case was presented in court and explained?

bobaugust

12-03-2006, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

"It's been proven false"??? By who?

You better buy the documentary, Bob,www.ojcoverup.com.

That constitutes a usurption of the primary obligation and responsibility of the trier of fact (jury). I've repeated that enough to you, Bob.

(1.) Bob's lunacy: There was no reason...that any of The... witnesses from the Mezzaluna restaurant ...... would have remembered the exact time the Brown's left. They were busy working and not concerned about that....

(2.) Bob's lunacy: ....employees estimated the time that Ron Goldman left the restaurant .....They were aware of those events because it had to do with what was happening in the restaurant and remembered those times.

What an idiotic remark. Either they are too busy to remember or they are not, you only get one, so which one of these foolish assertions do you want, Roberto.

Big Ben, your claim about a fictitious 11:00 PM telephone call is proven false by the Brown's telephone records. Proven false by Juditha Brown's testimony under oath. Proven false by the time estimates Karen Crawford testified to before the telephone records were obtained. Proven false by Steven Schwab's testimony that he found Nicole's dog with blood on it before 11:00 PM. Proven false by the testimony of Danny Mandel, Ellen Aaronson, Robert Heidstra, Jill Shively and Allan Park whose testimony tells us when the murders were committed.

No I'm not going to buy your dishonest so called documentary, so stop pitching your scams here, please.

No, I don't believe that it is the responsibility of the jury to authenticate telephone records. It's the responsibility of the attorneys to present that evidence. In this case Simpson's defense attorneys were given the Brown's telephone records to examine. If they had any question as to their authenticity they would have said as such and it would be up to the prosecution to present witnesses who would authenticate them. But they didn't have any questions as to their authentication and agreed by stipulation that the times shown on the enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone bill were accurate and depicted the time those calls were made.

That's the evidence in criminal trial. Simpson's civil trial attorneys also accepted the times documented on the Brown's telephone records as the evidence in that case.

The employees of the Mezzaluna restaurant were not concerned as to the actual time the Brown's left the restaurant but they were aware of what time another employee left work that night and when they received telephone calls. That was part of the job that Karen Crawford as acting manager that night was responsible for as well as John DeBello the general manager of the restaurant.

Karen Crawford talked to Juditha Brown on the telephone and found her eyeglasses in the street. She also talked to Nicole on the telephone about five minutes later before giving it to Ron Goldman and then giving him the eyeglasses before he left work that night. In the grand jury Karen Crawford estimated the time Juditha Brown called her between 9:30 and 9:45 PM.

Karen Crawford, John DeBello, and Stuart Tanner all testified that Ron Goldman left work that night at about 9:50 PM.

Juditha Brown testified that when they left the restaurant all of the family walked out together. She told how she watched Nicole cross the street with Justin, Sydney, and her friend Rachel to go to get some ice cream. After looking for her eyeglasses in the jeep she noticed the time was 8:30 and she said, "lets go" because the children had to go to bed.

You tell us Big Ben, that you believe that the Brown's never left the restaurant until at least 9:00 PM. But Simpson testified that he called Nicole's house about 9:00 PM before he and Kaelin went to McDonalds and he spoke with Sydney about the recital. So tell us Big Ben, how was that possible if what you believe actually happened?

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-03-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

No, not the prosecution failure, your failure to comprehend reality.

bobaugust

Forgive me, oh all knowledgeable one, since the jury determined the prosecution failed and show me the testimony that it was Ron's voice saying, hey, and that it was he and Simpson engaged in a conversation or is the testimony that there were two men, one young and one older engaged in a conversation. I do not believe that, if I intended to kill someone, I would be talking loud enough for passerby to hear. Oh wisest and most intelligent one, do you believe that it was JC, who brought race into the trial, or was it the prosecution, who attempted to have Hiedsta identify one of the voices as AA?

William Anthony

12-03-2006, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Sounds like you need to CHANGE your big girl panties....maybe the reason that you are being so crabby, is because you have pooped in yours.

Do you mean my post to her, "I am neither your slave, servant nor employee. Hence, when you post to me henceforth try to keep that in the space between your ears", could not enter the space, bexause her ears were blocked with poop?:)

martin II

12-03-2006, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Do you mean my post to her, "I am neither your slave, servant nor employee. Hence, when you post to me henceforth try to keep that in the space between your ears", could not enter the space, bexause her ears were blocked with poop?:)

William Anthony

12-03-2006, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by martin II

No, Martin that was my original post to 2 and Ames could have been explaining to me why 2 could not comply.:), because her ears were blocked and my advice could not enter the space. Does that clarify?

bobaugust

12-03-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Forgive me, oh all knowledgeable one, since the jury determined the prosecution failed and show me the testimony that it was Ron's voice saying, hey, and that it was he and Simpson engaged in a conversation or is the testimony that there were two men, one young and one older engaged in a conversation. I do not believe that, if I intended to kill someone, I would be talking loud enough for passerby to hear. Oh wisest and most intelligent one, do you believe that it was JC, who brought race into the trial, or was it the prosecution, who attempted to have Hiedsta identify one of the voices as AA?

The fact is that Sunday night in Brentwood was a very still and quiet night where voices could easily be heard by people who were outside.

The fact is that no one at either trial ever argued that Simpson's blood drops may have been at Bundy before the murders. No one ever disputed the fact that all the blood found at Bundy was fresh blood.

The fact is that Fung was asked about that blood and testified as to it's appearance. The fact is that Simpson told the police in his initial interview that the last time he had been at Nicole's was five days before the murders. The fact is that Simpson later testified that he did not recall ever bleeding there.

You are the one who is constantly dreaming up alternate fantasy explanations that have no basis in fact and then you tell us that is reasonable doubt to you. It's a good thing you're not a juror or no one on this earth would ever be convicted of a crime since there is always some fantasy explanation for everything that happens. Most people understand the difference between a reasonable explanation and the bull crap explanations such as you dream up. The criminal trial jurors evidently couldn't tell the difference and neither can you.

bobaugust

fbgweezer

12-03-2006, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben,

If you think you know of any legitimate evidence that points to a second killer, please inform us.

Voila! www.ojcoverup.com or www.serpentsrising.com ! I do believe it is against the rules so please quit posting links to your for profit website.

limakey

12-03-2006, 10:20 PM

Mr. August,

You are mistaken, the defense did argue that some of the blood drops were not fresh. The DA's said the blood was degraded because the AC unit was not working. However, I don't remember them introducing any proof that this was the case.

The DA's claimed that could have been reason, but never proved it.

However, there were several witnesses that the DA's could have called outside of LAPD. Yet, they didn't, why?

limakey

12-03-2006, 10:24 PM

Mr. August,

If what your post is accurate, that Mrs. Brown noticed her glasses were missing at 8:30 p.m. but insisted they leave because the children had to go to bed, this makes no sense.

If Mrs. Brown was so concerned about the time and the children, why wait until much later to make a phone call? Why wait until she got home?

2L8 4A D8

12-04-2006, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I did not realize that, if one calls me Bill, then bobaugst and I have the same initials. In any event, if the post to which you replied is true, I am riled. Since I do want to become a lawyer, I cannot fault them for wanting to pad the bill, but at the expense of someone's future does alarm and anger me.

Well, if and when you and Bob ever decide to get married, at least you'll have the same Monogram :eek: This post is just in jest (isn't that what you say?)

JMO and MOO!!

Big Ben

12-04-2006, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I do believe it is against the rules so please quit posting links to your for profit website.

Nobody is doing any arm twisting, Weezer! He asked if one knew of specific information, I'm simply pointing him in a specific direction where said information can be found. The exercise of perogative rests with him, not I. I have no ownership or pecuniary interest in the website, but do think that it offers more objective evidence than most. Stop whining, Weezer, and post something interesting beyond your usual tripe.

bobaugust

12-04-2006, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

You are mistaken, the defense did argue that some of the blood drops were not fresh. The DA's said the blood was degraded because the AC unit was not working. However, I don't remember them introducing any proof that this was the case.

The DA's claimed that could have been reason, but never proved it.

However, there were several witnesses that the DA's could have called outside of LAPD. Yet, they didn't, why?

limakey, the degradation of the blood drops was not because the blood was old blood. Nobody ever argued that.

Dennis Fung testified as to the appearance of the blood drops when he saw them, "The blood drops appeared to be fairly fresh, meaning that they were red and had a slight tacky appearance to them."

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-04-2006, 06:41 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, you believe that the Brown's never left the restaurant until at least 9:00 PM. So tell us Big Ben, how was that possible if what you believe actually happened?.......

First of all, Roberto, I don't believe that I stated to you that I believed that the Browns left the restaurant at 9:00 PM. If I said that in any manner, I apologize. My point was that a prime witness, John DeBello, Mngr. of the Mezzaluna, told the detectives and the grand jury that they left at 9:00 PM, thus creating another instance challenging the voracity of a 9:37 PM phone call from Dana Point. I think that you are confused with my emphatic position that the Brown's did not arrive in Dana Point to much before 11:00 PM, as first stated to the coroner less than 12 hours after the murders by Lou Brown.

Ben, your claims are proven false by Juditha Brown's testimony under oath.

2. I don't think that Juditha Brown's testimony under oath necessarily sanctifies her voracity, especially when she initially told defense investigators that she arrived home at 11:00 PM. Face it Bob, many of us believe that these people didn't have temporary amnesia,they simply lied!

Big Ben, your claim about a fictitious 11:00 PM telephone call is proven false by Steven Schwab's testimony that he found Nicole's dog with blood on it before 11:00 PM.

3. Nor do I think that Steven Schwab's testimony or integrity is that impressive considering his admission that he first told the police less than twelve hours after the murders that he originally saw the Akita after 11:00 PM. You seem to be missing an ongoing pattern here with all of your testifiers, Bob.

Re: lawyers authenticating evidence

4. I wholeheartedly disagree with you regarding the role of lawyers in regard to our common law courts. Though they may present what they allege to be authentic evidence, they were never given the privilege of usurping the responsibilities of the trier of fact (jury) as the authenticator and verifier of evidence. That is the jury's responsibility, in determining the innocense or guilt of a defendant dating back to the year 1215. You are simply an unenlightened, I presume, fellow who would throw away one of the most sacred privileges that citizens in the U.S. are obliged to assume. I simply will not condone such heresy, nor discuss that element with one who seems to be so feeble mindedly miopic with regard to the history of our legal system.

bobaugust

12-04-2006, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

If what your post is accurate, that Mrs. Brown noticed her glasses were missing at 8:30 p.m. but insisted they leave because the children had to go to bed, this makes no sense.

If Mrs. Brown was so concerned about the time and the children, why wait until much later to make a phone call? Why wait until she got home?

limakey, you seem to be confused. Read Juditha Brown's testimony for yourself.

December 6, 1996

Q. Now, did you get in the car, then, and head down towards your house?
A. Yes. I -- we looked for my glasses, still, I know, because I didn't have the glasses in the restaurant. So we looked in the jeep and we didn't see them. And it was 8:30 by that time and the children had to go to bed, so we said, well, let's go; I'll call.
Q. And did you get in the car and head down to Orange County?
A. We drove home. And on the way home, a terrible depression came over me, something I have never experienced. My whole body got really heavy. And I haven't had it before and I haven't had it afterwards. It was --
it was a whole feeling. And as we arrived at home, I shook myself, and I thought, "God, I have to buy a pair of new glasses again." And I went on the phone and I called Mezzaluna.

*
Q. Now, after you got home, you -- I'm sorry -- do you recall who you spoke to at Mezzaluna?
A. It was a woman. No, I don't remember her name.
Q. Do you recall the substance of the conversation?
A. Yes. I said can you -- I know I left my glasses somewhere; could you please check outside. Because I had Justin on my lap, and as I got out of the car, I said, maybe they had fallen out, and there was a puddle in front where we got out. So I said, could you just check there and see if you find my glasses. And she returned and she says, "Yes, I have them." I said, "What luck."
Q. And anything else in that conversation?
A. And I said, "Well I'm going to call my daughter and tell her to pick up the glasses in the morning."
Q. Did you then call Nicole?
A. Then I called Nicole and I said, "You know, I found my glasses over there. Would you please pick them up in the morning." And she said, oh, you know -- and she said a name, but it just slipped my mind, but who it was -- and she says "can bring it to Starbucks Cafe, because we always talk, and we can meet there, and he can bring them."
Q. Okay. Anything else in the conversation?
A. And then she said good night, and "I love you." And I said, "I love you." And those were the last words.

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-04-2006, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Big Ben,

I know you answered this question before, but, I'm still a tad confused. The defense agreed stipulated to one phone record, that was one of the Browns. However, does this mean they could not have introduce another phone record of the Browns or Nicole's phone records? Another other phone records that would have open the door to any later phone calls made to and/or from Nicole's home?

limakey, I hear what you're saying and kind of see what you are reaching for. The defense could have done so, but I do not believe that the defense was doing anymore than playing their role in an elaborate show, a mock trial, put on for your entertainment.

However, our major concern has been to reveal objective evidence when at all possible. For us, after being given the autopsy reports, we could have been the greatest indicters of O.J. Simpson, but the discoveries that we have made point away from him as the perpetrator of this crime.

The prosecution has presented time evidence, and the defense lawyers representing Simpson have agreed to this time evidence that gives O.J. Simpson the window of time to have committed these murders. The introduction of this evidence was crucial in order to have an O.J. Simpson trial.

Our investigative discoveries indicate that, given the time the employees of the Mezzaluna Restaurant stated that the Browns left the restaurant, it would have been impossible for the Browns to have traveled down any of the California highway systems on June 12, 1994 to arrive at their home in time to make a 9:37 PM phone call. Virtually every authority we've interviewed affirms our position, Cal. Highway Patrolmen, Cal. Dept. of Transportation officials, Mapquest for 1997, and AAA travel for 1997.

We believe that the Brown's initial arrival and telephone time statements of 11:00 PM are more reflective of the travel conditions on that date, and if so, it would have eliminated Simpson as being the perpetrator of these murders.

I just don't know of anything else, regarding time, that reaches such a level of crucial significance, because this issue implies that sworn officers of the court (lawyers) lied about exculpatory evidence that could have eliminated the need for this infamous media event. That is why we continue to pursue the production of these stolen records with GTE/Verizon Communications. I sincerely hope that my answer helps you to understand our position.

William Anthony

12-04-2006, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The fact is that Sunday night in Brentwood was a very still and quiet night where voices could easily be heard by people who were outside.

The fact is that no one at either trial ever argued that Simpson's blood drops may have been at Bundy before the murders. No one ever disputed the fact that all the blood found at Bundy was fresh blood.

The fact is that Fung was asked about that blood and testified as to it's appearance. The fact is that Simpson told the police in his initial interview that the last time he had been at Nicole's was five days before the murders. The fact is that Simpson later testified that he did not recall ever bleeding there.

You are the one who is constantly dreaming up alternate fantasy explanations that have no basis in fact and then you tell us that is reasonable doubt to you. It's a good thing you're not a juror or no one on this earth would ever be convicted of a crime since there is always some fantasy explanation for everything that happens. Most people understand the difference between a reasonable explanation and the bull crap explanations such as you dream up. The criminal trial jurors evidently couldn't tell the difference and neither can you.

bobaugust

No one had to argue about when the blood was deposited. The does not negate the fact that the jurors may have decided it could have been placed there before the murders. Fung's testimony disputed the fact that it was fresh, just appeared fairly fresh. Did not recall is not the same as saying did not. I firmly believe that it is a travesty that one innocent person is convicted and, if your post is meant to mean that I, as a juror, would be demanding on the prosecution to meet its burden, then I stand guilty.

William Anthony

12-04-2006, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Maybe reasonable doubt if that was the only evidence in this case, but it's not. Simpson's hair evidence is only additional evidence that points to Simpson as the killer. There is no legitimate evidence of another person being at Bundy except for the two victims and Simpson.

bobaugust

We have discussed the possibility of when the blood may have deposited and now the unidentified hairs, both of which leave some baisis for reasonable doubt, imho. What else, bobaugust?

William Anthony

12-04-2006, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Well, if and when you and Bob ever decide to get married, at least you'll have the same Monogram :eek: This post is just in jest (isn't that what you say?)

JMO and MOO!!

Bobaugust is not my type, despite his obvious affection for me.:) This post is in jest concerning the latter part of the above statement. i.e. that portion following the comma.

bobaugust

12-04-2006, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

First of all, Roberto, I don't believe that I stated to you that I believed that the Browns left the restaurant at 9:00 PM. If I said that in any manner, I apologize. My point was that a prime witness, John DeBello, Mngr. of the Mezzaluna, told the detectives and the grand jury that they left at 9:00 PM, thus creating another instance challenging the voracity of a 9:37 PM phone call from Dana Point. I think that you are confused with my emphatic position that the Brown's did not arrive in Dana Point to much before 11:00 PM, as first stated to the coroner less than 12 hours after the murders by Lou Brown.

I don't think that Juditha Brown's testimony under oath necessarily sanctifies her voracity, especially when she initially told defense investigators that she arrived home at 11:00 PM.

Nor do I think that Steven Schwab's testimony or integrity is that impressive considering his admission that he first told the police less than twelve hours after the murders that he originally saw the Akita after 11:00 PM. You seem to be missing an ongoing pattern here with all of your testifiers, Bob.

Big Ben, John DeBello never estimated the time the Brown's left the restaurant as 9:00 PM.

June 21, 1994 John Debello
Q. DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME THE DINNER PARTY WAS OVER, OR THE TIME THAT NICOLE
BROWN SIMPSON LEFT?
A. IT WAS ABOUT 8:30, 8:40 P.M.

June 21, 1994 Karen Crawford
Q. DO YOU RECALL SEEING THE PARTY NICOLE SIMPSON WAS WITH LEAVE THE RESTAURANT?
A. I SAW THEM WALKING OUT THE DOOR. I CAN'T BE POSITIVE WHAT TIME THEY LEFT, BUT I
DO REMEMBER SEEING THEM LEAVING. I THINK, YOU KNOW, I TOLD THEM TO HAVE A NICE
EVENING.
Q. DO YOU RECALL APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME THAT WAS?
A. IT WAS AROUND 8:30 OR 9. I'M NOT POSITIVE.

Both DeBello and Crawford estimated a time range that included 8:30. Nicole and her children left the restaurant with the rest of her family. She went across the street to buy ice cream while her family started their drive back home at about 8:30 PM. Sydney was back home and ready to go to bed when Simpson testified that he called Nicole's house at about 9:00 PM and spoke with her about the recital and when he would be back to take her to Knots Berry Farm.

Denise Brown testified that the family that night were riding in Dominique's Jeep with Dominique driving.

May 2, 1996 Denise Brown.
Q. Do you recall what time you left Mezzaluna on June 12th,
A. I think it was around 9:00 o'clock, 8:30 -- 8:30.
Q. Did you talk with any members of your family about O.J. Simpson after you left Mezzaluna?
A. No.
Q. You have no knowledge as to whether you left Mezzaluna at 8:30 or 9:00? You can't be any more specific than that?
A. You know what, it was closer to 8:30, because I told the kids to lay down and go to sleep in the back. They had school the next day.
Q. Which kids were in the car?
A. Sean and Aaron.
Q. Who is Aaron?
A. Aaron is Dominique's boy.
Q. So there were 6 of you in the car ride home from Mezzaluna on June 12, 1994?
A. There was my mother, my father, me, Dominique and the 2 boys.
Q. Where did you stay -- Were you living at the Monarch Bay house on June 12th, 1994?
A. Yes.
*
Q. What time did you return to Monarch Bay on the night of June 12th, 1994?
A. 8:30, 9:30;, figure around 10:00 o'clock. No. 9:30, quarter to 10:00.
*
Q. Did you overhear Judy talking to anybody associated with the Mezzaluna restaurant?
A. No.
Q. Did you overhear Judy talking with Nicole on the night of June 12, 1994?
A. No.
Q. After you went to bed, did Judy or Lou come in and say "good-night'' to you on June 12th, 1994?
A. No.
Q. So basically after you returned home from Mezzaluna, you put Sean to bed and went to sleep?
A. I put -- I put Sean to bed. I yelled out my door and said "good-night" and closed the door and went to bed.
Q. Did you make any phone calls after you returned from Mezzaluna to Monarch Bay on June 12, 1994?
A. No. Not that I can recall, no.

Big Ben, Lou Brown never told Claudine Ratcliffe that they returned home from the restaurant at about 11:00, PM. Juditha Brown never told anyone that either. They only estimated an incorrect time when she last telephoned and spoke with Nicole.

Read Claudine Ratcliffe's statement for yourself and you will see that telephone call that Juditha Brown made to Nicole was when she told her about her missing eyeglasses. Karen Crawford tells us what time that call was made since she spoke with Juditha just before that telephone call was made and she spoke with Nicole just after that telephone call was made.

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

Steven Schwab's testimony was not only credible it was supported by a police report. Steven Schwab testified he got home about five minuets after eleven o'clock. based on the television show that was just beginning. He testified that the police woke him up about 5:00 in the morning. He said he was confused and scared when they told him that the dog he had found was somehow connected to a homicide. When he was asked what time he got home he said he mentioned 11:30 and then said no, it was--it must have been around 11:00. He said he went back to bed and when he woke up he remembered more clearly what the sequence of events were. He said he immediately called the police to make sure his statement was accurate.

Schwab also told about how the Akita was following him that night when he saw a police car and flagged it down. He told the police officer about the dog. He said the dog was intent on following him and the police officer told him not to worry about it that he would take care of it and that Schwab should continue home.

In the criminal trial Officer Benjamin Jones came forward when he heard about the incident testified to by Steven Schwab, realizing that it was him. Clark gave the defense a copy of the police report Jones made at that time. She also gave the defense a copy of the report of an interview conducted on February 8th concerning the proposed testimony of Officer Jones. He was the officer who was on patrol the night that Steven Schwab found Nicole's dog and called animal shelter for him.

bobaugust