Evidence that Places OJ Simpson at the Crime Scene

[bobaugust]

bobaugust, you are trying to become one of the biggest flim flam artists in the world. I will put it to you straight! You, nor anyone else, has bought a pair of shoes that is one inch shorter than their foot. We measured Simpson's foot and it is between 1/8" and 1/16" shorter than 13 inches. The total length of the SILGA, U2887 size 46 shoe sole, is 12 1/4 inches. Stop this flim flam, ridiculous madness, bobaugust. The FBI knew this and created diversions for a bunch of preoccupied lynchmen, so that you and others could focus on the word size in your kangaroo court of public opinion. You keep circumventing the question that I put to you. Specifically, how many inches is represented by size 12? The answer is that it is a trick question, because not every size 12 shoe has the same length measurement. So answer the question or get your behind out of the kitchen if its too hot for you, B.A. Stop trying to be a flim flam artist because, in my opinion, you are failing miserably.




Big Ben, I have no idea where you got your measurements of the Silga sole from but the fact is that when you wear a shoe you don't wear the sole. Please don't tell us you measured the size of the Silga soles from the photographs of the bloody shoe prints, but I bet you did, right?

The fact is that Simpson's size 12 Reeboks measured almost exactly the same as size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes not only on the outside but the inside of the shoes as well. If Simpson could wear his Reeboks he most certainly could have worn size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes.

In addition Samuel Posner, a shoe salesman at Bloomingdales who sold the Bruno Magli Lorenzo Style shoes and who sold Simpson other shoes testified that Simpson wore a size 12 in dress casual shoes and all of the shoes that he had sold him were size 12.

And the proof is that he did wear them. The fact is that Simpson was shown in over thirty authenticated photographs wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. All Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes were made with the exact kind of Silga sole that left the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

If Simpson actually believed that he couldn't have left those bloody shoes prints because his feet were too big than his attorneys would have presented that evidence. But that never happened, what he did do was deny he ever owned such shoes. When he was confronted with one photograph showing him wearing them, he called it a fake and his attorneys argued that by finding a so called expert to explain why he thought the photograph was a fake. That so called expert was shown to be wrong about everything he said regarding that photograph but Simpson still called it a fake. When Simpson was then confronted with over thirty more photographs all showing him wearing the same clothing and the same shoes as the other photograph, he had no answer except to continue making his denials. His attorneys meanwhile never said any more about them. They just sat in court embarrassed by the fact that their client had lied to them.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Can you say, CON-SPIR-A-CY!


Big Ben, right a conspiracy by you and Dr. Johnson to try and deceive gullible naive people. You make up your own facts and when they are proven to be false, contradicted by the actual evidence in this case, you call all the witnesses and the attorneys liars.

Can you say DELUSIONAL FANTASY?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Yes I am. And the fact is that the size of shoes depends on the make and style of shoes. I personally wear Nike's. Some styles of Nike's fit my feet better in different sizes based on the style. The same with dress shoes. There is no hard fast rule.

The fact is that Bodziak found that Simpson's size 12 Reeboks were almost exactly the same size outside and inside the shoe as size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes.

bobaugust

This does not account for the type of socks worn with the shoes aand how that would play into the size worn. As an Athelete, you would know that sneakers are sometimes bought a size larger than dress shoes. Did you consider that?

[William Anthony]

Whats really pretty "funny" here....is that I think that OJ is guilty. I am a "G"...too. Why are you being so rude to a fellow "G"....I just don't get it. Answer this question and I will decide whether or not to put you on Ignore. Go back and read your first post to me...it WAS rude. And considering I too, am a "G"....I don't understand all of your animosity toward me. What in the world have I EVER done to you? All I did was asked a simple question about the recital, and the dinner that OJ wasn't invited to, and you posted me back with what I interpreted as rude remarks...if you didn't mean it that way..then I totally apologize. Relax...I am on YOUR side, here. (IMO) I am now thinking that you may have thought that I was a "NG"...and maybe thats why you posted what you did. (Now, THAT would make sense).

Ames,

Please, a very astute observation as to the possibility of why she posted what is, imho, a rude comment to you.

[William Anthony]

I agree with Kate and fbgweezer. Simpson may have gone to Kaelin's room setting up an alibi that he was home that night and using the excuse that he needed change for the airport. Telling Kaelin he was going out for a hamburger may also have been a ruse in case Kaelin noticed later that he was gone. I doubt if he anticipated Kaelin would invited himself along. When he did he went with it.

If Simpson was really intending to go out and get some food why ask Kaelin for smaller bills when he could have gotten change when he went to eat.

They returned from McDonalds shortly after 9:30. Simpson had plenty of time to go to the bathroom since he was still at his house at 10:03 when he said he called Paula while standing on his driveway.

bobaugust

Bobaugust, I took your agreement with the two people you named and anyone else that said he was attempting to set up an alibi as a known. I do believe, as I recall the testimony, he needed the small bills for McDonald's and that is when Kato made his request. Have you considered that he was truly hungry and thought that Kato was also, when he said yes? Perhaps, as the bills go, he did not want to take the chance that McDonald's would not change the bill or that they had a policy not to give change for large bills past the hour that the banks closed. Did you consider those reasons?

[William Anthony]

No, I would think kato was dropped back at the house. Then simpson went to Nicoles.
Just a theory!

Your first theory had them going to buy drugs, instead of going to eat. You have a lot of theories, but no evidence, which bobaugust calls "unsupported speculation".:) However, because you are on his side, I do not believe he will protest or say that you are riduculous or gullible or delusional or engaging in fantasy or have an agenda.:)

[William Anthony]

Here we go... lol
some drugs leave the system quickly

Can you tell us which ones leave within 24 hours?

[William Anthony]

Heck I don't know, which drugs seem to help escalate violence? Especially if one has been proven to already have a violent streak? We know alcohol is one. Which of the street drugs?
Crack?
meth?

I do not know, either and though that, since this is your "always thought", you would have some idea as to what type of drug they purchased. So, is Kato a moonshiner or a crack or meth dealer, in your opinion? Does this explain why Nicole let Kato live with her, or do you believe that she was a truly kind person, helping out someone she had met shortly before and the financial situation benefited them both?

[William Anthony]

I see this as a baiting Thread, proceeded with a baiting question. Just another ruse for the Thread Starter and his comrades to continue with their off-the-wall theories and their incessant tirades that OJ is definitely innocent because he supposedly had something to eat before he committed a double-murder. OMG! How could that be possible? GMAB!

I think that OJ was beginning to establish his alibi and was caught off guard when Kato asked to go with him ~ just like he wasn't expecting to deal with Ron Goldman. Only OJ and Kato know if they actually went to McDonald's or not.

I never thought of the two of them going out and purchasing drugs, but it's a good possibility that that is just what happened. It sure would explain OJ's mega rage that night against Nicole and it sure would explain Kato's explanation of 3 thumps against his bedroom wall as an earthquake!

JMO and MOO!!

Any question of why something does not fit into the prosecution's theory seems to be baiting to you,imh&ro. I think most reasonable thinking people would not consider eating before going to kill someone, under these circumstances, as common place. To eat an hour before brutally murdering a person, which you must have already though about doing, if as you claim he was setting up and alibi, to most reasonable thinking people would be illogical, imh&ro. I am sure that enough of us have seen on TV, when someone claims to have been home alone as an alibi, LE makes much of it. The fact that he took Kato with him does not set up an alibi, since the murders happened after that time, nor would an alibi be established by leaving Kato at home. Think about what you are saying, please. If he had not taken Kato, the prosecution would have had an hour or longer time line in which he could not have accounted for his whereabouts. The prosecution was forced into a small window of opportunity, which imho, makes less sense than stating Simpson and Kato went to buy drugs. Why, if he was going to kill her, do it when time would have been against him? why not wait until he had more time, a better disguise, gotten a different vehicle, knew no one was expected to come to his home so he could return home without detection?

[William Anthony]

snipped for correction

To eat an hour before brutally murdering a person, which you must have already though about doing, if as you claim he was setting up and alibi, to most reasonable thinking people would be illogical, imh&ro.

To eat an hour before brutally murdering a person, which you must have already thought about doing, if as you claim he was setting up and alibi, to most reasonable thinking people would be illogical, imh&ro.

[socaldiva]

To eat an hour before brutally murdering a person, which you must have already thought about doing, if as you claim he was setting up and alibi, to most reasonable thinking people would be illogical, imh&ro.


"most reasonable thinking people" wouldn't commit murder. You are trying to apply logic to the irrational act of murder.

[William Anthony]

"most reasonable thinking people" wouldn't commit murder. You are trying to apply logic to the irrational act of murder.

I am applying the logic to the assertion of attemptin to establish an alibi not to the an act of murder.:read: :)

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust, I took your agreement with the two people you named and anyone else that said he was attempting to set up an alibi as a known. I do believe, as I recall the testimony, he needed the small bills for McDonald's and that is when Kato made his request. Have you considered that he was truly hungry and thought that Kato was also, when he said yes? Perhaps, as the bills go, he did not want to take the chance that McDonald's would not change the bill or that they had a policy not to give change for large bills past the hour that the banks closed. Did you consider those reasons?

You recall wrong. Kaelin testified that Simpson told him the reason he was there was that he had hundred dollar bills and needed a five for the skycap. Kaelin gave him a twenty.

That's the point if Simpson had really intended to go out to get something to eat he could have gotten change then instead of going to Kaelin's room and asking him. And when they did go to McDonald's for a hamburger Simpson let Kaelin pay for the dinner. There was no testimony that he attempted to get change there or anywhere for a hundred dollar bill.

March 22, 1995
Q SO THE DEFENDANT CAME OUT TO SEE YOU AND YOU WERE STILL TALKING TO TOM?
A YEAH. I WAS TALKING TO TOM AND I HUNG UP DURING THE TALKING TO O.J. I SAID, "HEY, TOM, I'M CALL YOU BACK."
Q OKAY. WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT POINT? DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT?
A YES.
Q TELL US WHAT THE NATURE OF THAT CONVERSATION WAS?
A IT WAS, UMM, TO GET SOME -- HE HAD HUNDRED DOLLAR BILLS AND HE NEEDED LIKE A FIVE FOR THE SKYCAP AND HE ASKED ME IF I HAD SOME CASH.
Q OKAY. SO AFTER HE TOLD YOU HE ONLY HAD HUNDRED DOLLAR BILLS AND HE NEEDED A FIVE DOLLAR BILL FOR THE SKYCAP, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I GAVE HIM TWENTY.

February 14, 1996
Q: How many times had Mr. Simpson ever come to your room before to tell you about the jacuzzi jets?
A: Never.
Q: How many times had he ever come to your room before at all?
A: I don't think ever.
Q: So this is the first time Mr. Simpson ever came to your room while you were in it: On the evening of June 12. Correct?
A: Correct.
Q: Just so I rephrase that, because it was a little awkward, June 12, 1994 in the evening, after you took a jacuzzi and while you were in your room was the first time Mr. Simpson ever came to your room. Correct?
A: Correct.

bobaugust

[Ames]

Ames,

Please, a very astute observation as to the possibility of why she posted what is, imho, a rude comment to you.


I am just trying to figure out her reasoning....:)

[William Anthony]

You recall wrong. Kaelin testified that Simpson told him the reason he was there was that he had hundred dollar bills and needed a five for the skycap. Kaelin gave him a twenty.

That's the point if Simpson had really intended to go out to get something to eat he could have gotten change then instead of going to Kaelin's room and asking him.


Q TELL US WHAT THE NATURE OF THAT CONVERSATION WAS?
A IT WAS, UMM, TO GET SOME -- HE HAD HUNDRED DOLLAR BILLS AND HE NEEDED LIKE A FIVE FOR THE SKYCAP AND HE ASKED ME IF I HAD SOME CASH.
Q OKAY. SO AFTER HE TOLD YOU HE ONLY HAD HUNDRED DOLLAR BILLS AND HE NEEDED A FIVE DOLLAR BILL FOR THE SKYCAP, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I GAVE HIM TWENTY.

Q: Just so I rephrase that, because it was a little awkward, June 12, 1994 in the evening, after you took a jacuzzi and while you were in your room was the first time Mr. Simpson ever came to your room. Correct?
A: Correct.
Snipped
bobaugust

I stand corrected on why he told him he needed the change. I doubt very seriously, if McDonald's accepted one hundred dollar bills after banking hours for obvious reasons. Kato gave him a twenty and paid for the meals. Perhaps, Simpson decided to tip twenty. Could that be possible for a man of his wealth? Was it possible that this was the only time Simpson had nothing but Hundred dollar bills in his pocket and needed change and no one was around to ask except Kato?

[bobaugust]

This does not account for the type of socks worn with the shoes aand how that would play into the size worn. As an Athelete, you would know that sneakers are sometimes bought a size larger than dress shoes. Did you consider that?


There is no evidence that Simpson wore those Reeboks to work out with or participate in an athletic event. He claimed those were the shoes he was wearing the day of the murders.

Samuel Posner the salesman from Bloomingdales who had sold Simpson other dress shoes testified that Simpson always bought size 12 dress shoes from him.

June 20, 1995
MR. BAILEY: Now, you mentioned the size of Mr. Simpson's shoes. Do you know if he always bought the same size or whether it varied from manufacturer to manufacturer?
MR. Poser: As far as I know he bought the same--he bought the same size. I remember it to be a 12.
MR. BAILEY: On how many different occasions did you fit him with new shoes?
MR. Poser: About four or five as he came in.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you had sold the Defendant--if you had--if the Defendant had wanted to purchase Bruno Magli shoes from you, the Lorenzo style, would you have sold him size 12 shoes?
MR. Poser: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And he took size 12 in every shoe that you sold?
MR. Poser: As I recall, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And was it your business to know someone's shoe size when you were selling them shoes?
MR. Poser: Definitely, yes.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Here we go... lol
some drugs leave the system quickly



hayes

which drug do you know that leaves the body in 24 hours

martin II

[martin II]

Heck I don't know, which drugs seem to help escalate violence? Especially if one has been proven to already have a violent streak? We know alcohol is one. Which of the street drugs?
Crack?
meth?

nope

martin II

[bobaugust]

I stand corrected on why he told him he needed the change. I doubt very seriously, if McDonald's accepted one hundred dollar bills after banking hours for obvious reasons. Kato gave him a twenty and paid for the meals. Perhaps, Simpson decided to tip twenty. Could that be possible for a man of his wealth? Was it possible that this was the only time Simpson had nothing but Hundred dollar bills in his pocket and needed change and no one was around to ask except Kato?


I doubt that a couple of hamburgers and fries would have cost even ten dollars yet Simpson didn't even use the twenty Kaelin gave him, he let Kaelin pay for the food. Simpson may have been a generous tipper but not that generous. The skycap who handled his bags testified that Simpson gave him a twenty and he gave him back two five's.

The point is if Simpson's only concern was to get change for the skycap he didn't have to go to Kaelin's room more than two hours before he had to leave for the airport since he was supposedly going out to get something to eat. And all he asked Kaelin for was a five dollar bill. I'm not sure what the change policy was in McDonalds in LA then but there would have been plenty of other places Simpson could have gotten smaller bills if he was so concerned about that.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I doubt that a couple of hamburgers and fries would have cost even ten dollars yet Simpson didn't even use the twenty Kaelin gave him, he let Kaelin pay for the food. Simpson may have been a generous tipper but not that generous. The skycap who handled his bags testified that Simpson gave him a twenty and he gave him back two five's.

The point is if Simpson's only concern was to get change for the skycap he didn't have to go to Kaelin's room more than two hours before he had to leave for the airport since he was supposedly going out to get something to eat. And all he asked Kaelin for was a five dollar bill. I'm not sure what the change policy was in McDonalds in LA then but there would have been plenty of other places Simpson could have gotten smaller bills if he was so concerned about that.

bobaugust

So, there was something wrong with him going to Kato to ask if he had five dollars, and with that we can surely convict him of murder? Do you think that he thought the skycap did not have change for a hundred and probably had change for a twenty and how do you know how good of a tipper he was and, if the skycap did not have change do you think he would have told him to keep the twenty as opposed to a hundred? Do you think that it was wrong for Kato to pay for the meal and give him twenty, since I recall he lived there rent free? Do you think they went to buy drugs?

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence that Simpson wore those Reeboks to work out with or participate in an athletic event. He claimed those were the shoes he was wearing the day of the murders.
snipped
bobaugust


Alright, the dress shoes were the same size of the athletic shoes. Now, where is the testimony that he wore anything other than the athletic shoes he claimed to have worn? Not the footprints left at Bundy, but the testimony of someone putting him in those shoes on that night.

[bobaugust]

Alright, the dress shoes were the same size of the athletic shoes. Now, where is the testimony that he wore anything other than the athletic shoes he claimed to have worn? Not the footprints left at Bundy, but the testimony of someone putting him in those shoes on that night.

No witness testified they saw Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes that night. Other evidence tells us Simpson was wearing those Bruno Magli shoes at Bundy.

Simpson owned the exact same kind and size shoes that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.
Simpson was impeached lying about that.
A trail of Simpson's blood was found at Bundy, some near those bloody shoe prints, and led to the inside of his house.
A partial bloody shoe print was found in Simpson's Bronco.
Both victims blood was found in Simpson's Bronco some mixed with Simpson's blood.
Simpson's Bronco was not at his home during the time of the murders.
A witness saw what was most likely Simpson's Bronco speed away from the murder scene.
Another witness encountered Simpson's speeding Bronco shortly after that and identified Simpson as the driver.
Shortly later Simpson was seen entering his house and lights come on and then he answered his gate bell that no one had been answering for the previous fifteen minutes.
The killer's right hand glove was found at Simpson home with blood and trace evidence pointing to Simpson.
Fiber and blood evidence found on Simpson's socks linking him to the murders.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No witness testified they saw Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes that night.

Snipped for relevance

bobaugust

Tank you very much!

[bobaugust]

Tank you very much!

You welcome.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Sorry I couldn't resist. Funny.

bobaugust

[sassylassy]

some drugs leave the system quickly[/QUOTE]



i never heard that before?:shrug:


what type of drugs leave your body quickly?

[William Anthony]

some drugs leave the system quickly



i never heard that before?:shrug:


what type of drugs leave your body quickly?[/QUOTE]

The kind that were never put in your system.:)

[William Anthony]

Sorry I couldn't resist. Funny.

bobaugust

Thank you very much! That's alright humor is good for the Soul. Notice I am referring to your Blackness.:)

[bobaugust]

So, there was something wrong with him going to Kato to ask if he had five dollars, and with that we can surely convict him of murder? Do you think that he thought the skycap did not have change for a hundred and probably had change for a twenty and how do you know how good of a tipper he was and, if the skycap did not have change do you think he would have told him to keep the twenty as opposed to a hundred? Do you think that it was wrong for Kato to pay for the meal and give him twenty, since I recall he lived there rent free? Do you think they went to buy drugs?

No, I don't think we can convict Simpson based on him asking Kaelin for five dollars. You started this thread asking if anyone found it strange that Simpson went to eat a short time before the murders were committed.

My responses have been about pointing out why I believe he did that. I believe that asking Kaelin for five dollars was only an excuse Simpson used to go to Kaelin's room. I also don't believe he had any intention of going out to eat. I believe he was trying to use Kaelin to support the alibi he was setting up and when he said he was going to get a hamburger he was only anticipating an explanation if for some reason Kaelin noticed that his Bronco was gone later. I believe Kaelin surprised Simpson when he asked if he could come so Simpson was forced into going.

As to Kaelin paying for the meal, I don't think Simpson thought twice about it. He was only thinking about getting back to Rockingham and what he was going to do next, it probably didn't occur to him to use the twenty so he let Kaelin pay. Or maybe he thought that as long as Kaelin pushed him into actually going he could pay for the food Only Simpson's knows that answer just as only he knows many answers about that happened that night that we don't know.

No I don't believe they went to buy drugs. Kaelin told how he only ate a couple of fries on the ride home and when he got out of the car he went towards Simpson's house thinking that he would finish eating there with Simpson but when he looked back Simpson had stayed by the car. So Kaelin went to his room and ate his food.

bobaugust

[sassylassy]

Matin,

I did not know about him getting sick at the sight of blood, or I would have started this thread long ago.

hey martin2

never mind being sick from the blood. what about the effects of the adrenaline rush!
surely that would make one puke!!

Adrenaline: A substance produced by the medulla (inside) of the adrenal gland, adrenaline (the official name in the British Pharmacopoeia) is synonymous with epinephrine. Technically speaking, adrenaline is a sympathomimetic catecholamine. It causes quickening of the heart beat, strengthens the force of the heart's contraction, opens up the bronchioles in the lungs and has numerous other effects. The secretion of adrenaline by the adrenal is part of the "fight-or-flight" reaction that we have in response to being frightened.

[sassylassy]

i never heard that before?:shrug:


what type of drugs leave your body quickly?

The kind that were never put in your system.:)[/QUOTE]

must be :shrug:
I have never heard of any type of drugs not showing up in your system within a 24 hr time frame?

[sassylassy]

Heck I don't know, which drugs seem to help escalate violence? Especially if one has been proven to already have a violent streak? We know alcohol is one. Which of the street drugs?
Crack?
meth?

I think both, but more so meth (that drug does some crazy things to ppl)

but other drugs are known to bring out violence, Cocaine, speed, & steroids
which I heard was a big one.

[fbgweezer]

Whats really pretty "funny" here....is that I think that OJ is guilty. I am a "G"...too. Why are you being so rude to a fellow "G"....I just don't get it. Answer this question and I will decide whether or not to put you on Ignore. Go back and read your first post to me...it WAS rude. And considering I too, am a "G"....I don't understand all of your animosity toward me. What in the world have I EVER done to you? All I did was asked a simple question about the recital, and the dinner that OJ wasn't invited to, and you posted me back with what I interpreted as rude remarks...if you didn't mean it that way..then I totally apologize. Relax...I am on YOUR side, here. (IMO) I am now thinking that you may have thought that I was a "NG"...and maybe thats why you posted what you did. (Now, THAT would make sense). or she may have thought what I'm thinking -- troll.

[socaldiva]

I think both, but more so meth (that drug does some crazy things to ppl)

but other drugs are known to bring out violence, Cocaine, speed, & steroids
which I heard was a big one.

Better talk to Martin. He doesn't think crack or meth has that effect. :tongue:

[martin II]

I think both, but more so meth (that drug does some crazy things to ppl)

but other drugs are known to bring out violence, Cocaine, speed, & steroids
which I heard was a big one.


I Know of no drug that dissapates from the body in 24 hours. So the idea that oj took drugs on 6/12 that sent him into some kind of rage, is not supported by the blood test he took on 6/13 and not by anyone that saw him
loading the bags into the limo,at the airport or on the plane. mo

Holly tell me what drug leaves the blood within 24 hours?
martin II

[fbgweezer]

I Know of no drug that dissapates from the body in 24 hours. So the idea that oj took drugs on 6/12 that sent him into some kind of rage, is not supported by the blood test he took on 6/13 and not by anyone that saw him
loading the bags into the limo,at the airport or on the plane. mo

Holly tell me what drug leaves the blood within 24 hours?
martin II certainly not what they found in orenthal's system.

[martin II]

certainly not what they found in orenthal's system.

even traces of WEED would be there for weeks. recent smoking would show more than traces.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

even traces of WEED would be there for weeks. recent smoking would show more than traces.
martin II Really? I don't remember it being 'traces.' Don't you find it a little disingenuous to post about Nicole's drug use and call Ron a drug dealer when there was nothing in their systems but there was in orenthal's?

[socaldiva]

Holly tell me what drug leaves the blood within 24 hours?
martin II

Holly? Why are you referring to that poster? They aren't posting here :tongue:

[Ames]

or she may have thought what I'm thinking -- troll.


Maybe...but I am not a troll. I asked ONE question about the OJ situation...because the trial has only been over TEN years ago, and I couldn't remember...and she came back with some smartbutt comment. I am usually over at the JB boards...ask them...they will tell you that I am not a troll. I asked an innocent question, and she smarted off to me. Maybe I am wrong, but from what her last post says, she must have thought that I was a "NG". I am sure that she didn't think that I was a troll, because I have never done anything to make her think that. And I have never responded to one of YOUR posts, that I know of....so, I have no idea why YOU would think that either.

[fbgweezer]

Maybe...but I am not a troll. I asked ONE question about the OJ situation...because the trial has only been over TEN years ago, and I couldn't remember...and she came back with some smartbutt comment. I am usually over at the JB boards...ask them...they will tell you that I am not a troll. I asked an innocent question, and she smarted off to me. Maybe I am wrong, but from what her last post says, she must have thought that I was a "NG". I am sure that she didn't think that I was a troll, because I have never done anything to make her think that. And I have never responded to one of YOUR posts, that I know of....so, I have no idea why YOU would think that either.
I think that because most trolls who come to this forum start off by asking elementary questions and feign poor memories. The facts of that night beginning with the recital are very well known and most often repeated. Maybe we thought it was something you should have known. You know, your post to me isn't coming off any better than the original post you're complaining of.

[fbgweezer]

Holly? Why are you referring to that poster? They aren't posting here :tongue: LOL -- maybe rayray bumped his head again.....

[Ames]

I think that because most trolls who come to this forum start off by asking elementary questions and feign poor memories. The facts of that night beginning with the recital are very well known and most often repeated. Maybe we thought it was something you should have known. You know, your post to me isn't coming off any better than the original post you're complaining of.


Well, I really haven't been up on the OJ thing....I am NEW to the OJ board....so, what is so wrong with asking questions? I would rather do that, than to jump to the wrong conclusions about something. Actually, you know what they say,...its stupid NOT to ask questions. And yes, I couldn't remember all of the details about the recital...actually it was the dinner afterward, and not the recital that I had questions about. That does not make me a troll, though. And you say that my post to you didn't come off any better than the original post that I complained about. What in the world did I say to you that was rude in my last post to you?....All that I said was that I wasn't a troll, and wondered how you jumped to that conclusion. Remember...YOU are the one that called ME a troll, without any provocation from me. (I frankly had no idea who you even were until now). I am just a newbie here, and thats all. Like I said before, I am usually found on the JB board, but thought that the OJ board would also be interesting. But, I guess that I am wrong. Bottom line is, I believe that OJ is guilty...I guess that I cannot learn anything else from this board...except how to be rude to newbies...and how to accuse them of being a troll, when all they did was asked ONE simple question, because they can't remember a little detail that came up in a trial 12 years ago. So, this will be my final post...ALL but TWO people have been nice to me on this board. I have been warned that some of you on here try to provoke the other posters....why? I have NO clue. All it does it makes visitors and newbies, not want to join this board. How will anyone ever gain insight on this OJ matter, if you only have a handful of people posting, because some of you like to run people off. I hope you have fun talking about the same old stuff over and over again, with the same old people. I wonder if Freshwater knows how some people are treating the posters on this board. Thanks to all of my supporters....it was fun while it lasted. :seeya:

[Ames]

I think that because most trolls who come to this forum start off by asking elementary questions and feign poor memories. The facts of that night beginning with the recital are very well known and most often repeated. Maybe we thought it was something you should have known. You know, your post to me isn't coming off any better than the original post you're complaining of.


Well, I really haven't been up on the OJ thing....I am NEW to the OJ board....so, what is so wrong with asking questions? I would rather do that, than to jump to the wrong conclusions about something. Actually, you know what they say,...its stupid NOT to ask questions. And yes, I couldn't remember all of the details about the recital...actually it was the dinner afterward, and not the recital that I had questions about. That does not make me a troll, though. And YES, if I had been following this OJ thing from the start...it IS something that I would have known about. (Actually, I DID know about it, I had just forgotten the facts.) And you say that my post to you didn't come off any better than the original post that I complained about. What in the world did I say to you that was rude in my last post to you?....All that I said was that I wasn't a troll, and wondered how you jumped to that conclusion. Remember...YOU are the one that called ME a troll, without any provocation from me. (I frankly had no idea who you even were until now). I am just a newbie here, and thats all. Like I said before, I am usually found on the JB board, but thought that the OJ board would also be interesting. But, I guess that I am wrong. Bottom line is, I believe that OJ is guilty...I guess that I cannot learn anything else from this board...except how to be rude to newbies...and how to accuse them of being a troll, when all they did was asked ONE simple question, because they can't remember a little detail that came up in a trial 12 years ago. So, this will be my final post...ALL but TWO people have been nice to me on this board. I have been warned that some of you on here try to provoke the other posters....why? I have NO clue. All it does it makes visitors and newbies, not want to join this board. How will anyone ever gain insight on this OJ matter, if you only have a handful of people posting, because some of you like to run people off. I hope you have fun talking about the same old stuff over and over again, with the same old people. I wonder if Freshwater knows how some people are treating the posters on this board. Thanks to all of my supporters....it was fun while it lasted. OJ IS GUILTY!!! :seeya:

[Ames]

Well, I really haven't been up on the OJ thing....I am NEW to the OJ board....so, what is so wrong with asking questions? I would rather do that, than to jump to the wrong conclusions about something. Actually, you know what they say,...its stupid NOT to ask questions. And yes, I couldn't remember all of the details about the recital...actually it was the dinner afterward, and not the recital that I had questions about. That does not make me a troll, though. And YES, if I had been following this OJ thing from the start...it IS something that I would have known about. (Actually, I DID know about it, I had just forgotten the facts.) And you say that my post to you didn't come off any better than the original post that I complained about. What in the world did I say to you that was rude in my last post to you?....All that I said was that I wasn't a troll, and wondered how you jumped to that conclusion. Remember...YOU are the one that called ME a troll, without any provocation from me. (I frankly had no idea who you even were until now). I am just a newbie here, and thats all. Like I said before, I am usually found on the JB board, but thought that the OJ board would also be interesting. But, I guess that I am wrong. Bottom line is, I believe that OJ is guilty...I guess that I cannot learn anything else from this board...except how to be rude to newbies...and how to accuse them of being a troll, when all they did was asked ONE simple question, because they can't remember a little detail that came up in a trial 12 years ago. So, this will be my final post...ALL but TWO people have been nice to me on this board. I have been warned that some of you on here try to provoke the other posters....why? I have NO clue. All it does it makes visitors and newbies, not want to join this board. How will anyone ever gain insight on this OJ matter, if you only have a handful of people posting, because some of you like to run people off. I hope you have fun talking about the same old stuff over and over again, with the same old people. I wonder if Freshwater knows how some people are treating the posters on this board. Thanks to all of my supporters....it was fun while it lasted. OJ IS GUILTY!!! :seeya:

Sorry...didn't mean to post twice...having trouble with the editing feature on this new board. Anyway...okay...now THIS is my last post! :seeya:

[2L8 4A D8]

Any question of why something does not fit into the prosecution's theory seems to be baiting to you,imh&ro.

<snipped for irrelevance>
You asked a question. I gave you my opinion. As I previously stated, this baiting Thread is exactly what you wanted ~ to ask a baiting question! Then when the rest of us answer that baiting question and you don't agree with our answers, you immediately start with your tirade ~ as shown above! GMAB! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[limakey]

William,

I think OJ went to McDonalds' because he was hungry. IMO, it makes no sense that he was using Kato to set up an alibi---if that was the case, then why wear the same clothes to kill Nicole?

Another point, if he was wearing the same clothes, then why no fibers found in either of his cars? Unless fibers were found, just not the one's that the DA's wanted them to be. I have often wondered if the Bentley was even impounded and checked for evidence. I don't believe it was, do you know?

[2L8 4A D8]

Ames,

Please, a very astute observation as to the possibility of why she posted what is, imho, a rude comment to you.

That's why I didn't ask for any responses from the NG's because ALL of you would say that my post was rude, of course! Duh!

Birds of A Feather, Flock Together! :chicken: :chicken: :chicken:

JMO and MOO!!

[limakey]

Martin,

Here is my problem with the search and your point that it was an illegal search. The police did not need a warrant for search at any time once the bodies were found. The had enough evidence and reasons to go to Rockingham, the law was clearly on their side on this. In other words, had the detectives gone right to Rockingham and rang that same buzzer, (which they never would have done, IMO), got no reply, and busted the door down and caught Simpson or an accomplice trying to destroy evidence, the search would have been legal.

Had they bused the door down and saved Simpson from being a victim, then the defense lawyer of that person attacking Simpson could not say that the police conducted an illegal search.

Also, have you read Mark Fuhrman's book? If you have, let me know, I want see if the same things popped out at you as they did with me.

[limakey]

Other Ways to Identify the wearer of the gloves?

1. The DNA that could have been taken from inside the glove. It was a warm June and who ever killed them had to be sweating.

2. The tags on the inside of the gloves that identify the model number and the exact size. There is more the one "extra large" size.

3. The tags also could have confirmed that these gloves were in fact "mates".

4. The shrinkage of the glove----are we to believe that no one in the LAPD crime lab thought to measure those gloves? That they didn't know that the freezing and unfreezing of them could cause shrinkage? That blood can shrink gloves?

5. Every DA knew, well Chris Darden didn't know, they were not going to ask Simpson to try on the gloves---why not if they believed they were his?

6. The DA's had no idea what the defense was going to do about the gloves, so why leave the glove's lining like that? At least two OJ's lawyers knew those gloves weren't going to fit, so we just say they were never going to ask him to do this.

7. The gloves Nicole bought were the exact same colors and the exact same size that were given by her to a family friend for Christmas. The DA's were given these gloves---and again they don't use them? Why?

[bobaugust]

2. The tags on the inside of the gloves that identify the model number and the exact size. There is more the one "extra large" size.

3. The tags also could have confirmed that these gloves were in fact "mates".

4. The shrinkage of the glove----are we to believe that no one in the LAPD crime lab thought to measure those gloves? That they didn't know that the freezing and unfreezing of them could cause shrinkage? That blood can shrink gloves?




November 6, 1996 Richard Rubin

Q. Okay. Now, have you had an opportunity to look at the inside of the lining of the glove, underneath?
A. I did during the criminal trial.
Q. If you recall still, are there any identifying characteristics or anything that appear on the lining of the -- the inside of that glove?
A. There's a size marking, there's a cutter number, and a sequence control number.
Q. Okay. First of all, we know the size number just indicates the size of the glove, correct?
A. Correct.
*
Q. Now, what exactly is a cutter number?
A. The cutter number is the actual individual who was given the leather to cut X amount of pair of this style during the manufacturing process. It was a way of controlling the leather.
Q. And what is the sequence number, by definition?
A. The sequence number was to keep all the parts together so that the colors matched, because they did vary across the skins. They would actually -- the cutter would say, this is the first pair; I made the second, the third, the fourth. And he would keep all the parts together. That way -- this was nine pair of that particular lot of leather that was given to the cutter.
Q. Okay. There was an extra large; the cutter number sequence number 9?
A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, while you're trying that glove on and looking at it, I'm going to ask you to examine it closely once again for all the specific characteristics we discussed before.
A. It has the same characteristics as the other half pair.
Q. That's the Brossar stitch and the three-point needles -- the three needle points; I'm sorry, and the lined hem and the other things?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And are you able to tell me with certainty who the manufacturer of that glove is, also? First of all, can you tell me, without looking at the label, Mr. Rubin, who made that glove?
A. This is an Aris 70263 brown glove.
Q. Okay. Now, I see you're already doing it. I was going to ask you to look inside the lining of that glove, also, for those identifying characteristics.
(Witness complies, turns glove inside out.)
A. Yes. The cutter number was 359; the sequence number is 9; and the size is XL, makes it a pair.
Q. As a result of looking at those identifying characteristics of the two gloves, are you able to tell me what, if any, relationship there is between the two of those gloves?
A. They are a pair.
Q. No doubt about that?
A. No doubt about it.
*
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Have you seen those gloves prior to today, Mr. Rubin?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And you saw them over a year ago, actually, in Mr. Simpson's criminal trial; is that correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you have an opportunity at that time to measure the length of those gloves?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You measured those gloves at this time. What was the length of the gloves when you measured them, if you recall?
A. Nine and three-eighths inches long.
Q. Approximately an inch less than the standard length?
A. Approximately.
Q. What percent is smaller than the standard extra large would that have made them at this time?
A. Between 10 and 11 percent.
Q. And what would you attribute, or could you attribute that differential of the 10 or 11 percent to anything?
THE WITNESS: Combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Here is my problem with the search and your point that it was an illegal search. The police did not need a warrant for search at any time once the bodies were found. The had enough evidence and reasons to go to Rockingham, the law was clearly on their side on this. In other words, had the detectives gone right to Rockingham and rang that same buzzer, (which they never would have done, IMO), got no reply, and busted the door down and caught Simpson or an accomplice trying to destroy evidence, the search would have been legal.



limakey, what makes you think the police didn't need a search warrant to search Rockingham after the bodies were found?

You say they had enough evidence and reasons to have busted down Simpson's door. What evidence and reasons do you know of that they had at that time?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

William,

I think OJ went to McDonalds' because he was hungry. IMO, it makes no sense that he was using Kato to set up an alibi---if that was the case, then why wear the same clothes to kill Nicole?

Another point, if he was wearing the same clothes, then why no fibers found in either of his cars? Unless fibers were found, just not the one's that the DA's wanted them to be. I have often wondered if the Bentley was even impounded and checked for evidence. I don't believe it was, do you know?


limakey, your question suggesting that something is wrong because there were no clothing fibers found in either of Simpson automobiles is meaningless and based on a false assumption.

Fibers from clothing do not consistently transfer to every surface they come in contact with The fact is that there weren't any fibers from the clothing that Simpson wore that night or any clothing he previous wore found on the leather seats in his Bronco.

As to not making any sense that Simpson let Kaelin see him wearing a dark colored sweat suit, Simpson may have not have even thought anything about that. He didn't know at that time how fiber evidence would later be used to implicated him in these murders. I don't believe Simpson went to McDonalds with Kaelin because he was hungry, but because he trapped himself into going never expecting Kaelin to invite himself along.

bobaugust

[martin II]

i think that if oj went to mc Donalds in the blently there would have been fibers left from his clothing on the seats. Oj did not have to talk to kato to have a alibi for being home at the time they went to Mc Donalds he could easily make a long distance phone call from his home for the same time period
he was with kato. imo

martin II

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Isn't it your belief that the fibers found on Ron's shirt came from the struggle between Ron and Simpson? Well where are Ron's shirt fibers in the Bronco? Where are Nicole's dress fibers in the Bronco?

Where is Ron's hair and Nicole's hair in the Bronco? What they only made sure to leave fibers and hair on a glove and that was it?

Were both cars impounded and searched for these fibers? If not, then what does that prove?

I remember watching Doug Deedrick on another show on how he used fibers to link a little girl's murder. He went through a vacuum cleaner bag and was able to find several fibers from the girl's clothes and from a pet she came in contact with. Are you saying the Bronco and the Bentley were vaccuumed for trace evidence?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

I believe in the first few pages of Fuhrman's book he explains why their search was legal. He also explained how a cop needed to know the law and use it to their advantage. He also listed reasons why it was imperative for them to enter the estate---however, it makes no sense that the only time they had a sense of urgency was how many hours after the bodies were found? How many hours after the kids were at the police station?

And Mr. August---reality check---had they gone to Rockingham very, very early on, the judge would have also allowed this, stating the very reason NG's have been posting on why OJ Simpson was the prime suspect in this case.

BTW, how come Phillips called Fuhrman and asked him to report to the crime scene? He wasn't on call that night. Maybe, just maybe Phillips knew that Fuhrman had responded to at least one other phone call to the Simpson estate? And maybe Phillips was one of the cops who Fuhrman bragged about seeing Nicole's boob job up close and personal? Or maybe he was the one who Fuhrman told that he was Nicole's personal cop? I don't know, but it does seem odd that they would call Fuhrman, a junior detective when Phillips knew that this was going to be a huge, huge case.

[William Anthony]

No, I don't think we can convict Simpson based on him asking Kaelin for five dollars. Only Simpson's knows that answer just as only he knows many answers about that happened that night that we don't know.

Snipped
bobaugust

These are the most intelligent sentences you have ever posted, imho.

[William Anthony]

i think that if oj went to mc Donalds in the blently there would have been fibers left from his clothing on the seats. Oj did not have to talk to kato to have a alibi for being home at the time they went to Mc Donalds he could easily make a long distance phone call from his home for the same time period
he was with kato. imo

martin II

Martin,

Careful, this post is too logical.

[William Anthony]

William,

I think OJ went to McDonalds' because he was hungry. IMO, it makes no sense that he was using Kato to set up an alibi---if that was the case, then why wear the same clothes to kill Nicole?

Another point, if he was wearing the same clothes, then why no fibers found in either of his cars? Unless fibers were found, just not the one's that the DA's wanted them to be. I have often wondered if the Bentley was even impounded and checked for evidence. I don't believe it was, do you know?

Limakey,

I do not know whether it was or not. Only that as far as the blankety blank MF was concerned the Bronco was not parked right and, I have never heard of this being probable cause to conduct a search of a vehicle. Your question about wearing the same clothes is very enlightening as are your other posts.

[William Anthony]

You asked a question. I gave you my opinion. As I previously stated, this baiting Thread is exactly what you wanted ~ to ask a baiting question! Then when the rest of us answer that baiting question and you don't agree with our answers, you immediately start with your tirade ~ as shown above! GMAB! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

I started this thread to ask a question that has puzzled me from the outset and to see if anyone else found it strange. I appreciate the fact that you sign your posts with just your opinion. but, because I am the only one to know why I started this thread, I can say for a fact that your opinion is wrong, which in no way prevents you from haboring this or other wrong opinions.

[martin II]

Martin,

Careful, this post is too logical.


William

If the fibers from the sweat suiote rubbed off when oj was supposed to have touched ron they would have rubbed off when oj was in the Bently as well.

It is still my opinion that it is possible that someone in le did take the sweat suite, compared the fibers, saw they did not fit THAT sweat suite and just tossed the sweat suit. There were so many cops in rockingham on 6/13 that this is very possible. imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Here is my problem with the search and your point that it was an illegal search. The police did not need a warrant for search at any time once the bodies were found. The had enough evidence and reasons to go to Rockingham, the law was clearly on their side on this. In other words, had the detectives gone right to Rockingham and rang that same buzzer, (which they never would have done, IMO), got no reply, and busted the door down and caught Simpson or an accomplice trying to destroy evidence, the search would have been legal.

Had they bused the door down and saved Simpson from being a victim, then the defense lawyer of that person attacking Simpson could not say that the police conducted an illegal search.

Also, have you read Mark Fuhrman's book? If you have, let me know, I want see if the same things popped out at you as they did with me.


Limakey.

I agree with Martin that the search was illegal, not giving credit to the reasons LE asserted. I believe that a search of one's house and cutilage requires probable cause. The fact that someone does not answer their door does not establish probable cause. The fact that a tiny speck of what might have been blood, at the time, is seen on a vehicle is only reasonable suspicion. If the police heard someone attacking Simpson or a struggle, that would have been probable cause, imro.

[William Anthony]

That's why I didn't ask for any responses from the NG's because ALL of you would say that my post was rude, of course! Duh!

Birds of A Feather, Flock Together! :chicken: :chicken: :chicken:

JMO and MOO!!

You are lumping me in the wrong category, read.

[bobaugust]

Limakey.

I agree with Martin that the search was illegal, not giving credit to the reasons LE asserted. I believe that a search of one's house and cutilage requires probable cause. The fact that someone does not answer their door does not establish probable cause. The fact that a tiny speck of what might have been blood, at the time, is seen on a vehicle is only reasonable suspicion. If the police heard someone attacking Simpson or a struggle, that would have been probable cause, imro.

It looked like someone should have been home because of the lights that were on in the house. Do you not think that after the detectives were told by Simpson's security company that a live in housekeeper should have been home yet still no one was answering the door bell or the telephone, that was probable cause to enter the estate?

The fact that what could have possibly been blood was found on Simpson's Bronco less than a five minutes drive from a bloody double homicide of which one of the victims was Simpson's ex wife also played a part in the detectives concerns.

The police didn't search Simpson's house based on that information, they entered his estate.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

It looked like someone should have been home because of the lights that were on in the house. Do you not think that after the detectives were told by Simpson's security company that a live in housekeeper should have been home yet still no one was answering the door bell or the telephone, that was probable cause to enter the estate?

The fact that what could have possibly been blood was found on Simpson's Bronco less than a five minutes drive from a bloody double homicide of which one of the victims was Simpson's ex wife also played a part in the detectives concerns.

The police didn't search Simpson's house based on that information, they entered his estate.

bobaugust

I will look this issue up in a short while. However, imo, having lights on and no one answering the door does or telephone not equal probable cause. The maid or anyone else in the home was mandated to answer the phone or the bell. The detectives could have had a concern, which to me, only represents reasonable suspicion. The fact is there was no emergency (exigent) circumstances that permitted the police to make an unlawful entry onto Simpson's estate, imho.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Isn't it your belief that the fibers found on Ron's shirt came from the struggle between Ron and Simpson? Well where are Ron's shirt fibers in the Bronco? Where are Nicole's dress fibers in the Bronco?

Where is Ron's hair and Nicole's hair in the Bronco? What they only made sure to leave fibers and hair on a glove and that was it?

Were both cars impounded and searched for these fibers? If not, then what does that prove?

I remember watching Doug Deedrick on another show on how he used fibers to link a little girl's murder. He went through a vacuum cleaner bag and was able to find several fibers from the girl's clothes and from a pet she came in contact with. Are you saying the Bronco and the Bentley were vaccuumed for trace evidence?


It is not only my belief that fibers were found on Ron's clothing it is a fact.

MR. DEEDRICK: The more rigorous the contact, the longer the duration. The more forceful contact often results in greater fiber exchanges up to a certain number. Again, it just depends on the nature of the fibers. It depends on the nature of the contact, but the greater force, the more surface area coming into actual physical contact in the common sense kind of, but they show this through studies, that you will transfer more fibers that way. Just like if you walk through the mud, the more you walk through the mud, you get more mud on you. It is kind of all the same principle.

The Bronco was checked for trace evidence but there was evidently nothing found from the victims. Fiber evidence is not something that should be somewhere, it is only relevant when it's found, not when it isn't found.

I'm not sure if Simpson's Bentley was ever searched for trace evidence, but I kind of doubt it since there was no evidence that car was related to these murders.

July 5, 1995
MS. CLARK: So before you requested the carpet sample from the Defendant's Bronco, you saw fibers recovered from the towel, plastic and shovel which you knew to have been found in that Bronco?
MR. DEEDRICK: Right. There was one fiber on each of these items that--that exhibited the same characteristics as the single fiber found on the Rockingham glove, as well as a single fiber recovered from the knit hat at Bundy.
*
MS. CLARK: So you--can you tell us, sir, what exactly you requested with respect to exemplars--with respect to carpet samples taken from the Defendant's Bronco?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I requested samples from all the fabric surfaces that were present within the vehicle. And an interior of a vehicle is often comprised of a lot of different fabrics. It is a little world in itself. There is carpeting, there are floor mats, there is door panel fibers, there are seat cover fibers, in this particular case I believe they were leather, and there is also seat back fibers. There was a back portion of the vehicle, cargo area, that had fabric, so an interior of a vehicle is a source of many different types of fibers, and I asked for all fabric surfaces and I--and I received samples from several areas.
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. When you received those samples--when you received those samples, sir, can you tell us whether you conducted some form of comparison with respect to the fibers collected from the towel, the shovel, the plastic, the knit cap, the blue knit ski cap, the glove found at Rockingham?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. Initially tests that were conducted before I got the known material were done on the--on just the material taken from the inside of the Bronco, as well as from the--from the knit hat and from the--from the Rockingham glove. A number of tests were conducted there. Ultimately I wanted to get samples from the vehicle. Those were submitted in about a week later or so, and I did--I did the entire battery of tests again on all of those--of the known standards. In the carpeting, the main body of the carpeting of that vehicle was the nylon, tri-lobal, rose beige, jack cross-section fiber.
MS. CLARK: Of all of them?
MR. DEEDRICK: Of all of the carpeted surfaces, right. The door panels were different, seat backs were different. One was polyester, one was an olefin fiber, but all of the actual carpeting was--was the same type.
MS. CLARK: And when you say you used all the usual methods, these were manmade fibers, sir?
MR. DEEDRICK: Manmade fibers. First a visual comparison under the comparison microscope, polarizing microscope, fluorescent microscope, microspectrophotometry, FTIR, and SEM, which is scanning electron microscope.
MS. CLARK: With the use of all of those methods, when you perform the comparison from the known carpet sample from the Defendant's Bronco to the fibers you found on the knit cap, the Rockingham glove, as well as the towel, the shovel and the plastic, what conclusion did you reach?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, all of those fibers, the questioned fibers from the--from the towel, the shovel, from the plastic, from the Rockingham glove and also from the knit hat could have originated from that Bronco.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Limakey,

I do not know whether it was or not. Only that as far as the blankety blank MF was concerned the Bronco was not parked right and, I have never heard of this being probable cause to conduct a search of a vehicle. Your question about wearing the same clothes is very enlightening as are your other posts.

The Bronco was later searched because of possible blood stains that were seen in it not because it wasn't parked right.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

It looked like someone should have been home because of the lights that were on in the house. Do you not think that after the detectives were told by Simpson's security company that a live in housekeeper should have been home yet still no one was answering the door bell or the telephone, that was probable cause to enter the estate?

The fact that what could have possibly been blood was found on Simpson's Bronco less than a five minutes drive from a bloody double homicide of which one of the victims was Simpson's ex wife also played a part in the detectives concerns.

The police didn't search Simpson's house based on that information, they entered his estate.

bobaugust

I know you do not understand the law, and I am trying to help. Here is a portion of the article on curtilage and searches and this is why you should limit your remarks to opinions rather than statements of fact.

However, entry by officers into private areas of curtilage
will constitute an intrusion into fourth amendment rights. In
United States v. Van ****, (27) officers began a surveillance of a
rural home from a neighbor's property. As darkness fell the
officers moved in closer to obtain a better vantage point. ``The
officers walked through trees growing along the boundary between
the two properties, climbed a fence, and moved 15 feet beyond the
fence to a location 150 feet from the residence. There they lay
down in a patch of honeysuckle bordering the mowed lawn.'' (28)
Although quite distant from the house, this area was held to be
within the curtilage in part due to its proximity to the large,
manicured lawn. This entry into curtilage was held to constitute
a search, and the information obtained from surveillance at this
location was suppressed.

[William Anthony]

The Bronco was later searched because of possible blood stains that were seen in it not because it wasn't parked right.

bobaugust

The sight of what may have been blood was what LE used, in part, as a reason to conduct an unlawful search of Simpson's curtilage, because, without the knowledge that it was blood, it only amounted to reasonable suspicion, imh&ko. On the other thread, in case you have not looked, an entry into a person's curtilage is a search, and, under these circumstances, the gate was proof positive that Simpson expected privacy, imh&ko.

[William Anthony]

It looked like someone should have been home because of the lights that were on in the house. Do you not think that after the detectives were told by Simpson's security company that a live in housekeeper should have been home yet still no one was answering the door bell or the telephone, that was probable cause to enter the estate?

The fact that what could have possibly been blood was found on Simpson's Bronco less than a five minutes drive from a bloody double homicide of which one of the victims was Simpson's ex wife also played a part in the detectives concerns.

The police didn't search Simpson's house based on that information, they entered his estate.

bobaugust

Here is another portion of that article;

Second, when contemplating entering areas near a residence
that are not access areas or that are access areas with public
access either blocked or discouraged in a significant way, (35)
officers should determine whether the area to be entered is
within the curtilage. Again, if the area is part of the
curtilage, the officers should, absent emergency circumstances,
seek a search warrant before making the entry. The second
officer mentioned in the beginning of this article is faced with
such a circumstance. The bushes he is contemplating crawling
into are likely within a nonaccess portion of the curtilage, and
the officer would need a warrant in order to lawfully view his
suspect from that location.

[bobaugust]

I will look this issue up in a short while. However, imo, having lights on and no one answering the door does or telephone not equal probable cause. The maid or anyone else in the home was mandated to answer the phone or the bell. The detectives could have had a concern, which to me, only represents reasonable suspicion. The fact is there was no emergency (exigent) circumstances that permitted the police to make an unlawful entry onto Simpson's estate, imho.

The judge evidently didn't agree with your opinion.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The sight of what may have been blood was what LE used, in part, as a reason to conduct an unlawful search of Simpson's curtilage, because, without the knowledge that it was blood, it only amounted to reasonable suspicion, imh&ko. On the other thread, in case you have not looked, an entry into a person's curtilage is a search, and, under these circumstances, the gate was proof positive that Simpson expected privacy, imh&ko.

Again, the judge evidently didn't agree with your opinion.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Again, the judge evidently didn't agree with your opinion.

bobaugust

That is what they have appeals courts for, but, since the verdict was favorable an appeal was not necessary. The United States Supreme Court, whose opinion is final, has agreed with my opinion. Why do I continue to debate legal matters with you, when you did not know that warrantless entry into curtilage constitutes a search?

[William Anthony]

The judge evidently didn't agree with your opinion.

bobaugust

That is what appellate courts are for and the verdict in the criminal case made that unnecessary. The united States Supreme Court has agreed with me. Why do I continue to debate legal issues with someone who does not know what constitutes a search?

[bobaugust]

That is what appellate courts are for and the verdict in the criminal case made that unnecessary. The united States Supreme Court has agreed with me. Why do I continue to debate legal issues with someone who does not know what constitutes a search?


The judge in the civil trial also evidently didn't agree with your opinion. You can debate all you want but the reality is that the detectives entering of Simpson's estate that morning was not found to be illegal.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

That is what they have appeals courts for, but, since the verdict was favorable an appeal was not necessary. The United States Supreme Court, whose opinion is final, has agreed with my opinion. Why do I continue to debate legal matters with you, when you did not know that warrantless entry into curtilage constitutes a search?

Again, the judge in the civil trial also evidently didn't agree with your opinion. You can debate all you want but the reality is that the detectives entering of Simpson's estate that morning was not found to be illegal.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The judge in the civil trial also evidently didn't agree with your opinion. You can debate all you want but the reality is that the detectives entering of Simpson's estate that morning was not found to be illegal.

bobaugust

And you can debate all you want but the reality is that Simpson was found not guilty of the murders.

[William Anthony]

Again, the judge in the civil trial also evidently didn't agree with your opinion. You can debate all you want but the reality is that the detectives entering of Simpson's estate that morning was not found to be illegal.

bobaugust

Again, you can debate all you want and the reality is that Simpson was found not Guilty of the murders.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*That is what they have appeals courts for, but, since the verdict was favorable an appeal was not necessary. The United States Supreme Court, whose opinion is final, has agreed with my opinion. I'm sure you meant that you agree with the Supreme court decision because I doubt very seriously that they give a rip what your opinion is.

[bobaugust]

And you can debate all you want but the reality is that Simpson was found not guilty of the murders.


Right, and the reality is that not guilty does not mean he didn't commit the murders.

Another reality is that Simpson was found to have caused the deaths of both Ron and Nicole committing oppression, malice, and battery.

bobaugust

[limakey]

William,

I believe that the search that was conducted when the detectives gave that cock and bull story is illegal. IMO, they went right over to Rockingham because they had every reason to believe (according to their own testimony) that Simpson could have been victim---or in the process of being a victim.

Had they gone to Rockingham and got the same response, all they had to to do was to tell the judge they believed not only OJ Simpson was in danager, but also a maid.

If the police were telling the truth and they also went just to notifiy him, then why wait over 5 hours to go to Rockingham? That is why their story falls apart.

Can there be any doubt in your mind had the police gone to Rockingham within the hour when the bodies were found and found OJ Simpson dead or in the process of destroying evidence that the search would have been tossed out by the judge? Would the Bronco would have been parked "less askewed"? Would Fuhrman not have had a flashlight to check it out? IMO, Fuhrman went to Rockingham with Roberts, Fuhrman knew exactly what to expect and set it up perfectly. That is why Roberts never took the stand, perhaps Roberts never would have gone along with Fuhrman's take on what happened that night or could not understand why they were trying to hide what time they went over there that night, IMO.

[bobaugust]

William,

If the police were telling the truth and they also went just to notifiy him, then why wait over 5 hours to go to Rockingham? That is why their story falls apart.

Can there be any doubt in your mind had the police gone to Rockingham within the hour when the bodies were found and found OJ Simpson dead or in the process of destroying evidence that the search would have been tossed out by the judge? Would the Bronco would have been parked "less askewed"? Would Fuhrman not have had a flashlight to check it out? IMO, Fuhrman went to Rockingham with Roberts, Fuhrman knew exactly what to expect and set it up perfectly. That is why Roberts never took the stand, perhaps Roberts never would have gone along with Fuhrman's take on what happened that night or could not understand why they were trying to hide what time they went over there that night, IMO.

limakey, why five hours?

The bodies were found at 12:17 AM by patrol officers.
The West LA detectives responsible for the case arrived about 2:10 AM,
After conducting a walk through of the murder scene they were informed that the case was being given to Robbery Homicide.
About 3:00 AM Brad Roberts was sent to interview the couple who found the Akita.
The first Robbery Homicide detective, Vannatter, arrived at about 4:05 AM
The second Robbery Homicide detective arrived at about 4:25 AM
After their walk through the Robbery Homicide detectives were informed of the order to notify Simpson person and help him recover his two small children.
After discussing the situation Lange asks Phillips and Fuhrman to come with them so once the notification is made, both Vannatter and Lange can return to Bundy to handle the bodies and the evidence while Phillips and Fuhrman help Simpson recover his children being held at their police station.
The detectives arrive at Rockingham about 5:00 AM.

Your belief that Fuhrman went to Rockingham earlier is nothing but a fantasy. There isn't one shred of evidence to support your false claims.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

I started this thread to ask a question that has puzzled me from the outset and to see if anyone else found it strange. I appreciate the fact that you sign your posts with just your opinion. but, because I am the only one to know why I started this thread, I can say for a fact that your opinion is wrong, which in no way prevents you from haboring this or other wrong opinions.

Who are you to judge that anyone's opinion is wrong just because you are "the only one to know why" you started this Thread? :punch:

As usual, I will just consider the source because you haven't said any of the above to anyone else who has given their opinions on your baiting Thread ~ yourself and your comrades included!

JMO and MOO!!

[limakey]

Mr. August,

I have the law on my side on this issue. You haven't provided one shred of proof of why they wouldn't have gone over there. And Brad Roberts never took the stand. And before you say that other detectives could have testified to what he saw--that is pure fantasy on your part.

Fuhrman was called to that scene for a reason by Phillips. The fact that Fuhrman went out of his way over and over again to say that he checked with Riske about the directions is just a tad to odd. The fact that everything they said they found after 5:00 a.m. and the circumstances that made this emergency would have still been the same at 1:00 a.m.

Do you really believe the people who found the Aikta were more important then Mr. Simpson's life?

[limakey]

William,

Another reason why I don't think there was anything behind the trip to McDonalds' is because if Simpson was setting up an alibi, why not ask what Kato's plans were for that night? I never made any sense to me that he would make any attempt to enter his property behind the only person who he knew was home, room. First, he had another way on to his property.

IMO, if those thumps had anything to do with the murders, Kato was meant to hear them. I can't see where this helps Simpson at all.

[bobaugust]

William,

Another reason why I don't think there was anything behind the trip to McDonalds' is because if Simpson was setting up an alibi, why not ask what Kato's plans were for that night? I never made any sense to me that he would make any attempt to enter his property behind the only person who he knew was home, room. First, he had another way on to his property.




limakey, this wasn't the first time that day that Simpson talked to Kaelin. They had spent time together that afternoon and after the Simpson returned from the recital. Simpson most likely already knew Kaelin had no plans to go out that Sunday night.

When Simpson returned from Bundy after the murders he couldn't enter his estate through his Ashford gate because the limo was parked there. He also couldn't take the chance activating his Rockingham gate because the limo driver might have heard that gate when it automatically opened and then again when it automatically closed. Simpson probably wasn't very concerned about being seen entering his house but he was concerned that no one saw or heard him enter his estate.

Simpson knew that his fence was at it's lowest point behind his guest house based on the difference in elevations between his property and his neighbors property so that's where he went. He never intended to make any noise when he scaled his fence. It was very dark back there and when he jumped from the top of his fence and he evidently didn't realize how close the wall was and he slammed into it probably with his right shoulder when he landed on the narrow south path.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Who are you to judge that anyone's opinion is wrong just because you are "the only one to know why" you started this Thread? :punch:

Snipped
JMO and MOO!!

Anger uncontrolled will recoil against you, as evidenced by your statement. Who else other than the creator, knows why he created something? Your opinion as to the reason for my creation is wrong, but, as I said, I did not expect you to cease from being wrong.

[William Anthony]

.

Simpson probably wasn't very concerned about being seen entering his house but he was concerned that no one saw or heard him enter his estate.

Simpson knew that his fence was at it's lowest point behind his guest house based on the difference in elevations between his property and his neighbors property so that's where he went. He never intended to make any noise when he scaled his fence. It was very dark back there and when he jumped from the top of his fence and he evidently didn't realize how close the wall was and he slammed into it probably with his right shoulder when he landed on the narrow south path.

bobaugust

Limakey,

Since this post was originally adressed to me and there were some intelligent and crtical questions in the post, I understand the intrusion by one so prone to making circular arguments against them, but wish he would stop. You have him now talking in circles again, imro. Here is the problem with his agrument.

"...but he was concerned that no one saw or heard him enter his estate." "Simpson knew that his fence was at it's lowest point behind his guest house...he evidently didn't realize how close the wall was and he slammed into it probably with his right shoulder..."

He argues that Simpson was concerned that no one head him and claims that he was so familiar with the area behind the wall that he knew where the lowest point on the fence was, but unfamiliar with the proximity of the wall or, if he was familiar with the closeness, was not so concened so as to not slam into it even though he did not want to be heard, and none of this accounts for the three thump signal Kato heard, informing him someone was on the other side of the wall.

Keep up your excellent posts and I now understand your nic-make them lie.:)

[William Anthony]

limakey, why five hours?
Snipped

Your belief that Fuhrman went to Rockingham earlier is nothing but a fantasy. There isn't one shred of evidence to support your false claims.

bobaugust

Limakey,

In the post that you addressed to me I did not see you make any claim or belief that the blankety blank MF went to Rockingham earlier. Please, correct me if I am wrong, so that I can provide a sensible reply.

[William Anthony]

Right, and the reality is that not guilty does not mean he didn't commit the murders.

Another reality is that Simpson was found to have caused the deaths of both Ron and Nicole committing oppression, malice, and battery.

bobaugust

That is what I have been saying all along, except that your are wrong that the civil verdict found that he caused the deaths of the victims!! you want to give more credit to the civil verdict than is due and less credit to the criminal verdict? Why? Do not answer that question as I believe I have your answer memorized at this point.

[bobaugust]

Limakey,

Since this post was originally adressed to me and there were some intelligent and crtical questions in the post, I understand the intrusion by one so prone to making circular arguments against them, but wish he would stop. You have him now talking in circles again, imro. Here is the problem with his agrument.

"...but he was concerned that no one saw or heard him enter his estate." "Simpson knew that his fence was at it's lowest point behind his guest house...he evidently didn't realize how close the wall was and he slammed into it probably with his right shoulder..."

He argues that Simpson was concerned that no one head him and claims that he was so familiar with the area behind the wall that he knew where the lowest point on the fence was, but unfamiliar with the proximity of the wall or, if he was familiar with the closeness, was not so concened so as to not slam into it even though he did not want to be heard, and none of this accounts for the three thump signal Kato heard, informing him someone was on the other side of the wall.



I see you are starting to believe Simpson's stories. Why am I not surprised.

A supposed signal by someone pounding on that wall would not cause vibrations on the wall to cause a picture on the other side to tilt. That was proved by Simpson's defense team.

The vibrations Kaelin testified that he felt on his back could have easily been caused by the force generated when a two hundred pound man jumped from the top of the four and half foot high fence and slammed his shoulder into it. The sounds that followed were cause when Simpson regained his balance. Kaelin described them as migrating across the wall in the same direction Simpson would have been going.

Yes Simpson knew his fence was at it's lowest point there and he knew the wall was close to the fence because the cement path was narrow. But knowing that and jumping from the fence in the pitch dark are two different things. I know you saw the photograph on my web site of Simpson standing on that path and how big he was compared to the area that he jumped to. At night it was very dark back there and he simply misjudged his jump slamming his right shoulder into the wall as he landed.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The vibrations Kaelin testified that he felt on his back could have easily been caused by the force generated when a two hundred pound man jumped from the top of the four and half foot high fence and slammed his shoulder into it. The sounds that followed were cause when Simpson regained his balance. Kaelin described them as migrating across the wall in the same direction Simpson would have been going.

Yes Simpson knew his fence was at it's lowest point there and he knew the wall was close to the fence because the cement path was narrow.
Snipped
bobaugust

I read your unsupported speculation in the other post, and I do not remember Kato ever testifying in the civil trial that the thumps migrated, but do vividly remember the display as he pounded on the desk, in three separate and distinct pounds, and I have not read Simpson's account, but from the time I heard Kato testify, in my mind it sounded more like a signal than anything else. Your post, in no way, unwinds your prior circular argument. It was just as dark when he allegedly reached the fence, as when he allegedly jumped from it.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I have the law on my side on this issue. You haven't provided one shred of proof of why they wouldn't have gone over there. And Brad Roberts never took the stand. And before you say that other detectives could have testified to what he saw--that is pure fantasy on your part.



limakey, no you do not have the law on your side. It's your burden to provide the evidence that supports your beliefs. But you can't do that because there is none. Only your imagination.

I suggest you should really be posting with the other delusional fanatics who hate Fuhrman on Iago. The next step in your fantasy is to claim like they do that Mark Fuhrman was the real killer in a conspiracy including Brad Roberts, Faye Resnick, Ron Shipp, and Denise Brown. They will welcome you with open arms instead of the ridicule you will get from informed posters here.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

That is what I have been saying all along, except that your are wrong that the civil verdict found that he caused the deaths of the victims!! you want to give more credit to the civil verdict than is due and less credit to the criminal verdict? Why? Do not answer that question as I believe I have your answer memorized at this point.

Civil Trial Jury Verdict Form

Question No. 1: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson wilfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman?

Answer: Yes.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Civil Trial Jury Verdict Form

Question No. 1: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson wilfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman?

Answer: Yes.

bobaugust

Did you forget the words willfully and wrongfully in your first post, and even then that was a question and not the verdict?

[martin II]

I read your unsupported speculation in the other post, and I do not remember Kato ever testifying in the civil trial that the thumps migrated, but do vividly remember the display as he pounded on the desk, in three separate and distinct pounds, and I have not read Simpson's account, but from the time I heard Kato testify, in my mind it sounded more like a signal than anything else. Your post, in no way, unwinds your prior circular argument. It was just as dark when he allegedly reached the fence, as when he allegedly jumped from it.


william
on one hand bob wants to say oj was physcially fit enough to jump almost any fense on his property but fell all over the place when he tried to jump the back fense. That oj could not have been able to jump the wall at rockingham or open the rockingham gate.imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

william
on one hand bob wants to say oj was physcially fit enough to jump almost any fense on his property but fell all over the place when he tried to jump the back fense. That oj could not have been able to jump the wall at rockingham or open the rockingham gate.imo
martin II yes, I've wondered why he didn't sneak in the back way he'd used when he ran from the police after the beating in '89. Guess he was in a hurry to get inside the house.

[bobaugust]

I read your unsupported speculation in the other post, and I do not remember Kato ever testifying in the civil trial that the thumps migrated, but do vividly remember the display as he pounded on the desk, in three separate and distinct pounds, and I have not read Simpson's account, but from the time I heard Kato testify, in my mind it sounded more like a signal than anything else. Your post, in no way, unwinds your prior circular argument. It was just as dark when he allegedly reached the fence, as when he allegedly jumped from it.

Triumph of Justice
"When we were preparing for his deposition I had said to Kato, "Get up and demonstrate what the noise sounded like." Kato stood, went over to the conference room wall, and crashed against it three times. It sounded, indeed, "as if a body hit the wall."

From what little I had heard during the criminal case, that was not my impression of the "thumps." When he had testified, Kato had demonstrated by knocking three times on the witness box. The sound had been thin and hollow, a knuckle against a rail; it sounded nothing at all like a man returning from a killing.

"Why did you knock on the witness stand three times?" I asked incredulously.

"Well," he explained, "they were asking me to demonstrate the rhythm of the sounds. Bah, bum-bum. I just thought they wanted to know, sort of, the pattern, or the rhythm. No one asked me to go and demonstrate how it sounded, or did it sound like someone falling against the wall." And Kato, for his part, had not volunteered."


February 14, 1996

Q: And then did anything happen?
A: Yeah. Somewhere in the phone call, I was up against my bed, my back to it--
Q: Your back against the wall?
A: Towards the wall of my--of the bed, talking to her--
Q: Right.
A: --and that there was a noise, and the noise was a noise that moved the picture, and I said, "Did we have an earthquake?" And the noise was as if a body hit the back of a wall, and the picture moved, and it was like a thickness--a thick noise that moved it, and it was --I don't know if I can stand up or not. but--
*
Q: Go ahead. Keep your voice up.
A: So I thought it was something like a (Sound), like in that order, a (Sound), and it moved the picture on my wall. And the picture on the wall--I said to Rachel immediately, "Did we just have an earthquake?" And she goes, "No." I said, "This noise I just heard, my picture moved next to the bed." I said. "It's so weird that this thing"--you know, I was trying to convince myself earthquake, but I started thinking there was something back there or someone back there, and that was--because it moved the picture, and then I got scared.
*
Q: Now, this sound, this noise that you heard as though a body was falling against the outside of the wall, did this frighten you?
A: Yes.
*
Q: Was it kind of a violent shaking?
A: It was in a shaky--the picture moved, so it was a noise that it definitely got my attention, and I felt there was something back--someone back there. It was powerful enough to move the picture. That's what caused me to say about the earthquake. In my head I think I was realizing it wasn't an earthquake, but the belief that Rachel might say, "Yeah, we just had," kind of thing, but she didn't and...
Q: You intellectually concluded it was not an earthquake at that point. Right?
A: Yes.
Q: And you also saw that there was nothing else in the room on the other side of that wall that moved. Right?
A: Correct.
Q: And the ground wasn't moving underneath you. Right?
A: No. My back was against that. That's where I felt the vibrating, so I didn't--that's what caused it more me asking the question about the earthquake to her.
Q: I see. But after you quickly ruled out earthquake, you then believed there was someone on the other side of that wall. Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: And you decided that for your own safety, you'd better go check?
A: Yes.
*
Q: Okay. Now, is this a pretty thick exterior wall?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know what it's made out of?
A: The wall right here (Indicating)?
Q: Yeah.
A: That's wood.
Q: Do you know if there is any concrete on the other side?
A: I believe it's concrete on the other side.
*
Q: So the air conditioner is actually located on the opposite side of the bed from where the picture is. Right?
A: Yes.
Q: And it's about how many feet between the air conditioner and the picture? What's your best estimate?
A: Looks like about eight feet.
Q: And the air conditioner is what, at eye level?
A: Yeah.
*
Q: Hold on. Let me just--let's try this again. I want to be real precise here.
A: Okay.
Q: You think that you first heard this noise around the center of the headboard?
A: Right.
Q: And then it kind of migrated towards the left?
A: On the third one . The noises were boom, boom, boom, like that, and the third one was probably a foot off from the original. It seemed like it was hitting a patter, like a boom, boom, boom.
Q: With the noise going in what direction? Air conditioner to phone? Air conditioner to the picture?
A: Yeah, air conditioner to the picture.
Q: And did the noise--could you tell where on the wall the noise appeared to sound?
A: Yeah. It was probably right where that arrow would be pointing behind there. It would be--
Q: What height?
A: Oh, okay. It would be right--it's about five feet.
*
Q: How many--how much did the picture move?
A: It moved at least six inches. It tilted completely.
Q: Tilted completely.
A: Yes, the picture tilted.
Q: In what direction did it tilt?
A: It tilted--the picture would have gone that way (Indicating).
Q: So the bottom part of the picture, did it go towards the bed or away from the bed?
A: My recollection it was away from the bed. That part went towards the bed (Indicating).
Q: The top went towards and the bottom went away. After you asked Rachel about the earthquake and she said no, what did you then do?
A: I remember part of my dialogue was telling her that I was going to investigate it, and I knew that there was a pen flashlight in my drawer next to the bed.
Q: Yeah.
A: And in talking to her, I had said. "I'm going to go and check on that noise. And she was going, "No. Come over. Come over." I said, "No. I'm going to check on this noise," and then I said, "But if I don't call you back in 10 minutes, start to worry. Call the police." It was some joke--in a joking manner I said It.
Q: Now, you were joking with her. Right?
A: I was joking, but it was a nervous joke, and then she said, "Oh, no, I'm going to start to worry now."
Q: But you were genuinely frightened?
A: I was afraid but playing the role that I wasn't afraid, but it--the real feeling inside was I was afraid.

bobaugust

[martin II]

yes, I've wondered why he didn't sneak in the back way he'd used when he ran from the police after the beating in '89. Guess he was in a hurry to get inside the house.

he was already in the house. he did not have to use either method.
no one saw oj jump any fense so there is no proof that he did. only speculation.
martin II

[bobaugust]

william
on one hand bob wants to say oj was physcially fit enough to jump almost any fense on his property but fell all over the place when he tried to jump the back fense. That oj could not have been able to jump the wall at rockingham or open the rockingham gate.imo
martin II

martin II, this has been explained to you before. The wall vine covered wall and the fence were two completely different things. I posted a link so you could see for yourself. It seems you have again forgotten about that so here it is again.
http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/rgate9.jpg

The way the Rockingham gate worked tells us Simpson was clever enough not to open it even if he had a key with him to activate it. Simpson kept that key on a different key chain than his Bronco key.

Once the Rockingham gate was activated it would slowly open from one end. It would remain open for about 30, 40 seconds and then slowly swing back and close. If Simpson was concerned about being seen or heard entering his estate then he may not have wanted to take the chance that the limo driver at his Ashford gate might hear it when it opened or when it closed.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Triumph of Justice
"When we were preparing for his deposition I had said to Kato, "Get up and demonstrate what the noise sounded like." Kato stood, went over to the conference room wall, and crashed against it three times. It sounded, indeed, "as if a body hit the wall."

snipped
bobaugust

Thank you. The attorney asked a leading question and the photos taken of Simpson showing no bruising. when placed in context of Kato's different testimony from the criminal trial, shows that Simpson was not behind Kato's quarters, imh&ro.

[bobaugust]

yes, I've wondered why he didn't sneak in the back way he'd used when he ran from the police after the beating in '89. Guess he was in a hurry to get inside the house.


fbgweezer, the way you are referring to was by walking across his neighbors property directly behind his house on Ashford St. He would then jump the wooden fence that separated the two properties and enter his estate behind his tennis court.

Simpson had no way to get to that neighbor's property from his Rockingham gate unless he walked back down Rockingham to Ashford and then up Ashford. He would have then have to go right by the parked limousine waiting at his Ashford gate.

Here is link to another photograph that doesn't quite show everything but enough to see where the Rockingham and Ashford gates are in relation to the tennis court that is behind the pool. It also shows how much closer it would be for him to do exactly what he did do, walking across the Salinger's property to his fence behind the guest house.
http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/aerial14.jpg

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*fbgweezer, the way you are referring to was by walking across his neighbors property directly behind his house on Ashford St. He would then jump the wooden fence that separated the two properties and enter his estate behind his tennis court.st thanks bob, that answers my question.

[sassylassy]

Better talk to Martin. He doesn't think crack or meth has that effect. :tongue:


from what I understand drugs have many different effects on ppl.
not everyone is the same- so I guess it depends.

[bobaugust]

Did you forget the words willfully and wrongfully in your first post, and even then that was a question and not the verdict?

The words "willfully and wrongfully" do not change the question or the answer. That was only the first question on the Civil Trial Verdict Form.

bobaugust

[martin II]

from what I understand drugs have many different effects on ppl.
not everyone is the same- so I guess it depends.


sassy hi

You are correct. different drugs do have different effects on different people. My point was that there is no known drug that dissapated from the body within 24 hours. So if someone is high on meth (example) whatever the effects, they will not go away within 4-5 hours. imo.

Now it appears that socal has more experience with crack and meth so you may ask her what the effects on the user are.
imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

sassy hi

You are correct. different drugs do have different effects on different people. My point was that there is no known drug that dissapated from the body within 24 hours. So if someone is high on meth (example) whatever the effects, they will not go away within 4-5 hours. imo.

Now it appears that socal has more experience with crack and meth so you may ask her what the effects on the user are.
imo
martin II


Sassylassy,

The only drug found was marijuana. A G subverted the whole conversation with the opinion that Simpson and Kato went to buy drugs. If Simpson did commit the murders, I doubt whether marijuana played a part, unless it was laced, which would account for Kato's different testimonies.:)

[martin II]

since oj only had traces of marijuana in his blood when it was drawn on 6/13.
this proves that he had not taken any other drug on 6/12 after Mc Donalds or any other activity.io
martin II

[fbgweezer]

since oj only had traces of marijuana in his blood when it was drawn on 6/13.
this proves that he had not taken any other drug on 6/12 after Mc Donalds or any other activity.io
martin II were you surprised to find that he had drugs in his system? I was. I always thought of him as a clean cut, good guy.

[sassylassy]

[QUOTE=martin II;8787841]sassy hi

My point was that there is no known drug that dissapated from the body within 24 hours. So if someone is high on meth (example) whatever the effects, they will not go away within 4-5 hours. imo.

i agree with your point :beer:

traces of the drugs would be found in the system 4sure

[martin II]

Sassylassy,

The only drug found was marijuana. A G subverted the whole conversation with the opinion that Simpson and Kato went to buy drugs. If Simpson did commit the murders, I doubt whether marijuana played a part, unless it was laced, which would account for Kato's different testimonies.:)


william

If they did smoke some marijuana then that would account for why kato said oj was loading the limo wearing a black sweat suite and everyone else said he was wearing jeans and a white shirt.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

william

If they did smoke some marijuana then that would account for why kato said oj was loading the limo wearing a black sweat suite and everyone else said he was wearing jeans and a white shirt.
martin II Kato wasn't tested for drugs and there is no evidence that there was any in his system. There was, however, evidence that orenthal had drugs in his system the night of the murders. Why don't you quit pointing the drug arrow at everyone except the one person who was found to have drugs in their system that night? orenthal james simpson.

[sassylassy]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8787843]

If Simpson did commit the murders, I doubt whether marijuana played a part,


I agree. the effects of marijuana would not turn someone into a rage.

[sassylassy]

were you surprised to find that he had drugs in his system? I was. I always thought of him as a clean cut, good guy.


it doesnt make a difference to me if he had marijuana in his system :beer:

i think that stero type went out a long time ago, many successful ppl from all walks of life use marijuana.imo.

[martin II]

were you surprised to find that he had drugs in his system? I was. I always thought of him as a clean cut, good guy.


fbg.

i think you need to understand that in our culture marijuans is not considered a hard drug like coke, heron meth etc regardless of what the gov thinks.

It was stated that nicole had used coke prior to her pregnacy. It has also been stated that oj had also used coke at some time during their years togeather.

There are many "clean cut" individuals that use drugs according to police and drug rehab professionsls. The use of coke is especially the drug of choice in many corporate offices maby in the one you work for where many 'CLEAN CUT' individuals can be found. what do you think?
imo
or what do you means by clean cut.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*or what do you means by clean cut. It's just that my image of him was of an athlete (don't they normally take care of their bodies?), an easy-going, good guy. I was disappointed when the real orenthal came out. I know it was probably stupid on my part but I was saddened.

[sassylassy]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8787879]*Snipped* It's just that my image of him was of an athlete (don't they normally take care of their bodies?)

I am sure many athletes are clean & healthy. but there many out there
that use steroids & imo thats not healthy or taking good care of yourself

[fbgweezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8787879]*Snipped* It's just that my image of him was of an athlete (don't they normally take care of their bodies?)

I am sure many athletes are clean & healthy. but there many out there
that use steroids & imo thats not healthy or taking