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 good care of yourself I realize that but come on, weren't you a little disappointed to find out about the 'other' orenthal? the wife abuser, the man-wh*re, the liar, the cheat, the thief, the drug user? Man, I sure was.

[sassylassy]

[QUOTE=sassylassy;8787881] I realize that but come on, weren't you a little disappointed to find out about the 'other' orenthal? the wife abuser, the man-wh*re, the liar, the cheat, the thief, the drug user? Man, I sure was.

well if u think he was all those things, why would you be so surprised about drugs use??:shrug:

but yes I was surprised-shocked to read all of the things that were said about OJ.

[fbgweezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8787887]

well if u think he was all those things, why would you be so surprised about drugs use??:shrug: that was my point -- I didn't know those things about him.

[Heyes]

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.:)
I believe that I had one theory. That perhaps instead of mcdonalds they bought some drugs instead. You have not seen any proof in the court room or anywhere else that they went to mcdonalds. This little tid bit came from only kato and simpson, Heh, like they're gonna say, hey D.A. we went and bought some drugs and then went back to the house. :rolleyes:
It's just a theory and certainly didn't deserve your posting such negativity. If you don't like an answer freaking don't ask... sheeesh
Sorry fellow poster Bob, that you were brought into that. I don't know what's up around here but I didn't mean for you to get the fallout....

[Heyes]

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?

Now really, moonshiner? Lmao!

How in the heck did Nicole's living arrangements enter the discussion, I thought it was the how could simpson eat before murder thread.
All I'm saying is.... maybe he didn't.
why so defensive? The guy got off?

[jotun]

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

Martin-All

This trace was from the limo where Park
was smoking a 'cigarette'.

jotun

[limakey]

William,

Mark Fuhrman was called to the scene because of his past knowledge of the Simpson relationship. As you know, the police can enter any property or structure on a property if they believe another crime is being committed or if there is a reasonable belief that evidence is being destroyed.

In Fuhrman's book, he goes over this and explains just how much of the law a cop needs to know about a legal search, in other words, he knew, like the other cops and the detectives knew, because they were trained that the ex or the current spouse is always the prime suspect.

Having arrived that scene and see what they have seen and saw the candles, heard the romantic music, saw what Nicole was wearing, it was not a wild a guess to think this was a classic crime of passion.

When you toss in the cock and bull story of the children, it makes even more sense they would have gone right to Rockingham, as Judge Kennedy-Powell said in the ruling, those kids belonged with their dad, not sitting in a police station drawing pictures.

Which if you think about it, how did she know that was what they were doing?

Again, would the Bronco have been parked differently, according to Fuhrman? Would the blood not have been there? Would the swipes not have been there---according to Fuhrman?

Would the maid have answered the phone? Another odd thing, Fuhrman refuses, in his book to identify Kato as the owner of the other car. If you read his book, you see he says that it only gave a Hollywood address--what no name? Just an address---then he reams out Lange and Vanatter for ignoring him.

IMO, if you read his book, you will understand his taunts, his thinly veiled smirk as he was writing his book, knowing that people would believe anything he wrote.

He is so arrogant, he says that Shapiro would have done a better job on questioning him in the prelim hearing---but if didn't deserve to even has these questions asked of him, then does it really matter who asked them?

[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.

Now you sound like martin II, William. Funny. Kaelin did not change his testimony. You of all people should be able to understand that a witness can only answer the questions asked of them. The testimony I posted was from Kaelin's deposition when Petrocelli went into more details as to what happened than Kaelin was ever asked before.

Not different testimony, new testimony.

There was no reason why Simpson should have been bruised if he hit the wall with his right shoulder and then recovered his balance. I'll ask you the same question you previously asked me. Are you an athlete?

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

There were more then two ways onto the estate. There was at least one other way on to his property that did not involved jumping fences--at least one's where he risked being heard by the only other person on his estate.

You believe the phone call by the maid was the call that set the plan of murder into action. If this is the case, don't you think he would have at least made sure that he could enter his home by not using the front door?

Don't you think he would have at least made an attempt to show that he was home, like leaving on some lights? Do you really believe that Simpson didn't want to leave on any lights because he didn't want to waste money on an electric bill?

Also, it would be very interesting to know that Westec Records show, like when the alarm was turned off or on. Was there a records of this?

[bobaugust]

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

martin II, it's funny how you take what you think Kaelin said and then create fantasies from it. According to you Kaelin definitely said that Simpson was wearing a sweat suit when he left for the airport. Not true. Kaelin said he didn't know what Simpson was wearing.

July 5, 1994 Kato Kaelin
Q Oh, Mr. Kaelin, do you remember what the defendant was wearing when he was about to leave for the airport, when he was getting ready to get into the limo?
A I'm not positive. I think it was sweats. A sweat outfit.
Q Okay. Do you think it was the same sweat outfit you saw him wearing earlier that night when you went to Mc Donald's?
A I couldn't say.

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection; calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Do you know the answer to that question?
THE WITNESS: No.

BY MS. CLARK:
Q You don't know?
A I don't know exactly what he was wearing.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

There were more then two ways onto the estate. There was at least one other way on to his property that did not involved jumping fences--at least one's where he risked being heard by the only other person on his estate.

You believe the phone call by the maid was the call that set the plan of murder into action. If this is the case, don't you think he would have at least made sure that he could enter his home by not using the front door?

Don't you think he would have at least made an attempt to show that he was home, like leaving on some lights? Do you really believe that Simpson didn't want to leave on any lights because he didn't want to waste money on an electric bill?

Also, it would be very interesting to know that Westec Records show, like when the alarm was turned off or on. Was there a records of this?

limakey, you say there were more than two ways onto the estate, yet you fail to name another way. Tell us please, what other way do you think Simpson could have entered his estate that night?

Simpson may have planned to be back home before the limousine arrived. He probably planned to park his Bronco in his regular parking place outside his Ashford gate. Simpson didn't need a key or a remote to open that gate. The evidence is that he left his front door unlocked. He also left lights on upstairs in his house.

We discussed this before about Westec records. I doubt if Westec or any other security company has records as to when a house alarm is set or turned off. The only records they would have would be when the house alarm was actually activated. That would send a signal to the security company to call the police or send out one of their patrol cars.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8786964]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?


Bob, if you ever decided to spend some dough you would have alot of your questions answered with serious due diligence, rather than this maddening subjective hokum you keep offering. The documentary will show one of Doc J's investigators with a U2887 size 46 shoe sole. It turns out to be the same measurements as a size 10 shoe that he compares it against. He then places the U2887 shoe sole in a blood lined container and then places it on a sheet of white paper, measurements marked at 12 and 1/4 inches, the same as the size 10 shoe or the U2887 shoe sole. When the shoe sole touches the white paper it makes the impression found by any shoe brand that had the U2887 sole attached to it. What it does not leave is the symbol of the shoe brand, i.e. Bruno Magli or LORD, because that part of the shoe never touches the liquid on the ground.

You still evade the question of how long a size 12 is, since you appear to know so much. Simpson, according to he and his sister, had more size 13 shoes in his closet than size 12. I am perplexed as to how an FBI agent could be satisfied with being told that he could only have access to the one pair of shoes given to him by Det. Lange and Vannatter, which is what he, Bodziak, stated on the witness stand. Given the apparent small size of the bloody shoe prints at Bundy, I suspect that the LAPD Detectives gave Bodziak someone else's shoe so that it would come close to the prints inside the 11 and 1/2 inch sidewalk tiles.

I can't get into Simpson's mind, he may have been frustrated with his actual situation in regard to this sham, and out of frustration and anger just uttered that he didn't own a pair of those "ugly ass shoes". However, he may have owned a pair of Bruno Maglis, but it does not discount the fact that the shoe soles turn out to be not uncommon and found on the bottom of thousands of shoes for all economic categories around the world. I can't give LAPD brownie points for integrity, they're still under FBI supervision for past corruption. Nor can I offer the same for the FBI, who had a number of agents dismissed from the Simpson trial for past corrupt practises of slanting the evidence in favor of prosecutors.

[bobaugust]

Bob, if you ever decided to spend some dough you would have alot of your questions answered with serious due diligence, rather than this maddening subjective hokum you keep offering. The documentary will show one of Doc J's investigators with a U2887 size 46 shoe sole. It turns out to be the same measurements as a size 10 shoe that he compares it against. He then places the U2887 shoe sole in a blood lined container and then places it on a sheet of white paper, measurements marked at 12 and 1/4 inches, the same as the size 10 shoe or the U2887 shoe sole. When the shoe sole touches the white paper it makes the impression found by any shoe brand that had the U2887 sole attached to it. What it does not leave is the symbol of the shoe brand, i.e. Bruno Magli or LORD, because that part of the shoe never touches the liquid on the ground.

You still evade the question of how long a size 12 is, since you appear to know so much. Simpson, according to he and his sister, had more size 13 shoes in his closet than size 12. I am perplexed as to how an FBI agent could be satisfied with being told that he could only have access to the one pair of shoes given to him by Det. Lange and Vannatter, which is what he, Bodziak, stated on the witness stand. Given the apparent small size of the bloody shoe prints at Bundy, I suspect that the LAPD Detectives gave Bodziak someone else's shoe so that it would come close to the prints inside the 11 and 1/2 inch sidewalk tiles.




Big Ben, you've been bamboozled again.

I'll put my trust in the real expert Bodziak, not the sham investigators you and Dr. Johnson used. Bodziak didn't use a home experiment to determine the size of the shoes that made the bloody shoe prints starting with some unknown make in a smaller size 10 shoe. Bodziak determined the size of the shoe that made the bloody shoe prints from overlays of the exact prints. Not only did Bodziak receive a sample size 12 Bruno Magli shoe he visited the factories in Europe that made those shoes and the factory that made the soles. That's where he learned that the European size 46 sole was an American size 12.

Once again when the real evidence proves you wrong you claim that the detectives gave Bodziak someone else's shoe. Is there no end to your ridiculous accusations? You invent fantasies because you can't admit your wrong. Funny. Simpson's gave Lange his size 12 Reeboks he said he wore the day of the murders. Those were the shoes that Bodziak used to directly compare against size 12 Bruno Magli shoes.

November 20, 1996 Bodziak
"And I made a comparison of the external sole dimensions -- linear dimensions, and the internal measurement of the shoes, and found that they were virtually identical; that the Bruno Magli shoe and the Reeboks, if you place them one over another, you can line up their soles from heel to toe, left to right, and they fit as well as you could possibly expect.
Q. You're saying Mr. Simpson's shoe was identical to the size 12 Bruno Magli?
A. It's the same size internally. It reads a size 12, U.S. size 12, as well as the European 46, size 12 Bruno Magli, and it's physical dimensions and characteristics for comparability are the same, yes.

June 19, 1995
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you 381 for identification, can you remove the contents of the package and tell us what you are doing.
MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.) Exhibit 381 is the pair of lasts which were used to make the shoes that I observed being made at the Silga and 4C factory. The outsole size that I observed being used at that time was the size--European size 46 sole, and these lasts are--even though they are made in Europe, are graded with an American size 12, and the reason for that is the American grading system for shoes takes into account more measurements and variations than the European lasting system which normally shoes in Europe are only available perhaps in one width, maybe two widths. So because these are quality shoes, they are very expensive shoes that are made with leather, to have or to be produced with a high quality, they use the American grading system and American lasts. On the side of one of these lasts was written when I observed it in the factory, in addition to size 12, was written the number "46."

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Can you place one of those lasts perhaps in the size 46 outsole just so that we can see how they compare.
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir. (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, based upon all of the information that you had from your visit to Italy from the lasts and the soles and the photographs of the Bundy crime scene location, were you able to form an opinion regarding the size of the shoe--the size of the shoes that caused the shoeprints at Bundy location?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I was.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is that opinion?
MR. BODZIAK: That size was an American size 12 with the European size 46 sole attached to it.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

*Snipped* 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.

I meant exactly what I posted, which is the the U. S. Supreme Court and my opinion are in agreement, and I doubt very seriously, if they give a rip about the opininions of others, who disagree. The fact that the judges on the aforementioned court have a duty to uphold the Constitution, imho, and intepret the laws enacted by the federal representatives of the people, and are sometimes called upon to decide the constittutionality of State laws and actions, by the duties of their position requires them, in some instances, to take into consideration the opinions of society and the history of the enactment of the law as to the intentions of the elected representatives at the time the law was enacted. After doing and exhaustive analysis before rendering an opionion on the interpretation, I doubt very seriously if they even consider the disagreeing opinions, imho.

[William Anthony]

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

Willfull and wrongful are legal terms and when placed in the context of a civil trial, they go to the issue of responsiblity. I know you may not understand the difference, but there is one. They do change both the question and the answer in the civil forum.

[William Anthony]

William,

Mark Fuhrman was called to the scene because of his past knowledge of the Simpson relationship. As you know, the police can enter any property or structure on a property if they believe another crime is being committed or if there is a reasonable belief that evidence is being destroyed.

In Fuhrman's book, he goes over this and explains just how much of the law a cop needs to know about a legal search, in other words, he knew, like the other cops and the detectives knew, because they were trained that the ex or the current spouse is always the prime suspect.

Having arrived that scene and see what they have seen and saw the candles, heard the romantic music, saw what Nicole was wearing, it was not a wild a guess to think this was a classic crime of passion.

When you toss in the cock and bull story of the children, it makes even more sense they would have gone right to Rockingham, as Judge Kennedy-Powell said in the ruling, those kids belonged with their dad, not sitting in a police station drawing pictures.

Which if you think about it, how did she know that was what they were doing?

Again, would the Bronco have been parked differently, according to Fuhrman? Would the blood not have been there? Would the swipes not have been there---according to Fuhrman?

Would the maid have answered the phone? Another odd thing, Fuhrman refuses, in his book to identify Kato as the owner of the other car. If you read his book, you see he says that it only gave a Hollywood address--what no name? Just an address---then he reams out Lange and Vanatter for ignoring him.

IMO, if you read his book, you will understand his taunts, his thinly veiled smirk as he was writing his book, knowing that people would believe anything he wrote.

He is so arrogant, he says that Shapiro would have done a better job on questioning him in the prelim hearing---but if didn't deserve to even has these questions asked of him, then does it really matter who asked them?

Interestingly, I do believe that the dicta of reasonable belief may have been used in a Supreme Court decision. This would imply that in a case where there is exigent circumstances, the standard to invade an individual's privacy has been lowered to reasonable suspicion. Given the testimony that Simpson was not a suspect at the time of the entry, then that exigent circumstance was eliminated. Given the fact of the number of hours that passed before the alleged attempted notification was made, then it is reasonable to believe that, if there was another homocide at Rockingham, the perpetrator had long since left. The only possible explanation to justify the unlawful entry was that a victim may have not been dead. However, given the only evidence was that a maid should be there and one drop of what appeared to be blood, does not, imho, justify the warantless entry into the curtilage. It would have been informative to see how the Supreme Court would have ruled in this case.

[martin II]

martin II, it's funny how you take what you think Kaelin said and then create fantasies from it. According to you Kaelin definitely said that Simpson was wearing a sweat suit when he left for the airport. Not true. Kaelin said he didn't know what Simpson was wearing.

July 5, 1994 Kato Kaelin
Q Oh, Mr. Kaelin, do you remember what the defendant was wearing when he was about to leave for the airport, when he was getting ready to get into the limo?
A I'm not positive. I think it was sweats. A sweat outfit.
Q Okay. Do you think it was the same sweat outfit you saw him wearing earlier that night when you went to Mc Donald's?
A I couldn't say.

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection; calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Do you know the answer to that question?
THE WITNESS: No.

BY MS. CLARK:
Q You don't know?
A I don't know exactly what he was wearing.

bobaugust

bob
it seems that kato gave different testimony on what oj was wearing everytime he testified
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
it seems that kato gave different testimony on what oj was wearing everytime he testified
martin II

martin II, no, it seems you have made false accusations and created all kinds of fantasies on something you knew nothing about.

This testimony was in the preliminary hearing. As far as I know this was only time Kaelin testified about this.

bobaugust

[limakey]

William,

I'm not exactly sure how to respond to your post. IMO, the police used an "excuse" to enter Rockingham that morning and the judged ruled that it was legal search and the reasons were valid. My point is that had they gone to Rockingham at any point after the bodies had been found, it was have been a legal search.

Also, the common rule of thumb when it comes to all murder cases is time. That with each passing hour and day, it becomes harder and harder to make a case. IMO, the detectives had every reason to believe Simpson was a suspect. Had they gone right to Rockingham, then I really wouldn't have a problem---the fact that they didn't is the problem I have.

[bobaugust]

William,

I'm not exactly sure how to respond to your post. IMO, the police used an "excuse" to enter Rockingham that morning and the judged ruled that it was legal search and the reasons were valid. My point is that had they gone to Rockingham at any point after the bodies had been found, it was have been a legal search.

Also, the common rule of thumb when it comes to all murder cases is time. That with each passing hour and day, it becomes harder and harder to make a case. IMO, the detectives had every reason to believe Simpson was a suspect. Had they gone right to Rockingham, then I really wouldn't have a problem---the fact that they didn't is the problem I have.


limakey, Simpson was not a suspect when the detectives went to Rockingham. The only reason they went there was following orders to notify Simpson in person of his ex wife's death so that he didn't learn about it from the media, and help him recover his two small children who were taken to the West LA police station. The Robbery Homicide detectives who were given this case went to Rockingham shortly after being given that order.

The situation they found there and the information they learned caused them to enter Simpson's estate. At that time Simpson was still not a suspect. After the glove was found and as it became light outside blood drops were seen on Simpson's driveway, Simpson then became a strong suspect.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William,

I'm not exactly sure how to respond to your post. IMO, the police used an "excuse" to enter Rockingham that morning and the judged ruled that it was legal search and the reasons were valid. My point is that had they gone to Rockingham at any point after the bodies had been found, it was have been a legal search.

Also, the common rule of thumb when it comes to all murder cases is time. That with each passing hour and day, it becomes harder and harder to make a case. IMO, the detectives had every reason to believe Simpson was a suspect. Had they gone right to Rockingham, then I really wouldn't have a problem---the fact that they didn't is the problem I have.

Limakey,

I think I understand. Yes, I too believe they used an excuse. I have a problem with the delay in time and the judge's ruling. The only possible reason to validate the search would have been that a victim may be critically wounded inside, imho. I believe they considered him a suspect at the insistence of the blankety blank MF. I would have had a problem, if they had gone to Rockingham without a warrant and entered his property, because of the word suspect. This is only reasonable suspicion. They could have couched their conduct under the assertion that Simpson as a suspect was destroying evidence, but that would call into question was that a reasonable belief if they went immediately. The point is I believed they lied and, due to their training, created exigent circumstances to sustain the warrantless search and constitutional violation.

[bobaugust]

Limakey,

I think I understand. Yes, I too believe they used an excuse. I have a problem with the delay in time and the judge's ruling. The only possible reason to validate the search would have been that a victim may be critically wounded inside, imho. I believe they considered him a suspect at the insistence of the blankety blank MF. I would have had a problem, if they had gone to Rockingham without a warrant and entered his property, because of the word suspect. This is only reasonable suspicion. They could have couched their conduct under the assertion that Simpson as a suspect was destroying evidence, but that would call into question was that a reasonable belief if they went immediately. The point is I believed they lied and, due to their training, created exigent circumstances to sustain the warrantless search and constitutional violation.

In your discussions about this you keep missing the reason the detectives used to enter the estate. There were lights on in the house, but no one was answering the gate bells or the telephone. Based on the possible blood they saw on Simpson's Bronco door and the fact that were only five minutes away from a double homicide, and the information that Westec told them that as far as they knew Simpson was home and a live in housekeeper should have been there, the police entered the estate because of their concerns about Simpson and and the housekeeper's welfare.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

In your discussions about this you keep missing the reason the detectives used to enter the estate. There were lights on in the house, but no one was answering the gate bells or the telephone. Based on the possible blood they saw on Simpson's Bronco door and the fact that were only five minutes away from a double homicide, and the information that Westec told them that as far as they knew Simpson was home and a live in housekeeper should have been there, the police entered the estate because of their concerns about Simpson and and the housekeeper's welfare.

bobaugust

And you either keep missing this part of my post, or as usual believe your opinion to be the only one of credence, imh&ro.

"The point is I believed they lied and, due to their training, created exigent circumstances to sustain the warrantless search and constitutional violation."

After so many hours at Bundy and the brutality of the murders, what made them think that the killer became less violent with Simpson and or the maid. A resonable belief is that the killer would have murdered them long ago and there would be no exigent circumstances to disallow waiting for a warrant.

[bobaugust]

"The point is I believed they lied and, due to their training, created exigent circumstances to sustain the warrantless search and constitutional violation."



You're belief that the detectives lied is not based on any evidence, only on your evident distrust of all LE.

You probably think that the officers at Westec also lied, right? You are a typical NG. When a witness testifies to something that contradicts your opinion you call them a liar. Nice job William, that dishonest tactic should take you very far in your chosen career.

And if the police had waited longer to enter the estate you and the other police haters here would be slamming then for waiting even longer. The fact is that their actions were not found to be illegal.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You're belief that the detectives lied is not based on any evidence, only on your evident distrust of all LE.

You probably think that the officers at Westec also lied, right? You are a typical NG. When a witness testifies to something that contradicts your opinion you call them a liar. Nice job William, that dishonest tactic should take you very far in your chosen career.

And if the police had waited longer to enter the estate you and the other police haters here would be slamming then for waiting even longer. The fact is that their actions were not found to be illegal.

bobaugust

My belief is based on my observations of them when they testified. I do not distrust ALL LE, since some of them have been instrumental in my reaching the point I am at presently. I am not an NG. I never called anyone a liar except the blankety blank MF, as he has admitted to it and shown it. I take umbrage at you calling my tactics dishonest and have advised you to stop. My patience is wearing thin! I would that the issue reached the Supreme Court, not because I want it overruled, but, because I am interested in seeing what their thinking was on the matter.

[bobaugust]

My belief is based on my observations of them when they testified. I do not distrust ALL LE, since some of them have been instrumental in my reaching the point I am at presently. I am not an NG. I never called anyone a liar except the blankety blank MF, as he has admitted to it and shown it. I take umbrage at you calling my tactics dishonest and have advised you to stop. My patience is wearing thin! I would that the issue reached the Supreme Court, not because I want it overruled, but, because I am interested in seeing what their thinking was on the matter.

You never called the detectectives liars? I see, then please explain what you really meant when you said,

"The point is I believed they lied and, due to their training, created exigent circumstances to sustain the warrantless search and constitutional violation."

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You never called the detectectives liars? I see, then please explain what you really meant when you said,

"The point is I believed they lied and, due to their training, created exigent circumstances to sustain the warrantless search and constitutional violation."

bobaugust

I believed should be self explanatory. I did not say the point is they lied...

[bobaugust]

I believed should be self explanatory. I did not say the point is they lied...


Yes it is self explanatory, thank you. You said you believed the detectives lied.

Like I said you are a true NG. When a witness testifies to something that contradicts your beliefs you claim that witness is lying. That's calling the witness a liar.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Yes it is self explanatory, thank you. You said you believed the detectives lied.

Like I said you are a true NG. When a witness testifies to something that contradicts your beliefs you claim that witness is lying. That's calling the witness a liar.

bobaugust

I had no beliefs until they testified and I stil, unlike you, can say that they lied. I can say that, judging from what I saw, I believed they lied.

[bobaugust]

I had no beliefs until they testified and I stil, unlike you, can say that they lied. I can say that, judging from what I saw, I believed they lied.

Like I said, when a witness says something that contradicts your beliefs you call them a liar.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Like I said, when a witness says something that contradicts your beliefs you call them a liar.

bobaugust

Do you just like arguing with me? A belief is not a statement, as you have done, that someone is a liar.

[jotun]

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 agent, Bodziak, sounded like the most pathetic fool that I've ever heard, while trying to give an explanation as to why he couldn't go out to Simpson's house and examine all of O.J.'s shoes.
Now, that clown, Bodziak has got to answer not only for why he didn't tell us and the criminal jury about the 19 other (Bruno Magli type) shoe sole possibilities, he's got to now account for why he believes a man would buy some expensive casual shoes that would be, extremely, too tight for him to possibly wear. But knowing you, you'll start trying to convince your Neanderthalic group that Simpson just cut the toes out of his Bruno Maglis and wore them out to the murder site like a pair of sandals or house shoes, so that you can say you have your man, and the lynching is still on schedule. Believe me, you are a piece of work, B.A.

Big Ben,
You are too kind to b.a.
Only the uninformed believe the 'flim-flam'.In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Their king only sees black.

Bodziak wouldn't have needed a warrant. O.J.would have allowed a search of his shoes. Bailey said as much.

Bodziak CLAIMED he couldn't find a sole pattern for the other shoeprint at Bundy.On E a man called & then faxed that he found it, on his own shoes.
K-mart deck shoes.

O.J. would need those too small shoes to complete his ensemble. Of too small knit cap and too small gloves. A killer outfit huh ???

jotun

[martin II]

Big Ben,
You are too kind to b.a.
Only the uninformed believe the 'flim-flam'.In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Their king only sees black.

Bodziak wouldn't have needed a warrant. O.J.would have allowed a search of his shoes. Bailey said as much.

Bodziak CLAIMED he couldn't find a sole pattern for the other shoeprint at Bundy.On E a man called & then faxed that he found it, on his own shoes.
K-mart deck shoes.

O.J. would need those too small shoes to complete his ensemble. Of too small knit cap and too small gloves. A killer outfit huh ???

jotun

and little too small 3 inch pen knife that people use to remove dirt from under their fingernails.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Bodziak wouldn't have needed a warrant. O.J.would have allowed a search of his shoes. Bailey said as much.

Bodziak CLAIMED he couldn't find a sole pattern for the other shoeprint at Bundy.On E a man called & then faxed that he found it, on his own shoes.
K-mart deck shoes.

O.J. would need those too small shoes to complete his ensemble. Of too small knit cap and too small gloves. A killer outfit huh ???

jotun

jotun, Simpson gave Detective Lange his size 12 Reeboks.

There was only one set of bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

The knit hat was not too small for Simpson, it was too big for Johnnie Cochran.

The gloves were not too small for Simpson. They were the largest size made in that style and Simpson owned several pairs prior to the murders. If Simpson's life had depended on the gloves fitting his hands, he would have pulled and stretched them on his hands and they would have fit him perfectly. But since he didn't want it to look like they fit he never pulled and stretched them. The only people he fooled were very gullible and naive people.

bobaugust

[jotun]

jotun, of course nothing you read proves Simpson guilty because he's so beautiful and you've made it very clear why you believe Simpson was not the killer.

4/08/06 o.j.nut
"Yes, I do believe a man who can't stand the sight of blood COULD NOT slaughter 2 people. Or a man who COULD NOT even put a worm on his fishing hook [Sydney did it for him] COULD NOT butcher the mother of his children. Especially a total Mama's Boy like O.J. I don't think kind-hearted O.J. could kill anyone. Yes, I believe a man afraid of the dark does NOT go into any dark place. And here's one even the o.j.nut didn't know until a few years ago. O.J. has a very sensitive stomach. That Big-Mac would have been in that blood."

bobaugust

William Anthony

Is this, my old post, you wanted for your thread, WHY EAT???

Thanks b.a.for finding, part of my post, on lago April 06. If so, bob could you tranfer it to WHY EAT? also???

jotun

[2L8 4A D8]

Do you just like arguing with me? A belief is not a statement, as you have done, that someone is a liar.

Yeah, just as you like to argue with Bob! "Belief" ~ "Opinion" ~ who the h311 cares? Gawd, I am so tired of your pettiness and your constant desire to make mountains out of molehills!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

jotun, Simpson gave Detective Lange his size 12 Reeboks.

There was only one set of bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

The knit hat was not too small for Simpson, it was too big for Johnnie Cochran.

The gloves were not too small for Simpson. They were the largest size made in that style and Simpson owned several pairs prior to the murders. If Simpson's life had depended on the gloves fitting his hands, he would have pulled and stretched them on his hands and they would have fit him perfectly. But since he didn't want it to look like they fit he never pulled and stretched them. The only people he fooled were very gullible and naive people.

bobaugust


bob
in that glove, oh would need a xxlarge because of his extra wide palms.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Do you just like arguing with me? A belief is not a statement, as you have done, that someone is a liar.

Let me get this straight. You say that you believe someone is lying but that doesn't mean you are calling that person a liar. What do you call someone who you believe is lying, if not a liar?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

William Anthony

Is this, my old post, you wanted for your thread, WHY EAT???

Thanks b.a.for finding, part of my post, on lago April 06. If so, bob could you tranfer it to WHY EAT? also???

jotun


jotun, you're welcome. I will be happy to post that anytime you wish. It's one of my favorite postings of all time. It makes it very clear as to how someone like you thinks. The only other poster who has posted something more ridiculous about the these murders is our old friend Prien. So far he is way out in front of you but hang in there I have confidence in you to be able to possibly catch up with him.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bob
in that glove, oh would need a xxlarge because of his extra wide palms.
martin II

martin II, maybe you never saw the part of my posting where I said that was the largest size glove Aris made at that time in that style and Simpson owned several pairs. Extra large. They may have looked a little short on his wrist but they fit his wide palm just fine.

bobaugust

[limakey]

William,

Now I understand and I agree with your post.

I believe beyond even a shadow of a doubt that at least two members on the LAPD went to Simpson's home within an hour of receiving notification of the murders. IMO, I believe as soon as Fuhrman was called, before he even reported for duty he went to Rockingham. And he been seen at Rockingham, he had the law on his side because of prior knowledge of the relationship between the Simpson's.

There is another reason why I believe this---I believe both Lange and Vanatter had a problem with the evidence that Fuhrman found, they also had a problem of his past and knowing his reputation. It is clear to me that Fuhrman made sure he slammed Vanatter every step of the way and while he thinks he is writing about a dumb detective, he really is writing about a detective who recognizes when the evidence is just a tad too sweet, IMO.

[bobaugust]

William,

Now I understand and I agree with your post.

I believe beyond even a shadow of a doubt that at least two members on the LAPD went to Simpson's home within an hour of receiving notification of the murders. IMO, I believe as soon as Fuhrman was called, before he even reported for duty he went to Rockingham. And he been seen at Rockingham, he had the law on his side because of prior knowledge of the relationship between the Simpson's.

There is another reason why I believe this---I believe both Lange and Vanatter had a problem with the evidence that Fuhrman found, they also had a problem of his past and knowing his reputation. It is clear to me that Fuhrman made sure he slammed Vanatter every step of the way and while he thinks he is writing about a dumb detective, he really is writing about a detective who recognizes when the evidence is just a tad too sweet, IMO.


limakey, beyond a shadow of a doubt? Wow. You believe in a pure fantasy, but thank you for finally letting us know about it. Why am I not surprised.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Yeah, just as you like to argue with Bob! "Belief" ~ "Opinion" ~ who the h311 cares? Gawd, I am so tired of your pettiness and your constant desire to make mountains out of molehills!

JMO and MOO!!

I am bored with your petty, unsolicited irrelevant, insignificant and immaterial posts, imh&ro.

[William Anthony]

Let me get this straight. You say that you believe someone is lying but that doesn't mean you are calling that person a liar. What do you call someone who you believe is lying, if not a liar?

bobaugust

A possible liar.

[William Anthony]

William,

Now I understand and I agree with your post.

I believe beyond even a shadow of a doubt that at least two members on the LAPD went to Simpson's home within an hour of receiving notification of the murders. IMO, I believe as soon as Fuhrman was called, before he even reported for duty he went to Rockingham. And he been seen at Rockingham, he had the law on his side because of prior knowledge of the relationship between the Simpson's.

There is another reason why I believe this---I believe both Lange and Vanatter had a problem with the evidence that Fuhrman found, they also had a problem of his past and knowing his reputation. It is clear to me that Fuhrman made sure he slammed Vanatter every step of the way and while he thinks he is writing about a dumb detective, he really is writing about a detective who recognizes when the evidence is just a tad too sweet, IMO.

Limakey,

I think when he was writing about a dumb detective that he was talking about himself.

[martin II]

Weezer


Sassy: In this testimony kato says oj was only joking when talking about nicoles dress not angry at all.


6/17-18
Q. TELL ME HOW HE WAS BEHAVING.
13 DID HE SEEM AGITATED? UPSET? NERVOUS?
14 A. NO; NONCHALANT.
15 Q. RELAXED?
16 A. YES.
17 Q. DID HE MAKE ANY MENTION TO YOU OF NICOLE AT
18 THAT TIME?
19 A. YES.
20 Q. WHAT WAS THAT?
21 A. IN A GOOD-NATURED SORT OF WAY, HE HAD MENTIONED
22 WHO -- SHE WAS WITH GIRLFRIENDS, I BELIEVE, NO NAMES, I
23 DON'T KNOW WHO; THAT HE WAS WONDERING IF THEY WERE GOING TO
24 AGE GRACEFULLY AND WHAT KIND OF OUTFITS THEY WERE GOING TO
25 BE WEARING.
26 Q. CAN YOU RECALL WHAT HIS WORDS WERE?
27 A. IT WAS ABOUT WEARING TIGHT-FITTING CLOTHES, IN
28 REFERENCE -- GOOD NATURED, CAN'T YOU WEAR THAT IF THE --

59

1 WHEN SHE'S GOING TO BE OLDER, JOKING, LIKE WEARING
2 TIGHT-FITTING CLOTHES, GOOD NATUREDLY, LIKE A GRANDMA.
3 Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "GOOD NATUREDLY," THAT'S WHAT HE
4 WAS ACTING LIKE?
5 A. YES.
6 Q. WAS HE LAUGHING?
7 A. YEAH; JOKING, LAUGHING.
8 Q. KIND OF WONDERING WERE YOU GOING TO WEAR THESE
9 WHEN YOU GOT OLDER?
10 A. YES.
11 Q. AND HE WAS MAKING REFERENCE TO TIGHT DRESSES OR
12 OUTFITS?
13 A. DRESSES, YEAH.
14 Q. DID HE SEEM ANGRY WHEN HE SAID THAT?
15 A. NO.

martin II

[martin II]

Now really, moonshiner? Lmao!

How in the heck did Nicole's living arrangements enter the discussion, I thought it was the how could simpson eat before murder thread.
All I'm saying is.... maybe he didn't.
why so defensive? The guy got off?


heyes

are you overlooking the following:

Oj's blood was tested on 6/13. TRACES of marijuana was the only drug found in his system. You suggested they may have used crack and or meth on 6/12
We know that if crack or meth had been used by oj on 6/12 this drug would have been found in his system on 6/13.

So my quesiton is, if they used either crack or meth, why was neither of these in his blood on 6/13????

martin II

[martin II]

Now you sound like martin II, William. Funny. Kaelin did not change his testimony. You of all people should be able to understand that a witness can only answer the questions asked of them. The testimony I posted was from Kaelin's deposition when Petrocelli went into more details as to what happened than Kaelin was ever asked before.

Not different testimony, new testimony.

There was no reason why Simpson should have been bruised if he hit the wall with his right shoulder and then recovered his balance. I'll ask you the same question you previously asked me. Are you an athlete?

bobaugust

bob
since no one was back near the wall when the glove was placed there, how do you know that oj hit a wall with his shoulder. Had you placed a micro camera attatched to your computer there on 6/11?
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
since no one was back near the wall when the glove was placed there, how do you know that oj hit a wall with his shoulder.
martin II

martin II, because I understand how he could have scaled that fence. Kaelin testified that the noises were about 5 feet off the ground and then migrated down the south path in the direction of the garage.

Simpson didn't have any bruises on his large head so he didn't bang his head against that hard wall hard enough to cause the vibrations that tilted a picture next to Kaelin's bed. Simpson was an ex professional football player, he knew how to hit something hard with his shoulder that would cushion the collision and take him down the south path in the direction he wanted to go.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, because I understand how he could have scaled that fence. Kaelin testified that the noises were about 5 feet off the ground and then migrated down the south path in the direction of the garage.

Simpson didn't have any bruises on his large head so he didn't bang his head against that hard wall hard enough to cause the vibrations that tilted a picture next to Kaelin's bed. Simpson was an ex professional football player, he knew how to hit something hard with his shoulder that would cushion the collision and take him down the south path in the direction he wanted to go.

bobaugust

bob
simpson on the fense. looses his balance and knows how to hit the wall with his shoulder because he once played football. If he was that skilled he could have just jumped the rockingham wall.imo
martin II

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
simpson on the fense. looses his balance and knows how to hit the wall with his shoulder because he once played football. If he was that skilled he could have just jumped the rockingham wall.imo
martin II

martin II

martin II, yes and so would I know how to cushion that collision with my shoulder, but evidently not you.

I guess you never saw a picture of the Rockingham wall. It was not only higher then the fence it was covered with thick vines.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

I am bored with your petty, unsolicited irrelevant, insignificant and immaterial posts, imh&ro.

I am BEYOND bored with your petty, unsolicited irrelevant, insignificant and immaterial posts! You can always put me on Ignore and then you won't have to read my posts. Duh! You're such a ***** though that it must be too hard for you to figure out how to do or I am sure that you would have figured it out by now! LOL! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

bob
since no one was back near the wall when the glove was placed there, how do you know that oj hit a wall with his shoulder. Had you placed a micro camera attatched to your computer there on 6/11?
martin II

Yeah, that's right SFB, that's exactly what Bob did! Duh! :punch:

As your comrade said, "I am bored with your petty, unsolicited, irrelevant, insignificant and immaterial posts!"

JMO and MOO!!

[jotun]

bob
since no one was back near the wall when the glove was placed there, how do you know that oj hit a wall with his shoulder.
martin II


Martin,
O.J. did NOT hit the wall that night.But the 'Making Of' his 96 video was shown on tv. O.J.was filmed in that walkway. O.J.slammed his shoulder hard into that wall 2 or 3 times. It made NO SOUND.

jotun

[Big Ben]

martin II, maybe you never saw the part of my posting where I said that was the largest size glove Aris made at that time in that style and Simpson owned several pairs. Extra large. They may have looked a little short on his wrist but they fit his wide palm just fine.

bobaugust

You've got to be kidding! Bobaugust, I can see you just salivating at the possibility of being the hangman for Simpson. Don't forget your hood? The whole world saw that act of stupidity on the part of the prosecution, having Simpson initially try on the bloody glove. The glove didn't fit in the eyesight and minds of the viewers, let alone the jury. Your attempt to present a feeble minded excuse for the ill fitting gloves only further exemplifies the level of absurdity that you are willing to entertain and present. Truthfully that episode took the momentum, if not but momentarily, away from the prosecution and they as much admitted so, on subsequent talk shows.

I'm amazed at how you can present a straight faced argument which continues to be undermined by damning evidence. You are now finding that the revelation of the truth is steadily wearing down this wall of deceit in the so called "trial of the century". The people you defend are literally hiding when confronted by Doctor Johnson on talk shows. Some other baffoons, like you, with weak aspects of the so called evidence takes their place and gets chewed up like pulp wood by Doc Johnson or one of his investigators. You are the only one, bobaugust, trying to hold up this wall of deceit. Poor fellow! P.S. How long is a size 12 shoe, B.A.?

[bobaugust]

You've got to be kidding! Bobaugust, I can see you just salivating at the possibility of being the hangman for Simpson. Don't forget your hood? The whole world saw that act of stupidity on the part of the prosecution, having Simpson initially try on the bloody glove. The glove didn't fit in the eyesight and minds of the viewers, let alone the jury. Your attempt to present a feeble minded excuse for the ill fitting gloves only further exemplifies the level of absurdity that you are willing to entertain and present. Truthfully that episode took the momentum, if not but momentarily, away from the prosecution and they as much admitted so, on subsequent talk shows.

I'm amazed at how you can present a straight faced argument which continues to be undermined by damning evidence. You are now finding that the revelation of the truth is steadily wearing down this wall of deceit in the so called "trial of the century". The people you defend are literally hiding when confronted by Doctor Johnson on talk shows. Some other baffoons, like you, with weak aspects of the so called evidence takes their place and gets chewed up like pulp wood by Doc Johnson or one of his investigators. You are the only one, bobaugust, trying to hold up this wall of deceit. Poor fellow! P.S. How long is a size 12 shoe, B.A.?

Big ben, the only people Simpson fooled with his glove demonstration act were naive and gullible people. People who have never owned expensive skin tight thin leather gloves. If Simpson's life had depended on those gloves fitting him than he would have pulled and stretched them on his fingers and they would have fit even over the latex gloves he was wearing. But Simpson never did that because he didn't want them to look like they fit. Simpson didn't fool that many people, not even some of the jurors but he evidently fooled you.

The fact is that Simpson previously owned several pairs of those exact same size and style gloves. Photographs showed Simpson wearing them. I bet you think those photographs were fake too, right? In the civil trial when Richard Rubin testified he was given permission to put the gloves on his bare hands. As he testified he refurbished those dried up bloody gloves, putting the lining back in the fingers, and stretching them back to close to their original size. When he finished he had a pair of of nicely warmed and pliable gloves for Simpson to try on. Simpson wouldn't go near them, instead his defense attorneys replayed the criminal trial glove demonstration video.

It doesn't matter how long a size 12 shoe is. It matters what size the sole of the shoe is. The bloody shoe prints were made with European size 46, American size 12 soles. The exact same size that Simpson wore. I still laugh at your ridiculous antics measuring partial shoe prints and then claiming they were too small. That's a classic.

By the way I finally got Shapiro's book and I was able to read the passages you were referring to and again Shapiro's account of what happened proves your dishonest claims wrong.

The Search for Justice, Robert Shapiro
"I kept checking back with Juditha, to make certain that she was certain. Later I was criticized for questioning her and the family so intensely the night before they had to bury their daughter and sister. However, the Browns wanted to answer these questions as much as I needed to ask them. Everybody wanted to find out who had committed these murders.

Much later, it turned out that Juditha was mistaken. We were confident that the phone records would verify her version, but when we saw them during the preliminary hearing, they indicated that the call had actually been made at about 9:45 PM., not 10:45. So she was off by an hour. But it would be a while before I knew that."

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I am BEYOND bored with your petty, unsolicited irrelevant, insignificant and immaterial posts! You can always put me on Ignore and then you won't have to read my posts. Duh! You're such a ***** though that it must be too hard for you to figure out how to do or I am sure that you would have figured it out by now! LOL! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

I did not say that I did not want to read them only bored, because what you post is much ado about nothing, imh&ro. I choose not to put anyone on ignore, because some post are highly informative as to how I should not conduct myself. I can learn from adversity, no matter how unintelligently it is offered.

[martin II]

Martin,
O.J. did NOT hit the wall that night.But the 'Making Of' his 96 video was shown on tv. O.J.was filmed in that walkway. O.J.slammed his shoulder hard into that wall 2 or 3 times. It made NO SOUND.

jotun

jotun

and there was no WALL COVERED with vines that 'CUSHIONED oj shoulder as bob just said imo
martin II

[martin II]

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/backwalk.htm

no wall covered with vines bob.
martin II

[socaldiva]

jotun

and there was no WALL COVERED with vines that 'CUSHIONED oj shoulder as bob just said imo
martin II

Bob did not post that the wall cushioned OJ's shoulder. Read it again.

[William Anthony]

martin II, because I understand how he could have scaled that fence. Kaelin testified that the noises were about 5 feet off the ground and then migrated down the south path in the direction of the garage.

Simpson didn't have any bruises on his large head so he didn't bang his head against that hard wall hard enough to cause the vibrations that tilted a picture next to Kaelin's bed. Simpson was an ex professional football player, he knew how to hit something hard with his shoulder that would cushion the collision and take him down the south path in the direction he wanted to go.

bobaugust

Simpson was not only a football player but a running back of great renoun known for his adeptness in avoiding large objects, imho.

[Kate Sachel]

Simpson was not only a football player but a running back of great renoun known for his adeptness in avoiding large objects, imho.


True, but in all of the time when he was moving through linebackers had he ever just murdered two people?

I would imagine that your state of mind following such a horrific and serious crime would greatly impair how your mind functions and how your body moves.

Kate

[martin II]

Simpson was not only a football player but a running back of great renoun known for his adeptness in avoiding large objects, imho.


According to espn oj still holds the rushing record.
MARTIN II

[William Anthony]

True, but in all of the time when he was moving through linebackers had he ever just murdered two people?

I would imagine that your state of mind following such a horrific and serious crime would greatly impair how your mind functions and how your body moves.

Kate

I would agree that, if one had committed such heinous acts, that their mind would affect his/her body. Given that, bobaugust would have us believe that, in Simpson's case it did not, because he was cognizant of how to cushion the impact. This is where I have a problem with some of the theories. One cannot be rational/acting in a normal manner and at the same time acting in an irrational/radical manner. If your post is in opposition to bobaugust theory, then I would agree that, if he murdered two people and scaled the fence, then his body functions were impaired. However, there was no bruising to any part of his body in the photos taken. Given the alleged magnitude of the impact of the collision, there should have been bruising. There should have been marks or bruises from the struggle he is alleged to have had with Ron. These are others reasons that cause me to believe that the jury found reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

martin II, yes and so would I know how to cushion that collision with my shoulder, but evidently not you.

I guess you never saw a picture of the Rockingham wall. It was not only higher then the fence it was covered with thick vines.

bobaugust

I know football players wear shoulder pads.

[Kate Sachel]

I would agree that, if one had committed such heinous acts, that their mind would affect his/her body. Given that, bobaugust would have us believe that, in Simpson's case it did not, because he was cognizant of how to cushion the impact. This is where I have a problem with some of the theories. One cannot be rational/acting in a normal manner and at the same time acting in an irrational/radical manner. If your post is in opposition to bobaugust theory, then I would agree that, if he murdered two people and scaled the fence, then his body functions were impaired. However, there was no bruising to any part of his body in the photos taken. Given the alleged magnitude of the impact of the collision, there should have been bruising. There should have been marks or bruises from the struggle he is alleged to have had with Ron. These are others reasons that cause me to believe that the jury found reasonable doubt.

Do we know if OJ Simpson bruises easily? I ask this question because I am an individual who does not. Example: in college many of my men and women friends in my dormitory got together regularly to play "tackle" football out on the lawn. The men showed us no mercy in their tackling skills and suffice it say I got knocked all over the place and slammed to the ground. That I can recall, I never bruised from any of the impacts.

Based on my own experiences, it is my opinion that the fact that he had no bruising is not an important issue.

As for the struggle with Ron, Dr. Lee agreed in the civil trial that the killing of him could have taken place in as little as 60 seconds. Given that, and the fact that OJ did apparently have as many as seven marks/gouges on his hand, I would say that he did sustain some type of injuries as a result.

Kate

[bobaugust]

Martin,
O.J. did NOT hit the wall that night.But the 'Making Of' his 96 video was shown on tv. O.J.was filmed in that walkway. O.J.slammed his shoulder hard into that wall 2 or 3 times. It made NO SOUND.

jotun

jotun, that's not correct. In that video Simpson did not slam into wall, all he did was knock on the wall three times suggesting that it sounded like a signal to him. Off course it made no sound because that's not what happened the night of June 12, 1994.

Shortly after that Simpson was talking about the glove when he saw the bent wire on the top of the fence. He did a double take, stuttered for a second, turned back to the camera and continued talking about the glove and then walked back down that path.

At the time of the murders, a lot of foliage that hung over the top of the fence from the large Eugenia trees. Simpson had been on the south path several times after the murders and that was how it always looked. But by the time Simpson made his video tape, about two years later, changes had been made that Simpson was unaware of. A gardener had thinned out the foliage above the fence behind Kaelin's room and it can easily be seen that there was nothing on the other side of that fence to obstruct Simpson from getting to it to scale it.

Simpson's knocking on the wall is not only contradicted by what Kaelin testified to it was even contradicted by what his own defense team found out.

Lawrence Schiller, American Tragedy,
"On Sunday afternoon, June 26, Shapiro, Kardashian, Pavelic, and Drs. Baden and Lee played sleuth during their critical official visit to Rockingham. Inside Kato's apartment, they banged hard on the wall. The picture didn't move. Kardashian led half the team to the back walkway. He and others rammed into the wall like football players. Again, the picture stayed motionless."

The place on the wall where Simpson pounded, is pretty much the same place where Kaelin said the noises came from. It's a strong wall. Stucco on the outside and wood paneling on the inside. When Simpson jumped off the top of the fence, he hit the wall. It's obvious how big Simpson is compared to the small path, and how close the wall is to the fence. Simpson's momentum most likely carried him into the wall before he hit the ground, dropping his glove. That was the noise that Kaelin heard and the vibrations that he felt. And that was the kind of force it took to completely tilt the picture on the wall, next to Kaelin's bed.

It seems we have Simpson to thank for making his 1-800-OJTELLS video tape, and showing us exactly where he entered his property the night of the murders after he returned from Bundy.

http://www.bobaugust.com/smokinggun.htm

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Do we know if OJ Simpson bruises easily? I ask this question because I am an individual who does not. Example: in college many of my men and women friends in my dormitory got together regularly to play "tackle" football out on the lawn. The men showed us no mercy in their tackling skills and suffice it say I got knocked all over the place and slammed to the ground. That I can recall, I never bruised from any of the impacts.

Based on my own experiences, it is my opinion that the fact that he had no bruising is not an important issue.

As for the struggle with Ron, Dr. Lee agreed in the civil trial that the killing of him could have taken place in as little as 60 seconds. Given that, and the fact that OJ did apparently have as many as seven marks/gouges on his hand, I would say that he did sustain some type of injuries as a result.

Kate

I am unaware of any testimony as to his propensity for bruising. Those are valid points for consideration. However, I would like to point out that the lawn is less offensive to bodily impact than a cement wall, imo. Another fact that I ask you to consider is that, if there was no testimony on how resistent he was to bruising, the jury was not free to speculate on that aspect and to weigh the fact that no bruising was seen. I can say that, if there were seven gouges on his hand, then there is evidence that he could have sustained those injuries in a struggle against Ron, I cannot recall and maybe you can help me with this. Was there any testimony as to how he sustained the gouges and was there any testimony as to how fresh they were. Also, how many times was Ron stabbed and was any of Simpson's DNA found on Ron's hands?

Thank you in advance,

[bobaugust]

Simpson was not only a football player but a running back of great renoun known for his adeptness in avoiding large objects, imho.

I see, you think that a jumping a fence in the pitch dark to a very narrow area Simpson could have avoided hitting the wall because he was an athlete?

Simpson's natural athletic ability prevented him from being hurt by hitting the wall with his shoulder and recovering his balance. If you look at a photograph of Simpson standing on that path next to the wall you will see how big Simpson is compared to how close the wall was to the fence. You don't have to be a professional athlete to understand this, just someone who may have some life experience about jumping fences and plain old common sense.
http://www.bobaugust.com/smokinggun.htm

I asked you a question previously that you had asked me but I never received an answer from you. Are you an athlete, William?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I see, you think that a jumping a fence in the pitch dark to a very narrow area Simpson could have avoided hitting the wall because he was an athlete?

Simpson's natural athletic ability prevented him from being hurt by hitting the wall with his shoulder and recovering his balance. If you look at a photograph of Simpson standing on that path next to the wall you will see how big Simpson is compared to how close the wall was to the fence. You don't have to be a professional athlete to understand this, just someone who may have some life experience about jumping fences and plain old common sense.
http://www.bobaugust.com/smokinggun.htm

I asked you a question previously that you had asked me but I never received an answer from you. Are you an athlete, William?

bobaugust

I am sorry. I must not have seen your question. I was a better than average basketball player, but not pro material and only played football for fun. No, I think he was concerned about being detected, if he was the killer, and would not have leaped from the fence. I also think that, as you have stated, he was familiar enough with the area to know how close the wall was. Under those circumstances and, given your proclomation on his athletic abilities, I believe he was athletic enough to have eased off the fence and avoided hitting the wall at all, simply by placing his hand on the fence once he was atop and easing himself down.

[Kate Sachel]

I am unaware of any testimony as to his propensity for bruising. Those are valid points for consideration. However, I would like to point out that the lawn is less offensive to bodily impact than a cement wall, imo. Another fact that I ask you to consider is that, if there was no testimony on how resistent he was to bruising, the jury was not free to speculate on that aspect and to weigh the fact that no bruising was seen. I can say that, if there were seven gouges on his hand, then there is evidence that he could have sustained those injuries in a struggle against Ron, I cannot recall and maybe you can help me with this. Was there any testimony as to how he sustained the gouges and was there any testimony as to how fresh they were. Also, how many times was Ron stabbed and was any of Simpson's DNA found on Ron's hands?

Thank you in advance,

Yes, the lawn is indeed less offensive to bodily impact but the impact is strong nonetheless and there were others that would walk away with bruises abundant. I agree that the jury was not free to speculate on that aspect, I am only offering my experiences so that we may speculate on the issue since we are not bound to any type of instruction as the jurors were.

I don't recall any testimony from the criminal trial, but in the civil trial Dr. Werner Spitz testified that several of the gouges on Simpson's hand more than likely came from fingernails. The argument was presented that Ron's fingernails were too short to be able to create gouges in the flesh. At that point Dr. Spitz requested permission from the court to dig his own very short fingernails into his own flesh to prove his testimony. The court granted permission and Dr. Spitz dug his fingernails into his own flesh. The result was gouge marks similar to the ones noted on Simpson's hand.

I am not aware of any DNA found on Simpson's hands, nor do I recall what the testimony was regarding the gouges on his hand other than that they were deemed to be "recent".

I am not certain of the exact number of stab wounds that Ron recieved, but I believe close to thirty or so.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Do we know if OJ Simpson bruises easily? I ask this question because I am an individual who does not. Example: in college many of my men and women friends in my dormitory got together regularly to play "tackle" football out on the lawn. The men showed us no mercy in their tackling skills and suffice it say I got knocked all over the place and slammed to the ground. That I can recall, I never bruised from any of the impacts.

Based on my own experiences, it is my opinion that the fact that he had no bruising is not an important issue.

As for the struggle with Ron, Dr. Lee agreed in the civil trial that the killing of him could have taken place in as little as 60 seconds. Given that, and the fact that OJ did apparently have as many as seven marks/gouges on his hand, I would say that he did sustain some type of injuries as a result.

Kate

Kate,

As an afterthought, I know on the few occasions when I played football with girls, the tackles may have seen brutal to the onlookers and the girls, but it was usually done with some prolonged holding and hitting the ground with my arms firmly around them.:)

[martin II]

WILLIAM

Since oj was suppose to have had on gloves i don't believe that he received 5 gouges to his hands if he was the killer. Also most believe that ron was grabbed in a head lock from behind by a killer and this is when his jugular vein was cut. This means from that point on he was getting very weak.

This in my mind limits the opportunity for the killer to receive hand wounds.
As you know football running backs retired or active often have old scars on their hands. imo

A person falling against a concrete wall hard enough to move a picture on a internal wall would in my opinion have some bruses to his body. But since oj had none i assume he did not hit any wall.
martin II

[martin II]

Kate,

As an afterthought, I know on the few occasions when I played football with girls, the tackles may have seen brutal to the onlookers and the girls, but it was usually done with some prolonged holding and hitting the ground with my arms firmly around them.:)

hahaha

:)
martin II

[martin II]

hahaha

:)
martin II

william

a side issue

Nicoles fingernails were examined for foreign matter and only her blood was found. Indicating that she did not scratch anyone that night.

imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

Yes, the lawn is indeed less offensive to bodily impact but the impact is strong nonetheless and there were others that would walk away with bruises abundant. I agree that the jury was not free to speculate on that aspect, I am only offering my experiences so that we may speculate on the issue since we are not bound to any type of instruction as the jurors were.

I don't recall any testimony from the criminal trial, but in the civil trial Dr. Werner Spitz testified that several of the gouges on Simpson's hand more than likely came from fingernails. The argument was presented that Ron's fingernails were too short to be able to create gouges in the flesh. At that point Dr. Spitz requested permission from the court to dig his own very short fingernails into his own flesh to prove his testimony. The court granted permission and Dr. Spitz dug his fingernails into his own flesh. The result was gouge marks similar to the ones noted on Simpson's hand.

I am not aware of any DNA found on Simpson's hands, nor do I recall what the testimony was regarding the gouges on his hand other than that they were deemed to be "recent".

I am not certain of the exact number of stab wounds that Ron recieved, but I believe close to thirty or so.

Kate

I understand and thank you very much. Yes we are free to speculate and I will gladly do that with you. I know you will not refer to my opinions as unsupported speculation. I have given the matter some thought as to the lack of bruising and I believe that, if he was the killer, he wore something other than the sweat suit people claim he wore. Due to the small amount of blood at Rockingham, I have speculated that, if he was the killer, he must have worn something that offered more protection. Perhaps, another layer of clothes, which he concealed prior to reaching Rockingham. Other than that I do not see the evidence on those issues adding up to making him the murderer.

[martin II]

I am sorry. I must not have seen your question. I was a better than average basketball player, but not pro material and only played football for fun. No, I think he was concerned about being detected, if he was the killer, and would not have leaped from the fence. I also think that, as you have stated, he was familiar enough with the area to know how close the wall was. Under those circumstances and, given your proclomation on his athletic abilities, I believe he was athletic enough to have eased off the fence and avoided hitting the wall at all, simply by placing his hand on the fence once he was atop and easing himself down.


actually if oj did jump this fense i think he would have grabbed the top with both hands musseled up and slung his feet around and over the fense and landed on his two feet.imo
martin II

[martin II]

I understand and thank you very much. Yes we are free to speculate and I will gladly do that with you. I know you will not refer to my opinions as unsupported speculation. I have given the matter some thought as to the lack of bruising and I believe that, if he was the killer, he wore something other than the sweat suit people claim he wore. Due to the small amount of blood at Rockingham, I have speculated that, if he was the killer, he must have worn something that offered more protection. Perhaps, another layer of clothes, which he concealed prior to reaching Rockingham. Other than that I do not see the evidence on those issues adding up to making him the murderer.

William
well i assume that you, bob and i are in agreement that the killer was dripping in blood. Since oj was not, then he is not the killer.imo
martin II

[martin II]

I know football players wear shoulder pads.


bob

here is a link to a picture of the back wall. no vines there.
martinII

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/backwalk.htm

[bobaugust]

I am sorry. I must not have seen your question. I was a better than average basketball player, but not pro material and only played football for fun. No, I think he was concerned about being detected, if he was the killer, and would not have leaped from the fence. I also think that, as you have stated, he was familiar enough with the area to know how close the wall was. Under those circumstances and, given your proclomation on his athletic abilities, I believe he was athletic enough to have eased off the fence and avoided hitting the wall at all, simply by placing his hand on the fence once he was atop and easing himself down.

Yes Simpson could have done that in hindsight, but that's not what the evidence tells us he did. Simpson was evidently not thinking very clearly after those murders. He had just killed two people, one who he loved, he was probably in some kind of shock only trying to get back to his house as fast as he could.

According to Jill Shively he was speeding with his headlights off and ran a red light. He was dripping blood everywhere he went after the murders and he wasn't even aware of it. When he got back to his estate he saw the limousine was already there waiting at his Ashford gate where he normally would park his Bronco. He realized he had to find another way to enter his estate.

There was very thick foliage hanging over the top of that fence and it was pitch dark back there. When Simpson jumped from the top of the fence maybe he lost a little balance or couldn't see the wall, who knows. All we know is it took a greater force than simply hitting or ramming that wall to cause the vibrations that Kaelin felt and that tilted a picture near his bed. That's why Kaelin's first thoughts was an earthquake.

I will give you credit though for not arguing Simpson could not have scaled his fence.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

WILLIAM

Since oj was suppose to have had on gloves i don't believe that he received 5 gouges to his hands if he was the killer. Also most believe that ron was grabbed in a head lock from behind by a killer and this is when his jugular vein was cut. This means from that point on he was getting very weak.

This in my mind limits the opportunity for the killer to receive hand wounds.
As you know football running backs retired or active often have old scars on their hands. imo

A person falling against a concrete wall hard enough to move a picture on a internal wall would in my opinion have some bruses to his body. But since oj had none i assume he did not hit any wall.
martin II


martin II, the gouges were on Simpson's left hand. He sustained them after his left hand glove was pulled off.

Dr. Spitz testified that the killing wound was a stab to Goldman's left flank cutting his aorta. He said that wound happened early in the struggle and Goldman would have immediately weaken. Spitz said that Goldman's neck was cut after that wound and that most of his bleeding was internal.

Your opinion that Simpson should have bruises so he didn't jump the fence is contradicted by the fact that Simpson could have hit the wall with his shoulder and didn't sustain any bruises.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Yes Simpson could have done that in hindsight, but that's not what the evidence tells us he did. Simpson was evidently not thinking very clearly after those murders. He had just killed two people, one who he loved, he was probably in some kind of shock only trying to get back to his house as fast as he could.

According to Jill Shively he was speeding with his headlights off and ran a red light. He was dripping blood everywhere he went after the murders and he wasn't even aware of it. When he got back to his estate he saw the limousine was already there waiting at his Ashford gate where he normally would park his Bronco. He realized he had to find another way to enter his estate.

There was very thick foliage hanging over the top of that fence and it was pitch dark back there. When Simpson jumped from the top of the fence maybe he lost a little balance or couldn't see the wall, who knows. All we know is it took a greater force than simply hitting or ramming that wall to cause the vibrations that Kaelin felt and that tilted a picture near his bed. That's why Kaelin's first thoughts was an earthquake.

I will give you credit though for not arguing Simpson could not have scaled his fence.

bobaugust

bob
previously when we discussed the foliage at the fense you have argued that there was very little and that is why it was easy for oj to climb over the fense. Now you are arguing in the opposite direction. Whats up what that.
Which do you believe?
martin II

[bobaugust]

actually if oj did jump this fense i think he would have grabbed the top with both hands musseled up and slung his feet around and over the fense and landed on his two feet.imo
martin II

martin II, wow an opinion about how Simpson could have jumped his fence from someone who constantly argued that Simpson could not have jumped his fence. You're slowly getting there, martin.

Maybe Simpson could have jumped a fence that way if it was in an open area with nothing around it or over it but that wasn't the case here. There was thick shrubbery growing right next to the fence and thick foliage hanging over the top of the fence.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, the gouges were on Simpson's left hand. He sustained them after his left hand glove was pulled off.

Dr. Spitz testified that the killing wound was a stab to Goldman's left flank cutting his aorta. He said that wound happened early in the struggle and Goldman would have immediately weaken. Spitz said that Goldman's neck was cut after that wound and that most of his bleeding was internal.

Your opinion that Simpson should have bruises so he didn't jump the fence is contradicted by the fact that Simpson could have hit the wall with his shoulder and didn't sustain any bruises.

bobaugust

simpson COULD HAVE does not contradict anything.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
previously when we discussed the foliage at the fense you have argued that there was very little and that is why it was easy for oj to climb over the fense. Now you are arguing in the opposite direction. Whats up what that.
Which do you believe?
martin II

martin II, no I never argued what you think I argued. When Simpson scaled his fence there was thick shrubbery near the fence and thick hanging foliage over the top of the fence.

When Simpson made his interview tape that foliage had been all trimmed back revealing not only the bent wire but showing that there was nothing on the Salingers side of the fence that would have prevented Simpson from getting to the fence that some people tried to argue. Only foliage and shrubbery.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

simpson COULD HAVE does not contradict anything.
martin II

martin II, it contradicts your opinion that Simpson would have had bruises.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

I did not say that I did not want to read them only bored, because what you post is much ado about nothing, imh&ro. I choose not to put anyone on ignore, because some post are highly informative as to how I should not conduct myself. I can learn from adversity, no matter how unintelligently it is offered.

Blah Blah Blah! Your posts are definitely "much ado about nothing," punctuated with "constant talk with no information value. unstoppable talking. saying alot but saying nothing at all, not to be confused with saying alot by saying nothing at all. meaningless and unstoppable talk. barf."

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Blah Blah Blah! Your posts are definitely "much ado about nothing," punctuated with "constant talk with no information value. unstoppable talking. saying alot but saying nothing at all, not to be confused with saying alot by saying nothing at all. meaningless and unstoppable talk. barf."

JMO and MOO!!

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[Kate Sachel]

After so many hours at Bundy and the brutality of the murders, what made them think that the killer became less violent with Simpson and or the maid. A resonable belief is that the killer would have murdered them long ago and there would be no exigent circumstances to disallow waiting for a warrant.

Okay, I can see your thought process on this but I encourage you to step back for a moment and rethink. LE is "supposed" to exist to serve and protect. It is my hope that no member of LE would ever simply make an assumption that an individual does not need help.

Without being certain of the circumstance behind the murder of Nicole, one can not say with certainty whether or not the killer would be less or more violent with Simpson. You would have to know the motive behind the killings. It would be possible that Simpson was left badly injured and tortured inside of his home.

This is in no way meant to speculate what the detectives' actual thought process was ... again, I am just offering a different scenario as an example of why I believe that LE should always thoroughly "check out" every situation.

If Simpson had been left badly injured and tortured inside, and LE had ignored blood, and information from Westec and not entered the property I can almost guarantee that people would be filled with rage upon learning of such a thing.

What are your thoughts?

Kate

[William Anthony]

Yes Simpson could have done that in hindsight, but that's not what the evidence tells us he did. Simpson was evidently not thinking very clearly after those murders. He had just killed two people, one who he loved, he was probably in some kind of shock only trying to get back to his house as fast as he could.

According to Jill Shively he was speeding with his headlights off and ran a red light. He was dripping blood everywhere he went after the murders and he wasn't even aware of it. When he got back to his estate he saw the limousine was already there waiting at his Ashford gate where he normally would park his Bronco. He realized he had to find another way to enter his estate.

There was very thick foliage hanging over the top of that fence and it was pitch dark back there. When Simpson jumped from the top of the fence maybe he lost a little balance or couldn't see the wall, who knows. All we know is it took a greater force than simply hitting or ramming that wall to cause the vibrations that Kaelin felt and that tilted a picture near his bed. That's why Kaelin's first thoughts was an earthquake.

I will give you credit though for not arguing Simpson could not have scaled his fence.

bobaugust

Do you see the problem with your posts? Here is a portion of a prior one and I did not go back and get the one where you claimed he jumped.

"Simpson's natural athletic ability prevented him from being hurt by hitting the wall with his shoulder and recovering his balance. If you look at a photograph of Simpson standing on that path next to the wall you will see how big Simpson is compared to how close the wall was to the fence. You don't have to be a professional athlete to understand this, just someone who may have some life experience about jumping fences and plain old common sense."

Now you want to say this, "When Simpson jumped from the top of the fence maybe he lost a little balance or couldn't see the wall, who knows." You have called him a killer and state that you know the truth and the facts and now you state, who knows. I think that you realize that hitting a wall that hard would have left some bruising, as indicated by your remark about the absence of bruising on his large head. I think that you and I may agree the evidence no busing suppots, if he is the killer, that he did not gain entry as the prosecution theorized, or wore something other than they suspected.

[martin II]

martin II, it contradicts your opinion that Simpson would have had bruises.

bobaugust


in your mind

[William Anthony]

Okay, I can see your thought process on this but I encourage you to step back for a moment and rethink. LE is "supposed" to exist to serve and protect. It is my hope that no member of LE would ever simply make an assumption that an individual does not need help.

Without being certain of the circumstance behind the murder of Nicole, one can not say with certainty whether or not the killer would be less or more violent with Simpson. You would have to know the motive behind the killings. It would be possible that Simpson was left badly injured and tortured inside of his home.

This is in no way meant to speculate what the detectives' actual thought process was ... again, I am just offering a different scenario as an example of why I believe that LE should always thoroughly "check out" every situation.

If Simpson had been left badly injured and tortured inside, and LE had ignored blood, and information from Westec and not entered the property I can almost guarantee that people would be filled with rage upon learning of such a thing.

What are your thoughts?

Kate

Kate,

Your thought processes make great sense. This is what LE relied on when they came up with the reason and that is the only one of thier reasons that comes close to being valid, imho. However, I formed my conclusion that I did not believe their testimony on my observations of them on the witness stand. If we can engage in speculation, I think that Simpson became a suspect as soon as Furman discovered, who Nicole was, and, when Vanadtter and Lang arrived he relayed the information to them about the prior spousal abuse incident in which he had been involved. I believe they went to Rockingham to try and collect evidence, which they did. I believe when no one answered the phone they thought Simpson was fleeing and called to see, if westec had any information. After that, I believe they concocted a reason to create exigent circumstances. I also saw how arrogant Vanatter was on the stand, and do believe he would have cracked under a more stringent cross.

[bobaugust]

You have called him a killer and state that you know the truth and the facts and now you state, who knows. I think that you realize that hitting a wall that hard would have left some bruising, as indicated by your remark about the absence of bruising on his large head. I think that you and I may agree the evidence no busing suppots, if he is the killer, that he did not gain entry as the prosecution theorized, or wore something other than they suspected.

First of all I didn't ever say I know what happened, I only speculate what may have happened based on the known evidence. I do not agree that Simpson would have bruising on his shoulder if he hit the wall. It was a combination of his momentum and 200 lb weight that would have caused that sturdy wall to shake. The reason he hit the wall was because it was so close to the fence.

Simpson has good size shoulders and he was wearing clothing. You say you played some basketball and football. I have no idea what size you are but I doubt if you got bruised every time you rammed someone with your shoulder. Unless you bruise easily. There is no evidence that Simpson would easily bruise.

I agree that the prosecution didn't get this right since they never argued that Simpson scaled his fence. They never even understood that the blood drops found just outside and inside Simpson's Rockingham gate proves he didn't enter that gate. Petrocelli got it right.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Kate,

Your thought processes make great sense. This is what LE relied on when they came up with the reason and that is the only one of thier reasons that comes close to being valid, imho. However, I formed my conclusion that I did not believe their testimony on my observations of them on the witness stand. If we can engage in speculation, I think that Simpson became a suspect as soon as Furman discovered, who Nicole was, and, when Vanadtter and Lang arrived he relayed the information to them about the prior spousal abuse incident in which he had been involved. I believe they went to Rockingham to try and collect evidence, which they did. I believe when no one answered the phone they thought Simpson was fleeing and called to see, if westec had any information. After that, I believe they concocted a reason to create exigent circumstances. I also saw how arrogant Vanatter was on the stand, and do believe he would have cracked under a more stringent cross.


It seems you keep ignoring the real reason that the detectives went to Rockingham. Because they were ordered to go.

Commander Bushey gave that order and explained why he did when he testified.

Another question William, I'm not sure if I asked you this before. Were you ever in the military?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

First of all I didn't ever say I know what happened, I only speculate what may have happened based on the known evidence. I do not agree that Simpson would have bruising on his shoulder if he hit the wall. It was a combination of his momentum and 200 lb weight that would have caused that sturdy wall to shake. The reason he hit the wall was because it was so close to the fence.

Simpson has good size shoulders and he was wearing clothing. You say you played some basketball and football. I have no idea what size you are but I doubt if you got bruised every time you rammed someone with your shoulder. Unless you bruise easily. There is no evidence that Simpson would easily bruise.

I agree that the prosecution didn't get this right since they never argued that Simpson scaled his fence. They never even understood that the blood drops found just outside and inside Simpson's Rockingham gate proves he didn't enter that gate. Petrocelli got it right.

bobaugust

I have played on cement courts and football in the streets. If I did not bruise, which most of the time I did on falling or being tackled, you can bet I was scrapped up.

[William Anthony]

It seems you keep ignoring the real reason that the detectives went to Rockingham. Because they were ordered to go.

Commander Bushey gave that order and explained why he did when he testified.

Another question William, I'm not sure if I asked you this before. Were you ever in the military?

bobaugust

You certainly are gettin personal here. I like the girls.:) Have you ever heard of the UCMJ, Fort Hood, Fort Sam Huston, Lackland Air Force Base, Fort Knox, guard duty, the gas chamber, night manuvers, a P38, police call? We do not know for a fact what the subject matter of that conversation was or how it went.
We know LE is trained on how to testify.

[bobaugust]

You certainly are gettin personal here. I like the girls.:) Have you ever heard of the UCMJ, Fort Hood, Fort Sam Huston, Lackland Air Force Base, Fort Knox, guard duty, the gas chamber, night manuvers, a P38, police call? We do not know for a fact what the subject matter of that conversation was or how it went.
We know LE is trained on how to testify.

Good for you, then you should be able to understand what it means to follow orders from commanders.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Good for you, then you should be able to understand what it means to follow orders from commanders.

bobaugust

I know that commanders do not always tell the truth.

[bobaugust]

I have played on cement courts and football in the streets. If I did not bruise, which most of the time I did on falling or being tackled, you can bet I was scrapped up.

And if Simpson had collided with that wall several times he probably would have had bruising or at the very least shoulder pain. But that's not what happened. He fell against a wall from a very short distance away causing the wall to shake and he didn't receive any noticeable bruising.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I know that commanders do not always tell the truth.

There are always people in all walks of life that don't tell the truth all of the time but if you are found to be lying under oath in a trial then you take a pretty big chance of receiving some kind of punishment.

There was no reason for Commander Bushey to lie. He explained why he gave that order to Phillips and when the case was turned over to Robbery Homicide he testified he reiterated his order that Simpson be notified as soon as possible.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

And if Simpson had collided with that wall several times he probably would have had bruising or at the very least shoulder pain. But that's not what happened. He fell against a wall from a very short distance away causing the wall to shake and he didn't receive any noticeable bruising.

bobaugust

If he collided with that wall hard enough to make Kato think there had been an earthquake and on three occasions, there would have been some bruising.

[William Anthony]

There are always people in all walks of life that don't tell the truth all of the time but if you are found to be lying under oath in a trial then you take a pretty big chance of receiving some kind of punishment.

There was no reason for Commander Bushey to lie. He explained why he gave that order to Phillips and when the case was turned over to Robbery Homicide he testified he reiterated his order that Simpson be notified as soon as possible.

bobaugust

Who was going to testify from the blue wall of silence that he was lying? I think he was not worried about being detected.

[William Anthony]

William,

I'm not exactly sure how to respond to your post. IMO, the police used an "excuse" to enter Rockingham that morning and the judged ruled that it was legal search and the reasons were valid. My point is that had they gone to Rockingham at any point after the bodies had been found, it was have been a legal search.

Also, the common rule of thumb when it comes to all murder cases is time. That with each passing hour and day, it becomes harder and harder to make a case. IMO, the detectives had every reason to believe Simpson was a suspect. Had they gone right to Rockingham, then I really wouldn't have a problem---the fact that they didn't is the problem I have.

If they had gone immediately after finding out who Nicole was then I would have believed they were concerned about victims and evidence destruction.

[bobaugust]

If he collided with that wall hard enough to make Kato think there had been an earthquake and on three occasions, there would have been some bruising.

You don't know that and I disagree. I'm sure he felt the impact when he landed and probably caused two additional thumps as he recovered his balance moving down the path towards his garage. Kaelin thought it was possibly and earth quake because of the vibrations he felt and a picture next to his bed tilted. But he knew if it wasn't then someone had fallen against the wall. Kaelin did not describe the three thumps as equal thumps. In the criminal trial Kaelin said he was asked to demonstrating the rhythm of the sounds. "Bah, bum-bum,"

When Simpson collided with that wall that's when he unknowingly dropped his right hand glove probably falling out of the knapsack he was carrying. The glove was found on the south path exactly below the bent wire that was later seen when the foliage was trimmed back..

bobaugust

[martin II]

There are always people in all walks of life that don't tell the truth all of the time but if you are found to be lying under oath in a trial then you take a pretty big chance of receiving some kind of punishment.

There was no reason for Commander Bushey to lie. He explained why he gave that order to Phillips and when the case was turned over to Robbery Homicide he testified he reiterated his order that Simpson be notified as soon as possible.

bobaugust

bob
i think the bodies were discovered about 12 midnight. vanhatter and furhman arrived close to 2am they only went to rockingham at about 6 am
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
i think the bodies were discovered about 12 midnight. vanhatter and furhman arrived close to 2am they only went to rockingham at about 6 am
martin II

martin II, no, that's not correct. The bodies were discovered about 12:17 AM. Phillips and Fuhrman arrived just after 2:00 AM. After their walk through Phillips was told by Commander Bushey to notify Simpson and help him recover his children. Not long after that Phillips spoke with Bureau Chief Frankel and learned the case was being assigned to Robbery Homicide.

Detective Vannatter arrived at Bundy at about 4:05 AM and Lange arrived at about 4:25 AM. After completing their walk through of the murder scene Lt. Rogers told the Robbery Homicide detectives about Commander Bushey's orders. Lange decided to have Phillips and Fuhrman go with them since they knew the way to Simpson's house and after the notification they could help Simpson recover his children being held at their police station while Vannatter and Lange returned to the murder scene. Lange and Vannatter expected they would be back in about twenty minutes or less.

Lt. Rogers, Vannatter and Lange's supervisor, approved the plan and took care of securing the murder scene until they returned.

They arrived at Rockingham about 5:00 AM.

bobaugust

[martin II]

If he collided with that wall hard enough to make Kato think there had been an earthquake and on three occasions, there would have been some bruising.

according to bob , the person in the side walkway was bouncing around somewhat like a pinball. mo
martin II

[jotun]

Martin,
O.J. did NOT hit the wall that night.But the 'Making Of' his 96 video was shown on tv. O.J.was filmed in that walkway. O.J.slammed his shoulder hard into that wall 2 or 3 times. It made NO SOUND.

jotun

B.A.

This is correct!! O.J. made NO SOUND.

Was NOT the actual O.J.TELLS video,where he just knocks on the wall, sugesting a signal.

Shows the producer & film-crew sitting in O.J.'s bedroom etc.

That's what a 'Making Of' is.In fact was filmed by Schiller. Was very interesting in alot of different ways.

jotun

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8789029]Big ben,

When he (Richard Rubin) finished he had a pair of of nicely warmed and pliable gloves for Simpson to try on. Simpson wouldn't go near them, instead his defense attorneys replayed the criminal trial glove demonstration video.

Rubin "had a pair of nicely warmed gloves!" and I'll bet that you had a nicely warmed and pliable rope with a hangman's noose already tied in it for whomever was foolish enough to stick their head in. Rubin didn't have "THE" gloves, but that's of little concern to people like you, isn't it? Never mind the faux pas of the state, when the electric chair doesn't work the first time, just fry, and fry again! But for most of us, one time was good enough for the eyes to say "reasonable doubt". Therefore the defense was perfectly correct in not submitting to any type of state hatched chirade to try on other gloves, no matter how warm and cozy they may have been.

It doesn't matter how long a size 12 shoe is. It matters what size the sole of the shoe is. The bloody shoe prints were made with European size 46, American size 12 soles.

There you go again, bobaugust, propagating an astonishing level of madness! "It doesn't matter how long" a size 12 shoe is??? I'm beginning to believe that you are truly mentally impaired! Why would the British shoemaker Doc Martten tell one, on the side of his shoe boxes, that a size 12 in the U.K. is not a size 12 in the U.S., if "how long a size 12 is doesn't matter? You're beginning to sound boringly idiotic, my good man. You need to get yourself together.

By the way I finally got Shapiro's book and I was able to read the passages you were referring to and again Shapiro's account of what happened proves your dishonest claims wrong. "Much later, it turned out that Juditha was mistaken. We were confident that the phone records would verify her version, but when we saw them during the preliminary hearing, they indicated that the call had actually been made at about 9:45 PM., not 10:45. So she was off by an hour. But it would be a while before I knew that."

Yeah! Juditha was mistaken after,vehemently, insisting initially on 10:45-11:00 PM, and later changing to 9:45 PM, just like Lou was mistaken when insisting initially the call was at 11:00 PM, then later changing it to between 9:30-10:00 PM, and Robert Shapiro was mistaken after initially offering to stipulate to 10:17 PM, then going along with 9:37 PM and Steven Schwab was mistaken after initially sighting the Akita at 11:15 PM, later changing it to 10:45 PM, and Faye Resnick was mistaken after initially stating on Maury Povich that she spoke to Nicole at 10:45 PM, and later (with Maury's help) changing to 9:45 PM. Whew!

Me thinks they change too much! All of these changes, defy mapquest, AAA, and other travel time authorities for 1998 and prior, all coming in at approximately 1 hr and 30 minutes (+5 or -5 minutes). Your attempt to push back time in order to get them home in an hour simply doesn't help their chirade, B.A. Take your finger out of the dike and run away, fast, B.A. The wall of deceit and lies is crumbling.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

There were at least two jurors who felt the gloves did fit and he was acting. There were other jurors felt the gloves didn't fit. However, all of them did agree that the actual fit of the gloves didn't matter. Not one juror has ever said that the glove demonstration was based on the fit of the gloves.

And, be fair Mr. August, the state had years and years of experience with evidence, do you mean to tell us that they did not know the gloves could shrink? And the DA's never counted the defense's expert on this issue. They relied on a salesman or a former salesman as their expert. The defense did not. They had a witness who conducted experiments and the results of those experiments were presented to the jury.

Like or not Mr. August, the defense matched witness for witness, expert for expert and if these experts were lying, surely the DA's could have produced witnesses who would testify to that.

[limakey]

Ben,

Has your group ever investigated why Steven Swab's was even open to cross regarding the time issue? It never made any sense that after the defense suggested that perhaps Swab was wrong, that the police who he encountered did not testify on what time their encounter happened.

I have often wondered on how cops just happened to be driving up the very street on which Nicole was killed? I also wonder why Westec just happened to be around the estate when the police needed them.

[2L8 4A D8]

actually if oj did jump this fense i think he would have grabbed the top with both hands musseled up and slung his feet around and over the fense and landed on his two feet.imo
martin II

You've obviously seen the top of a chain link "fense!" Good point ~ OJ "grabbed the top with both hands." Since it has been established that Nicole didn't have any DNA under her nails but her own and supposedly Ron's nails were too short, maybe this answers the question of how OJ got the "seven marks/gouges on his hand(s)." OJ is the killer ~ plain and simple!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

If he collided with that wall hard enough to make Kato think there had been an earthquake and on three occasions, there would have been some bruising.

This is such cr@p and O/T. The Thread says "Why Eat?" but yet page after page has been devoted to OJ being bruised or not bruised by hitting the wall of Kato's bedroom when he jumped the fence.

The picture moved. There was no earthquake. Something had to make the picture move and that something was OJ hitting the wall. Duh! And since OJ wasn't bruised, "OMG, he can't be the killer" is just another ridiculous theory/fantasy brought forth by you and your comrades because of your obssessive/compulsive need for your HERO to be innocent of the crime of double-murder!

Now, can we get back on topic? :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

martin II, no, that's not correct. The bodies were discovered about 12:17 AM. Phillips and Fuhrman arrived just after 2:00 AM. After their walk through Phillips was told by Commander Bushey to notify Simpson and help him recover his children. Not long after that Phillips spoke with Bureau Chief Frankel and learned the case was being assigned to Robbery Homicide.

Detective Vannatter arrived at Bundy at about 4:05 AM and Lange arrived at about 4:25 AM. After completing their walk through of the murder scene Lt. Rogers told the Robbery Homicide detectives about Commander Bushey's orders. Lange decided to have Phillips and Fuhrman go with them since they knew the way to Simpson's house and after the notification they could help Simpson recover his children being held at their police station while Vannatter and Lange returned to the murder scene. Lange and Vannatter expected they would be back in about twenty minutes or less.

Lt. Rogers, Vannatter and Lange's supervisor, approved the plan and took care of securing the murder scene until they returned.

They arrived at Rockingham about 5:00 AM.

bobaugust

So, they were not concerned with any danger to Simpson or anyone at Simpson's estate between 2 and 4;30 and deliberately disobeyed their commanders orders, according to your post.

[Kate Sachel]

If they had gone immediately after finding out who Nicole was then I would have believed they were concerned about victims and evidence destruction.

I disagree. Under any normal circumstance the victim's partner is considered a possible suspect, but in the case of realizing that the pertner (ex) was OJ Simpson I strongly question whether they gave it a second thought based on the apparent worship treatment he had received from LE in the past. Do not forget that OJ stated that he has always had favorable relations with the LAPD.

When they arrived at Rockingham, under what I believe to be valid orders from their superior, and saw the blood is when the area gets murky for me. At that time I believe is when the question came into their mind on whether OJ was another victim, or a killer.

Because there is not any actual proof of the thought process of the detectives being anything other than concern for another victim inside the residence is why I support the upholding of the warrant. I would hate to believe that in a situation, any situation in which LE arrived at a residence, found blood, and had reason to believe that an individual was inside that they would be prohibited from entering the premises.

Kate

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8789029][B]

Rubin "had a pair of nicely warmed gloves!" and I'll bet that you had a nicely warmed and pliable rope with a hangman's noose already tied in it for whomever was foolish enough to stick their head in. Rubin didn't have "THE" gloves, but that's of little concern to people like you, isn't it?

There you go again, bobaugust, propagating an astonishing level of madness! "It doesn't matter how long" a size 12 shoe is???

Yeah! Juditha was mistaken after,vehemently, insisting initially on 10:45-11:00 PM, and later changing to 9:45 PM, just like Lou was mistaken when insisting initially the call was at 11:00 PM, then later changing it to between 9:30-10:00 PM, and Robert Shapiro was mistaken after initially offering to stipulate to 10:17 PM, then going along with 9:37 PM and Steven Schwab was mistaken after initially sighting the Akita at 11:15 PM, later changing it to 10:45 PM


Big Ben, of course Rubin had THE gloves. What gloves do you think he had?

It doesn't matter how long a size 12 shoe is, what matters is if the shoes that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy could have been worn by Simpson. And that answer is yes. Bruno Magli Lorenzo size 12 shoes with European size 46 Silga soles are consistent with making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. Not only did authenticated photographs show Simpson wearing those exact shoes before the murders but Simpson's size 12 Reeboks were almost exactly the same length as well as the same interior size as Bruno Magli Lorenzo size 12 shoes with European size 46 Silga soles.

It seems you just can't comprehend that many witnesses make mistaken time estimates. No time estimate is a real time unless it's supported by telephone records or other witness testimony.

Juditha and Lou Brown's original time estimates were incorrect. They were mistaken and they corrected them. The Brown's telephone records document the last time Juditha called Nicole and that documented time is supported by Karen Crawford's testimony. Robert Shapiro wrote that he realized Juditha Brown's original time estimates were mistaken when he saw the Brown's telephone records in the preliminary hearing.

Robert Shapiro was mistaken about a 10:17 telephone call. There never was a 10:17 telephone call.

Steven Schwab never told the police a time of 11:15. He told them 11:30 and immediately corrected it to 11:00. Schwab testified that based on the time television shows started and ended he first saw Nicole's dog at 10:55.

The problem is all yours Big Ben. You can't tell the difference between a mistake and a lie. You think these witnesses are lying because they corrected their mistakes. Neither Juditha Brown nor Steven Schwab was ever accused of lying. Neither was their testimony ever contradicted by any other witness or any evidence. They are not the liars.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I disagree. Under any normal circumstance the victim's partner is considered a possible suspect, but in the case of realizing that the pertner (ex) was OJ Simpson I strongly question whether they gave it a second thought based on the apparent worship treatment he had received from LE in the past. Do not forget that OJ stated that he has always had favorable relations with the LAPD.

When they arrived at Rockingham, under what I believe to be valid orders from their superior, and saw the blood is when the area gets murky for me. At that time I believe is when the question came into their mind on whether OJ was another victim, or a killer.

Because there is not any actual proof of the thought process of the detectives being anything other than concern for another victim inside the residence is why I support the upholding of the warrant. I would hate to believe that in a situation, any situation in which LE arrived at a residence, found blood, and had reason to believe that an individual was inside that they would be prohibited from entering the premises.

Kate

Kate,

I think that he did receive favorable treatment from some of LE. Given the fact that Furman had been involved in one incident of spousal abuse and Simpson was the ex, he became an immediate suspect. If he did not become a suspect at that time, then Furman is a lousier detective than I think him to be. I think that Simpson was wrong in believing he had favorable relations with LE: it was more of a quid pro quo situation, imo. Shipp made the nature of their relationship obvious on the stand, imo. People often are confused about the nature of relationships and sometimes need to have the nature defined, imo.

If I am correct, Furman only observed one drop of blood on the Bronco, and, imho, that would not have been enough to say there was another possible victim. If they believed him to be a suspect, given the delay in their arrival time, the evidence would have most likely been destroyed by then. I honestly believe that he was a suspect and, when they did not get an answer thought he fled, and created a reason to justify their unlawful entry onto his estate.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

And, be fair Mr. August, the state had years and years of experience with evidence, do you mean to tell us that they did not know the gloves could shrink? And the DA's never counted the defense's expert on this issue. They relied on a salesman or a former salesman as their expert. The defense did not. They had a witness who conducted experiments and the results of those experiments were presented to the jury.



limakey, the defense witness conducted experiments on a new pair of Aris Light gloves
.
The killer's gloves were not new, they were old weathered gloves. Rubin testified that he measured the gloves and found that they were between 10 to 11 percent smaller than the standard length they were manufactured to. He said that was due to a combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage.

MacDonell did no experiments that contradicted that fact.

Rubin testified that the killer's gloves were extra large, the largest size made in that glove. Photographs showed Simpson wearing several pair of the exact same gloves and they fit his hands just fine. MacDonell's experiments didn't contradict that fact.

The fact is that Simpson was wearing latex gloves when he put the killer's gloves on his hands and he never pulled nor stretched those skin tight gloves to make them fit properly because he didn't want then to look like they fit. Instead he splayed his hands like a two year old to keep the gloves from being pulled down over his fingers. If Simpson's life had depended on those gloves fitting he would have pulled and stretched them on his fingers until they did fit. The only people Simpson fooled were every gullible people or people who wanted to be fooled.

In the civil trial Rubin was given permission to put his bare hands in the gloves for the first time since the criminal trial. As he testified he refurbished the gloves by putting the lining back in the fingers and by warming and stretching them back to almost their original size. Simpson wouldn't go near them after that.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

This is such cr@p and O/T. The Thread says "Why Eat?" but yet page after page has been devoted to OJ being bruised or not bruised by hitting the wall of Kato's bedroom when he jumped the fence.

The picture moved. There was no earthquake. Something had to make the picture move and that something was OJ hitting the wall. Duh! And since OJ wasn't bruised, "OMG, he can't be the killer" is just another ridiculous theory/fantasy brought forth by you and your comrades because of your obssessive/compulsive need for your HERO to be innocent of the crime of double-murder!

Now, can we get back on topic? :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

I think I started this thread and, I think that, if a thread leads to discussion of other topics that are somehow stemming from the thread, there is nothing improper about that. However, because you are so topic oriented, and that may stem from concern that the subject cannot be explained, imho&ro, I will be glad to ask other posters if they think a new thread should be started titled the missing bruising. Simpson is not my hero, nor have I claimed him to be innocent. I never said there was an earthquake only that, because the picture moved, Kato thought there was one. I do believe that there would have been some bruising if Simpson collided/slammed into a cement wall three times hard enough to have Kato question whether or not there had been an earthquake.

[William Anthony]

You don't know that and I disagree. I'm sure he felt the impact when he landed and probably caused two additional thumps as he recovered his balance moving down the path towards his garage. Kaelin thought it was possibly and earth quake because of the vibrations he felt and a picture next to his bed tilted. But he knew if it wasn't then someone had fallen against the wall. Kaelin did not describe the three thumps as equal thumps. In the criminal trial Kaelin said he was asked to demonstrating the rhythm of the sounds. "Bah, bum-bum,"

When Simpson collided with that wall that's when he unknowingly dropped his right hand glove probably falling out of the knapsack he was carrying. The glove was found on the south path exactly below the bent wire that was later seen when the foliage was trimmed back..

bobaugust

Since we are engaging in speculation, and I will look up the testimony, I believe Kato was asked to describe the thumps and how they sounded. In any event, Kato told the blankety blank MF, who, whether in the context of a screen play or not, relayed how he planted/fabricated/tampered with evidence, that he had heard three thumps and the location of the thumps. The blankety blank MF went behind the quarters alone, where he could have planted the glove, at which time he bent the fence, making it appear that someone had jumped the fence. When he took the other two detectives to show them the planted glove, he was surprised that they did not look at the fence. However, realizing that he allegedly had found the most incriminating evidence, figured the bent fence would be found when LE examined the area. Because he had prior experience in planting/fabricating/ tampering with evidence, he though it best to let another discover the fence. When they did not, this made him refer to them in a derogatory manner in his book. This whole post is speculation and is not meant to be taken as an accusation or for the truth and the facts.

[martin II]

wiliam
furhman also went back there again when he had Fung hand him a piece of paper through the fense.imo

martin II

[William Anthony]

In the criminal trial Kaelin said he was asked to demonstrating the rhythm of the sounds. "Bah, bum-bum,"

snipped
bobaugust

I could not locate the transcripts, yet. This is what I found from CTV's site;

MARCH 22 - Brian "Kato" Kaelin described his evening with O.J. Simpson in the hours before the murder and described the three loud thumps he heard against the wall of his room that prosecutors believe were made by Simpson as he dropped a glove in an alleyway

[martin II]

bob
so the bent wire could have been bent by the people trimmng back the floage
long after the murders when they used various machines to do so. so toss the bent wire.imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

wiliam
furhman also went back there again when he had Fung hand him a piece of paper through the fense.imo

martin II it was Furhman who handed Fung the paper through the fence. Geez.

[fbgweezer]

*snipped*This whole post is speculation and is not meant to be taken as an accusation or for the truth and the facts. Personally, I'm taking it as fantasy and far from the truth.

[William Anthony]

*snipped* Personally, I'm taking it as fantasy and far from the truth.

You my dear can take it anyway you so desire but at least I have the decency to say that it is speculation and do not call my opinions anything other than that.

[2L8 4A D8]

I think I started this thread and, I think that, if a thread leads to discussion of other topics that are somehow stemming from the thread, there is nothing improper about that. However, because you are so topic oriented, and that may stem from concern that the subject cannot be explained, imho&ro, I will be glad to ask other posters if they think a new thread should be started titled the missing bruising.

<snipped>

Just because you start a Thread, doesn't mean that it belongs to you and you're the Boss. Coldwater locks Threads over at CTV if they go O/T. I am sure that the same rules that apply to CTV apply here at the Crime Library. If you don't agree, ask Freshwater.

It makes it easier for future reference when the Threads are started according to the subject matter and stay on subject and don't go O/T, especially if they end up on Page 2 or are Archived. Kinda like a checks and balance system if and when you want to refer back to the Thread.

That is my only reason for being so "topic oriented!" Sorry you don't get it, but I will just consider the source!

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Since we are engaging in speculation, and I will look up the testimony, I believe Kato was asked to describe the thumps and how they sounded. In any event, Kato told the blankety blank MF, who, whether in the context of a screen play or not, relayed how he planted/fabricated/tampered with evidence, that he had heard three thumps and the location of the thumps. The blankety blank MF went behind the quarters alone, where he could have planted the glove, at which time he bent the fence, making it appear that someone had jumped the fence. When he took the other two detectives to show them the planted glove, he was surprised that they did not look at the fence. However, realizing that he allegedly had found the most incriminating evidence, figured the bent fence would be found when LE examined the area. Because he had prior experience in planting/fabricating/ tampering with evidence, he though it best to let another discover the fence. When they did not, this made him refer to them in a derogatory manner in his book. This whole post is speculation and is not meant to be taken as an accusation or for the truth and the facts.


Good try, but no prize. You speculate that when Fuhrman went back behind Kaelin's room he could have planted the glove. That's not a possibility unless there is evidence that he had or ever could have had that glove or that he handled that glove. There isn't one single shred of evidence that there were two gloves at Bundy, There isn't one single shred of trace evidence found on that glove that points to Fuhrman, it all points to Simpson.

You speculate that Fuhrman may have bent the wire. How? With a sledge hammer? With a pliers? This wasn't a thin wire, it was two wires that were used to construct the fence the ends twisted together forming part of a barrier across the top of the chain link fence. A wire that is bent pointing towards the wall consistent with some one putting their shoe and weight on it scaling the fence from the Salingers property to Simpson's property. A bent wire exactly opposite where Kaelin said he heard the noises something Fuhrman would not have known. A bent wire on the fence where there is no natural obstacle to prevent someone from getting to it across the Salingers property. Something that no could have seen by looking across the fence at the thick foliage especially in the dark early hours of June 13. The wire itself could not be seen that morning because of the hanging foliage over the fence.

And if Fuhrman had overcome all of those factors based on everything you have said about him if he had did everything you speculate he did why would he not examine the fence and pretend to find the bent wire under the foliage himself to take the credit for finding more evidence?

No, William, once again your speculation is based only on other speculation and not very realistic based on the known facts. Speculation based on speculation is not very credible nor is it very likely to have happened.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

wiliam
furhman also went back there again when he had Fung hand him a piece of paper through the fense.imo

martin II

martin II, typical martin misinformation.

Fuhrman walked across the Salingers property while Fung walked down the south walkway until they got to the place where a small blue wrapper was stuck to the fence on the Salingers side exactly opposite the glove on Simpson's side.

Fuhrman collected the blue wrapper put it in a coin envelope and handed it over the fence to Fung.
http://www.bobaugust.com/smokinggun.htm#no3

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, typical martin misinformation.

Fuhrman walked across the Salingers property while Fung walked down the south walkway until they got to the place where a small blue wrapper was stuck to the fence on the Salingers side exactly opposite the glove on Simpson's side.

Fuhrman collected the blue wrapper put it in a coin envelope and handed it over the fence to Fung.
http://www.bobaugust.com/smokinggun.htm#no3

bobaugust

bob
ok so it was fung that walkd back there and he did not see any bent wire either. If no one from lapd saw a bent wire on 6/13 then there is no evidence that the wire was bent on 6/12. If the bent wire was only seen several months after 6/12 then the possibilities of who bent the wire are endless.

ps. i posted a picture of the walkway and it did show ANY foliage on the wall of the house as you claimed.
martin II

martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

bob
so the bent wire could have been bent by the people trimmng back the floage
long after the murders when they used various machines to do so. so toss the bent wire.imo
martin II

Why don't you make up your mind? Your above post says one thing and then your below post says another thing. It's like you are always playing "Eenie, Menie, Minie, Moe!" (Spelling ?) Your constant wavering back and forth speaks volumes IMO.

Originally Posted by martin II
actually if oj did jump this fense i think he would have grabbed the top with both hands musseled up and slung his feet around and over the fense and landed on his two feet.imo
martin II

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

bob
ok so it was fung that walkd back there and he did not see any bent wire either. If no one from lapd saw a bent wire on 6/13 then there is no evidence that the wire was bent on 6/12. If the bent wire was only seen several months after 6/12 then the possibilities of who bent the wire are endless.

ps. i posted a picture of the walkway and it did show ANY foliage on the wall of the house as you claimed.
martin II

martin II

martin II, there was heavy foliage hanging over the top of the fence. No could have seen the bent wire unless they pulled that foliage back to reveal the top of the fence. I never heard where anyone did that.

I never said there was any foliage on the wall of Simpson's house on the south path. I said that the wall at the front of his property near his Rockingham gate was taller than the fence and that wall was covered with thick vines.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Kate,

Here is the problem of the "star struck" or the "love fest with OJ" theory. Everday "fans" of OJ Simpson or any superstar for that matter, have the luxury of being able to say, "he would never do this", "it makes no sense, he had it all"---the police on the other hand do not have this luxury. With their experience and in the area where they performed their jobs, they have seen it all. Every cop and detective knowthat domestic violence or crimes of passion, or just about any crime has no color borders, has no gender borders, has no wealth borders. And while personally these same cops and detectives might be wishing with all their might that they didn't even have to consider this person a prime suspect, it is their job.

I also find it impossible to believe that this same star would still have the same cop and detective "fans" after they arrive at the scene and see what these officers saw. IMO.