Evidence that Places OJ Simpson at the Crime Scene [Archive] - Page 8

William Anthony

12-22-2006, 09:04 AM

martin II, no I don't know that and evidently neither do you.

American Tragedy,
On Saturday, August 27, 1994 the criminal defense jury consultant "worked with about seventy five people divided equally among three rooms. In each room she showed slides and asked questions, with an assistant. The groups were splitting along ethnic lines almost without exception - but more surprising was this: Black middle aged women were Simpson's most aggressive champions.

"Her questions encouraged in depth answers. The feelings and prejudices of the group emerged as if in a therapy session." Cochran and others who were observing unseen behind the one way glass were startled. They'd assumed African American women would dislike Simpson for marrying white.

"Instead, black women hated her."

"They resented Nicole's lifestyle. The big house, the servants, the travel, the jewelry - all from a black man's money. The attorneys felt the envy. they didn't criticize Simpson for living an upscale white lifestyle, leaving his community behind. That wasn't important. He'd left them long ago."

"The gut issue was Nicole. This white woman had lived their fantasy. She had things they should have had. The team was stunned. The women came close to calling Nicole a wh-re. They came right to the edge of suggesting she got what she deserved. Everybody had assumed that black women would be risky jurors. They might easily turn against O.J. Clearly, the lawyers had been wrong. Virtually every middle aged African American woman in the focus group supported Simpson and resented the murder victim."

bobaugust

You have addedd an additional component to the issue of race and that is gender. I think that Black and minority jurors are more scrtinizing of LE than
are Whites, due to the difference in treatment received and their subsequent involvement in the LJS. I do not believe that Blacks are prone to acquit other Blacks, because of race, but are more stringent on LE as to their burden of Proof due to the history of LE and prosecutions' treatment of Blacks, i.e. guity until proven innocent as many of your posts indicate.

William Anthony

12-22-2006, 10:38 AM

That's right I do tend to call people who base their opinions on evidence and not on imagined speculation as reasonable thinking people. If there was any evidence that proved Simpson was not the killer, I would base my opinions on that also.

I don't believe imagined speculation discredits evidence. Reasonable explanations discredit imagined speculation.

The reality is that all of the relevant physical evidence in this case points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates Simpson.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too.

bobaugust

I think where we differ is what you call reasonable and that is based on an evidence viewer's frame of reference. The fact that trace could have been transfered is reasonable due to the manner the crime scene was processed.
I cannot say that it was, only that it is not unreasonable to believe it was. I think that, if one is so inclined to believe the words of LE without considering the demeanor of the witness, the transcripts may prove him guilty. However, when one considers the cross and the demeanor, there is probable doubt, imho. I do not think case law has adequately defined what is reasonable and, as I have previously stated, the law allows, in some cases for a defendant's belief to be unreasonable if he reasonably believed the unreasonable. Go
figure? Without incuring the ire of some, that, I believe, was the standard on reasonability used in the Butler case.

William Anthony

12-22-2006, 10:42 AM

Good one, I'll be sure to remember it when you use the word maybe.

bobaugust

A little humor is good for the soul!

martin II

12-22-2006, 11:31 AM

A little humor is good for the soul!

bob
i hope you find some new gloves under your christmas tree.
martin II

martin II

12-22-2006, 11:39 AM

bob
i hope you find some new gloves under your tree on monday.
martinii

martin II

12-22-2006, 12:53 PM

bob
i hope you receive a pair of new gloves monday
martin II

limakey

12-22-2006, 02:38 PM

Mr. August,

The scope of the investigation had to include that Mr. Simpson was either a prime suspect or that he would have to be there for his minor children who were woken up, taken out of the house by the police. The time delay, the things Phillips said to Simpson on the phone indicate that Mr. Simpson was a prime suspect and from the information they had, that was a very, very reasonable response. IMO.

bobaugust

12-22-2006, 05:26 PM

I think where we differ is what you call reasonable and that is based on an evidence viewer's frame of reference. The fact that trace could have been transfered is reasonable due to the manner the crime scene was processed.
I cannot say that it was, only that it is not unreasonable to believe it was. I think that, if one is so inclined to believe the words of LE without considering the demeanor of the witness, the transcripts may prove him guilty. However, when one considers the cross and the demeanor, there is probable doubt, imho. I do not think case law has adequately defined what is reasonable and, as I have previously stated, the law allows, in some cases for a defendant's belief to be unreasonable if he reasonably believed the unreasonable. Go
figure? Without incuring the ire of some, that, I believe, was the standard on reasonability used in the Butler case.

All Simpson's defense could do when confronted with the huge amount of physical evidence that pointed only to their client is dream up a myriad of unlikely possibilities to explain that evidence. From contamination, to conspiracy, to planting evidence.

Not one of their possibilities was ever supported by anything except imagination. And the one reasonable explanation for every single piece of evidence is that Simpson is the killer.

Could haves based on imagination by the defense are contradicted by could haves that anyone else could dream up. Could haves do not discredit the reality of what was found.

Could haves do not raise reasonable doubt to me nor any other reasonable thinking person. Now it there was some other physical evidence that pointed to someone else that could raise reasonable doubt. But that never happened in this case. There wasn't one single piece of evidence ever found that even remotely eliminated Simpson.

Every single pierce of relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. That's not a could have, that's a fact.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

12-23-2006, 12:55 AM

bob
i hope you receive a pair of new gloves monday
martin II

8:31 a.m.
8:39 a.m.
9:53 a.m.

Same post saying almost the exact thing only at 3 different times. Why don't you knock it off? Do you even know what you are doing? OMG, sorry, I already answered my own question! Thank God they didn't add to your post count. Geez, GMAB! :confused:

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

12-23-2006, 01:44 AM

Mr. August,

Marcia Clark was first chair in this trial. She was the lead DA---she did not have to plead with Darden not to do the glove demonstration. She could have told him that if he did the glove demonstration, he was disobeying a direct order and he would be fired. She didn't do that.

I do agree with any and all G's and NG's who believe that the fit of the gloves really did not matter. However, if gloves did fit him "like a glove", that would not have impressed me either. OJ Simpson is not the only man who wears extra large gloves.

The real issue with the gloves is how and when did they come off? If the gloves were very snug and tight to begin with and left his wrists exposed, then how did they come off and why no injuries to his wrists?

If those gloves did fit, again, how did they come off? That is the real question, IMO.

Another point, wasn't OJ's blood found at the rim of the Rockingham glove? How was he able only to bleed on the very edge of the glove? What about blood inside of the glove? Where is it in the palm or finger area.

Also, were the tags of the gloves entered into evidence? All of them?

limakey

12-23-2006, 01:53 AM

Taz,

A few things to consider, in the eyes of the DA's and the LAPD, this is a closed case. While offically it remains open, they have no desire to open this case up. They have nothing to gain from this but everything to lose, which is why I believe they have never gone after a person or persons who helped Simpson.

OJ and his lawyer claim they have given DA's clues or tips they have found, however, they can't control what the DA's and the LAPD do with them.

There is another important fact to remember, in many felony cases, both sides have witnesses who have been interviewed, have given importance evidence, however, they refuse to take the stand, that make it clear that what they are telling the investagors is off the record and if they are called into court, they will either lie or will make sure they can't be found when it the case comes to trial.

And again Taz, IMO, OJ Simpson knows that no matter what evidence that comes to light now, will not change anyone's mind. After all this time, any new evidence will viewed through very cynical eyes. IMO, it would not be believed nor would the DA's ever come out and say they tried the wrong man.

bobaugust

12-23-2006, 08:22 AM

The real issue with the gloves is how and when did they come off? If the gloves were very snug and tight to begin with and left his wrists exposed, then how did they come off and why no injuries to his wrists?

If those gloves did fit, again, how did they come off? That is the real question, IMO.

Another point, wasn't OJ's blood found at the rim of the Rockingham glove? How was he able only to bleed on the very edge of the glove? What about blood inside of the glove? Where is it in the palm or finger area.

Also, were the tags of the gloves entered into evidence? All of them?

limakey, if as we believe Simpson was behind Ron holding him with his left arm around Ron's neck and upper body, Ron may have grabbed Simpson's fingers squeezing them tightly. Simpson may have pulled his hand back leaving Ron holding only the glove which he then dropped or threw to the ground.

I know of no one who said Simpson's blood was found at the rim of the Rockingham glove. Simpson's blood was identified in a mixture of blood along with both victims that was found on the glove. The only thing that was said about the wrist of that glove is that is where Yamauchi put his initials.

As far as I know whatever tags were on the gloves remained on the gloves when they were entered into evidence.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-23-2006, 08:39 AM

William Anthony

12-23-2006, 11:39 AM

limakey, if as we believe Simpson was behind Ron holding him with his left arm around Ron's neck and upper body, Ron may have grabbed Simpson's fingers squeezing them tightly. Simpson may have pulled his hand back leaving Ron holding only the glove which he then dropped or threw to the ground.

I know of no one who said Simpson's blood was found at the rim of the Rockingham glove. Simpson's blood was identified in a mixture of blood along with both victims that was found on the glove. The only thing that was said about the wrist of that glove is that is where Yamauchi put his initials.

As far as I know whatever tags were on the gloves remained on the gloves when they were entered into evidence.

bobaugust

Do you have any questions about Simpson's missing blood and the mixture?

William Anthony

12-23-2006, 11:57 AM

All Simpson's defense could do when confronted with the huge amount of physical evidence that pointed only to their client is dream up a myriad of unlikely possibilities to explain that evidence. From contamination, to conspiracy, to planting evidence.

Not one of their possibilities was ever supported by anything except imagination. And the one reasonable explanation for every single piece of evidence is that Simpson is the killer.

Could haves based on imagination by the defense are contradicted by could haves that anyone else could dream up. Could haves do not discredit the reality of what was found.

bobaugust

You have used could haves and maybes, more than anyone on the board, imho. The defense did not have to produce evidence that was the prosecution's burden. What do you not understand? If you are relying on what I believe, was the erroneous ruling's in the civil trial to support your proposition, then I understand.

bobaugust

12-23-2006, 03:17 PM

You have used could haves and maybes, more than anyone on the board, imho. The defense did not have to produce evidence that was the prosecution's burden. What do you not understand? If you are relying on what I believe, was the erroneous ruling's in the civil trial to support your proposition, then I understand.

There's a big difference between my speculation and the defense's speculation. My could haves and maybes are used to explain what we believed might have happened based on the known evidence. The defense could haves and maybes were used about the known evidence and based only on imagination.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-23-2006, 03:33 PM

Do you have any questions about Simpson's missing blood and the mixture?

No, I believe Peratis only estimated the amount of blood he drew from Simpson, He never drew an exact amount then or before. As he said, "Eight milliliters is what we assume we normally draw. But we never measure it. There's no reason to. In all my years, no one has ever told me that I didn't draw enough blood."

There isn't one single shred of evidence that Simpson's reference blood was planted anywhere. Every claim the defense made about that was proved false. Did the defense point out a weakness in the police procedure for not recording the exact amount of blood that was draw? Evidently, since they had never been accused of that before. Has the LAPD changed their procedures? I don't know but I would think they have based on the critique Simpson's defense conducted about all of the bookkeeping details in the handling of evidence.

bobaugust

martin II

12-23-2006, 04:55 PM

bobaugust

12-23-2006, 06:25 PM

I HAVE POSTED THIS BEFORE

The excuse that Paretis(sp) gave for not using a vaccutainer to draw oj;s blood is lame at best. As the blood would have gone directly into the vaccutainer with edta.

Instead he, with vanhatter present, decided to use a syringe with no edta.
and although it had a calibrator on it's side, he said he did not look at it to see how much blood he drew.

He then claimes that he put the blood from the syringe into a vacctainer. he first said he drew 8cc. later he changed this and said 6 cc or 6 1/2 cc, or something less than 8 cc.

martin II

martin II, yes you have posted these false claims before.

Peratis explained that "With big people, like O.J. - who has big arms - I have found that it's easier to use a syringe. I used a syringe on O.J. and at a certain point the needle hit the wall of the vein and the blood stopped. I could have turned the syringe to get the blood to continue to flow, but if I did that, there would be the slightest danger that I could damage the wall. So I looked at the syringe, and it looked like enough,. So I stopped."

Peratis never said he drew 8 c.c.'s he said about 8 c.c.'s. Peratis did not put Simpson's blood from the syringe into a vacutainer, he put it into a test tube that had the preservative EDTA. Both Lange and Vannatter were present when he did that.

bobaugust

jotun

12-23-2006, 07:56 PM

Peratis explained that "With big people, like O.J. - who has big arms - I have found that it's easier to use a syringe. I used a syringe on O.J. and at a certain point the needle hit the wall of the vein and the blood stopped. I could have turned the syringe to get the blood to continue to flow, but if I did that, there would be the slightest danger that I could damage the wall. So I looked at the syringe, and it looked like enough,. So I stopped."

Peratis never said he drew 8 c.c.'s he said about 8 c.c.'s. Peratis did not put Simpson's blood from the syringe into a vacutainer, he put it into a test tube that had the preservative EDTA. Both Lange and Vannatter were present when he did that.

bobaugust

All:
MISSING BLOOD!!!
With EDTA.
Lame EXCUSE # 5

jotun

martin II

12-23-2006, 08:55 PM

All:
MISSING BLOOD!!!
With EDTA.
Lame EXCUSE # 5

jotun

jotun
A butterfly attatched to a vacutainer is the most accurate and safe way to draw blood. What Parietas did was use a syringe, without edta, which allowed him to transferclean blood to as many viles as he liked.Or as many as vanhatter may have told him to. imo jmo
If parentis did not look to see how much blood he drew, maby he drew 9 cc or 10 who knows.
martin II

limakey

12-24-2006, 01:34 AM

Mr. August,

Detective Phillips called Mark Fuhrman for a reason. He knew that Mark Fuhrman had responded to at least one 911 phone call from the Simpson estate. Detective Phillips also knew about the 1989 incident and either knew or was told of the 1993 incident, before Lange and Vanatter even got to Bundy.

It was his job to consider Simpson a prime suspect and when he spoke to Simpson, he did his job well, he gave as little information as possible to see if Simpson would slip up and say something that implicated himself in the murders. I have no problem with that, he was doing his job and he did it well.

When Simpson became upset and made the statement/asked the question, "Nicole killed, what do you mean killed?", Phillips did what he was suppose to do, he got Simpson to calm down and focus on his minor children.
However, that does not mean that Phillips did not realize the most important thing Simpson said during their conversation that clearly pointed his possible innocence. Phillips did his job during that conversation.

However, Mr. August, what if Commander Bushy told the detectives, look, we have 5 real good reasons to go over to Rockingham, the documented 911 phone calls at the Simpson estate, one involved a court case where Simpson pleaded no contest, we have 2 minor children who are at the police station who need to be with their family members ASAP. Also, at least one of the victims is the wife or ex-wife of a very, very famous man, it is possible that Simpson could be a victim, and the scene at Bundy, the brutality of the crime, this could be a crime passion and there is a good possibility that evidence is being destroyed or bags are being packed to leave the country.

And last but not least, the media. I would agree that finding out through the media that a loved one is dead must be horrible, regardless of fame and fortune. And I don't have a problem with this reason, however, my problem is they waited way, way too long.

Now if Commander Busy only testified he gave the order because of the media and children, is he lying? In other words, he might be telling the truth, just no the whole truth.

Mr. August, when you are a cop, you have to be trained to think of the worst of people rather then the best of them. If all they had to think about was the best of people, we wouldn't a police force, IMO. We all well aware that time is of the essence in any murder investigation.

William Anthony

12-26-2006, 11:12 AM

No, I believe Peratis only estimated the amount of blood he drew from Simpson, He never drew an exact amount then or before. As he said, "Eight milliliters is what we assume we normally draw. But we never measure it. There's no reason to. In all my years, no one has ever told me that I didn't draw enough blood."

There isn't one single shred of evidence that Simpson's reference blood was planted anywhere. Every claim the defense made about that was proved false. Did the defense point out a weakness in the police procedure for not recording the exact amount of blood that was draw? Evidently, since they had never been accused of that before. Has the LAPD changed their procedures? I don't know but I would think they have based on the critique Simpson's defense conducted about all of the bookkeeping details in the handling of evidence.

bobaugust

You choose to believe that and the staged video deposition. Talk about bias, imho.

William Anthony

12-26-2006, 11:18 AM

There's a big difference between my speculation and the defense's speculation. My could haves and maybes are used to explain what we believed might have happened based on the known evidence. The defense could haves and maybes were used about the known evidence and based only on imagination.

bobaugust

The defense impeached what the prosecution and others thought they knew about the evidence.

bobaugust

12-26-2006, 12:50 PM

The defense impeached what the prosecution and others thought they knew about the evidence.

So you think imagined speculation impeaches physical evidence?

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-26-2006, 01:02 PM

You choose to believe that and the staged video deposition. Talk about bias, imho.

And you choose to believe fantasies.

bobaugust

martin II

12-26-2006, 01:13 PM

And you choose to believe fantasies.

bobaugust

Paretis lied. plain and simple.

If the blood was to eventually be placed into a vile, there was no reason why
Paretis did not draw the blood directly into a vile in the first place rather than
use the syringe which caused him to transfer blood wit no accountability.imo
Maby he drew 8-9-or 10 cc

martin II

William Anthony

12-26-2006, 01:23 PM

And you choose to believe fantasies.

bobaugust

I choose to believe that the defense offered sowed reasonable doubt by plausible explainations showing that the sloopy handling of the crime scene and the evidence at the lab could have led to transfers and contamination plus motive and opportunity for evidence planting. I do not think that a person should be convicted on that quality of evidence.

William Anthony

12-26-2006, 01:25 PM

So you think imagined speculation impeaches physical evidence?

bobaugust

The defense offered tangible physical evidence of the sloppy handling of the murder scene and I had the chance to view the testimonies.

martin II

12-26-2006, 01:56 PM

The defense offered tangible physical evidence of the sloppy handling of the murder scene and I had the chance to view the testimonies.

The prosecution talked about mountains of evidence and the defense found the vallies between the mouintains where reasonbale doubt was.
martin II

bobaugust

12-26-2006, 02:13 PM

The prosecution talked about mountains of evidence and the defense found the vallies between the mouintains where reasonbale doubt was.
martin II

The defense found only meaningless and minor mistakes not one of which ever changed one singe piece of evidence. These murders were committed outside not in a sterile environment. Contamination does not change evidence. Contamination does not change DNA. Despite contamination every single piece of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else. None of it eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

socaldiva

12-26-2006, 02:19 PM

The prosecution talked about mountains of evidence and the defense found the vallies between the mouintains where reasonbale doubt was.
martin II

Is that where the village idiots (jurors) lived? In the "vallies"? :D

bobaugust

12-26-2006, 02:27 PM

Paretis lied. plain and simple.

If the blood was to eventually be placed into a vile, there was no reason why
Paretis did not draw the blood directly into a vile in the first place rather than
use the syringe which caused him to transfer blood wit no accountability.imo
Maby he drew 8-9-or 10 cc

martin II

martin II, Peratis gave a very reasonable explanation why he used a syringe. Your imagined speculation and accusations are meaningless. Every single claim that blood was planted from Simpson’s reference sample was proven false.

bobaugust

martin II

12-26-2006, 02:52 PM

martin II, Peratis gave a very reasonable explanation why he used a syringe. Your imagined speculation and accusations are meaningless. Every single claim that blood was planted from Simpson’s reference sample was proven false.

bobaugust

bob

Peratis is the only RN that i have talked to that believes that drawing blood with a syringe is more accurate and safer than drawing blood using a butterfly and vaccutainer. imo
You can believe his lie if you like but i don't.
martin II

martin II

12-26-2006, 02:56 PM

The prosecution talked about mountains of evidence and the defense found the valleys between the mouintains where reasonbale doubt was.
martin II

typo

vallies should be valleys.

martin II

12-26-2006, 03:17 PM

The defense found only meaningless and minor mistakes not one of which ever changed one singe piece of evidence. These murders were committed outside not in a sterile environment. Contamination does not change evidence. Contamination does not change DNA. Despite contamination every single piece of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else. None of it eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

bob

mistakes + lies + sloppy collection + no murder weapom + faulty time line +
no witnesses + parks confusing testimony + katos confusing testimony +
only little blood where there should have been loads of blood + no origin for fibers + different hair in cap + no weapon + no motive = reasonable doubt =
NOT GUILTY.

MARTIN ii

2L8 4A D8

12-26-2006, 04:45 PM

bob

mistakes + lies + sloppy collection + no murder weapom + faulty time line +
no witnesses + parks confusing testimony + katos confusing testimony +
only little blood where there should have been loads of blood + no origin for fibers + different hair in cap + no weapon + no motive = reasonable doubt =
NOT GUILTY.

MARTIN ii

Originally Posted by Suzee10

<snipped>

...The original crime scene at Bundy where the murders occured only had three blood types present, Nichole's, Ron's and simpson's. Ron and and Nichole are dead, that leaves only one person left, simpson and he is very much alive. simpson is the killer. Vanatter was not on the scene and had not taken simpson's blood until the next afternoon. Impossible for anyone to have spread simpson's blood at the orginal crime scene except simpson.

Uh huh. Sounds to me that you completely discount the DNA just like the idiot Jurors did. Just how do you get around the DNA, huh? Not one of you NG's have given any reasonable, common sense explanation for the DNA found at Bundy. And I am tired of hearing, "Oh, Vanatter poured OJ's blood all over the Bundy Crime scene with the vile that he had in his pocket!" That is the most assinine explanation that I have ever heard of. However, I do consider the sources! :no:

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

12-26-2006, 07:35 PM

bob

Peratis is the only RN that i have talked to that believes that drawing blood with a syringe is more accurate and safer than drawing blood using a butterfly and vaccutainer. imo
You can believe his lie if you like but i don't.
martin II

martin II, it doesn't matter how many RN's you spoke with. Peratis never said using a syringe was more accurate or safer. He said as an RN for 40 years experience he found that it was easier to to use a syringe on people with big arms.

Peratis did nothing wrong. Nothing sinister ever happened with Simpson's blood. Your arguments are meaningless.

bobaugust

martin II

12-26-2006, 07:43 PM

martin II, it doesn't matter how many RN's you spoke with. Peratis never said using a syringe was more accurate or safer. He said as an RN for 40 years experience he found that it was easier to to use a syringe on people with big arms.

Peratis did nothing wrong. Nothing sinister ever happened with Simpson's blood. Your arguments are meaningless.

bobaugust

BOB
the big arm excuse is big BS
martin II

limakey

12-26-2006, 11:34 PM

Mr. August,

No one said that the nurse "did anything wrong". In fact, the questions that surround his testimony is based on what he testified in the grand jury and the prelim hearing. No ever said that he did not draw enough blood for tests to be conducted.

Once he drew the blood from Simpson, it was not his job to maintain and record how much blood was taken from the samples for tests. In other words, it was his job to draw blood, not maintain the records for it. However, you forget, the DA's knew very, very early what the defense was going do. The had Stephen Singular's book and knew which swatches or samples were going to be questioned. The DA's were desperate, they knew they had to find a response and they knew there was only person who could provide a lame but perhaps plausable reason was the RN.

Again, IMO.

limakey

12-26-2006, 11:47 PM

Mr. August,

I'm not sure I understand, are you saying the gloves, before the murders shrunk because of their age as well as the weather conditions? Or did the shrinkage take place due to blood, the freezing and unfreezing of the glove?

The DA's were in total control of the demonstration. The DA's could have made Simpson try the gloves back on, with out the latex gloves or after it was explained to the jury that the inside of the gloves were not lining the glove properly because of the tests that had to be conducted on them.

Why didn't a recent or a current representative of Isotoner glovers testify about the gloves? Are you saying that these other respresentatives would not have had the same knowledge that Rubin had?

And again, what does the fit of the gloves actually prove? And if the gloves were either too small or two big, does that mean it would have been impossible for Simpson to have worn them during the murders? Of course not, the questions about the glove is how and when did the come off and how and when did it get to Rockingham.

IMO.

limakey

12-27-2006, 12:28 AM

Mr. August,

Petrocelli could have made Simpson put the gloves on during the civil trial. If the defense did have Simpson try the gloves on, with the same results as the criminal trial---then wouldn't the "old" excuses for the shrinkage of the gloves come into play? What would have changed had Simpson put the gloves on?

If they didn't fit, would you change your mind about this case?

fbgweezer

12-27-2006, 08:56 AM

You will never understand, the defense only has to offer a plausible/believable explanation and there was testimony on the ease with which trace evidence is transferable. The defense did not have to prove anything. We should convict a defendant based on LE's, what you now claim, as "minor mistakes". You have previously admitted that a defendant should not be convicted on LE's mistakes. If those mistakes lead to a plausible explanation as to why blood and trace is found on an evidentiary item, then the evidence should not be trusted, imho. wa -- would you give me your scenario/explanation of how orenthal's gloves (receipt showing Nicole purchased; pictures of orenthal wearing), hat (hair consistent with orenthal's), blood (not containing preservative), fiber (consistent with the Bronco carpet), footprints (size 12 BM -- orenthal's size and pictures showing him wearing) got to the murder scene before LE?

William Anthony

12-27-2006, 09:06 AM

wa -- would you give me your scenario/explanation of how orenthal's gloves (receipt showing Nicole purchased; pictures of orenthal wearing), hat (hair consistent with orenthal's), blood (not containing preservative), fiber (consistent with the Bronco carpet), footprints (size 12 BM -- orenthal's size and pictures showing him wearing) got to the murder scene before LE?

I think that my post was addressing the trace, which could have been transfered by the injection of the blanket into the crime scene. There is evidence that Simpson's was at Bundy on several occasions prior to the night of the murders. Also, it is possible the unidentified hairs belonged to someone who was wearing the hat other than Simpson.

William Anthony

12-27-2006, 09:22 AM

Mr. August,

No one said that the nurse "did anything wrong". In fact, the questions that surround his testimony is based on what he testified in the grand jury and the prelim hearing. No ever said that he did not draw enough blood for tests to be conducted.

.

Once he drew the blood from Simpson, it was not his job to maintain and record how much blood was taken from the samples for tests. In other words, it was his job to draw blood, not maintain the records for it. However, you forget, the DA's knew very, very early what the defense was going do. The had Stephen Singular's book and knew which swatches or samples were going to be questioned. The DA's were desperate, they knew they had to find a response and they knew there was only person who could provide a lame but perhaps plausable reason was the RN.

Again, IMO.

Dear Limakey,

How was your X-mas? I differ. It was his job to record how much blood was taken. I am not saying he assisted in any planting, if any, and agree that his video was a hoax and a stage production to cover the missing blood. I also do not understand why the defense was not allowed to cross on the video

fbgweezer

12-27-2006, 10:00 AM

I think that my post was addressing the trace, which could have been transfered by the injection of the blanket into the crime scene. There is evidence that Simpson's was at Bundy on several occasions prior to the night of the murders. Also, it is possible the unidentified hairs belonged to someone who was wearing the hat other than Simpson. We know that he was there prior to her death because Nicole told family and friends that she was afraid orenthal had stolen her house key (the missing key was found with orenthal's possessions). orenthal never lived at that house; in fact, nicole and the children had lived there only a short time. Which of the evidence do you feel the blanket could have introduced? The Bronco carpet fiber, orenthal's hair embedded in the cap, orenthal's blood or the size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints?

William Anthony

12-27-2006, 10:27 AM

We know that he was there prior to her death because Nicole told family and friends that she was afraid orenthal had stolen her house key (the missing key was found with orenthal's possessions). orenthal never lived at that house; in fact, nicole and the children had lived there only a short time. Which of the evidence do you feel the blanket could have introduced? The Bronco carpet fiber, orenthal's hair embedded in the cap, orenthal's blood or the size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints?

The Bronco Fibers and the hair. I do not think the key played any part in the murders. There has been testimony that he was there, prior to the night of the murders. You keep saying pigen-toed but have yet to provide a link.

fbgweezer

12-27-2006, 11:09 AM

The Bronco Fibers and the hair. I do not think the key played any part in the murders. There has been testimony that he was there, prior to the night of the murders. You keep saying pigen-toed but have yet to provide a link. how about the hat, glove, footprints, blood? what's your scenario/theory how those got there before LE?

I've provided the link to "pigeon-toed" many times. The reference can be found in these threads.

fbgweezer

12-27-2006, 11:14 AM

*Snipped*You keep saying pigen-toed but have yet to provide a link.http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016472.html "At the age of two, he contracted rickets, leaving his legs skinny, bow-legged and pigeon-toed. Because Eunice, a hospital orderly, couldn't afford braces, she made him wear a pair of shoes connected by an iron bar for a few hours almost every day until he was five." One more time.

William Anthony

12-27-2006, 11:18 AM

*Snipped*http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016472.html "At the age of two, he contracted rickets, leaving his legs skinny, bow-legged and pigeon-toed. Because Eunice, a hospital orderly, couldn't afford braces, she made him wear a pair of shoes connected by an iron bar for a few hours almost every day until he was five." One more time.

I am speaking of the footprint.

William Anthony

12-27-2006, 11:20 AM

how about the hat, glove, footprints, blood? what's your scenario/theory how those got there before LE?

I've provided the link to "pigeon-toed" many times. The reference can be found in these threads.

Foot prints, belonging to whom? Who wore the other items?

fbgweezer

12-27-2006, 11:37 AM

Foot prints, belonging to whom? Who wore the other items? Let's see: size 12 pigeon-toed silga sole (BM)footprints (orenthal's size and pigeon-toed as well as 30+ pictures of him wearing BM shoes); cap with orenthal's embedded hair (orenthal said the hat could be his that he did have caps like that in his closet on Rockingham); x-large Aris glove (size and style that Nicole purchased and pictures of orenthal wearing); orenthal's blood.

http://www.geocities.com/ambwww/OJ-SIMPSON-EVIDENCE.htm "Bodziak was able to blow up the photo and actually see the Silga sole treads, the same pattern as the bloody footprints leading down the foot path, away from Nicole’s and Ron’s bodies. The photograph also clearly showed that Simpson was pigeon-toed, the bloody footprints were pigeon-toed as well."

Now, given other people could have worn the items, how did they end up at the murder scene on that night? And how in the world did his blood get on the ground there?

2L8 4A D8

12-27-2006, 12:17 PM

Foot prints, belonging to whom? Who wore the other items?

I just knew that you would weazle out of giving a straight, logical, common sense answer to Weezer's question. Again, "Let's baffle them with my bullsh*t" and see if that flies!

More importantly, as it is worded a little differently, I would like an answer to the question posted below by Weezer:

how about the hat, glove, footprints, blood? what's your scenario/theory how those got there before LE?

<snipped>

However, I am not going to hold my breath in getting a straight, logical, common sense answer from you because you have none and you know it! So quit with the games already! This isn't kindergarten!

JMO and MOO!!

martin II

12-27-2006, 01:16 PM

Foot prints, belonging to whom? Who wore the other items?

william

There were no pigeon toed foot prints made in any crime scene in this case.
fbg has continued to make this comment but has NEVER posted and testimony tomprove this. Bodiazak drawing definately did not show this.
so it is just confusion or more TWISTING of facts that she is doing AGAIN
martin II

socaldiva

12-27-2006, 01:24 PM

william

There were no pigeon toed foot prints made in any crime scene in this case.
fbg has continued to make this comment but has NEVER posted and testimony tomprove this. Bodiazak drawing definately did not show this.
so it is just confusion or more TWISTING of facts that she is doing AGAIN
martin II

I think the only TWISTING going on here is by YOU. IIRC, the prints themselves were not pigeon toed, but what is produced by a person that is pigeon toed. It's been posted several times. Is it too complicated for you?

fbgweezer

12-27-2006, 02:15 PM

william

There were no pigeon toed foot prints made in any crime scene in this case.
fbg has continued to make this comment but has NEVER posted and testimony tomprove this. Bodiazak drawing definately did not show this.
so it is just confusion or more TWISTING of facts that she is doing AGAIN
martin II
I keep posting the links -- not my fault if you want to ignore the obvious.

martin II

12-27-2006, 04:43 PM

I keep posting the links -- not my fault if you want to ignore the obvious.

there was no testimony in either trial to support what you claim so i take your comments to be more STREATCHING AND TWISTING of facts.
martin II

fbgweezer

12-27-2006, 05:16 PM

there was no testimony in either trial to support what you claim so i take your comments to be more STREATCHING AND TWISTING of facts.
martin II I have posted links to the facts -- read them.

martin II

12-27-2006, 06:13 PM

I have posted links to the facts -- read them.

who testified this this in court??
martin II

jotun

12-27-2006, 09:04 PM

All:
Isn't it interesting or make that SAD that this thread and only this thread has been retitled.Still attributed to BIG BEN tho.Went from
WOW THE DISTORTATIONS [INNOENCE]
to
EVIDENCE THAT PLACES[GUILT]

jotun

jotun

12-27-2006, 10:30 PM

who testified this this in court??
martin II

Martin:
NO BODY...
The footprints were NOT pigeon-toed.
From that host,was only a line in
ENRON Petroselli's book.
But do you remember JOHNNIE asking Patrolman Thompson if he noticed the way O.J. WALKED? He said no, so Johnnie couldn't get it in. So we know for a fact the footprints were NOT pigeon-toed.Or Johnnie wouldn't have tried to get into testimony.

jotun

martin II

12-27-2006, 10:44 PM

Martin:
NO BODY...
The footprints were NOT pigeon-toed.
From that host,was only a line in
ENRON Petroselli's book.
But do you remember JOHNNIE asking Patrolman Thompson if he noticed the way O.J. WALKED? He said no, so Johnnie couldn't get it in. So we know for a fact the footprints were NOT pigeon-toed.Or Johnnie wouldn't have tried to get into testimony.

jotun

jotun
i have told weezer this many times but she does like to deny the truth many times in order to try to get her opinion in.
martin II

martin II

12-27-2006, 10:48 PM

jotun

12-27-2006, 11:43 PM

i noticed that
who changed it??
martin II

Martin:
Would assume one of the WATERS.

What's next ???
OTHER POSSIBLE SUSPECTS & THEORIES
to
NO OTHER POSSIBLE SUSPECTS & THEORIES
or
CORRUPTION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
to
FUHRMAM-SUPERCOP
etc

jotun

2L8 4A D8

12-27-2006, 11:55 PM

jotun
i have told weezer this many times but she does like to deny the truth many times in order to try to get her opinion in.
martin II

Just turn it around SFB and maybe then it will probably make sense to you, but I doubt it:

"I have told martin II this many times but he does like to deny the truth many times in order to try to get his opinion in." Duh! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

12-27-2006, 11:56 PM

limakey

12-28-2006, 12:23 AM

2L8 4A D8

12-28-2006, 01:47 AM

Martin:
Would assume one of the WATERS.

What's next ???
OTHER POSSIBLE SUSPECTS & THEORIES
to
NO OTHER POSSIBLE SUSPECTS & THEORIES
or
CORRUPTION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
to
FUHRMAM-SUPERCOP
etc

jotun

What does it matter if the Thread name was changed by whoever? Bottom line, whether you all like it or not, OJ Simpson was at the Bundy Crime Scene the night of June 12, 1994! Hello! Duh! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

12-28-2006, 02:27 AM

William,

I sort of agree with you about the fibers, while I don't think the defense really worried about them, I do believe the DA's were desperate and put way, way too much into them. Marcia Clark had to be warned several times about using the word "match" when it came to this type of testimony. IMO, it appeared that they DA's were desperate to place more weight on this evidence and that the jurors saw this.

Remember, the gloves didn't fit, the hat didn't fit, the hair that was found inside the hat I believe was consistent with an African-American. There was another hat inside the home, the same size and same color.

IMO, while the DA's focused on these fibers that they couldn't prove where they came from, opened up more questions. Where are these fibers inside Simpson home? His cars? Why were the only Bronco fibers found on evidence that already had more questions then a two year old?

limakey, Clark was prohibited from using the word match when she was speaking about the hair evidence, not the fiber evidence. She wasn't prohibited from saying they were a mirror match.

The gloves did fit Simpson. The hat fit Simpson. There were 12 hairs found in and on the knit hat that microscopically matched Simpson's hair. There were six hair fragments that were found in the hat that were unidentified. They were older hair and could have been Simpson's hair. The hat found inside Nicole's condo was a smaller hat then the killer's hat.

The exact same blue black cotton fibers were found on Ron's shirt, the Rockingham glove, and on Simpson's socks.
Fibers consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet were found on the knit hat and on the Rockingham glove

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-28-2006, 02:44 AM

IMO, I believe that the DA's refusal to use Simpson's interview with the police is a very clear indicator that they did not have confidence in being able to proof that Simpson's blood, was in fact left there that night.

How many police officers testified the blood drops they saw were fresh? Yet, they have Simpson saying that it was at least a week or so since he was last at Nicole's? If they had the confidence in their evidence, they would have introduce that interview.

To believe that the DA's didn't use the statement because his statements were "self serving" is just plain insane. If any of us give a statement, regardless of the forum, anyone can say that it is self-serving. And softball questions? When was the last time you were at Bundy was not a softball question. Asking Simpson who might have done this is not a softball question. There were no softball questions.

However, if Simpson started giving a date and that he specifically remembered bleeding on that date, well then I think the police would have introduce it. If Simpson started making up reasons why and who could have done this, then I think the police would have used it.

If the police had the confidence those blood drops were in fact fresh, they would have introduce the statement. IMO.

limakey, there was never any question that the blood drops were fresh blood. At least not by any of Simpson's attorneys. The only people who make that claim are fanatic Simpson supporters on discussion groups. The claim is false.

The blood drops at Bundy were part of the killer's blood trail that went from the victims to outside the rear gate at Bundy, in Simpson's Bronco, and outside and inside Simpson's house. A blood trial that tells us the killer left Bundy drove Simpson's Bronco to Rockingham walked up Simpson's driveway and entered Simpson's house. All of that blood was later identified as Simpson's blood.

bobaugust

limakey

12-28-2006, 06:54 AM

bobaugust

12-28-2006, 07:45 AM

Mr. August,

Yes, there was always a question regarding the "freshness" of the blood drops. Had there been no question of this, they would have introduced Simpson's statement into evidence. They would not only say the blood was degraded because of the AC unit in the truck, they would proved that is what happen. They did none of these things.

And there were several people who could have testified about those blood drops not being there before that night, not one of them was called. Why is that?

limakey, the reason the prosecution decided not to use Simpson's statement had absolutely nothing to do with the blood evidence in this case. There were no blood drops at Bundy before that night. That's why no one testified about it.

Without a Doubt, Marcia Clark
"I had serious qualms about playing this interview tape before the grand jury. And in the months to come I would debate endlessly whether to play it at trial. It was a very risky gambit. That decision would rest largely upon the composition and sentiment of the jury. If we ended up with jurors who were star struck by the defendant, would they be offended by his callousness toward his wife and lover, or would they be beguiled by his crude jocularity? Would they take his loss of memory and vague responses for evasion, or would they see an innocent man willing to talk to the police despite his pain and exhaustion, and who got nothing but suspicion in return? I decided to hold off.

There were a couple of good arguments for allowing it in. Phil had gotten Simpson to admit that the last time he'd visited Bundy was five days earlier and he told detectives he had not been bleeding at that time. That made it patently absurd for the defense to argue that the blood drops had been left by Simpson on a social visit to Bundy before June 12. But on the other hand, the defense wasn't even thinking about arguing that Simpson had bled there on some other occasion, so we'd gain nothing."

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 09:44 AM

limakey, Clark was prohibited from using the word match when she was speaking about the hair evidence, not the fiber evidence. She wasn't prohibited from saying they were a mirror match.

The gloves did fit Simpson. The hat fit Simpson. There were 12 hairs found in and on the knit hat that microscopically matched Simpson's hair. There were six hair fragments that were found in the hat that were unidentified. They were older hair and could have been Simpson's hair. The hat found inside Nicole's condo was a smaller hat then the killer's hat.

The exact same blue black cotton fibers were found on Ron's shirt, the Rockingham glove, and on Simpson's socks.
Fibers consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet were found on the knit hat and on the Rockingham glove

bobaugust

Dear Limakey,

The question posed is to bobaugust, as I know he will not consider our interpretations reasonable.

Contamination and lack of proof means what to you?

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 09:45 AM

I keep posting the links -- not my fault if you want to ignore the obvious.

I did not see anything in the post that refered to the bloody shoeprints as being pigen-toed.

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 09:47 AM

Dear Limakey,

The question posed is to bobaugust, as I know he will not consider our interpretations reasonable.

Contamination and lack of proof means what to you?

contamination does not change DNA.

How much more proof do you need: orenthal's hair, glove, cap, fiber, blood and size 12 pigeon toed BM footprints at the murder scene.

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 09:49 AM

contamination does not change DNA.

How much more proof do you need: orenthal's hair, glove, cap, fiber, blood and size 12 pigeon toed BM footprints at the murder scene.

There would be no need to change the DNA, since the evidence supports that it could have been improperly injected into the scene through contamination. I need proof beyond a reasonable doubt as should all Americans.

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 09:54 AM

limakey, the reason the prosecution decided not to use Simpson's statement had absolutely nothing to do with the blood evidence in this case. There were no blood drops at Bundy before that night. That's why no one testified about it.

Without a Doubt, Marcia Clark
"I had serious qualms about playing this interview tape before the grand jury. And in the months to come I would debate endlessly whether to play it at trial. It was a very risky gambit. That decision would rest largely upon the composition and sentiment of the jury. If we ended up with jurors who were star struck by the defendant, would they be offended by his callousness toward his wife and lover, or would they be beguiled by his crude jocularity? Would they take his loss of memory and vague responses for evasion, or would they see an innocent man willing to talk to the police despite his pain and exhaustion, and who got nothing but suspicion in return? I decided to hold off.

There were a couple of good arguments for allowing it in. Phil had gotten Simpson to admit that the last time he'd visited Bundy was five days earlier and he told detectives he had not been bleeding at that time. That made it patently absurd for the defense to argue that the blood drops had been left by Simpson on a social visit to Bundy before June 12. But on the other hand, the defense wasn't even thinking about arguing that Simpson had bled there on some other occasion, so we'd gain nothing."

bobaugust

Dear Limakey,

If I might, there was no testimony about blood drops at the scene before that night, because the prosecution either failed to introduce it or there was evidence of blood drops at the scene prior to that night, as Nicole had regular visitors, imho. I believe the latter. Simspson testified in the civil trial from what bobaugust posted that he did not remember bleeding there on a prior visit.

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 10:05 AM

There would be no need to change the DNA, since the evidence supports that it could have been improperly injected into the scene through contamination. I need proof beyond a reasonable doubt as should all Americans.

How did they get the gloves (receipt showing Nicole bought and pics showing orenthal wearing same style/color), cap with embedded hair consistent with orenthal's (orenthal said he had such caps), size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints (9% of population wear size 12, 30+ pics showing orenthal wearing BM's months before murders, orenthal wears size 12 and is pigeon-toed), blood on ground the night of the murders (never disputed by defense that it was orenthal's and never argued that it contained preservatives)?

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 10:11 AM

Dear Limakey,

If I might, there was no testimony about blood drops at the scene before that night, because the prosecution either failed to introduce it or there was evidence of blood drops at the scene prior to that night, as Nicole had regular visitors, imho. I believe the latter. Simspson testified in the civil trial from what bobaugust posted that he did not remember bleeding there on a prior visit.

I'm sorry but your post makes absolutely no sense. orenthal testified that he had been to the house about five days before the murders but did not walk on that side of the house. orenthal said he was not bleeding during that visit. orenthal did not live at Bundy and had never lived at Bundy. The blood drops were photographed and collected before orenthal returned from Chicago. The defense never argued or disputed that the blood was orenthal's.

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 10:14 AM

I'm sorry but your post makes absolutely no sense. orenthal testified that he had been to the house about five days before the murders but did not walk on that side of the house. orenthal said he was not bleeding during that visit. orenthal did not live at Bundy and had never lived at Bundy. The blood drops were photographed and collected before orenthal returned from Chicago. The defense never argued or disputed that the blood was orenthal's.

Testifying that you do not recall or that you do not believe is not the same as saying that you did not or were not.

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 10:21 AM

Testifying that you do not recall or that you do not believe is not the same as saying that you did not or were not.

the blood contained no preservatives and were to the left of the size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints. how do you think that happened?

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 10:46 AM

the blood contained no preservatives and were to the left of the size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints. how do you think that happened?

Those are questions for the prosecution to prove. They could have happened when he killed them or they could have been left there at sometime prior to the murders, and I have still seen no evidence or proof that the footprints were pigen-toed.

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 10:57 AM

Those are questions for the prosecution to prove. They could have happened when he killed them or they could have been left there at sometime prior to the murders, and I have still seen no evidence or proof that the footprints were pigen-toed. The prosecution did prove it -- you just don't want to accept it. There is no reason for orenthal's blood to be at Bundy. He did not live there and had never lived there. In fact, Nicole and the kids had not lived there very long so the timeframe when his blood could be there is limited. He testified that he had been there about five days before the murders but did not walk on that side of the house and was not bleeding.

I've posted links to orenthal being pigeon-toed and a link to the footprints being made by someone pigeon-toed.

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 11:10 AM

The prosecution did prove it -- you just don't want to accept it. There is no reason for orenthal's blood to be at Bundy. He did not live there and had never lived there. In fact, Nicole and the kids had not lived there very long so the timeframe when his blood could be there is limited. He testified that he had been there about five days before the murders but did not walk on that side of the house and was not bleeding.

I've posted links to orenthal being pigeon-toed and a link to the footprints being made by someone pigeon-toed.

The prosecution did not prove it or there would have been a different verdict, imo. I may have over looked that wording in the link I saw. I repeat, according to bobaugust's post he testified he did not recall bleeding.

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 11:16 AM

The prosecution did not prove it or there would have been a different verdict, imo. I may have over looked that wording in the link I saw. I repeat, according to bobaugust's post he testified he did not recall bleeding.

There was not going to be a different verdict -- even if there had been a video. The criminal trial jury could not see the evidence through the color of the defendant and were blinded by their hate of LE.

orenthal testified that he was at Bundy about five days before the murders. orenthal testified that he was not on that side of the house. orenthal testified that he was not bleeding. Or maybe you are suggesting that he was bleeding on that day and he happened to have on his size 12 pigeon-toed BM shoes, and Nicole was also bleeding (sorry but I can't account for how Ron's blood was there before he was murdered) and orenthal was bleeding and orenthal was 'wrassling' and left his blood and footprints. Do you also think that he was wearing his cap and gloves when he visited on that June day?

martin II

12-28-2006, 11:21 AM

I did not see anything in the post that refered to the bloody shoeprints as being pigen-toed.

william
Bodziak never testified to any pigeon toed foot prints either. He made a diagram of the prints and it was presented in court. No pigeon toed prints.
weezer is trying to use a article where someone gave their opinion as proof.

Streatching and twisting facts. imo

martin II

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 11:22 AM

There was not going to be a different verdict -- even if there had been a video. The criminal trial jury could not see the evidence through the color of the defendant and were blinded by their hate of LE.

orenthal testified that he was at Bundy about five days before the murders. orenthal testified that he was not on that side of the house. orenthal testified that he was not bleeding. Or maybe you are suggesting that he was bleeding on that day and he happened to have on his size 12 pigeon-toed BM shoes, and Nicole was also bleeding (sorry but I can't account for how Ron's blood was there before he was murdered) and orenthal was bleeding and orenthal was 'wrassling' and left his blood and footprints. Do you also think that he was wearing his cap and gloves when he visited on that June day?

You have a different recollection of the testimony that BA posted from the civil trial than I do. You have a different opinion as to the weight of the evidence presented by the prosecution. I am not suggesting anything, but I am thinking that there is no evidence showing, who, if anyone, wore the cap and gloves on that night.

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 11:28 AM

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 11:34 AM

william
Bodziak never testified to any pigeon toed foot prints either. He made a diagram of the prints and it was presented in court. No pigeon toed prints.
weezer is trying to use a article where someone gave their opinion as proof.

Streatching and twisting facts. imo

martin II

I don't need to 'streatch' and twist the facts. The facts speak for themselves. Why do you think there was so much talk about orenthal being pigeon-toed? Why would it have even come up during the criminal trial? Because the footprints were size 12 pigeon-toed BM (9% of the population are a size 12 and I can't even begin to guess the statistics what the percentage would be of that 9% that are pigeon-toed, knew Nicole, had abused Nicole, had threatened Nicole, did not have an alibi for the murder timeline).

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 11:37 AM

Forget the prosecution. I'm hoping you will explain to me your theory/scenario on how the hair, cap, gloves, footprints, blood and fiber got to Bundy on the night orenthal's ex-wife was butchered. Items that were found, photographed and collected before orenthal returned from Chicago.

I do not have one theory. There are many. You are assuming that they got there on that night. That assumption is one that may or may not be true and this is where I begin.

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 11:44 AM

I do not have one theory. There are many. You are assuming that they got there on that night. That assumption is one that may or may not be true and this is where I begin.

Okay -- If not on that night, then when? Remember, Nicole and the children had not been at Bundy very long and orenthal did and had never lived there. what's your theory on how the blood and footprints got there?

martin II

12-28-2006, 12:02 PM

I don't need to 'streatch' and twist the facts. The facts speak for themselves. Why do you think there was so much talk about orenthal being pigeon-toed? Why would it have even come up during the criminal trial? Because the footprints were size 12 pigeon-toed BM (9% of the population are a size 12 and I can't even begin to guess the statistics what the percentage would be of that 9% that are pigeon-toed, knew Nicole, had abused Nicole, had threatened Nicole, did not have an alibi for the murder timeline).

weezer

there was no testimony in either trial concerning pigeon toed foot prints found at bundy. You may have posted someones opinion or just plain gossip and rumor. nothing new about that.imo

i think, for some reason you believe pigeon toed carries a negative conatation and that is why you have tried to tie this to oj.

There were no pigeon toed footprints found at bundy by anyone.
So as i said you are streatching and twisting again.

martin II

martin II

12-28-2006, 12:07 PM

How did they get the gloves (receipt showing Nicole bought and pics showing orenthal wearing same style/color), cap with embedded hair consistent with orenthal's (orenthal said he had such caps), size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints (9% of population wear size 12, 30+ pics showing orenthal wearing BM's months before murders, orenthal wears size 12 and is pigeon-toed), blood on ground the night of the murders (never disputed by defense that it was orenthal's and never argued that it contained preservatives)?

consistant is not exact same. the prosecution was not able to put oj in the shoes that they think made the footprints on 6/12
What they did was create some MUST HAVE. COULD HAVE BEEN, excuses to replace proof beyound a reasonable doubt. like the fake pictures and the nonexistant sweat suit. the jury did not believe any of it.
martin II

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 12:15 PM

*Snipped*i think, for some reason you believe pigeon toed carries a negative conatation and that is why you have tried to tie this to oj.

:shrug: I point out the fact that the footprints were made by someone pigeon-toed because it makes his footprint unique.

bobaugust

12-28-2006, 12:21 PM

Dear Limakey,

The question posed is to bobaugust, as I know he will not consider our interpretations reasonable.

Contamination and lack of proof means what to you?

martin II, contamination does not change evidence. Despite contamination every single piece of evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson.

There is no proof for any of the imagined speculation offered by the defense. Lack of proof for imagined speculation does not make that speculation reasonable to a reasonable thinking person.

All of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else. None of it eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

martin II

12-28-2006, 12:23 PM

*Snipped*

:shrug: I point out the fact that the footprints were made by someone pigeon-toed because it makes his footprint unique.

but AGAIN there were no pigeon toed bloody foot prints found at bundy by anyone. this means that they did not exist period.

the prosecution needed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that oj was at bundy. since they did not have this they tried very hard to patch up some scraps in a effort to get past their burden of reasonable doubt but they failed.
martin II

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 12:37 PM

but AGAIN there were no pigeon toed bloody foot prints found at bundy by anyone. this means that they did not exist period.

the prosecution needed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that oj was at bundy. since they did not have this they tried very hard to patch up some scraps in a effort to get past their burden of reasonable doubt but they failed.
martin II

Is there nothing in this case that has caused you to pause and wonder if it is even a possibility that orenthal murdered them? Did you know right away that he didn't do it?

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 12:41 PM

martin II, contamination does not change evidence. Despite contamination every single piece of evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson.

There is no proof for any of the imagined speculation offered by the defense. Lack of proof for imagined speculation does not make that speculation reasonable to a reasonable thinking person.

All of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else. None of it eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

You have not addressed the fact that contamination places evidence where it should not have been. There is evidence of contamination as to the ease with with trace can be transfered. Reasonable minds can differ as to what is reasonable. Also, the law provides for unreasonable belief, if it is reasonable that the incdividual reasonably believed something, even if the belief was unreasonable. As always, you seem, imo, to over simplyfy things that disagree with you point and this, I believe, is a tendency of all humans, myself included.

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 12:44 PM

Okay -- If not on that night, then when? Remember, Nicole and the children had not been at Bundy very long and orenthal did and had never lived there. what's your theory on how the blood and footprints got there?

I am assuming you are speaking of his blood, which could have been there on a prior visit. The footprint was not shown to belong to him or shown to belong to a pair of shoes he owned on that night. We can speculate that he got rid of the shoes, but there is no evidence that happened.

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 12:46 PM

I am assuming you are speaking of his blood, which could have been there on a prior visit. The footprint was not shown to belong to him or shown to belong to a pair of shoes he owned on that night. We can speculate that he got rid of the shoes, but there is no evidence that happened.

So your theory is "Some other dude did it"?

bobaugust

12-28-2006, 12:47 PM

You have a different recollection of the testimony that BA posted from the civil trial than I do. You have a different opinion as to the weight of the evidence presented by the prosecution. I am not suggesting anything, but I am thinking that there is no evidence showing, who, if anyone, wore the cap and gloves on that night.

Simpson's testimony I posted was from his deposition and the civil trial. I also posted what Simpson told the detectives in his initial statement to the police. That was what Clark knew about but never used because there was never any question about the freshness of the blood found at Bundy.

Simpson's hairs, and the Bronco carpet fibers found on the hat is evidence that points to Simpson wearing the hat. Simpson's blood, the blue black cotton fibers, and the Bronco carpet fibers found on the Rockingham glove is evidence that points to Simpson wearing the glove.

June 13, 1994
Lange: When was the last time you were at Nicole's house?
Simpson: I don't go in, I won't go in her house. I haven't been in her house in a week, maybe five days. I go to her house a lot. I mean, I'm always dropping the kids off, picking the kids up, fooling around with the dog, you know.
Vannatter: How does that usually work? Do you drop them at the porch, or do you go in with them?
Simpson: No, I don't go in the house.
Vannatter: Is there a kind of gate out front?
Simpson: Yeah.

*

Vannatter: We've got some blood on and in your car, we've got some blood at your house, and sort of a problem.
Simpson: Well, take my blood test.
Lange: Well, we'd like to do that. We've got, of course, the cut on your finger that you aren't real clear on. Do you recall having that cut on your finger the last time you were at Nicole's house?
Simpson: A week ago?
Lange: Yeah.
Simpson: No. It was last night.
Lange: OK, so last night you cut it.
Vannatter: Somewhere after the recital?
Simpson: Somewhere when I was rushing to get out of my house.
Vannatter: OK, after the recital.
Simpson: Yeah.

bobaugust

martin II

12-28-2006, 12:50 PM

Is there nothing in this case that has caused you to pause and wonder if it is even a possibility that orenthal murdered them? Did you know right away that he didn't do it?

Listening to media reposts in the first few days i asked my self if it was possible that oj was guilty. Then i caught my self and decided to wait to see if the prosecution could prove he did it.

A the trial developed i cam to understand that the prosecution did not have the proof.

martin II

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 12:53 PM

That was what Clark knew about but never used because there was never any question about the freshness of the blood found at Bundy.

snipped
bobaugust

That was the prosecution's error and he cannot be convicted on error, and, if Clark said this in her work of fiction, that does not make it true. Perhaps, she did not bring it up, because she could not prove when the blood was there. His statement explains the blood found at his residence.

martin II

12-28-2006, 01:06 PM

Simpson's testimony I posted was from his deposition and the civil trial. I also posted what Simpson told the detectives in his initial statement to the police. That was what Clark knew about but never used because there was never any question about the freshness of the blood found at Bundy.

Simpson's hairs, and the Bronco carpet fibers found on the hat is evidence that points to Simpson wearing the hat. Simpson's blood, the blue black cotton fibers, and the Bronco carpet fibers found on the Rockingham glove is evidence that points to Simpson wearing the glove.

June 13, 1994
Lange: When was the last time you were at Nicole's house?
Simpson: I don't go in, I won't go in her house. I haven't been in her house in a week, maybe five days. I go to her house a lot. I mean, I'm always dropping the kids off, picking the kids up, fooling around with the dog, you know.
Vannatter: How does that usually work? Do you drop them at the porch, or do you go in with them?
Simpson: No, I don't go in the house.
Vannatter: Is there a kind of gate out front?
Simpson: Yeah.

*

Vannatter: We've got some blood on and in your car, we've got some blood at your house, and sort of a problem.
Simpson: Well, take my blood test.
Lange: Well, we'd like to do that. We've got, of course, the cut on your finger that you aren't real clear on. Do you recall having that cut on your finger the last time you were at Nicole's house?
Simpson: A week ago?
Lange: Yeah.
Simpson: No. It was last night.
Lange: OK, so last night you cut it.
Vannatter: Somewhere after the recital?
Simpson: Somewhere when I was rushing to get out of my house.
Vannatter: OK, after the recital.
Simpson: Yeah.

bobaugust

Jason testified that at some period oj was staying at nicoles house as he was charged with bringing him change of clothes there. in don't know if that was Greta Green or bundy.

MARTIN ii

martin II

12-28-2006, 01:08 PM

So your theory is "Some other dude did it"?

Or dudes

martin II

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 01:15 PM

Jason testified that at some period oj was staying at nicoles house as he was charged with bringing him change of clothes there. in don't know if that was Greta Green or bundy.

MARTIN ii Link please to Jason's statement.

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 01:17 PM

Listening to media reposts in the first few days i asked my self if it was possible that oj was guilty. Then i caught my self and decided to wait to see if the prosecution could prove he did it.

A the trial developed i cam to understand that the prosecution did not have the proof.

martin II

Really?. . . Even cochran thought he did it. . . .wow. . . .Even friends and family thought it possible that he did it. . . .gee. . . .you're good. . . .guess you just figured if white LE was involved, it had to be a frame, right?

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 01:18 PM

So your theory is "Some other dude did it"?

My theory is that the prosecution failed to show any involvement on his part beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it possible he did it, yes. Is it possible that someone else did it, yes. Let us for the sake of argument, assume that he did not do it and that the cap and gloves were his. This would mean that someone, who had access to those items, used or had someone else them in the murders. Therefore, there are at least the maid, Kato, Jason, Cowlings, and Arnelle that we know of, and how many others that we do not. Out of these, we would then have to ask, how many knew of his trip. None can be eliminated.

bobaugust

12-28-2006, 01:21 PM

You have not addressed the fact that contamination places evidence where it should not have been. There is evidence of contamination as to the ease with with trace can be transfered. Reasonable minds can differ as to what is reasonable. Also, the law provides for unreasonable belief, if it is reasonable that the incdividual reasonably believed something, even if the belief was unreasonable. As always, you seem, imo, to over simplyfy things that disagree with you point and this, I believe, is a tendency of all humans, myself included.

Speculation about how fiber evidence can contaminate evidence was only speculation. Anyone can dream up imagined unlikely possibilities, but I don't believe speculation alone contradicts evidence. There was no evidence presented that is what happened.

Where do you think Simpson's hairs on the inside of the hat came from if not from Simpson's head? Where do you think the same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron's shirt, the killer's glove, and Simpson's socks came from if not from the killer's clothing? Where do you think the unusual fibers consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet found on the hat, found on items in the Bronco, and found on the killer's glove came from if not from Simpson's Bronco carpet?

If a juror wants to believe something no matter how unreasonable it is to believe that explains how some guilty criminals are set free back into society. Hopefully it doesn't happen very often. It also explains why some posters here still argue Simpson's innocence. Some people will believe almost anything no matter how ridiculous if they want to believe it.

bobaugust

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 01:22 PM

My theory is that the prosecution failed to show any involvement on his part beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it possible he did it, yes. Is it possible that someone else did it, yes. Let us for the sake of argument, assume that he did not do it and that the cap and gloves were his. This would mean that someone, who had access to those items, used or had someone else them in the murders. Therefore, there are at least the maid, Kato, Jason, Cowlings, and Arnelle that we know of, and how many others that we do not. Out of these, we would then have to ask, how many knew of his trip. None can be eliminated.

The maid was out of town. Kato was on the phone. That leaves Jason, cowlings and arnelle. Arnelle didn't know where he was (or so she said). Cowlings was at a party. Jason was with his girlfriend. Let's see -- that would leave Kathy Randa who knew he was out of town and had access to his hat and gloves.

bobaugust

12-28-2006, 01:27 PM

My theory is that the prosecution failed to show any involvement on his part beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it possible he did it, yes. Is it possible that someone else did it, yes. Let us for the sake of argument, assume that he did not do it and that the cap and gloves were his. This would mean that someone, who had access to those items, used or had someone else them in the murders. Therefore, there are at least the maid, Kato, Jason, Cowlings, and Arnelle that we know of, and how many others that we do not. Out of these, we would then have to ask, how many knew of his trip. None can be eliminated.

Unless any of these people can bleed Simpson's blood then they are all eliminated.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 01:27 PM

Speculation about how fiber evidence can contaminate evidence was only speculation. Anyone can dream up imagined unlikely possibilities, but I don't believe speculation alone contradicts evidence. There was no evidence presented that is what happened.

Where do you think Simpson's hairs on the inside of the hat came from if not from Simpson's head? Where do you think the same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron's shirt, the killer's glove, and Simpson's socks came from if not from the killer's clothing? Where do you think the unusual fibers consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet found on the hat, found on items in the Bronco, and found on the killer's glove came from if not from Simpson's Bronco carpet?

If a juror wants to believe something no matter how unreasonable it is to believe that explains how some guilty criminals are set free back into society. Hopefully it doesn't happen very often. It also explains why some posters here still argue Simpson's innocence. Some people will believe almost anything no matter how ridiculous if they want to believe it.

bobaugust

The blanket was entered into the crime scene and I do not believe it was delicately placed there. What about the unidentified hairs on the cap? How many officers trampled through the scene and contaminated evidence by moving from one spot to another. Did not the detectives go back to Bundy after examining the Bronco? Why are only your beliefs reasonable, because someone does not view the evidence in the same manner as you?

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 01:31 PM

Unless any of these people can bleed Simpson's blood then they are all eliminated.

bobaugust

The blood did not have to be there on the night of the murders. I know you claim the blood was fresh, but where is that evidence. Oh yes, Clark did not feel that she needed to prove that.

socaldiva

12-28-2006, 01:34 PM

Unless any of these people can bleed Simpson's blood then they are all eliminated.

bobaugust

Absolutely! :beer:

bobaugust

12-28-2006, 01:45 PM

The blanket was entered into the crime scene and I do not believe it was delicately placed there. What about the unidentified hairs on the cap? How many officers trampled through the scene and contaminated evidence by moving from one spot to another. Did not the detectives go back to Bundy after examining the Bronco? Why are only your beliefs reasonable, because someone does not view the evidence in the same manner as you?

The blanket was a clean blanket taken from Nicole's house. If there was any contamination from that blanket it would have been only on Nicole's body. Neither that blanket nor the fact that the police walked around the murder scene explains why Simpson's hairs were found inside the hat. It doesn't explain why the fibers were found all over Ron's shirt. It doesn't explain why the fibers were found on the hat. It doesn't explain why the fibers were found on the Rockingham glove. It doesn't explain why the fibers were found on Simpson's socks.

And no imagined speculation explains why Simpson's fresh blood was found at the murder scene.

All of that evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. That's the only reasonable explanation.

bobaugust

martin II

12-28-2006, 01:47 PM

The maid was out of town. Kato was on the phone. That leaves Jason, cowlings and arnelle. Arnelle didn't know where he was (or so she said). Cowlings was at a party. Jason was with his girlfriend. Let's see -- that would leave Kathy Randa who knew he was out of town and had access to his hat and gloves.

weezer

jason was not with his girlfriend

see william c dears book
martin II

martin II

12-28-2006, 01:53 PM

Really?. . . Even cochran thought he did it. . . .wow. . . .Even friends and family thought it possible that he did it. . . .gee. . . .you're good. . . .guess you just figured if white LE was involved, it had to be a frame, right?

weezer

why do you continue to post nonsense as if you know what you are talking about?
martin

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 01:54 PM

Absolutely! :beer:

Diva,

You have made a false assumption, which makes your inference and conclusion, false, imho.

socaldiva

12-28-2006, 01:56 PM

Diva,

You have made a false assumption, which makes your inference and conclusion, false, imho.

The only false thing I see this morning is your inflated ego. Give it a rest.

bobaugust

12-28-2006, 01:57 PM

The blood did not have to be there on the night of the murders. I know you claim the blood was fresh, but where is that evidence. Oh yes, Clark did not feel that she needed to prove that.

No one has to provide evidence to disprove something you have dreamed up. There was no question that the blood was fresh blood and there was no evidence ever presented that the blood was not fresh blood.

Your speculation is meaningless unless you can provide evidence to support it.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 01:58 PM

The blanket was a clean blanket taken from Nicole's house. If there was any contamination from that blanket it would have been only on Nicole's body. Neither that blanket nor the fact that the police walked around the murder scene explains why Simpson's hairs were found inside the hat. It doesn't explain why the fibers were found all over Ron's shirt. It doesn't explain why the fibers were found on the hat. It doesn't explain why the fibers were found on the Rockingham glove. It doesn't explain why the fibers were found on Simpson's socks.

And no imagined speculation explains why Simpson's fresh blood was found at the murder scene.

All of that evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. That's the only reasonable explanation.

bobaugust

How do you know the blanket was clean? We have discussed the gloves and the M socks repeatedly. You say tomato and I say horse pucky. I have explained that cap, but you have not explained the unidentified hairs, only that they could have belonged to him when his hair was shorter. We have also discussed the fact that no one testified the blood was fresh.

martin II

12-28-2006, 02:04 PM

The maid was out of town. Kato was on the phone. That leaves Jason, cowlings and arnelle. Arnelle didn't know where he was (or so she said). Cowlings was at a party. Jason was with his girlfriend. Let's see -- that would leave Kathy Randa who knew he was out of town and had access to his hat and gloves.

or whoever that was that rosa lopez heard talking on ojs property at about 12 midnight on 6/12 or someone that took these items from his house before 6/12
martin II

bobaugust

12-28-2006, 02:06 PM

How do you know the blanket was clean? We have discussed the gloves and the M socks repeatedly. You say tomato and I say horse pucky. I have explained that cap, but you have not explained the unidentified hairs, only that they could have belonged to him when his hair was shorter. We have also discussed the fact that no one testified the blood was fresh.

There was no evidence ever presented that the blanket contaminated anything. Yes we have discussed the socks and all of your imagined speculation about them. Nothing you have imagined is supported by anything except imagination.

You haven't explained anything about the cap that contradicts the reality of the evidence found on and in it. I never said the six unidentified hair fragments found inside the cap may have come from Simpson when hs hair was shorter. Deedrick testified the fragments were old hair and may have previously come from Simpson.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 02:14 PM

There was no evidence ever presented that the blanket contaminated anything. Yes we have discussed the socks and all of your imagined speculation about them. Nothing you have imagined is supported by anything except imagination.

You haven't explained anything about the cap that contradicts the reality of the evidence found on and in it. I never said the six unidentified hair fragments found inside the cap may have come from Simpson when hs hair was shorter. Deedrick testified the fragments were old hair and may have previously come from Simpson.

bobaugust

The fact that the blanket was placed in the crime scene and the ease with which trace is transfered allows for a reasonable inference that the scene could have been contaminated. I refuse to discuss the M socks with you again. There was a post of yours, which I do not have time to look for, stating that his hair could have come from a haircut or old hair that COULD HAVE (that jukebox is playing). They COULD HAVE BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE.

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 02:16 PM

No one has to provide evidence to disprove something you have dreamed up. There was no question that the blood was fresh blood and there was no evidence ever presented that the blood was not fresh blood.

Your speculation is meaningless unless you can provide evidence to support it.

bobaugust

So, is this your way of saying there was no testimony that the blood was fresh? Anything that may contradict your conclusion is meaningless to you, imho.

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 02:18 PM

weezer

why do you continue to post nonsense as if you know what you are talking about?
martin

what nonsense?

socaldiva

12-28-2006, 02:18 PM

weezer

why do you continue to post nonsense as if you know what you are talking about?
martin

This coming from you, is hysterial. You get the trophy on posting as if you know what you're talking about. There was nothing in FBG's post that was nonsense. Just because YOU don't understand it, doesn't make it nonsense. Gawd!

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 02:27 PM

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 02:28 PM

or whoever that was that rosa lopez heard talking on ojs property at about 12 midnight on 6/12 or someone that took these items from his house before 6/12
martin II

Maybe she heard Arnelle and AC doing the clean-up?

socaldiva

12-28-2006, 02:30 PM

Not true. Jason never stated this.

I've never heard such a thing either. By Orenthal's own admission, he hadn't even been on the property in the weeks leading up to the murders. He would sit in the car & wait for the children.

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 02:32 PM

The only false thing I see this morning is your inflated ego. Give it a rest.

Dear Diva,

My ego is not false, although it may be inflated. I am happy to learn that you only have eyes for me!:) We are fast approaching a new year and let's all try to maintain some civility.

martin II

12-28-2006, 02:33 PM

Maybe she heard Arnelle and AC doing the clean-up?

both were not there and were accounted for.
martin II

bobaugust

12-28-2006, 02:34 PM

The fact that the blanket was placed in the crime scene and the ease with which trace is transfered allows for a reasonable inference that the scene could have been contaminated. I refuse to discuss the M socks with you again. There was a post of yours, which I do not have time to look for, stating that his hair could have come from a haircut or old hair that COULD HAVE (that jukebox is playing). They COULD HAVE BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE.

Cochran never made the claims you are making. His questioning about that blanket was concerning hair or fiber evidence or blood evidence that might have come off Nicole's body onto the blanket. He never speculation what you have dreamed up.

March 7, 1995 Lange
Q AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING, WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF TRACE EVIDENCE?
A TRACE EVIDENCE CAN BE HAIR OR FIBERS OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF EVIDENCE, DEBRIS, THAT MAY NOT BE READILY VISIBLE TO THE HUMAN EYE.
Q AND TRACE EVIDENCE CAN BE MOVED FROM ONE SURFACE TO THE OTHER PRETTY EASILY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A I GUESS THAT WOULD DEPEND.
Q AND THAT MIGHT BE PARTICULARLY TRUE OF THINGS SUCH AS HAIR AND FIBERS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, THAT MIGHT COME OFF A BODY?
A IT IS POSSIBLE.
Q BLOOD ON A BODY CAN BE WIPED OFF IF THE BODY COME IN CONTACT WITH SOMETHING OF THE NATURE OF EITHER A SHEET OR A BLANKET; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A IT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW THAT BLANKET OR SHEET WERE PLACED ON THE BODY.

Q BY MR. COCHRAN: BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IT COULD COME OFF; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A I SUPPOSE IT IS POSSIBLE.
Q IN FACT, IN THIS CASE THERE WERE WHAT YOU TESTIFIED TO BLOOD DROPS OR BLOOD SPATTERS ON THE BACK OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, THAT YOU SAW AT THE SCENE?
A YES, SIR.
Q WHICH WERE NOT PRESERVED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.

Evidence Dismissed,
"At about 7:30 A.M. Vannatter returns to South Bundy to speak with his partner. As Vannatter walks back to his car, Lange sees the growing number of reporters and film crews setting up on a hill across the street from the Brown's condominium. Because the two bodies are still lying in the ground - with Brown's slaughtered corpse out in the open - Lange asks Officer Don Thompson to get him a clean sheet.

When Thompson returns, he says he can't find one, except for those already on Brown's and her children's beds. However, he has found a tightly knit hospital style blanket in a bathroom cabinet upstairs. It is clean in appearance and neatly folded.

To block the media's view of the grotesque sight of Nicole Brown, lying in her own blood, Lange - without touching her body - spreads the blanket over her until the coroner's investigator arrives. Because the male victim cannot be seen from the street, Lange doesn't need to cover him.

Actually, Lange has two reasons for protecting Brown from view; the other, which is more important, is less for humanitarian reasons and more for investigative purposes. Lange knows that Brown's body is evidence. The position it's in is evidence. The nature of her wounds is evidence. The jewelry she is wearing is evidence. Her scant clothing is evidence. The fact she is wearing no shoes is evidence.

Lange knows that the media is probably using long lens cameras that can highlight a speck of blood at two hundred feet. He doesn't want such pictures made public because they could compromise all of the evidence Brown's body might give. Once the evidence becomes public, investigators will not be able to use it as effectively when they interview potential witnesses or suspects, as the detectives are trying to determine whether they are truthful.

As the investigator in charge of the crime scene, Lange wants to keep his edge in case someone steps forward and takes responsibility for committing these murders or claims to have knowledge about them. Other than police investigators, Lange wants only the killer and those he might tell about the murder to know all of the little details about such things as the position of wounds and the blood patterns. So Lange must ensure that the crime scene is protected from compromise, as well as contamination."

bobaugust

socaldiva

12-28-2006, 02:35 PM

Dear Diva,

My ego is not false, although it may be inflated. I am happy to learn that you either only have eyes for me!:) We are fast approaching a new year and let's all try to maintain some civility.

WTH are you talking about now? I only have eyes for you? I'd rather poke my eyes out, thank you.

Perhaps we could maintain civility, if you didn't start with your "what you have stated is based on a false conclusion" blah, blah, blah rhetoric.

martin II

12-28-2006, 02:35 PM

both were not there and were accounted for.
martin II

what about Shipp and furhman
martin II

socaldiva

12-28-2006, 02:36 PM

what about Shipp and furhman
martin II

You are now posting to yourself :lol:

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 02:39 PM

both were not there and were accounted for.
martin II

actually, they weren't totally accounted for.

fbgweezer

12-28-2006, 02:41 PM

what about Shipp and furhman
martin II

So you think Shipp and Furhman were at orenthal's before the murders were discovered?

William Anthony

12-28-2006, 02:43 PM

Cochran never made the claims you are making. His questioning about that blanket was concerning hair or fiber evidence or blood evidence that might have come off Nicole's body onto the blanket. He never speculation what you have dreamed up.
Snipped
Q AND TRACE EVIDENCE CAN BE MOVED FROM ONE SURFACE TO THE OTHER PRETTY EASILY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A I GUESS THAT WOULD DEPEND.
snipped
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IT COULD COME OFF; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A I SUPPOSE IT IS POSSIBLE.
Q IN FACT, IN THIS CASE THERE WERE WHAT YOU TESTIFIED TO BLOOD DROPS OR BLOOD SPATTERS ON THE BACK OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, THAT YOU SAW AT THE SCENE?
A YES, SIR.
Q WHICH WERE NOT PRESERVED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.

bobaugust

I tried to make bold the question about trace transferring from one surface to another. He did in fact suggest what I said and the jurors may have been able to pick up on that. The officers/medical personnel could have well transfered hair and fibers from the blanket to either victim.