Evidence that Places OJ Simpson at the Crime Scene

[jotun]

As you know the response of focus groups depends on the structure of the questions. I am not arguing with THAT focus group's results.

I am talking about the conviction rate historically of juries with black women on them. They are very conservatice when it comes to crime and do not automatically aquit blacks. imo jmo.

Martin,
Every mock jury including Enron Petroselli's found O.J.
'NOT GUILTY'

jotun

[martin II]

Martin,
Every mock jury including Enron Petroselli's found O.J.
'NOT GUILTY'

jotun

jotun
That is interesting.
martin II

[William Anthony]

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]

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]

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]

A little humor is good for the soul!

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

[martin II]

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

[martin II]

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

[limakey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

limakey, what do you think Phillips said to Simpson on that telephone call that leads you to believe Phillips thought Simpson was the prime suspect?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[bobaugust]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

So you think imagined speculation impeaches physical evidence?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

And you choose to believe fantasies.

bobaugust

[martin II]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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]

*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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

who testified this this in court??
martin II

[jotun]

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]

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]

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]

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

i noticed that
who changed it??
martin II

[jotun]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[2L8 4A D8]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[bobaugust]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[fbgweezer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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]

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]

*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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Or dudes

martin II

[fbgweezer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

bobaugust

Absolutely! :beer:

[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?

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]

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]

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]

Absolutely! :beer:

Diva,

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

[socaldiva]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

weezer

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

what nonsense?

[socaldiva]

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]

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

Not true. Jason never stated this.

[fbgweezer]

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]

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]

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]

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

both were not there and were accounted for.
martin II

[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.

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]

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]

both were not there and were accounted for.
martin II

what about Shipp and furhman
martin II

[socaldiva]

what about Shipp and furhman
martin II


You are now posting to yourself :lol:

[fbgweezer]

both were not there and were accounted for.
martin II

actually, they weren't totally accounted for.

[fbgweezer]

what about Shipp and furhman
martin II

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

[William Anthony]

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.

[William Anthony]

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.

Did you not see the imo, and, I am truly flattered that even though your eyes are poked out or may be, you still can only see me.:)

[socaldiva]

Did you not see the imo, and, I am truly flattered that even though your eyes are poked out or may be, you still can only see me.:)

The imo does not remove the snideness of your post. As for the rest of your post, you are delusional.

[martin II]

actually, they weren't totally accounted for.

according to you
martin II

[fbgweezer]

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.

Guess footprints and blood can too -- oh wait -- that couldn't have happened.

poor ole orenthal -- just didn't have a chance with all these people out to frame him for murder ---

I have to take exception with your statement that the jury figured anything out -- they didn't think DNA was important so I'm guessing they didn't figure it out unless cochran made it rhyme.

[William Anthony]

The imo does not remove the snideness of your post. As for the rest of your post, you are delusional.

Believe me I was not trying to be snide and was refering to a post I made about inferences. If responding to you makes me delusional, then I am, or pehaps, I find credibility in my posts about words being misinterpreted.

[fbgweezer]

according to you
martin II

not entirely -- that's pretty much what came out during depositions but then cowlings never had the b*lls to testify so we really don't know what he was up to but we know arnelle's laundry made it to the washing machine with her daddy's sweat suit. . . .

[martin II]

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

fbg
my post did not indicate what i think so why did you twist it into something
trying to say i said what i believe.

This is a very bad habit you have. Twisting, streatching and changing post.

gees

martin II

[martin II]

not entirely -- that's pretty much what came out during depositions but then cowlings never had the b*lls to testify so we really don't know what he was up to but we know arnelle's laundry made it to the washing machine with her daddy's sweat suit. . . .

means nothing. another MUST HAVE OR COULD HAVE BEEN
martin II

[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.

No, what I'm saying is that your speculation that the blood wasn't fresh is not a credible argument. There was never any question that the blood was fresh blood by either of Simpson's defense teams. The only witness who was ever asked about the freshness of the blood was Dennis Fung in the civil trial and he explained why he believed the blood was fresh blood.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Guess footprints and blood can too -- oh wait -- that couldn't have happened.

poor ole orenthal -- just didn't have a chance with all these people out to frame him for murder ---

I have to take exception with your statement that the jury figured anything out -- they didn't think DNA was important so I'm guessing they didn't figure it out unless cochran made it rhyme.

A stitch in time save nine.

[martin II]

not entirely -- that's pretty much what came out during depositions but then cowlings never had the b*lls to testify so we really don't know what he was up to but we know arnelle's laundry made it to the washing machine with her daddy's sweat suit. . . .

weezer
"pretty much what came out" looks like you are trying to fudge the facts AGAIN

too bad there was never any sweat suite that showed up in court just like no knife and no bloody bm shoes. but because the lapd guys were white and oj was black you beleived lapd 100% immediately.

martin II

[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.

I see. Just because an attorney insinuates something by asking a question is not evidence of anything.

So you think that all of the fibers from the killer's clothing transferred from Nicole to Ron?

And all of Simpson's hairs transferred from Nicole to Ron's shirt and to the inside of the hat?

Not only is there no evidence that ever happened but tell us please, how does that change the fact that all of the hair and fiber evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer?

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*. . .but because the lapd guys were white and oj was black you beleived lapd 100% immediately.

And because orenthal was black and LAPD was white, you believe orenthal 100% immediately. There is no credible evidence that anyone other than orenthal james simpson butchered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. There was evidence of three people at the murder scene: the victims, Nicole Brown, Ron Goldman and their murderer, the Butcher of Brentwood, orenthal james simpson.

[fbgweezer]

what about Shipp and furhman
martin II

then what did this mean?

[martin II]

I see. Just because an attorney insinuates something by asking a question is not evidence of anything.

So you think that all of the fibers from the killer's clothing transferred from Nicole to Ron?

And all of Simpson's hairs transferred from Nicole to Ron's shirt and to the inside of the hat?

Not only is there no evidence that ever happened but tell us please, how does that change the fact that all of the hair and fiber evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer?

bobaugust


bob then that applie to all the questions that petrocelli tossed to witnesses in the civil trial. like the goofy idea that oj could have climbed on the carport and jumped to his properryimo
martin II

[martin II]

then what did this mean?

you tossed out names of people that you think were involved and i asked the question about those two. did you get it.
martin II

[socaldiva]

Believe me I was not trying to be snide and was refering to a post I made about inferences. If responding to you makes me delusional, then I am, or pehaps, I find credibility in my posts about words being misinterpreted.

I don't think you were "trying to be snide". It seems to come to you naturally.

Responding to my posts makes you delusional? No, the content of that particular post does. You think posting that I have eyes for you or things of that nature gives you credibility? You are as confused as Martin it seems. IMO, MOO & BOO!

[martin II]

*Snipped*

And because orenthal was black and LAPD was white, you believe orenthal 100% immediately. There is no credible evidence that anyone other than orenthal james simpson butchered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. There was evidence of three people at the murder scene: the victims, Nicole Brown, Ron Goldman and their murderer, the Butcher of Brentwood, orenthal james simpson.

i believe that the jury listened to all the witnesses for 9 months and decided who was telling the truth and who was not. When they had answered all questions from jurors and discussed parks testimony and the time line they decided that the prosecution had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt that oj had snuffed anyone on 6/12 so they followed the law and voted not guilty. imo

Stop twisting what i posted.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

i believe that the jury listened to all the witnesses for 9 months and decided who was telling the truth and who was not. When they had answered all questions from jurors and discussed parks testimony and the time line they decided that the prosecution had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt that oj had snuffed anyone on 6/12 so they followed the law and voted not guilty. imo

Stop twisting what i posted.
martin II

at the end of 9 months, this jury said they didn't pay attention to the DNA because they didn't understand it; this jury said they didn't pay attention to the domestic abuse because this was a murder trial; this jury said they knew the white detective was lying just by looking at him; this jury said they took care of their own.

Don't even give credit to an ignorant, raci*lly biased jury who did not do what they swore they could and would do.

[martin II]

i believe that the jury listened to all the witnesses for 9 months and decided who was telling the truth and who was not. When they had answered all questions from jurors and discussed parks testimony and the time line they decided that the prosecution had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt that oj had snuffed anyone on 6/12 so they followed the law and voted not guilty. imo

Stop twisting what i posted.
martin II

wezer
arnells and ac's ablbi as to where they were on 6/12 is as valid as furhmans as to where he was and more valid than Jason's.imo
martin II

[martin II]

at the end of 9 months, this jury said they didn't pay attention to the DNA because they didn't understand it; this jury said they didn't pay attention to the domestic abuse because this was a murder trial; this jury said they knew the white detective was lying just by looking at him; this jury said they took care of their own.

Don't even give credit to an ignorant, raci*lly biased jury who did not do what they swore they could and would do.

your bias against the black women on the jury and oj would cause you ignore
how and why the jury voted not guilty.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

you tossed out names of people that you think were involved and i asked the question about those two. did you get it.
martin II

I didn't toss out names -- I was answering your post..............

[fbgweezer]

your bias against the black women on the jury and oj would cause you ignore
how and why the jury voted not guilty.
martin II

my bias is not because of color -- my bias stems from their ignorance (women) and sociopathic behavior (orenthal).

You obviously didn't listen to the jury when they told you why they voted not guilty. It wasn't because the gloves didn't fit -- at least three of them believed they did fit. It wasn't because the blood wasn't orenthal's -- at least two of them said they did not understand the testimony about DNA so they discounted it. It wasn't because there wasn't a history of abuse which can historically lead to murder -- I can only assume that there is something in the make-up/background of this jury that they excused this behavior and didn't have enough education to understand the statistics of domestic abuse.

The NG's in this world can debate all day long about how poor ole orenthal was set up by LE. The fact of the matter is, there is evidence that three (and only three) people were at Bundy the night of the murders. The victims: Nicole Brown, Ron Goldman and their murderer: orenthal james simpson, the Butcher of Brentwood.

[bobaugust]

bob then that applie to all the questions that petrocelli tossed to witnesses in the civil trial. like the goofy idea that oj could have climbed on the carport and jumped to his properryimo
martin II

martin II, why do you continue to post this false information when you know that Petrocelli never said Simpson could have climbed the carport? I guess that's either your bad memory problem or maybe you're lying to purposely be obnoxious, right?

bobaugust

[martin II]

my bias is not because of color -- my bias stems from their ignorance (women) and sociopathic behavior (orenthal).

You obviously didn't listen to the jury when they told you why they voted not guilty. It wasn't because the gloves didn't fit -- at least three of them believed they did fit. It wasn't because the blood wasn't orenthal's -- at least two of them said they did not understand the testimony about DNA so they discounted it. It wasn't because there wasn't a history of abuse which can historically lead to murder -- I can only assume that there is something in the make-up/background of this jury that they excused this behavior and didn't have enough education to understand the statistics of domestic abuse.

The NG's in this world can debate all day long about how poor ole orenthal was set up by LE. The fact of the matter is, there is evidence that three (and only three) people were at Bundy the night of the murders. The victims: Nicole Brown, Ron Goldman and their murderer: orenthal james simpson, the Butcher of Brentwood.


weezer

Some of the jury members gave a detail account of what hapened in the deliberation room as to how they came to their decision of not guilty.
This interview has been posted at least twice by me and other times by other posters on oj threads.

I think your bias and possible hatred for oj will not allow you to read or understand why they voted not guilty. It is plain and simple as to why they all voted not guilty including the white jurors but it mat be too complicated for you to comprehend. sorry about that.


some of the testimony that you accepted freely without question was not believed by the jury. Since you did not see the trial live on tv i can understand how you could be mislead by some later media accounts.
imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Since you did not see the trial live on tv i can understand how you could be mislead by some later media accounts.


That's silly. I saw the trial live on tv & I have the same opinion as FBG. Idiot, ra*** jurors.

[2L8 4A D8]

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

Excellent Post as usual, Bob!

:beer:

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Okay, when did the DA's prove that the hairs found in that hat were matches with Simpson hair? To use your arguement they were Simpson's, then you can't go back and say that the unidentified hair found the glove at Rockingham was "probably" Ron Goldman's.

When did Mr. Simpson try the hat on and when was a link provided to the hat? What size was it? Many experts feel that hair and fiber are nothing more then "junk" science.

As for the Bronco fibers, I find it rather odd with Doug Deedrick's talents and expertize that he just happened to turn his report in too late and I find it interesting that Judge Fusjisaki made a ruling that Petrocelli could not argue the Bronco fibers were rare, because they weren't.

As for contamination at the scene, while Ron's body may not have been covered with a blanket, his body was dragged through it, I believe the jurors saw this on the video tape.

The defense used the LAPD's video tapes against them---you can't blame them from this. They did not drag Ron's body or cover Nicole's body with a blanket.

And before you say anything about why Nicole's body was covered with a blanket, remember, the "major crime" scene was at Bundy, the cops knew the media was going to all over this, yet how long did it take them to remove her body?

[deputydi]

<snip> 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
I'm not arguing OJ's innocence, but your post, in its entirety, defines "reasonable doubt". That's all the defense has to establish to the jury. There is no doubt in my mind that the verdict angered a lot of people (myself included), but the "dream team" presented enough evidence IMO to establish reasonable doubt. Too bad the prosecution was so hung up on technical DNA evidence that they ignored the most simplistic and damning evidence.

[limakey]

Martin,

Remember, the judge in the civil trial did say the defense could argue that the glove was planted, so Petrocelli had to toss out other options for the jury.

I don't think Petrocelli in the civil trial even tried to use the "jump fence" theory.

[limakey]

DeputyDi,

IMO, the DA's have taken some rather unfair comments. I believe they did knew this case had problems early on and realized that if they couldn't win in the courtroom, then they would win in the court of public opinon.

IMO, I think it is important to remember that every piece of evidence has at least two sides and that jurors are instructed that if the defense presents a reasonable alternative to the evidence, the jurors must side with the defendant.

I also think it is important that the DA's had a lot of money and a lot of lawyers, paralegals, experts on their side and I'm sure that many hours were spent on trying to figure it all out.

The defense's defense was known very early on, before the criminal trial even started, before jury selection even started and even knowing this, they still could not counter the defense's claim, IMO.

[deputydi]

DeputyDi,

IMO, the DA's have taken some rather unfair comments. I believe they did knew this case had problems early on and realized that if they couldn't win in the courtroom, then they would win in the court of public opinon.

IMO, I think it is important to remember that every piece of evidence has at least two sides and that jurors are instructed that if the defense presents a reasonable alternative to the evidence, the jurors must side with the defendant.

I also think it is important that the DA's had a lot of money and a lot of lawyers, paralegals, experts on their side and I'm sure that many hours were spent on trying to figure it all out.

The defense's defense was known very early on, before the criminal trial even started, before jury selection even started and even knowing this, they still could not counter the defense's claim, IMO.
A lot of people (wrongly) believe that the prosecution has an unlimited supply of money. Being employed by the County, they are under budgetary constraints. I would agree with you if this was a defendant with limited means -- in this instance (which represents the majority of cases) the pros is at a decided advantage. Not so in OJ's trial. He had the best legal team money could buy.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Marcia Clark was very, very wise. She wrote her book, what almost two years after the trial ended. She wasn't stupid, she wanted to see how this was going out. Did you expect her say that she didn't use the interview because it raised more questions about the evidence that she didn't want to have to face?

Also, her argument that the defense were going to say that it was old blood so she had nothing to gain is totally absurd! She had Simpson, in his own words saying that he had not been there for a few weeks. What else did she need? Did she mention anything about the AC unit being out in the truck?

It is obvious that Marcia felt that the "old blood" theory had some merit. It is simple, Marcia Clark knew this was a battle she could not win so she just took the easy way out in her book, IMO.

[limakey]

Deputy Di,

After the trial, Marcia Clark and Chris Darden were each given a huge bonus plus a lot of time off. I don't think either one of them ever tried another case as a DA.

No one knew better then the DA's that they could not be embarrassed in another high profile case and, IMO, money was no object for this case. Yes, state's have budgets, but their budget is always much higher the the defenses.

Simpson had the money to hire a great defense team, however, no matter how much money he spent on his lawyers, the DA's spent just as much for paying for over 40 lawyers who worked on this case. IMO, I think it is also fair to say that it is very possible that some of the state's lawyers and experts were so committed to this case that they have donated alot of their time on this case. There were also a large number of rich and/or famous clients who have had more money then Simpson, hired the best lawyers and still ended up being convicted.

[2L8 4A D8]

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.

What does it matter? You wouldn't believe it anyway! You would make some ridiculous assinine excuse of why they couldn't be OJ's footprints. As it has been stated many times, you and your comrades could have a video of OJ murdering Nicole and Ron and you would still NOT believe that your beloved Idol, Hero and piece of cr@p OJ Simpson was the killer. You would say that the video was doctored, just like you and your comrades have done regarding the pictures showing OJ wearing the BM shoes! Even if you and your comrades were all at Bundy sitting there on lawn chairs sipping MaiTais, watching with your own eyes, would you think that OJ was the killer! Duh!

You and your comrades are kidding no one!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

weezer
"pretty much what came out" looks like you are trying to fudge the facts AGAIN

too bad there was never any sweat suite that showed up in court just like no knife and no bloody bm shoes. but because the lapd guys were white and oj was black you beleived lapd 100% immediately.

martin II

Hey SFB ~ "there was never any sweat suite that showed up in court just like no knife and no bloody bm shoes" because OJ was lucky enough to be able to get rid of them! Duh!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

That's silly. I saw the trial live on tv & I have the same opinion as FBG. Idiot, ra*** jurors.

I agree Diva! It is silly! I also saw the trial live on tv and I have the same opinion as you and FBG, ra**** jurors! MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

IIRC, Johnnie Cochran stated on a LKL show that OJ still owed money to the Dream Team for his defense! Maybe Carl Douglas could confirm this if you could ever get him on the phone!

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

I'm not arguing OJ's innocence, but your post, in its entirety, defines "reasonable doubt". That's all the defense has to establish to the jury. There is no doubt in my mind that the verdict angered a lot of people (myself included), but the "dream team" presented enough evidence IMO to establish reasonable doubt. Too bad the prosecution was so hung up on technical DNA evidence that they ignored the most simplistic and damning evidence.

deputydi, I disagree. Imagined speculation may raise some doubt but not reasonable doubt. I don't believe that any speculation that is supported only by imagination can contradict the reality of physical evidence. Other evidence may legitimately contradict known evidence but imagined speculation only contradicts other imagined speculation.

If any of the relevant physical evidence in this case pointed to someone other than Simpson that would raise reasonable doubt. But that never happened. Every single piece of the relevant physical evidence in this case points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else. None of it eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Okay, when did the DA's prove that the hairs found in that hat were matches with Simpson hair? To use your arguement they were Simpson's, then you can't go back and say that the unidentified hair found the glove at Rockingham was "probably" Ron Goldman's.

When did Mr. Simpson try the hat on and when was a link provided to the hat? What size was it? Many experts feel that hair and fiber are nothing more then "junk" science.

As for the Bronco fibers, I find it rather odd with Doug Deedrick's talents and expertize that he just happened to turn his report in too late and I find it interesting that Judge Fusjisaki made a ruling that Petrocelli could not argue the Bronco fibers were rare, because they weren't.

As for contamination at the scene, while Ron's body may not have been covered with a blanket, his body was dragged through it, I believe the jurors saw this on the video tape.

The defense used the LAPD's video tapes against them---you can't blame them from this. They did not drag Ron's body or cover Nicole's body with a blanket.

And before you say anything about why Nicole's body was covered with a blanket, remember, the "major crime" scene was at Bundy, the cops knew the media was going to all over this, yet how long did it take them to remove her body?


limakey, Douglas Deedrick testified about Simpson's hair found in and on the hat as well as the six unidentified hair fragments found inside the hat. Simpson didn't try the hat on, Johnny Cochran did and the hat was too big for him. Simpson had a considerably larger head than Cochran but that kind of knit hat would stretch to fit.

The report concerning the the rarity of the Bronco carpet fibers was was turned in late limiting the time in which the defense had to read or dispute it, but that doesn't change the fact the unusual x-shaped fibers found on the hat, the towel, the shovel, the plastic, and the Rockingham glove were all consistent as coming from the Bronco carpeting.

As for Ron's body being dragged through the crime scene that doesn't change the fact that blue black cotton fibers most likely came from the killer's clothing. It doesn't change the fact that they were found all over Ron's shirt, on the Rockingham glove, and on Simpson's socks.

I already posted why Lange decided to have Nicole's body covered.

June 29, 1995
MS. CLARK: Let's start with the total number and then we'll break it down. First of all, did you compare the hairs recovered from that cap to those of the Defendant?
MR. DEEDRICK: These particular hairs you're referring to, yes. I compared all of the hairs that were suitable for comparison from the hat with a known sample that was submitted from the Defendant, yes.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And of the hairs recovered from the cap, you indicated already that you found hairs of the Defendant that had the same microscopic characteristics. Can you tell us first of all how many overall head hairs did you find that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics in that cap as the Defendant's hair?
MR. DEEDRICK: There were 12, 12 hairs.
*
MS. CLARK: Okay. And were all of the hairs that were consistent with those of the Defendant fragments or were any full length?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. There were a number of hairs that were full length; that is, they had a root as if they were naturally shed hairs.
*
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, the hairs that were found inside the cap that were not consistent with those of the Defendant, were they full length or were they fragments?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. They were fragments.
MS. CLARK: And how many of those fragments were there?
MR. DEEDRICK: There were six.
*
MS. CLARK: Do you know how long those six fragments could have been on that ski cap?
MR. DEEDRICK: No, I have no idea.
MS. CLARK: Do a person's hair characteristics change over time?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they do.
MS. CLARK: In what way?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, many ways, depending on what they do to their hair, what type of environment they're exposed to, how much sunlight they get, if they treat their hair. There's just a lot of different things that could happen to hair besides the natural effects of age also.
MS. CLARK: Okay. So you don't--you can not tell us at this time whether those six fragments found inside the cap could have been hairs deposited by the Defendant five, six, seven years ago?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. As I said, there's no way to say how long those hairs have been in that location on that item.
*
MS. CLARK: Now, the only hairs on that cap that did not match the known sample of the Defendant is the fragments that--the six fragments that you described?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
MS. CLARK: And all the naturally shed hairs with roots from that cap were consistent with those hairs from the Defendant?
MR. DEEDRICK: They were.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It is obvious that Marcia felt that the "old blood" theory had some merit. It is simple, Marcia Clark knew this was a battle she could not win so she just took the easy way out in her book, IMO.

limakey, there was no battle about the age of the blood. Neither of Simpson's defense teams ever argued that the blood drops were not fresh blood.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* Also, her argument that the defense were going to say that it was old blood so she had nothing to gain is totally absurd! She had Simpson, in his own words saying that he had not been there for a few weeks. What else did she need? Did she mention anything about the AC unit being out in the truck?


orenthal stated that he had been at the condo about five days before the murders. orenthal stated that he had not been on the walk beside the condo. orenthal stated that he had not been bleeding the last time he was there. orenthal had not and did not live at Bundy -- there would be no reason for his blood to be found there.

[fbgweezer]

bob then that applie to all the questions that petrocelli tossed to witnesses in the civil trial. like the goofy idea that oj could have climbed on the carport and jumped to his properryimo
martin II

why oh why do you continue to post this lie?

[William Anthony]

I see. Just because an attorney insinuates something by asking a question is not evidence of anything.

So you think that all of the fibers from the killer's clothing transferred from Nicole to Ron?

And all of Simpson's hairs transferred from Nicole to Ron's shirt and to the inside of the hat?

Not only is there no evidence that ever happened but tell us please, how does that change the fact that all of the hair and fiber evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer?

bobaugust

The question was posed to a prosecution witness, whose answer provided an alternative explanation for the trace. If you choose not to believe that the trace could have been transferred, then you disagree with the witness. I will repeat, the defense does not have to prove anything, only offer a plausible alternative explanation (impeachment).

[William Anthony]

No, what I'm saying is that your speculation that the blood wasn't fresh is not a credible argument. There was never any question that the blood was fresh blood by either of Simpson's defense teams. The only witness who was ever asked about the freshness of the blood was Dennis Fung in the civil trial and he explained why he believed the blood was fresh blood.

bobaugust

Why do you keep putting the onus on the defense? A smart lawyer, imho, will point to what the prosecution failed to prove in his arguments to the jury.

[William Anthony]

What does it matter? You wouldn't believe it anyway! You would make some ridiculous assinine excuse of why they couldn't be OJ's footprints. As it has been stated many times, you and your comrades could have a video of OJ murdering Nicole and Ron and you would still NOT believe that your beloved Idol, Hero and piece of cr@p OJ Simpson was the killer. You would say that the video was doctored, just like you and your comrades have done regarding the pictures showing OJ wearing the BM shoes! Even if you and your comrades were all at Bundy sitting there on lawn chairs sipping MaiTais, watching with your own eyes, would you think that OJ was the killer! Duh!

You and your comrades are kidding no one!

JMO and MOO!!

I do not know to whom you refer as my comrades. I think that it has been proven that Simpson was more likely than not liable for the deaths and that it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murders. If I was sitting in a lawn chair sipping Mai Tai's, Simpson would not be the form or gender on which my eyes would be focused.

[martin II]

why oh why do you continue to post this lie?


weezer
Petrocelli asking jasom simpson is he could enter the propertry by the salingers carport.

you should be careful about calling me LIE.
MARTIN ii

A: That's about as far as you can probably -- as you can --

Q: Now, why would it be not possible to climb the fence from the Salinger property onto the Rockingham property after that point where we just stopped?

MR. LEONARD: Same objections.

THE WITNESS: 'Cause there's a succession of trees that are probably about six inches apart and probably about four inches in diameter that are right -- I mean that go from here all the way back (Indicating). So, I mean, you'd have to be a pretty thin dude or female to slip through them. And they got branches.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Is there a carport on the Salinger property?

A: Yeah. Yes.

Q: Are you able to get on that carport and then jump on over?

MR. LEONARD: Same objections.

MR. PETROCELLI: You are shaking your head no. Have you tried that, Mr. Leonard?

MR. LEONARD: No, no. I'm shaking my head at the question, that's all.

MR.PETROCELLI: You aren't suggesting the answer?

MR. LEONARD: No. In fact, the videotape will show the witness wasn't even looking at me at the time. You were looking at me.

MR. PETROCELLI: I am.

MR. LEONARD: But he wasn't. And the same objections.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

MR. LEONARD: I will keep perfectly still now. And, no, I haven't tried it.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Opposite the air conditioner --

A: Right.

Q: -- that is affixed to the -- a wall where it's marked "Kaelin's Room" --

A: Right.

Q: -- on this sketch here, Exhibit 179, opposite that air conditioner on the

Salinger property is a carport. Correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Are you able to -- could one get on that carport and then jump over at that point?

MR. LEONARD: Same objections.

THE WITNESS: I believe the trees don't stop at the top of the carport. They continue up. So not only would you have to be skinny, you'd have to be a pretty good hurdler.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Okay. How --in June of 1994 there was no barrier to getting onto the Salinger property



http://walraven.org/simpson/js_depo1.html

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*weezer
Petrocelli asking jasom simpson is he could enter the propertry by the salingers carport.. . .you should be careful about calling me LIE.


Your original post:
"Originally Posted by martin II
bob then that applie to all the questions that petrocelli tossed to witnesses in the civil trial. like the goofy idea that oj could have climbed on the carport and jumped to his properryimo
martin II"

Petrocelli didn't 'toss' to witnesses the goofy idea. Petrocelli questioned Jason as to whether or not it was possible.

[martin II]

Martin,

Remember, the judge in the civil trial did say the defense could argue that the glove was planted, so Petrocelli had to toss out other options for the jury.

I don't think Petrocelli in the civil trial even tried to use the "jump fence" theory.

limakey
he did not directly charge that oj jumped the fense. He was trying to plant the syggestion in the minds of the jury that the salingers property and tha carport was a way to get into the property
i posted jasons testimony
martin II

[martin II]

*Snipped*


Your original post:
"Originally Posted by martin II
bob then that applie to all the questions that petrocelli tossed to witnesses in the civil trial. like the goofy idea that oj could have climbed on the carport and jumped to his properryimo
martin II"

Petrocelli didn't 'toss' to witnesses the goofy idea. Petrocelli questioned Jason as to whether or not it was possible.


It was a goffy idea as jason proved with his answer as it was impossible for anyone to get on top of the carport without a ladder as there were no windows.
Petrocellli was trying to suggest to the jury that this is how oj got onto his porpert by posing this goofy quesiton to jason.

i posted the testimony and it is not lie

naturally you are streatching and twisting AGAIN
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

petrocellis GOOFY idea about someone jumping the fense and how the wire on the fense could have been bent.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/goof2.htm

[martin II]

All

here is more on petrocellis goofy suggestion that oj may have jumped from the carport to his property.

he could not jump from the carport and bend the wire too.

martin II

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/goof2.htm

Second, the Salingers' carport blocks access to the fence at the place of the bent prongs -- as Petrocelli himself alluded in a couple of the depositions. It was because of this that Petrocelli suggested the possibility that Simpson had got up on the roof of the carport (somehow) and jumped down into the abyss between the hedge and Kato's wall, thereby crashing into the wall. The problem is... If Simpson jumped from the roof of the carport against the bungalow wall, then he did not step on the top of the fence. Any scenario that tries to relate the bent prongs to Simpson's crossing the fence is a mess.

[fbgweezer]

petrocellis GOOFY idea about someone jumping the fense and how the wire on the fense could have been bent.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/goof2.htm

You mean bent like it was when orenthal was standing next to it in his video? :D

[fbgweezer]

All

here is more on petrocellis goofy suggestion that oj may have jumped from the carport to his property.

he could not jump from the carport and bend the wire too.

martin II

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/goof2.htm

Second, the Salingers' carport blocks access to the fence at the place of the bent prongs -- as Petrocelli himself alluded in a couple of the depositions. It was because of this that Petrocelli suggested the possibility that Simpson had got up on the roof of the carport (somehow) and jumped down into the abyss between the hedge and Kato's wall, thereby crashing into the wall. The problem is... If Simpson jumped from the roof of the carport against the bungalow wall, then he did not step on the top of the fence. Any scenario that tries to relate the bent prongs to Simpson's crossing the fence is a mess.

I'm reading Jason's deposition that you provided the link to and I don't see where Petrocelli is suggesting or even asking some of this.

[martin II]

william

I was reading Wagner again on the subject of evidence of anyone comming over the back fense at ojs south walkway.

all of the following testified that they saw no evidence of anyone comming over the fence at that area because of the thick bushes hedges and vine growth.

Ron Phillips
Vanhatter
D Fung
Furhman
so my opinion has not changed. OJ or no one else came over the south fence.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/goof2.htm

martin II

[fbgweezer]

william

I was reading Wagner again on the subject of evidence of anyone comming over the back fense at ojs south walkway.

all of the following testified that they saw no evidence of anyone comming over the fence at that area because of the thick bushes hedges and vine growth.

Ron Phillips
Vanhatter
D Fung
Furhman
so my opinion has not changed. OJ or no one else came over the south fence.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/goof2.htm

martin II

How in the world did you come to this conclusion from what they said? No one testified that no one came over that fence. :(

[martin II]

I'm reading Jason's deposition that you provided the link to and I don't see where Petrocelli is suggesting or even asking some of this.

fbg
stop tring to confuse the issue.

Petrocelli asked jason about the sallingers carport as a means on entering the property. Jason said one would have to be very skinny because of the hedges bushes etc.

wagner is showing how goofy petrocellis idea of entrance by the top of the carport was BECAUSE the carport was not next to the place where kato said he heard the thumps.

stop confusing the issue and twisting what is posted.

martin II

[martin II]

How in the world did you come to this conclusion from what they said? No one testified that no one came over that fence. :(

all of these detectives testified that they saw no evidence of anyone comming onto the property over that fense in the south walkway. they were the first on the scene.

if someone had come over the fense there would be distrubed leaves, vines
broken leaves or something that they would have seen and understood that it meant that someone came over the fence.

since all said that they saw no evidence of this then i am of the opinion
that no one came over the fense.

martin II

[martin II]

You mean bent like it was when orenthal was standing next to it in his video? :D

weezer
I see you are having trouble with reading and understanding facts.

wagner suggest that the photographer that took the picture must have been standing on the fence where the wire was bent to be able to take the picture he took.

see picture of fence in the below link

THE "BLUE PACKAGE": For reasons I don't understand, there was newsgroup interest during this discussion in the "blue package," which was an empty container on the other side of the chain link fence near the evidence glove. The blue plastic material was recovered (by Fuhrman, working from the Salingers' side of the fence) and booked into evidence as item #10. No significance to this item has ever been widely accepted, though conspiracy buffs have proposed that someone planted the glove and brought it to the site in this package. We show defense exhibit #1025 here as Figure 7 [BLUEPAPR.JPG]. It is a photograph looking straight down at the situation and shows both the glove and the blue package in the positions in which they were discovered.

Interestingly, neither the photographer's feet nor a ladder are visible in this picture which shows a fairly wide angle. One wonders how the photographer (LAPD's Rokhar) supported himself to take the picture. The only source of support visible in the picture is the fence post, and if the photographer stood directly above these objects his foot would be right at the place of the bent prongs. This suggests a rather benign cause of the fence's condition, and does not require that Simpson make some physically impossible maneuver.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/goof2.htm

martin II

[fbgweezer]

all of these detectives testified that they saw no evidence of anyone comming onto the property over that fense in the south walkway. they were the first on the scene.

if someone had come over the fense there would be distrubed leaves, vines
broken leaves or something that they would have seen and understood that it meant that someone came over the fence.

since all said that they saw no evidence of this then i am of the opinion
that no one came over the fense.

martin II

Jason's deposition:

"Q: So you could just walk up the Salinger -- walk up to the Salinger property and then walk all the way down till you hit those trees that you were just talking about. Right?

A: Correct.

Q: Okay. And anywhere along that path, you were saying that you might be able to jump the fence. Right?

MR. LEONARD: Same objections.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. "

[martin II]

Jason's deposition:

"Q: So you could just walk up the Salinger -- walk up to the Salinger property and then walk all the way down till you hit those trees that you were just talking about. Right?

A: Correct.

Q: Okay. And anywhere along that path, you were saying that you might be able to jump the fence. Right?

MR. LEONARD: Same objections.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. "


Bailey tried to suggest that Fuhrman should have led the detectives to see the glove by bringing them through the Salinger's yard, rather than down Simpson's back walk where evidence might be disturbed by the passage of several detectives. What he elicits is that it is very hard to approach the fence because of the hedge from the Salingers' side:

Q DID YOU NOTICE THAT WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE THERE WAS AN OBJECT EQUIDISTANT FROM THE FENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE THAT WAS VERY PLAINLY VISIBLE THROUGH IT?
A YES.
Q SO THAT PRESUMABLY IF YOU HAD CHOSEN TO DO IT YOU COULD HAVE HAD THE DETECTIVE LOOK THROUGH THE FENCE AND HAD THE SAME VANTAGE POINTS WITH RESPECT TO THE GLOVE, COULDN'T YOU?
A NO.
Q COULD NOT?
A NO.
Q WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
A IT WAS VERY OVERGROWN, VERY DIRTY. THE LEAVES WERE VERY THICK IN THE FLOWER BED AREA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. IT WAS VERY HARD TO EVEN GET IN THERE. I PERSONALLY TRIED TO GET INTO THAT AREA AND IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT, VERY DIRTY.
_________________________________________

[martin II]

Jason's deposition:

"Q: So you could just walk up the Salinger -- walk up to the Salinger property and then walk all the way down till you hit those trees that you were just talking about. Right?

A: Correct.

Q: Okay. And anywhere along that path, you were saying that you might be able to jump the fence. Right?

MR. LEONARD: Same objections.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. "


you are twisting again

the quesiton was " walk all the way down until you hit the house (CARPORT)
at the carport and after there were trees and bushes and impossible to jump over.

martin II

[martin II]

jason is saying one could jump the fense before one came to the area of the TREES. area where some thing oj jumped the fense. then it was impossible as furhman said.
martin II

[bobaugust]

The question was posed to a prosecution witness, whose answer provided an alternative explanation for the trace. If you choose not to believe that the trace could have been transferred, then you disagree with the witness. I will repeat, the defense does not have to prove anything, only offer a plausible alternative explanation (impeachment).

A plausible explanation for what? What fibers? Transferred from what to what?

Of course fibers can be transferred, that's how they got from the killer's clothing onto Ron's shirt, onto the killer's gloves, and onto Simpson's socks. That's how Simpson's Bronco carpet fibers got on the knit hat and on the killer's gloves. Transferred.

So tell us William, what is your plausible explanation as to how these fibers got on the evidence that was found?

The defense never offerred an alternative explanation for how these fibers got on this evidence and neither have you.


bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It was a goffy idea as jason proved with his answer as it was impossible for anyone to get on top of the carport without a ladder as there were no windows.
Petrocellli was trying to suggest to the jury that this is how oj got onto his porpert by posing this goofy quesiton to jason.

i posted the testimony and it is not lie

naturally you are streatching and twisting AGAIN
MARTIN ii

martin II, so now your excuse for your lie is that Petrocelli was trying to plant the suggestion in the minds of the jury that the carport was a way onto the property?

This was not testimony given in the civil trial. This was testimony from Jason's deposition where more detailed information about this subject was becoming known. This also has been told to you before but that still doesn't stop you from continually making your false claims, does it?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

william

I was reading Wagner again on the subject of evidence of anyone comming over the back fense at ojs south walkway.

all of the following testified that they saw no evidence of anyone comming over the fence at that area because of the thick bushes hedges and vine growth.

Ron Phillips
Vanhatter
D Fung
Furhman
so my opinion has not changed. OJ or no one else came over the south fence.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/goof2.htm

martin II

martin II, if your opinion is based on Wagner's writings it understandable that you don't know what you're talking about. Wagner never wrote about the place on the fence where Simpson actually jumped his fence he was writing about a different place on the fence where he imagined Simpson jumped it and then proved himself wrong.

But this too has been explained to you before. Either you have a serious memory problem retaining information or you are purposely lying.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Why do you keep putting the onus on the defense? A smart lawyer, imho, will point to what the prosecution failed to prove in his arguments to the jury.

And which smart lawyer in this case ever pointed out that the prosecution didn't prove the blood was fresh?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

A plausible explanation for what? What fibers? Transferred from what to what?

Of course fibers can be transferred, that's how they got from the killer's clothing onto Ron's shirt, onto the killer's gloves, and onto Simpson's socks. That's how Simpson's Bronco carpet fibers got on the knit hat and on the killer's gloves. Transferred.

So tell us William, what is your plausible explanation as to how these fibers got on the evidence that was found?

The defense never offerred an alternative explanation for how these fibers got on this evidence and neither have you.


bobaugust

By the officers contaminating the scence.

[martin II]

martin II, if your opinion is based on Wagner's writings it understandable that you don't know what you're talking about. Wagner never wrote about the place on the fence where Simpson actually jumped his fence he was writing about a different place on the fence where he imagined Simpson jumped it and then proved himself wrong.

But this too has been explained to you before. Either you have a serious memory problem retaining information or you are purposely lying.

bobaugust


wrong

he was talking about the area of the fence where the bent wire was found and where kato thinks he hears the knocks on his wall.
martin II

[William Anthony]

And which smart lawyer in this case ever pointed out that the prosecution didn't prove the blood was fresh?

bobaugust

Just goes to show how sophisticated the jury was, if they did not. However, I am sure that one of the brilliant lawyers on the dream team brought it out.

[martin II]

By the officers contaminating the scence.

no one knows the origin of the fibers so the fibers could have come from any place including the blanket that the cops whisked all over the crime scene, their uniforms and clothes or they could have been put on the sock in the lab when they were dropping blood on them.
martin II

[bobaugust]

wrong

he was talking about the area of the fence where the bent wire was found and where kato thinks he hears the knocks on his wall.
martin II

Wagner got it wrong. He wrote about a different place on the wall where the noises occurred. He wrote about a different place on the fence where Simpson jumped it.

Petrocelli never believed that Simpson jumped on the carport. Petrocelli never suggested that to the civil trial jury.

You're the one who is wrong, making false accusations and false statements and you're still trying to weasel out of your many mistakes about this without admitting to them.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

no one knows the origin of the fibers so the fibers could have come from any place including the blanket that the cops whisked all over the crime scene, their uniforms and clothes or they could have been put on the sock in the lab when they were dropping blood on them.
martin II

And aliens from outer space could have been the real killers.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Just goes to show how sophisticated the jury was, if they did not. However, I am sure that one of the brilliant lawyers on the dream team brought it out.

All of Simpson's brilliant lawyers understood that the blood was fresh blood. Only some not very brilliant posters on this discussion group can't understand it.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Wagner got it wrong. He wrote about a different place on the wall where the noises occurred. He wrote about a different place on the fence where Simpson jumped it.

Petrocelli never believed that Simpson jumped on the carport. Petrocelli never suggested that to the civil trial jury.

You're the one who is wrong, making false accusations and false statements and you're still trying to weasel out of your many mistakes about this without admitting to them.

bobaugust

wagner said YOU got it wrong.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

I do not know to whom you refer as my comrades. I think that it has been proven that Simpson was more likely than not liable for the deaths and that it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murders. If I was sitting in a lawn chair sipping Mai Tai's, Simpson would not be the form or gender on which my eyes would be focused.

Don't talk to me about reasonable doubt because you obviously and blatantly discount the DNA evidence and much more!

Well, take your pick because there are a few female NG's that you could focus your eyes on while you are sitting in your lawnchair, sipping your MaiTai!

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

wagner said YOU got it wrong.
martin II

I've got an idea. Why don't you go post with Wagner, being that you both agree? :D
Perhaps someone can channel him through for you.....

[2L8 4A D8]

weezer
Petrocelli asking jasom simpson is he could enter the propertry by the salingers carport.

you should be careful about calling me LIE.
MARTIN ii

<snipped>

Why should she? I've caught you in a couple of lies and brought them to your attention immediately. Thus, you can get off of your high horse and the sooner, the better because the only person you are fooling is yourself and your comrades!

JMO and MOO!!

[limakey]

Mr. August,

The Defense never had to challenge certain blood drops---because the DA's never introduced his statement. Clark's only arguments that the blood was fresh was the police's testimony and a broken AC unit test.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Tell me, in your opinon, why the DA's didn't introduce Simpson's interview, according to you, this statement alone buries him, so why didn't they use it. And, I don't want quotes from a book, I don't want the reply they were self serving statements or they were softball questions.

Well, you can use the softball question as an excuse, if you provide examples of their softball questions.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

The Defense never had to challenge certain blood drops---because the DA's never introduced his statement. Clark's only arguments that the blood was fresh was the police's testimony and a broken AC unit test.

limakey, you have things backwards. Simpson's attorneys knew what Simpson told the police. If they had tried to make the claim that Simpson had dripped his blood there before the murders they knew that the prosecution would introduce Simpson's statement that contradicted that false claim.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Tell me, in your opinon, why the DA's didn't introduce Simpson's interview, according to you, this statement alone buries him, so why didn't they use it. And, I don't want quotes from a book, I don't want the reply they were self serving statements or they were softball questions.

Well, you can use the softball question as an excuse, if you provide examples of their softball questions.

limakey, I've already explained to you why Clark said she didn't use Simpson's statement. In hind site I don't agree with her decision since I believe the lies Simpson told the police far outweighed any sympathy he might have gotten. Petrocelli had no problem confronting Simpson with some of those lies in the civil trial.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Don't talk to me about reasonable doubt because you obviously and blatantly discount the DNA evidence and much more!

Well, take your pick because there are a few female NG's that you could focus your eyes on while you are sitting in your lawnchair, sipping your MaiTai!

JMO and MOO!!

I sufffer from no bias when it comes to the focusing of my eyes or to whom I may be interested. I do not discount the DNA, but do believe it was impeached enough to show reasonable doubt and in some instances bias.

[bobaugust]

I sufffer from no bias when it comes to the focusing of my eyes or to whom I may be interested. I do not discount the DNA, but do believe it was impeached enough to show reasonable doubt and in some instances bias.

I disagree. The DNA wasn't impeached. Did any of the identified DNA ever point to anyone else? If it had that would be impeachment. Imagined speculation does not impeach evidence. Contamination does not change DNA. Contamination only makes it more difficult to identify DNA. Despite contamination DNA was identified that was consistent with Simpson's DNA.

If you can't understand or except the DNA results then simply look at one of the blood drops found at Bundy, One blood drop on the Bundy trail was typed the same as the defendant's. This was conventional serology. This was the PGM typing that was done, not DNA. This was uncontradicted. No one contradicted that accuracy or the integrity of that. No one claimed that's the product of contamination.

This is the type of evidence that has always been used to place a defendant at a crime scene before DNA testing.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I disagree. The DNA wasn't impeached. Did any of the identified DNA ever point to anyone else? If it had that would be impeachment. Imagined speculation does not impeach evidence. Contamination does not change DNA. Contamination only makes it more difficult to identify DNA. Despite contamination DNA was identified that was consistent with Simpson's DNA.

If you can't understand or except the DNA results then simply look at one of the blood drops found at Bundy, One blood drop on the Bundy trail was typed the same as the defendant's. This was conventional serology. This was the PGM typing that was done, not DNA. This was uncontradicted. No one contradicted that accuracy or the integrity of that. No one claimed that's the product of contamination.

This is the type of evidence that has always been used to place a defendant at a crime scene before DNA testing.

bobaugust

The results depend on the conclusion of the scientist, and we have seen in all too many cases were the results were wrong. The defense shed light on the different interpretations and how the DNA could have been placed on items of evidence through contamination. Also, there was no evidence of how fresh the blood was. I know to you this was not an issue. However, I do believe it was to some. There is no dispute that he was at the scene some time before the murders. The dispute is whether or not there is credible evidence placing him at the scene at the time of the murders.

[bobaugust]

The results depend on the conclusion of the scientist, and we have seen in all too many cases were the results were wrong. The defense shed light on the different interpretations and how the DNA could have been placed on items of evidence through contamination. Also, there was no evidence of how fresh the blood was. I know to you this was not an issue. However, I do believe it was to some. There is no dispute that he was at the scene some time before the murders. The dispute is whether or not there is credible evidence placing him at the scene at the time of the murders.

First you argue that the test results can't be believed and then you argue that it was Simpson's blood at Bundy but it was there before the murders. Which is it?

Not only were Simpson's blood drops found near the victims, and along the walkway, they were found on the rear gate and on the cement outside the rear gate. Simpson himself admitted that the last time he was at Bundy was about 5 days or a week before the murders and then it was only to pick his kids up from the front of the condo, and he wasn't bleeding. Yet you still make the claim that his blood may have been there before despite Simpson's admissions, despite that fact that none of Simpson's attorneys in either trial ever raised that question. And despite the fact that later there was uncontradicted testimony that the blood was fresh blood.

I'm sorry William, but your excuses only show that you argue just to argue and will never admit to the reality of any of the incriminating evidence in this case, even uncontradicted evidence. All you do is dream up alternative unsupported unlikely possibilities and then argue those possibilities somehow impeach the evidence and raise reasonable doubt to you. What you call reasonable doubt is not reasonable at all. It's imaginary unreasonable doubt and has as much credibility as the claim that aliens from outer space committed these murders. Zero credibility.

bobaugust

[deputydi]

<snip>I'm sorry William, but your excuses only show that you argue just to argue and will never admit to the reality of any of the incriminating evidence in this case, even uncontradicted evidence. All you do is dream up alternative unsupported unlikely possibilities and then argue those possibilities somehow impeach the evidence and raise reasonable doubt to you. What you call reasonable doubt is not reasonable at all. It's imaginary unreasonable doubt and has as much credibility as the claim that aliens from outer space committed these murders. Zero credibility.

bobaugust
I think he argues just to practice up on his cross examinations skills. He's got a long, long way to go before he gets his JD and even farther before he passes the bar of any state.;) Gotta get experience somewhere so I'll give him an "E" for effort.

[William Anthony]

snipped
First you argue that the test results can't be believed and then you argue that it was Simpson's blood at Bundy but it was there before the murders. Which is it?
And despite the fact that later there was uncontradicted testimony that the blood was fresh blood.

snipped
bobaugust

I am not arguing anything only pointing to the methods used by the defense to impeach the evidence. Show the "uncontradicted testimony" that the blood was fresh, and, to what blood do you refer.

[William Anthony]

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.


Dear Limakey,

A well reason and articulated conclusion. We will never know what was said during the conversations, but, we can choose to believe what we desire based upon our observations, life experiences and the manner of the witnesses who testify.

[bobaugust]

I am not arguing anything only pointing to the methods used by the defense to impeach the evidence. Show the "uncontradicted testimony" that the blood was fresh, and, to what blood do you refer.

Of course you're arguing. You argue that any possibility no matter how remote impeaches evidence and creates reasonable doubt. No one ever contradicted Fung's testimony that the Bundy blood drop trail was fresh blood.

November 4, 1996 Dennis Fung
Q. Did Detective Lange point out to you any particular items of evidence that he wanted collected?
A. Yes, he did. He showed me keys, a pager, glove, and a cap in the caged area, and then there was a series of blood drops along the north side of the Bundy house.
Q. And these blood drops that you described, what condition did they appear to you to be in?
A. They --
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: The blood drops appeared to be fairly fresh, meaning that they were red and had a
slight tacky appearance to them.

*
Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you testified about how blood drops -- I think you described it as a trail going from the Bronco to the residence, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You have no way of knowing what direction -- if it is indeed a trail -- that it is going, whether it is going from the residence to the Bronco or the other way around, do you?
A. Well, there is one spot that does have directionality to it.
Q. What spot is that?
A. That is item number 7 and that's the far right bottom picture. You can see some trailing there.
Q. Any other item have any directionality to it?
A. I wouldn't call any directionality to any of the others.
Q. You have no way of knowing whether the other drops -- whether the other drops got there vis-a-vis drop number 7 or any of the other drops, do you?
A. I can tell that they were all fresh drops and -- but as far as minute -- a minute-to-minute thing, no.
Q. When you say fresh drops, you're saying that because of what?
A. Their appearance.
Q. And their appearance is what? What tells you that they're fresh?
A. They were red and slightly tacky.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

snipped

No one ever contradicted Fung's testimony that the Bundy blood drop trail was fresh blood.

November 4, 1996 Dennis Fung
Q. Q. And these blood drops that you described, what condition did they appear to you to be in?
A. They --
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: The blood drops appeared to be fairly fresh, meaning that they were red and had a
slight tacky appearance to them.

*
Q. (BY MR. BLASIER)
A. I can tell that they were all fresh drops and -- but as far as minute -- a minute-to-minute thing, no.
Q. When you say fresh drops, you're saying that because of what?
A. Their appearance.
Q. And their appearance is what? What tells you that they're fresh?
A. They were red and slightly tacky.

bobaugust

Thank you for the testimony, although I believe that this was an appealable issue as to the lack of foundation as to his ability to testify as to whether or not the drops were fresh. Even given that he only testified to how the drops appeared and based on this he concluded they were fresh. I do not know if you fully appreciate the concept of appeals and impeachment. As that last question is posed, appearing in the transcript it is two questions and I am not sure which question Fung was answering. I think we all have experienced how blood stains appear after some hours, and, imho, Fung impeached himself.

[martin II]

I think he argues just to practice up on his cross examinations skills. He's got a long, long way to go before he gets his JD and even farther before he passes the bar of any state.;) Gotta get experience somewhere so I'll give him an "E" for effort.


over the period of time william has posted here i have found his post to be very informative and his manner of posting respectful of others. If i were in a position to grade post or had been asked to do so, i would give him a very high grade.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

over the period of time william has posted here i have found his post to be very informative and his manner of posting respectful of others. If i were in a position to grade post or had been asked to do so, i would give him a very high grade.imo
martin II

Are you sure you're not wearing sunglasses when you read these posts? :tongue:

[bobaugust]

Dear Limakey,

A well reason and articulated conclusion. We will never know what was said during the conversations, but, we can choose to believe what we desire based upon our observations, life experiences and the manner of the witnesses who testify.

A well reason conclusion? I disagree. Limakey's imagined speculation of what Commander Bushey could have said is not true. He never said that.

Anyone can imagine anything. What if Simpson told Arnelle that he killed Nicole and that Arnelle had to wash the clothing he wore committing his crimes and then deny she did anything to help him. Is that imagined speculation a well reasoned conclusion? We can choose to believe what we desire but that doesn't make our beliefs credible without evidence to support them.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I think he argues just to practice up on his cross examinations skills. He's got a long, long way to go before he gets his JD and even farther before he passes the bar of any state.;) Gotta get experience somewhere so I'll give him an "E" for effort.

Not that long to get my JD and I have not argued in the post to which bobaugust was referring. I do not believe you understand that I intend and will be equipped to pass the bar on the first try in any State that I decide to practice. Of course I like arguing, because the law, contrary to popular belief, is not a solid as people believe, and, therefore, lends itself to argument.

[William Anthony]

over the period of time william has posted here i have found his post to be very informative and his manner of posting respectful of others. If i were in a position to grade post or had been asked to do so, i would give him a very high grade.imo
martin II

Martin,

Thank you. You are obviously a man of high intelligence and a gentleman.

[William Anthony]

Are you sure you're not wearing sunglasses when you read these posts? :tongue:

Diva,

Was it not you who only had eyes for me or have I not yet bedazzled you?:)

[martin II]

Martin,

Thank you. You are obviously a man of high intelligence and a gentleman.

william
I do compliment you on your tolarance and knowledge.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Thank you for the testimony, although I believe that this was an appealable issue as to the lack of foundation as to his ability to testify as to whether or not the drops were fresh. Even given that he only testified to how the drops appeared and based on this he concluded they were fresh. I do not know if you fully appreciate the concept of appeals and impeachment. As that last question is posed, appearing in the transcript it is two questions and I am not sure which question Fung was answering. I think we all have experienced how blood stains appear after some hours, and, imho, Fung impeached himself.

You're welcome, and you're right I don't know very much about the concept of appeals and impeachment, but I do recognized bull crap arguments when I see them. Maybe theoretically an overruled objection may be grounds for an appeal but in the real world and real trials I doubt if that's very realistic.

Fung impeached himself? I think not. I'll take Fung's opinion over yours about this, thank you. No one ever testified the blood wasn't fresh blood. If Simpson had left his blood at Bundy 5 days or a week prior to the murders it would not be red and slightly tacky.

Simpson's fresh blood at Bundy places him at the murder scene at the time of the murders.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

Diva,

Was it not you who only had eyes for me or have I not yet bedazzled you?:)

No, I've never had eyes for you. It was merely another instance of you fabricating something in an effort to rile me. ;)

[William Anthony]

You're welcome, and you're right I don't know very much about the concept of appeals and impeachment, but I do recognized bull crap arguments when I see them. Maybe theoretically an overruled objection may be grounds for an appeal but in the real world and real trials I doubt if that's very realistic.

Fung impeached himself? I think not. I'll take Fung's opinion over yours about this, thank you. No one ever testified the blood wasn't fresh blood. If Simpson had left his blood at Bundy 5 days or a week prior to the murders it would not be red and slightly tacky.

Simpson's fresh blood at Bundy places him at the murder scene at the time of the murders.

bobaugust

There was neve any doubt in my mind that you would prefer Fung's opinion to mine: after all he agrees with you. Placing the objection on the record preserves the issue for appeal. The issue would then be should the testimony have been sticken. I doubt that this would have been a basis for a new trial, but it would have been an issue in the appeal, should the defense have needed to appeal, imho. Any reasonable person would doubt that a blood drop would appear red after a few hours, imho. This is not to call you opinion unreasonable, just to differ.

[deputydi]

Not that long to get my JD and I have not argued in the post to which bobaugust was referring. I do not believe you understand that I intend and will be equipped to pass the bar on the first try in any State that I decide to practice. Of course I like arguing, because the law, contrary to popular belief, is not a solid as people believe, and, therefore, lends itself to argument.
I meant no disrespect in my post and I wish you all the best.

Sometimes I have a hard time understanding your point. If you intend to be successful, you should keep in mind that most of your cases will be adjudicated by laypeople. For instance, I don't know why you are talking about appealable issues here - whatever issues you think you have, they are totally irrelevant. The man was acquitted and there will be no appeal.

[William Anthony]

A well reason conclusion? I disagree. Limakey's imagined speculation of what Commander Bushey could have said is not true. He never said that.

Anyone can imagine anything. What if Simpson told Arnelle that he killed Nicole and that Arnelle had to wash the clothing he wore committing his crimes and then deny she did anything to help him. Is that imagined speculation a well reasoned conclusion? We can choose to believe what we desire but that doesn't make our beliefs credible without evidence to support them.

bobaugust

This is the part of Dear Limakey's post to which I was offering my accolades.

[William Anthony]

I meant no disrespect in my post and I wish you all the best.

Sometimes I have a hard time understanding your point. If you intend to be successful, you should keep in mind that most of your cases will be adjudicated by laypeople. For instance, I don't know why you are talking about appealable issues here - whatever issues you think you have, they are totally irrelevant. The man was acquitted and there will be no appeal.

I did not take any disrespect and was trying to show bobaugust that sometimes what is said or not said is enough to impeach a witness and, when the witness testifies to matters beyond their expertise, this may be grounds for an appeal. I just did not want bobaugust to think that, because Fung testified to it, the issue was uncontradicted. You are right, the defense will not appeal, now.

[bobaugust]

There was neve any doubt in my mind that you would prefer Fung's opinion to mine: after all he agrees with you. Placing the objection on the record preserves the issue for appeal. The issue would then be should the testimony have been sticken. I doubt that this would have been a basis for a new trial, but it would have been an issue in the appeal, should the defense have needed to appeal, imho. Any reasonable person would doubt that a blood drop would appear red after a few hours, imho. This is not to call you opinion unreasonable, just to differ.

Of course I take Fung's opinion about this over yours. Fung is a professional criminalist, you're not and besides I personally disagree with your opinion that hours old blood outside over night would not still be red and tacky.

If Blazier thought there was any question about the blood being fresh he would have asked Fung additional questions regarding that. Blazier has far more expertise than you do about the subject and he didn't ask additional questions and he didn't call any witness to contradict Fung.

The blood drops were not old blood. Lange testified when he first saw the blood he saw tentacles or tailing and explained what that meant. Hours later after the sun came out and the blood drops were photographed most of the tiny tailing had disappeared as the blood dried on the porous cement surface. Any knowledgeable person can tell the difference between days old blood and fresh blood.

http://bobaugust.com/bundyevidence.jpg

The fact is that Simpson's fresh blood found at Bundy places Simpson at the murder scene at the time of the murders.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I did not take any disrespect and was trying to show bobaugust that sometimes what is said or not said is enough to impeach a witness and, when the witness testifies to matters beyond their expertise, this may be grounds for an appeal. I just did not want bobaugust to think that, because Fung testified to it, the issue was uncontradicted. You are right, the defense will not appeal, now.

Dennis Fung was an expert witness regarding blood found at crime scenes. You are not.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Are you sure you're not wearing sunglasses when you read these posts? :tongue:

Hysterical, Diva! "If i were in a position to grade post or had been asked to do so, i would give him a very high grade.imo martin II" He wasn't asked to do so, but he graded WA's posts anyway! What a *****!

Martin wouldn't be able to read and understand posts even if he was using a magnifying glass!

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

Hysterical, Diva! "If i were in a position to grade post or had been asked to do so, i would give him a very high grade.imo martin II" He wasn't asked to do so, but he graded WA's posts anyway! What a *****!

Martin wouldn't be able to read and understand posts even if he was using a magnifying glass!

JMO and MOO!!

I know what ya mean. He posted on another thread that the bankruptcy laws aren't his "area of expertise". Based on his posts, I didn't realize he had ANY area of expertise. :tongue:

[2L8 4A D8]

I know what ya mean. He posted on another thread that the bankruptcy laws aren't his "area of expertise". Based on his posts, I didn't realize he had ANY area of expertise. :tongue:

:lol: :lol:

Excellent Diva!