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

martin II

10-11-2006, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Martin,

When it comes the phone message left by Paula, do you believe that the DA's didn't know about the message from Paula? It makes no sense to me that they would check his cell phone records, any calls from his home and not know that he had an answering service.

And as you know, a lot of "tips" have been given for the money. It other words, what is the possibility that some one could have told the DA's about the message, but would not testify about it in court?

IMO, the DA's knew about his phone call and again, they knew it would help OJ more then hurt him. IMO.

limakey

i think the da knew about paula. in the lapd interivew oj , there was talk about oj calling paula with plans to go to her house.

so i don't believe they did not check his cell phone and answering
service. their standing rule seems to be, if it is the truth and in anyway helps the defendant don't talk about it.imo
martin II

fbgweezer

10-11-2006, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by martin II

limakey

i think the da knew about paula. in the lapd interivew oj , there was talk about oj calling paula with plans to go to her house.

so i don't believe they did not check his cell phone and answering
service. their standing rule seems to be, if it is the truth and in anyway helps the defendant don't talk about it.imo
martin II the more we discuss paula and her dump message, the more I become convinced that she knew she was covering up and lying for orenthal and cochran had to have known it also.

limakey

10-11-2006, 09:09 PM

Martin,

I read part of that New York Times story--did anything jump out at you?

Like, Vanatter suspecting that the Simpsons, both of them could have been the victims of a stalker--how could he possibly have ruled that out at that time?

Also, never did the 4 detectives who went to Rockingham express any type of "relief" that OJ was safely in Chicago. Ron Phillilps never expressed any words to support this when he told OJ about Nicole.

Also, what Fuhrman said, "I finally found what I was looking for". Why was he looking for bloody glove behind Kato's wall? And again, at that time, did they do a search of the area, like maybe the prep had passed out do the injuries they have may have suffered in the murders?

With that statement, Fuhrman finally proves that OJ Simpson was a suspect well before the time was given by the LAPD. No one had no idea who's blood could have been on that glove.

During Lange and Vanatter's interview, they never asked him who he thought might have or could have done this? I don't remember.

2L8 4A D8

10-11-2006, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by limakey

<snipped>

Also, what Fuhrman said, "I finally found what I was looking for". Why was he looking for bloody glove behind Kato's wall? And again, at that time, did they do a search of the area, like maybe the prep had passed out do the injuries they have may have suffered in the murders?

It's funny how people can interpret things differently. I take, "I finally found what I was looking for" to mean that MF knew there was a Glove that was missing at Bundy and "he found it!" Where you take it to mean, "Why was he looking for bloody glove behind Kato's wall?"

With that statement, Fuhrman finally proves that OJ Simpson was a suspect well before the time was given by the LAPD. No one had no idea who's blood could have been on that glove.

Not necessarily. Get real! MF was talking about the "glove" NOT "OJ Simpson was a suspect well before the time was given by the LAPD."

We have ALL discussed this ad nauseum! When are you finally going to "get it?" How many times does it have "to be discussed" before you finally STHU or concede that the evidence as presented is correct?

JMO and MOO!!

<snipped>

martin II

10-12-2006, 07:03 AM

limakey

It is my opinion that when furhman realized that the victim was Niole Simpson early on at bundy and considering that he personally had prior knowledge of some reports of abuse between Nicol and OJ, He would as most le would , SUSPECT THE EX WAS INVOLVED and that he would have relayed his thoughts to the other detectives at that time.

this would account for why four detectives went to rockingham. why furhman (having been taken off the case) went also. why furhman agreed to jump the fense without a search warrant. why furhman started searching the bronco, and why he took it on himself and by himself ,to search the walkway without a search warrant or assistance from other detectives at rockingham.

after kato told them about the knocks, it seems that furhman would have asked vanhatter to come with me to investigate and see if anyone is in the walkway. but he didn't

i do believe that all four had oj as a suspect when they went to rockingham. imo
martin II

Heyes

10-12-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You're still posting this even though you've been told a million times that Fuhrman wasn't "taken off the case". It has also been explained many,many times as to why MF scaled the fence. I guess nothing sinks in with you.

Just got here, I heard that fuhrman knew where the house was. As for the jumping of the fence..... younger, more athletic? Am I right. This is what I remember.
I must say if somebody in my family is found slaughtered and they find blood drops around my house, by all means, I want the police to enter and make sure I'm ok. Who would have a problem with this?

Heyes

10-12-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Welcome & you remember correctly! :seeya:

Thanks! I feel better now! lol

2L8 4A D8

10-12-2006, 04:26 PM

2L8 4A D8

10-12-2006, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Heyes

Just got here, I heard that fuhrman knew where the house was. As for the jumping of the fence..... younger, more athletic? Am I right. This is what I remember.
I must say if somebody in my family is found slaughtered and they find blood drops around my house, by all means, I want the police to enter and make sure I'm ok. Who would have a problem with this?

Welcome! IMO, I think we ALL know "Who would have a problem with this?" and why, don't you?

martin II

10-12-2006, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Heyes

Just got here, I heard that fuhrman knew where the house was. As for the jumping of the fence..... younger, more athletic? Am I right. This is what I remember.
I must say if somebody in my family is found slaughtered and they find blood drops around my house, by all means, I want the police to enter and make sure I'm ok. Who would have a problem with this?

le are required to secure a legal search warrant BEFORE they enter your house not AFTER. regarless of the lie they tell.
as a citizen you do have rights.imo
martin II

bobaugust

10-12-2006, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by martin II

le are required to secure a legal search warrant BEFORE they enter your house not AFTER. regarless of the lie they tell.
as a citizen you do have rights.imo
martin II

martin II, the police were let into Simpson's house by Arnelle Simpson. They did obtain a search warrant before the house was searched.

bobaugust

martin II

10-12-2006, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, the police were let into Simpson's house by Arnelle Simpson. They did obtain a search warrant before the house was searched.

bobaugust

They had no right to be on his property withour a legal search warrant. They bum rushed Arnelle at i think 6 am out of her bed.
She didn't know to demand a search warrant from these masters of trickery. imo
MARTIN ii

martin II

10-12-2006, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, the police were let into Simpson's house by Arnelle Simpson. They did obtain a search warrant before the house was searched.

bobaugust

was arnelle a resident of oj's HOUSE or did she live in a guest house on the property? seems that the owner of the house has a give permission for le to enter without a search warrant.imo
martin II

bobaugust

10-12-2006, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by martin II

They had no right to be on his property withour a legal search warrant. They bum rushed Arnelle at i think 6 am out of her bed.
She didn't know to demand a search warrant from these masters of trickery. imo
MARTIN ii

martin II, the police had probable cause to enter Simpson's estate. There was no reason for Arnelle not to let them into her father's house.

bobaugust

martin II

10-12-2006, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, the police had probable cause to enter Simpson's estate. There was no reason for Arnelle not to let them into her father's house.

bobaugust

bob'
They had no probable cause to enter oj's property. the lie that they told about notifying him was just a lie. If they rang the bell and no one answered , they should have left unless they had already decided that he was a suspect. imo
martin II

bobaugust

10-12-2006, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob'
They had no probable cause to enter oj's property. the lie that they told about notifying him was just a lie. If they rang the bell and no one answered , they should have left unless they had already decided that he was a suspect. imo
martin II

martin II, there were lights in in the house. When no one answered the bell they became concerned. While waiting they saw the Westec sign outside the gate. Vannatter asked Phillips to call Westec to get Simpson's telephone number.

By coincidence a Westec car on routine patrol saw the police and stopped. The Westec patrol officer called his supervisor and then gave the police Simpson's telephone number as well as telling them as far as he knows Simpson should have been in the house as well as a live in housekeeper.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

10-12-2006, 08:51 PM

limakey

10-13-2006, 12:00 AM

Heyes,

IMO, the detectives had three solid reaons to justify their search, which is why I have a problem with their lies about it. Their actions did not match their testimony.

Plus, there are a few details that we don't know that is very important---that is who was listed as residents of the estate?

Using the term, "live in maid", does not mean she lived inside in the main house, only that she lived on the estate. It would be very intersting to find out who else was listed as residents of the estate.

limakey

10-13-2006, 12:05 AM

Martin,

Maybe you can help me on this, did anyone ask why the Westec trust just happended to be outside the estate? It has always struck me odd that they just happend to be there---I have often edwondered was this a routine patrol--and if it wasn't then what brought them to the estate?

My first thought was that perhaps that they have received calls from their clients who expressed that something was going on and they wanted their block patrolled.

If this was not a routine patrol--then who called them and directed them to the Simpson estate?

bobaugust

10-13-2006, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by limakey

Plus, there are a few details that we don't know that is very important---that is who was listed as residents of the estate?

Using the term, "live in maid", does not mean she lived inside in the main house, only that she lived on the estate. It would be very intersting to find out who else was listed as residents of the estate.

imakey, the Westec patrol officer told the detectives that as far as he knew Simpson should have been in the house as well as a live in housekeeper.

The detectives didn't know there were bungalows behind the house.

bobaugust

bobaugust

10-13-2006, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by limakey
[B]Martin,

Maybe you can help me on this, did anyone ask why the Westec trust just happended to be outside the estate? It has always struck me odd that they just happend to be there---I have often edwondered was this a routine patrol--and if it wasn't then what brought them to the estate? /B]

limakey, the detectives were ringing the bell and not receiving any response. There were lights on in the house yet no one was answering. They saw a Westec sign near the gate and Vannatter asked Phillips to call Westec and get Simpson's telephone number.

While they were waiting, by coincidence a Westec car on routine patrol saw the police and stopped. The Westec
patrol officer called his supervisor and then gave the police Simpson's telephone number as well as telling them as far as he knew Simpson should have been in the house as well as a live in housekeeper.

bobaugust

martin II

10-13-2006, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Martin,

Maybe you can help me on this, did anyone ask why the Westec trust just happended to be outside the estate? It has always struck me odd that they just happend to be there---I have often edwondered was this a routine patrol--and if it wasn't then what brought them to the estate?

My first thought was that perhaps that they have received calls from their clients who expressed that something was going on and they wanted their block patrolled.

If this was not a routine patrol--then who called them and directed them to the Simpson estate?
limakey
it was reported that there was a Westec sticker on the gate or bell and that the cops called that number. their reasons could have been to see if Westec had a key to the house. the cops were acting like it would be strange for oj or anyone else NOT to be at home.

i am wondering if when they had made other notificaitons and found no response to bell ringing did they just go onto the property and enter a house without a legal search warrant
or would they note tried to make notification and no one home?
imo
martin II

bobaugust

10-13-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by martin II

limakey
it was reported that there was a Westec sticker on the gate or bell and that the cops called that number. their reasons could have been to see if Westec had a key to the house. the cops were acting like it would be strange for oj or anyone else NOT to be at home.

i am wondering if when they had made other notificaitons and found no response to bell ringing did they just go onto the property and enter a house without a legal search warrant
or would they note tried to make notification and no one home?
imo
martin II

martin II, you take the facts and add your own version. Funny. The reason the police called Westec was to get Simpson's telephone number, not a key to the house. If you're going to attempt to answer questions try to to get your answers correct. But maybe that's asking too much of you.

As to what the police may have done in another situation it would probably depend on the circumstances. If they had just come from the home of a double homicide of the exwife of the person they were to notify that was less than five minutes away, and there were lights on in the house yet no one was answering, they probably would have done the same thing.

bobaugust

Heyes

10-13-2006, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Welcome! IMO, I think we ALL know "Who would have a problem with this?" and why, don't you?

Well..... I can think of ONE person. :D

And thanks guys for the welcome.:cool:

Heyes

10-13-2006, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by martin II

le are required to secure a legal search warrant BEFORE they enter your house not AFTER. regarless of the lie they tell.
as a citizen you do have rights.imo
martin II

HI Martin, nice to meet ya. I pay my police to protect my family. With that being said, if I was in the same situation as Mr. Simpson. Ex-wife found slaughtered, blood in the front of my house. I'm not answering the door. No movement in the house.
I would hope to heaven that they wouldn't just say, oh well, We don't have a search warrant let's go boys. I would be pi$$ed! Please! Please, come in my house, make sure I'm not a victim too! The suspicious circumstances just scream.. Make sure Mr. Simpson is OK! Can you imagine if they had just drove off and it turned out OJ was laying dead in his house and his daughter was being held and threatened to be killed?

martin II

10-13-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Heyes

HI Martin, nice to meet ya. I pay my police to protect my family. With that being said, if I was in the same situation as Mr. Simpson. Ex-wife found slaughtered, blood in the front of my house. I'm not answering the door. No movement in the house.
I would hope to heaven that they wouldn't just say, oh well, We don't have a search warrant let's go boys. I would be pi$$ed! Please! Please, come in my house, make sure I'm not a victim too! The suspicious circumstances just scream.. Make sure Mr. Simpson is OK! Can you imagine if they had just drove off and it turned out OJ was laying dead in his house and his daughter was being held and threatened to be killed?

heyes
hi
you make some good points if all of this had happened to oj (it didn't)and if the constitution did not prohibit illegal search and seisures(sp) to keep cops from entering your property without a search warrant.

lets say your ex was murdered down the street from you, does this give cops the right to enter your property and search through your house to see who is there at the same time looking for evidence to use against you when you had nothing to do with the murders? i don't think so. imo
martin II

limakey

10-13-2006, 10:19 PM

Heyes,

Believe it or not, you are making the NG's point. Had the police's actions matched their testimony, there would be no issues. I'm sorry but if you believe that there are victims inside the house, you ring the door bell, how many times, call the home how many times, then walk back to the guest houses, take time to question both the male and the female all the while you think someone might be seriously wounded on the inside?

Then when you get into the home, a huge home with at least two stories and you only look for one victim and only in her room? Is there a law that says she had to be killed or hurt in her room?

I have no problem with the true reaon they went over there, the ex is always the first suspect, when you add the fact that at least two of the detectives knew about the 1989 incident and one knew about the 1985 incident as well, because he reported to it, to say they never suspected him just doesn't make any sense.

To say they went there for the sole purpose to notify Mr. Simpson of his wife's death to spare him the agony of learning about it from the media, makes no sense----because they called him on the telephone to tell him.

To say that they were also there, that if Mr. Simpson became so upset, they would be there for him to help him get it together by reminding him that he had two minor children at the police station who needed their dad, not only being with them physically, but to be there for them emotionally does match the fact that they did not send someone from the Chicago police force to notify him--was it because that he would take the news less emotionally in Chicago?

I have no problem with them suspecting OJ Simpson right off the bat, the problem I have is that they lied about it and there has to be several reasons behind.

They had at least 3 valid reasons to go to Rockingham, they had no valid reason for choosing the weakest. Another point, its not like cops have that problem when it comes to stuff like this, they know that any judge who tosses out searches, etc., pays dearly for their actions. In other words, they had no fear of their warrant being tossed. However, I do believe Vanatter took one for the home team on this issue.

IMO.

2L8 4A D8

10-13-2006, 11:21 PM

Oh man! Good Gawd! Where's Bobaugust when you need him?

nettathirty

10-14-2006, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The Westec patrol officer called his supervisor and then gave the police Simpson's telephone number as well as telling them as far as he knows Simpson should have been in the house as well as a live in housekeeper.

bobaugust

How would the Westec Patrol Officer have known the comings and going of OJ Simpson?

Anybody with half a brain can see these cops, did not gain access to Rockingham for OJs' safety and well being...

1. No standby request for paramedics-
2. They allowed Arnelle to enter the house first, for the possible discovery..

For those of you who continue to lie to yourselves.. Had this not been the case of OJ (black defendant), Nicole and Ron (white victims) and that majority Black Jury.. All of you would be screaming to the hills, about the obvious lies perpetrated against this defendant by LE...

But as it seems, "Race" prevails as always with some of you people! (SAD, so very disturbingly, SAD)...

IMO.. MOO.. JMHO...

Heyes

10-15-2006, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by martin II

heyes
hi
you make some good points if all of this had happened to oj (it didn't)and if the constitution did not prohibit illegal search and seisures(sp) to keep cops from entering your property without a search warrant.

lets say your ex was murdered down the street from you, does this give cops the right to enter your property and search through your house to see who is there at the same time looking for evidence to use against you when you had nothing to do with the murders? i don't think so. imo
martin II

If there's blood from my car to my house, And I don't answer the phone or door then, He!! Yes!
Other than that, probably not.

Heyes

10-15-2006, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

How would the Westec Patrol Officer have known the comings and going of OJ Simpson?

Anybody with half a brain can see these cops, did not gain access to Rockingham for OJs' safety and well being...

1. No standby request for paramedics-
2. They allowed Arnelle to enter the house first, for the possible discovery..

For those of you who continue to lie to yourselves.. Had this not been the case of OJ (black defendant), Nicole and Ron (white victims) and that majority Black Jury.. All of you would be screaming to the hills, about the obvious lies perpetrated against this defendant by LE...
n
But as it seems, "Race" prevails as always with some of you people! (SAD, so very disturbingly, SAD)...

IMO.. MOO.. JMHO...

Race? We loved OJ! Are ya kidding me? Anyone who has met him has walked away feeling good. People from all walks of life that have met him thought he was great! "We" didn't know him intimately, none of us (the general public) were close to him or nicole. He sunk his own battleship this time. I don't see anyone else to blame.

By the way this happened in L.A. On the heels of Rodney King. Now that everyone has cooled off. Oj is just laughed off as the guy who got away with murder. I have yet to talk to anyone who still says he's innocent. Minds have changed since then. Their point was made. O.J. got off on a "technicality" lol

martin II

10-15-2006, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Heyes

If there's blood from my car to my house, And I don't answer the phone or door then, He!! Yes!
Other than that, probably not.

heyes

furhman says he went to rockingham to make a notification. while waiting for someone to answer the bell he started looking for evidence all on his own. wonder why. they said oj was not a suspect at that time. furhman saw a very small 'BROWN' spot on the bronco parked on the public street and this caused him to illegally enter oj's property by jumping over the wall/fense at the gate. he had not seen any blood in the driveway before he jumped the wall because he was outside.imo

it is my opinion that all four detectives believed that oj was a suspect when they were at bundy and went to rockingham. they just told a lie on that issue imo
martin II

martin II

10-15-2006, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Heyes

Race? We loved OJ! Are ya kidding me? Anyone who has met him has walked away feeling good. People from all walks of life that have met him thought he was great! "We" didn't know him intimately, none of us (the general public) were close to him or nicole. He sunk his own battleship this time. I don't see anyone else to blame.

By the way this happened in L.A. On the heels of Rodney King. Now that everyone has cooled off. Oj is just laughed off as the guy who got away with murder. I have yet to talk to anyone who still says he's innocent. Minds have changed since then. Their point was made. O.J. got off on a "technicality" lol

heyes
what was THE "TECHNICALITY"
MARTIN ii

Heyes

10-15-2006, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by martin II

heyes

furhman says he went to rockingham to make a notification. while waiting for someone to answer the bell he started looking for evidence all on his own. wonder why. they said oj was not a suspect at that time. furhman saw a very small 'BROWN' spot on the bronco parked on the public street and this caused him to illegally enter oj's property by jumping over the wall/fense at the gate. he had not seen any blood in the driveway before he jumped the wall because he was outside.imo

it is my opinion that all four detectives believed that oj was a suspect when they were at bundy and went to rockingham. they just told a lie on that issue imo
martin II

Victim or suspect They were prepared to investigate it either way, It looked to me like they went in with both scenerios in mind. what's wrong with that?

martin II

10-15-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Heyes

Victim or suspect They were prepared to investigate it either way, It looked to me like they went in with both scenerios in mind. what's wrong with that?

heyes

vanhatter testified that OJ was not a suspect when they went to rockingham. i think m clarke was questioning him and he said oj was not a suspect any more than you were. so if you think they went in with both scenerios in mind. vanhatter lied on the stand. imo
martin II

bobaugust

10-15-2006, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

How would the Westec Patrol Officer have known the comings and going of OJ Simpson?

Anybody with half a brain can see these cops, did not gain access to Rockingham for OJs' safety and well being...

1. No standby request for paramedics-
2. They allowed Arnelle to enter the house first, for the possible discovery..

For those of you who continue to lie to yourselves.. Had this not been the case of OJ (black defendant), Nicole and Ron (white victims) and that majority Black Jury.. All of you would be screaming to the hills, about the obvious lies perpetrated against this defendant by LE...

But as it seems, "Race" prevails as always with some of you people! (SAD, so very disturbingly, SAD)...

IMO.. MOO.. JMHO...

nettathirty, any reasonable thinking person with a brain understands how a simple notification that the detectives thought wouldn't take more than twenty minutes escalated based on the situation they encountered.

The Westec patrol officer who was responsible for patrolling Simpson's house only told the police detectives what he knew. According to his information Simpson and a live in housekeeper should have been in the house. Evidently Simpson never notified Westec of anything different.

1. There was no reason for the detectives to request paramedics unless a victim was found.
2. The detectives allowed Arnelle to open the door and enter the house so that she could show them where the housekeepers room was. After entering Simpson's house it was obvious there weren't signs of a struggle anywhere in the house.

The police didn't lie about this, only gullible people with active imaginations who either hate or mistrust LE create fantasies from simple explanations and reasonable reactions.

Your inability to understand the reality of what happened based on your obsession with race is what is so sad.

bobaugust

bobaugust

10-15-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by martin II

heyes

vanhatter testified that OJ was not a suspect when they went to rockingham. i think m clarke was questioning him and he said oj was not a suspect any more than you were. so if you think they went in with both scenerios in mind. vanhatter lied on the stand. imo
martin II

martin II, you really don't care if what you say is factually correct or not, do you? All you do is argue just to argue.

Vannatter didn't lie. When he responded to Shapiro, not Clark, he was being somewhat facetious. But he was telling the truth. Simpson wasn't a suspect at that time, just a possible suspect the same as anyone else who knew Nicole was a possible suspect until they were eliminated.

The facts are the facts whether you believe them or not they do not change. The detectives were following orders to notify Simpson in person and help him recover his children. Just additional special treatment for a well known African American celebrity. That was the mistake that came back to bite the LAPD, opening the door for all the unsupported, unrealistic speculation that the defense fantasized and gullible people like you who hate or mistrust LE bought into.

bobaugust

limakey

10-16-2006, 06:30 AM

Mr. August,

You have posted a blantant lie regarding Vanatter's intentions when he went to Bundy. When he was nailed in the courtroom and in the media on this regard, it was only then that he came up with his "potential" suspect CYA story.

Had he just left at that, then a weak back up CYA story is better then nothing. However, and this is what nails G's right between the eyes---he said he needed to talk to all the people that Nicole had seen and talked to within the last 72 hours of the life.

With this in mind, there were only two people who had this information at the time and that was Sydney and Justin. And as usual, his words don't match his actions.

If they were to talk to any and all people that Nicole spoke to within those 72 hours--the most important person was that person who made Nicole cry over the phone and the best friend she was fighting with. That all leads to Sydney Simpson and her brother. IMO.

And Mr. August only a completely ignorant person would believe that the cops didn't suspect OJ Simpson---which is why Vanatter was impeached on this issue by three witnesses---which one was an FBI agent, I think.

Husbands killings their wives has been happening since the beginning of time, in fact, some societies believed a wife should be killed if she disobeyed her husband. Husbands were already being charged and convicted of raping their wives by the time the Simpson trial took place. And you keep forgetting, Phillips and Fuhrman told Vanatter and Lange they knew of at least two prior incidents of 911 being called and police being dispatched.

martin II

10-16-2006, 08:13 AM

bob

It is my understanding that when a wife or ex wife is killed, the husband or ex husband becomes the PRIME suspect by le immediately unless the real killer is caught or confesses.

now we have Nicole dead at her condo and the detectives are informed by furhman, that she is the wife or ex of oj simpson that lives 5 minutes or so away and this is known because furhman
had previously responded to some abuse call at their/her home.

instead of sending two detectives to make the 'NOTIFICATION"
they send all four.

now you want to play with words and say they thought oj was a possible suspect and not the PRIME suspect is what i call fudging
with words. imo

vanhatter said "oj was no more a suspect that you"(shaperio) so did he mean POSSIBLE suspect , PRIME suspect or not a suspect at all?

if le needed to talk to all the people that had spoken to Nicole in the last 72 hours, did they grab faye, the father that picked up his child from nicoles or any one else?
martin II

Beebee

10-16-2006, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Heyes

O.J. got off on a "technicality" lol

What was the technicality?

martin II

10-16-2006, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Beebee

What was the technicality?

HI Beebee

i would like to know the answer to that also.
martin II

Beebee

10-16-2006, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by martin II

HI Beebee

i would like to know the answer to that also.
martin II

Hi martin :)

I don't think a NOT GUILTY verdict by a JURY is considered a "technicality"....

bobaugust

10-16-2006, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by martin II
bob

It is my understanding that when a wife or ex wife is killed, the husband or ex husband becomes the PRIME suspect by le immediately unless the real killer is caught or confesses.

now we have Nicole dead at her condo and the detectives are informed by furhman, that she is the wife or ex of oj simpson that lives 5 minutes or so away and this is known because furhman
had previously responded to some abuse call at their/her home.

instead of sending two detectives to make the 'NOTIFICATION"
they send all four.

now you want to play with words and say they thought oj was a possible suspect and not the PRIME suspect is what i call fudging
with words. imo

vanhatter said "oj was no more a suspect that you"(shaperio) so did he mean POSSIBLE suspect , PRIME suspect or not a suspect at all?

if le needed to talk to all the people that had spoken to Nicole in the last 72 hours, did they grab faye, the father that picked up his child from nicoles or any one else?
martin II

martin II, in this case the only reason the detectives went to Simpson's house was they were ordered to go. An order that was given by Commander Bushey when he first found out who the victim was. An order that was based on Bushey's concerns that this would be high profile case and likely to attract media attention.

Did the detectives suspect that Simpson may have been involved in these murders? Maybe in the back of their minds since that's the nature of what detectives do. They have to be suspicious of everyone including spouses and ex spouses. The point is that nothing the detectives did when they arrived at Rockingham was a result of any suspicion about Simpson. The detectives were reacting to the situation that developed.

They detectives went to Rockingham with the intention of notifying Simpson of the death of his exwife in person. Lange asked the two West LA detectives to accompany them because they knew where the house was and could stay after the notification to help Simpson recover his children who had been taken to their police station.

If Simpson had been home that's exactly what would have happened. The Robbery Homicide detectives would have returned to the murder scene and Phillips and Fuhrman would have helped Simpson recover his children.

In the investigation of these murders, everyone involved with the two victims were spoken to. In the criminal trial Vannatter was simply reacting to all of the false insinuations and accusations defense attorneys were making with his facetious comment to Shapiro.

bobaugust

bobaugust

10-16-2006, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

You have posted a blantant lie regarding Vanatter's intentions when he went to Bundy. When he was nailed in the courtroom and in the media on this regard, it was only then that he came up with his "potential" suspect CYA story.

limakey, what someone says they were thinking is not a lie. Detectives have to be suspicious of everyone connected to a homicide until they are eliminated., that's the nature of their job. As to how seriously each detective considers someone a suspect at any particular time is is a personal belief.

When the detectives first arrived at Bundy, there was no evidence that they knew of that pointed to Simpson. The detectives went to Simpson's house following orders and everything that happened was a result of the situation they found there.

Simpson's defense attorneys made many false insinuations and accusations because they had no credible explanations for all the evidence that pointed only to Simpson. Insinuations and accusations are not evidence only excuses because the police found the killer so quickly.

bobaugust

Big Ben

10-24-2006, 09:12 PM

My god, someone told me you folks were over here. As an investigator in the Simpson matter and one of the producers of the documentary "Serpents Rising: An Independent Investigation of the OJ Simpson Murder Trial" many comments I've read here are extraordinary, in light of what we've actually uncovered, to say the least. I'll give you one for instance: Many of you have discussed the infamous Bruno Magli shoes that supposedly made the bloody prints at the murder site. Anyone, make your case about placing OJ in them at the murder site...........

bobaugust

10-24-2006, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben
My god, someone told me you folks were over here. As an investigator in the Simpson matter and one of the producers of the documentary "Serpents Rising: An Independent Investigation of the OJ Simpson Murder Trial" many comments I've read here are extraordinary, in light of what we've actually uncovered, to say the least. I'll give you one for instance: Many of you have discussed the infamous Bruno Magli shoes that supposedly made the bloody prints at the murder site. Anyone, make your case about placing OJ in them at the murder site...........

Sure, over 30 authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers at a Buffalo Bills football game 9 months before the murders. All show Simpson wearing the exact kind of shoes that the killer wore at Bundy.

bobaugust

Big Ben

10-24-2006, 09:42 PM

Bobby my man, you're still singing that same old tired music. It's easy to argue with you that testimony was presented that the photographs were phoney. However, that only stokes a subjective debate that you seem to relish. In spite of your alleged number of photos of OJ in Buffalo in Bruno Maglis, how does that put him in Bruno Maglis at the murder site???

nettathirty

10-24-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben

*Snipped*

In spite of your alleged number of photos of OJ in Buffalo in Bruno Maglis, how does that put him in Bruno Maglis at the murder site???

Big Ben: I'm pro-OJ- OJ (IMO) is not the killer, and the items found at Bundy, exonerates Mr OJ Simpson!

The 10 reasons many of these self confessed "GENIUS" believe OJ wore the shoes..

10. Bruno Maglis are expensive and rare, and OJ is rich!
9. Bruno Maglis are expensive and rare, and OJ is rich!
8. Bruno Maglis are expensive and rare, and OJ is rich!
7. Bruno Maglis are expensive and rare, and OJ is rich!
6. Bruno Maglis are expensive and rare, and OJ is rich!
5. Bruno Maglis are expensive and rare, and OJ is rich!
4. Bruno Maglis are expensive and rare, and OJ is rich!
3. Bruno Maglis are expensive and rare, and OJ is rich!
2. Heidstra heard what sounded like Bruno Maglis after the "gate slammed"..
1. Bob August said so!

nettathirty

10-24-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Is more like it. :rolleyes:

:lol: I rest my case!

Big Ben

10-24-2006, 10:53 PM

In spite of your alleged number of photos of OJ in Buffalo in Bruno Maglis, how does that put him in Bruno Maglis at the murder site??? [/B]

That's not what I had hoped for. You guys are no fun! Why don't you go to YouTube.com and check out the free clips after entering 'Serpents Rising' or www.ojcoverup.com. YouTube is better because evrything is available for free. Maybe some of the two minute clips will inspire some objective questioning.

sweet pea 15

10-24-2006, 11:23 PM

I am a very good friend of Mario G. Nitrini 111. You may be aware of the fact that he has been investigating this case for many years and he has come to the conclusion that OJ Simpson is guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. And that he had help in committing these murders. The one person that NO ONE can explain away when it comes to OJ's innocence is Rocky Bateman, OJ's regular limo driver. I am wondering if during YOUR investigation, you happened to come across any information about Rocky?

Thanks in advance.

Big Ben

10-24-2006, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by sweet pea 15
I am a very good friend of Mario G. Nitrini 111. I am wondering if during YOUR investigation, you happened to come across any information about Rocky?

Thanks in advance.

I'm waiting to hear Mario's take on the subject matter, he was supposed to share his perspective via e-mail last week. No, I have nothing in my file relative to Rocky.

Big Ben

10-24-2006, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
I don't need to go to utube to know that Simpson is a double murderer :shrug:

sniff, sniff....I smell a multiple nic. 3 posts....hmmmm.....

You're in the wrong profession, you need to wrap your head up, get you a crystal ball, and start charging.

sweet pea 15

10-24-2006, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben

I'm waiting to hear Mario's take on the subject matter, he was supposed to share his perspective via e-mail last week. No, I have nothing in my file relative to Rocky.

It is my understanding that he DID answer your e-mail. I'll let him know that you did not receive a reply.

Although I know that OJ Simpson destroyed evidence in this case and he lied and continues to lie about his knowledge of what happened that night, I do not agree with Mario that he murdered Nicole and Ron. I do think there was more than one killer. And I ABSOLUTELY think that certain members of the LAPD took liberties with pieces of evidence in this case.

Thanks for answering my question.

bobaugust

10-25-2006, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben
Bobby my man, you're still singing that same old tired music. It's easy to argue with you that testimony was presented that the photographs were phoney.

Big Ben, there was no testimony that the Flammer photographs were phony. The fact is that one of those thirty photographs was published in the Buffalo Bills Report seven months before the murders.

bobaugust

Wukong

10-25-2006, 12:26 AM

Big Ben,

Your question is an exercise in futility. Of course it's impossible to say with 100% certainty that OJ was in those Bruno Maglis. There is evidence that OJ owned a pair of Bruno Maglis and the footprints at the scene were in his size. This is all circumstantial, but I would like to know the evidence that puts anyone else in those Bruno Maglis.

If you can't give a satisfactory answer, then next question please.

Big Ben

10-25-2006, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by sweet pea 15

It is my understanding that he DID answer your e-mail. And I ABSOLUTELY think that certain members of the LAPD took liberties with pieces of evidence in this case.

Sweat Pea,
He sent me an e-mail, but it didn't say anything other than what you've said he believes. In regard to your other issue, it certainly affirms your suspicions to have officers from the scandalized Ramparts Precinct, who sent thousands of innocent men to prison with planted evidence, appear at Simpson's Rockingham residence the night the bloody glove was discovered. Denzil did a marvelous job portraying their conduct in "Training Days" don't you think? You would be served well if you purchased the documentary at www.serpentsrising.com or www.ojcoverup.com. At least you'll be looking at uncovered objective evidence and not subjective hearsay.

Big Ben

10-25-2006, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Wukong
Big Ben,

This is all circumstantial, but I would like to know the evidence that puts anyone else in those Bruno Maglis.

Not so fast, Wukong. What is the evidence that you are aware of that "puts anyone in those Bruno Maglis"?

martin II

10-25-2006, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, there was no testimony that the Flammer photographs were phony. The fact is that one of those thirty photographs was published in the Buffalo Bills Report seven months before the murders.

bobaugust

bob
there you go again.

you need to put oj in the shoes at bundy at about 10:00 to 10:45
not in buffalo n.y. no murder happened in buffalo.imo
martin II

Big Ben

10-25-2006, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, there was no testimony that the Flammer photographs were phony........

And I take it, Bob, that you are of the opinion that digital photography has not escalated to a level of sophistication to manipulate the photographs.

martin II

10-25-2006, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Wukong
Big Ben,

Your question is an exercise in futility. Of course it's impossible to say with 100% certainty that OJ was in those Bruno Maglis. There is evidence that OJ owned a pair of Bruno Maglis and the footprints at the scene were in his size. This is all circumstantial, but I would like to know the evidence that puts anyone else in those Bruno Maglis.

If you can't give a satisfactory answer, then next question please.

wukong

because no one else was caught in or with the shoes by le does that mean that it had to be oj? NO.
We all know that oj was not caught in or with the shoes.
IMO
MARTIN ii

martin II

10-25-2006, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

You're in the wrong profession, you need to wrap your head up, get you a crystal ball, and start charging.

:beer:
martin II

bobaugust

10-25-2006, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

That's not what I had hoped for. You guys are no fun! Why don't you go to YouTube.com and check out the free clips after entering 'Serpents Rising' or www.ojcoverup.com. YouTube is better because evrything is available for free. Maybe some of the two minute clips will inspire some objective questioning.

Big Ben, that's funny. Maybe you can rip off $4.00 from uninformed people with that bull crap, but I doubt if you will find any gullible suckers here. At least not among the reasonable thinking posters who know the facts and evidence in this case that prove Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

Nice try.

bobaugust

Wukong

10-25-2006, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

Not so fast, Wukong. What is the evidence that you are aware of that "puts anyone in those Bruno Maglis"?

There is none, thus my request for the next question. I would ask how many killers for hire have Bruno Maglis as part of their attire? I am sure you have plenty of clever responses that hints someone else was wearing the Bruno Maglis, but I also know there is even less proof for this as there is for OJ wearing them and leaving the footprints at the crime scene.

I am way too tired for semantics and three card monty when it comes to evidence in this case. I have heard all the stories and still keep coming back to OJ. If you have something that proves someone else was wearing Bruno Maglis that night then I would love to hear it; but I know you don't so I will wait for the next question.

As for Mario, he did send you an email but you never replied. If you need more information than what he sent, I suggest you ask him for it. To come on here and say that he didn't say anything is not very becoming given the fact you never even replied to his first email.

bobaugust

10-25-2006, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

And I take it, Bob, that you are of the opinion that digital photography has not escalated to a level of sophistication to manipulate the photographs.

Big Ben, the technology may have been available somewhere in the mid 90's but that's certainly not proof nor evidence that anyone ever used it on any of the photographs taken by the three different photographers in 1993.

All of the photographs were taken in September 1993. The negatives and the prints of the Scull and Flammer photographs were inspected by a former FBI photo analyst and found to be authentic.

All of the Flammer photographs were full body shots showing Simpson posing with members of the Monday Morning Quarterback Club who had hired Flammer to take those photographs honoring Simpson that day celebrating the anniversary of his record 2003 yard running record.

Flammer named all of the people who were in those photographs including Bill Munson and Dennis Lynch form the Buffalo Bills. Six of those photographs were sold to the Buffalo Bills. No one ever testified any of those photographs were fake.

And the clincher was that one of the photographs was published in the Buffalo Bills Report, a monthly publication, in December 1993 seven months before the murders. A copy of that publication was entered into evidence. That fact proves the photographs were not fake or manipulated.

The thirty Flammer photographs confirmed the Scull photographs were authentic and not fake. There were other photographs as well. The McCrone photographs taken that same day also show Simpson wearing the same clothing and shoes as in the Scull and Flammer photographs. An unedited side line news video was shown from that football game again showing Simpson wearing the same clothing as he was shown wearing in all of the photographs.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

10-25-2006, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben
My god, someone told me you folks were over here. As an investigator in the Simpson matter and one of the producers of the documentary "Serpents Rising: An Independent Investigation of the OJ Simpson Murder Trial" many comments I've read here are extraordinary, in light of what we've actually uncovered, to say the least. I'll give you one for instance: Many of you have discussed the infamous Bruno Magli shoes that supposedly made the bloody prints at the murder site. Anyone, make your case about placing OJ in them at the murder site...........

As I ask every newbie, reincarnated nic and multiple nic ~ Did you get the Moderator's permission to open this assinine Thread?

JMO and MOO!!

martin II

10-25-2006, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, the technology may have been available somewhere in the mid 90's but that's certainly not proof nor evidence that anyone ever used it on any of the photographs taken by the three different photographers in 1993.

All of the photographs were taken in September 1993. The negatives and the prints of the Scull and Flammer photographs were inspected by a former FBI photo analyst and found to be authentic.

All of the Flammer photographs were full body shots showing Simpson posing with members of the Monday Morning Quarterback Club who had hired Flammer to take those photographs honoring Simpson that day celebrating the anniversary of his record 2003 yard running record.

Flammer named all of the people who were in those photographs including Bill Munson and Dennis Lynch form the Buffalo Bills. Six of those photographs were sold to the Buffalo Bills. No one ever testified any of those photographs were fake.

And the clincher was that one of the photographs was published in the Buffalo Bills Report, a monthly publication, in December 1993 seven months before the murders. A copy of that publication was entered into evidence. That fact proves the photographs were not fake or manipulated.

The thirty Flammer photographs confirmed the Scull photographs were authentic and not fake. There were other photographs as well. The McCrone photographs taken that same day also show Simpson wearing the same clothing and shoes as in the Scull and Flammer photographs. An unedited side line news video was shown from that football game again showing Simpson wearing the same clothing as he was shown wearing in all of the photographs.

bobaugust

bo
so now all you need is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that oj was in those shoes at Bundy on 6/12.
not he must have, not who else could have, not maby he had them on, not all the evidence presented says it could have been oj in those shoes. or no other evidence proves it was anyone else. imo

you need to have caught oj in the shoes or in his possession imo
martin II

martin II

10-25-2006, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, that's funny. Maybe you can rip off $4.00 from uninformed people with that bull crap, but I doubt if you will find any gullible suckers here. At least not among the reasonable thinking posters who know the facts and evidence in this case that prove Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

Nice try.

bobaugust

right bob

lets just confine the info received to the reams of stuff you post from your hard drive. no reason to have other opinions or info.

ps
i do remember you posting the how to purchase pictures from some furhman book selling activities previously.
imo
martin II

bobaugust

10-25-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bo
so now all you need is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that oj was in those shoes at Bundy on 6/12.
not he must have, not who else could have, not maby he had them on, not all the evidence presented says it could have been oj in those shoes. or no other evidence proves it was anyone else. imo

you need to have caught oj in the shoes or in his possession imo
martin II

martin II, no it's not necessary to have caught Simpson in those shoes or have them in his possession to know that he wore them at Bundy. The proof is all the circumstantial and physical evidence that proves Simpson was at Bundy and the authenticated photographs showing Simpson wearing the exact same shoes that left the bloody shoeprints at Bundy. The fact that Simpson lied about owning those shoes only confirms what the evidence proves.

The bloody shoe prints were made by the same size shoes Simpson wore.
The bloody shoe prints were made by expensive shoes that photographs show Simpson wearing.
Simpson's blood found near the bloody shoe prints.
Simpson's blood found on the rear gate at Bundy.
Simpson's hair found at Bundy, one on Ron's shirt.
Fiber evidence from Simpson's clothing found on Ron's shirt.
Simpson's glove found at Bundy.
Simpson's hat found at Bundy.
Heidstra heard what was most likely Simpson's voice coming from Nicole's condo.
Heidstra saw what was most likely Simpson's Bronco speed away from Nicole's condo.
Shively saw Simpson's Bronco.
Shively saw Simpson.

Simpson's Bronco was not at his house when the murders were committed.
Simpson's blood and both victims blood found in his Bronco.

The cut on Simpson's left hand
The glove found at Rockingham
Simpson's blood found on that glove along with both victims blood.
The fiber evidence from Simpson's Bronco and Simpson's clothing found on that glove.
Simpson's blood found outside and inside his house.

Simpson's Bronco was at Rockingham when the murders were committed.
Simpson had no legitimate alibi for when the murders were committed.
The dark colored sweat suit found in Simpson's washing machine.
Nicole and Simpson's blood found on Simpson's sock.
The fiber evidence found on Simpson's socks from the clothing he wore.

bobaugust

bobaugust

10-25-2006, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by martin II

right bob

lets just confine the info received to the reams of stuff you post from your hard drive. no reason to have other opinions or info.

ps
i do remember you posting the how to purchase pictures from some furhman book selling activities previously.
imo
martin II

martin II, bull crap. I never said or did any such thing.

What's even more telling is how you could even come up with such a lie. Relying on your memory has caused you to make many false statements about this case, now it has caused you to outright lie.

Besides the fact you can't seem to read. I said I doubt that reasonable thinking people who know the facts and evidence that Simpson and only Simpson was the killer would not be interested.

That doesn't include you. You are not a reasonable thinking person. You don't know the facts and evidence in this case and you don't believe Simpson was the killer. Go spend the four dollars and I will be happy to explain to you why what you learn from that web site is all bull crap or has nothing to do with the Bundy murders.

bobaugust

fbgweezer

10-25-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben

Sweat Pea,
He sent me an e-mail, but it didn't say anything other than what you've said he believes. In regard to your other issue, it certainly affirms your suspicions to have officers from the scandalized Ramparts Precinct, who sent thousands of innocent men to prison with planted evidence, appear at Simpson's Rockingham residence the night the bloody glove was discovered. Denzil did a marvelous job portraying their conduct in "Training Days" don't you think? You would be served well if you purchased the documentary at www.serpentsrising.com or www.ojcoverup.com. At least you'll be looking at uncovered objective evidence and not subjective hearsay. It is against the TOS to advertise any for profit site

martin II

10-25-2006, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
It is against the TOS to advertise any for profit site

fbg
you do seem to try to act as the moderator. especially when you dissagree with the poster. you are really a control freak imo

martin II

bobaugust

10-25-2006, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Simpson's Bronco was at Rockingham when the murders were committed.

Correction: Simpson's Bronco WASN"T at Rockingham when the murders were committed.

fbgweezer

10-25-2006, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
you do seem to try to act as the moderator. especially when you dissagree with the poster. you are really a control freak imo

martin II Nah -- just want everyone to play by the rules and I'd hate to see anyone banned because of their ignorance of the rules.

nettathirty

10-25-2006, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

No surprise that you are too dense to understand my post. :tongue:

I would actually have to be "dense" to understand any of your post..

Self proclaim superiority, does not make you superior! It makes you an ass.. congratulations!!!

nettathirty

10-25-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Correction: Simpson's Bronco WASN"T at Rockingham when the murders were committed.

OJ's Bronco wasn't at Rockingham, when he and Kato went and return from McDonalds..

Wukong

10-25-2006, 11:12 PM

What's up Doc?

I am waiting for you to start discussing your evidence instead of pimping your video.

"Wow! Where does one start with all the O.J. distortions?"

Maybe we can start with some of your distortions.

Wukong

10-25-2006, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

OJ's Bronco wasn't at Rockingham, when he and Kato went and return from McDonalds..

Really? Where was it then? According to OJ it was there.

Verin B.

10-26-2006, 02:02 AM

I've been lurking in these forums for a long while now, and this is my first (and more than likely last) post. I admire you G's a great deal for fighting the good fight (I count myself among you, in case you're wondering), but honestly, bob august could produce video of OJ murdering Ron and Nicole and the NG's would claim LE hooked up with Steven Spielberg to fabricate it. The principle of Occam's Razor, not to mention common sense, is lost on these people.

The most prevalent question on my mind as I read these ridiculous theories is "why"? Why go to such extreme and elaborate measures to frame a beloved sports hero? It reminds me of the old Dana Carvey bit about being approached by a shadowy figure on South Bundy that asks, "We're framin' OJ, you in?"

How much does it suck the murders occured on my birthday?

Anyhow, keep up the good work, and don't let 'em get to you too much.

-V.

2L8 4A D8

10-26-2006, 02:55 AM

Verin: Welcome to H3LL! Hope that you will stay with us, but won't blame you if you don't. Sometimes I think that the rest of us G's are S&M Freaks with what we put up with! LOL!

Here's a Post that says it all re: the NG's:
Orginally posted by rashomon

Fascinating how all these perps seem to have their personal fan club. No matter how overwhelming the evidence is which points to their idol, they will repeat mantra-like, the same messages over and over again. Maybe this is a form of magic thinking, and they believe if they repeat it often enough, it will work and convince people.

<Snipped> pointed out the MO of those people (you come across them in every true crime forum where circumstantial evidence cases are being discussed):

- they fanatically stick to message
- they deliberately ignore the evidence ('ignorance is bliss')
- and when at a loss for arguments, they start personal attacks.

Old Post 10-06-2006 12:46 AM
This is what we put up with on a daily basis. God help us!

JMO and MOO!!

Verin B.

10-26-2006, 04:05 AM

Maybe this is a form of magic thinking, and they believe if they repeat it often enough, it will work and convince people.

2L8 (and rashomon), true enough. If you tell yourself the same outrageous story enough times, you'll start to believe it, especially if you want to.

Heh, I can already anticipate the infantile retorts to the above comment.

"I guesse u wood no!!"

Cleverness (and the ability to spell) isn't really the dominion of your average NG. Case in point:

And what do you suppose I smell?

How about your own BS?

Cheers!

-V.

Wukong

10-26-2006, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by Holly
I don't have any "evidence" but I do have what I consider a plausible theory about who might have worn them to the murder site.

Since I am unwilling to fight, I will only tell YOU in a PM because I trust your discretion and good sense.

Holly,

I tried to reply to your PM but your box was full.

Wukong

10-26-2006, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by Holly
Nobody knows for sure where the Bronco was at the time of the murders.

I kept waiting for someone to ask that question of the limo driver. I am still waiting.

According to Simpson's neighbor Mr. Cale, it wasn't at Rockingham when he walked his dog araound 9:30 - 9:45. And according to Jill Shively, OJ was driving it in the vicinity of Bundy around 10:50 PM that night. That's two people who knew it wasn't at Rockingham.

Mr. Cale's testimony:

Q. Okay. Did you have a clear view down south on Rockingham?

A. Yes.

Q. Are there street lights?

A. There's some, yes, sir. There's one street light right here at the corner.

Q. You can take a seat.

Q. When you took your walk between 9:30 and 9:45, was there a car parked on the east side of Rockingham, between Ashford and the Rockingham driveway, from Mr. Simpson's property?

A. No, sir, there was not.

Q. Was there a car parked anywhere between -- if I can have the pointer, please.

Q. Anywhere between Ashford, here on the north, and this driveway of Mr. Simpson's estate, here on the east side?

A. No, I don't believe there was a car anywhere on Rockingham, that I could see, down south.

Q. And you believe that was between 9:30 and 9:45 on June 12?

A. Yes, sir. I would say closer to 9:45.

http://simpson.walraven.org/dec03-96.html

Verin B.

10-26-2006, 07:51 AM

Too bad this wasn't post!

Okay, I'm pretty sure you were trying to express some sort of idea or sentiment with that classic bit of repartee. Unfortunately, reading the minds of message board posters isn't one of my talents, so I really have no idea what you're trying to get across with such a brilliantly-penned sentence fragment. But hey, it was in English! That's gotta count for something.

If you meant to imply I'm a figment of an already-established forum member's imagination, well, that's pretty much what I'd expect from a paranoid NG. Maybe later we can team up and find the proof we need that 9/11 was an inside job! ;)

Cheers!

-V.

2L8 4A D8

10-26-2006, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Verin B.

Okay, I'm pretty sure you were trying to express some sort of idea or sentiment with that classic bit of repartee. Unfortunately, reading the minds of message board posters isn't one of my talents, so I really have no idea what you're trying to get across with such a brilliantly-penned sentence fragment. But hey, it was in English! That's gotta count for something.

If you meant to imply I'm a figment of an already-established forum member's imagination, well, that's pretty much what I'd expect from a paranoid NG. Maybe later we can team up and find the proof we need that 9/11 was an inside job! ;)

Cheers!

-V.

:beer: :beer:

martin II

10-26-2006, 08:06 AM

v

Thanks for your post.

The idea of ng's posting their positions over and over again until they belive them can be true for g's as well. imo. don't you think?

martin II

martin II

10-26-2006, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Verin B.
I've been lurking in these forums for a long while now, and this is my first (and more than likely last) post. I admire you G's a great deal for fighting the good fight (I count myself among you, in case you're wondering), but honestly, bob august could produce video of OJ murdering Ron and Nicole and the NG's would claim LE hooked up with Steven Spielberg to fabricate it. The principle of Occam's Razor, not to mention common sense, is lost on these people.

The most prevalent question on my mind as I read these ridiculous theories is "why"? Why go to such extreme and elaborate measures to frame a beloved sports hero? It reminds me of the old Dana Carvey bit about being approached by a shadowy figure on South Bundy that asks, "We're framin' OJ, you in?"

How much does it suck the murders occured on my birthday?

Anyhow, keep up the good work, and don't let 'em get to you too much.

-V.

v

give me a video of oj killing nicole and ron and i am switching sides.

Otherwise, i am inclined to go with the criminal trial jury that heard all of the testimony and found that the prosecution did not meet their standard of reasonable doubt. Which we all know they were required to do.IMO
MARTIN ii

tazzybaby

10-26-2006, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by martin II

v

give me a video of oj killing nicole and ron and i am switching sides.

Otherwise, i am inclined to go with the criminal trial jury that heard all of the testimony and found that the prosecution did not meet their standard of reasonable doubt. Which we all know they were required to do.IMO
MARTIN ii

But, some of the criminal jurors also said they might have voted differently had they heard what the civil jurors heard. So, how does that change your opinion? It should.

martin II

10-26-2006, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

But, some of the criminal jurors also said they might have voted differently had they heard what the civil jurors heard. So, how does that change your opinion? It should.

tazzy hi

Not at all.
These comments quoted by 'SOME' jorors is just after the fact comments IF TRUE. jorors say these things all the time when given certain type questions by the media trying to find some flaw in their past verdict.

They would have had to be on the civil trial jury and participated in diliberations to know how they would have voted. imo

MARTIN ii

sweet pea 15

10-26-2006, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

Sweat Pea,
He sent me an e-mail, but it didn't say anything other than what you've said he believes.

If you did receive a reply from him, I don't understand why you didn't answer him? He was/is looking forward to conversing with you on this subject. The one thing with Mario is that he keeps an open mind about EVERYTHING. Mario believes these things because of the evidence he has uncovered during his investigation of the murders.

These things are irrefutable. Mario was asked by OJ's limo driver Rocky Bateman to follow Nicole because he heard her discussing a plot to somehow use OJ's blood to get money out of him. After the murders, Mario does indeed find out that OJ's blood is taken from a place called HEMACARE and also from a hospital lab. Now, if you're on trial for the murder of two people and your blood is found at the crime scene wouldn't you welcome Mario with open arms and have him as your star defense witness? NOT O.J. Simpson. Instead his defense team CHASES him away. Not once, not twice, but many times. And do you know why? Because Mario knows about ROCKY BATEMAN.

You can ask Mr. Simpson about the plot to steal his blood. He knows all about it. But he's not going to be truthful with you. Even if it means it can help to prove to everyone that he didn't murder Nicole and Ron.

Don't think I'm putting this all on OJ. The prosecution knew about this too. They were despicable the way they handled the blood plot, the way they handled Mario, the way they handled Bill Wasz, the way they handled Mark Fuhrman and let's not forget that Judge Ito shouldn't have even been involved because of his wife.

Mario believes you are an honorable man and I happen to agree with him. But with all due respect, if you want to do a thorough investigation of these murders then you MUST include Rocky Bateman, the missing bag, and the plot to steal OJ's blood among other things if you are going to do so.

fbgweezer

10-26-2006, 02:34 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
These comments quoted by 'SOME' jorors is just after the fact comments IF TRUE. The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody."

ojisinnocent

10-26-2006, 04:11 PM

Big Ben:

Be sure to read a private mesage I sent you.

martin II

10-26-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody."

fbg
you need to give links to these 'QUOTES' you keep posting. otherwise your history of posting here does not allow me to believe any of it without a link imo

at any rate when they voted NOT GUILTY they must have thought the gloved DID NOT FIT.
IMO
MARTIN ii

martin II

10-26-2006, 04:27 PM

fbgweezer

10-26-2006, 04:49 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
at any rate when they voted NOT GUILTY they must have thought the gloved DID NOT FIT. who are you kidding? They didn't care whether or not the gloves fit --

fbgweezer

10-26-2006, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by martin II

sassylassy

I volunteer to hold the door open.
martin II Because, after all, we know that martin doesn't think anything of a woman being hit.

martin II

10-26-2006, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* who are you kidding? They didn't care whether or not the gloves fit --

fbg

They were listening and waiting for the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. IT DID NOT HAPPEN . so they told oj to go home imo
martinII

martin II

10-26-2006, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Because, after all, we know that martin doesn't think anything of a woman being hit.

fbg

If you are being hit there is nothing i can do but feel sorry for you and advise you to run. imo
martin II

Big Ben

10-26-2006, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Wukong

There is none, thus my request for the next question. I would ask how many killers for hire have Bruno Maglis as part of their attire?

My "clever responses" are only intent upon keeping the questions and answers as close to the objective and less to the subjective as possible, Wukong.

However, here is my answer to the relevant question re.. the Bruno Magli Shoe Prints. Bruno Magli is no more than a brand name that contracted with SILGA GOMMA the rubber shoe sole manufacturer to provide to it rubber soles from SILGA's U2887 rubber mold. At the same time that SILGA provided shoe soles from the U2887 mold to Bruno Magli they were contracted to provid the same shoe soles from that same U2887 rubber mold to LORD and LORD provided their contingent of U2887 rubber soles to 19 shoe brands they owned on several continents of the world.

The alleged identity of the shoe was identified by the pattern left by the heel and forefoot and not by anyone seeing the brand name, due to the raised heel and forefoot of the U2887 shoe sole. The brand name is located between the heel and the raised forfoot and never touches the surface of the earth.

There is no question that the bloody prints at Bundy were made by the U2887 shoe sole, but the issue is how would one be able to determine that they were made by Bruno Magli and not one of the other 19 shoe brands owned by LORD Shoes from around the world.

Big Ben

10-27-2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Verin B.
Why go to such extreme and elaborate measures to frame a beloved sports hero? It reminds me of the old Dana Carvey bit about being approached by a shadowy figure on South Bundy that asks, "We're framin' OJ, you in?

-V.

You got to look beyond OJ, ...V! Many experiments and exercises were begun on a preliminary basis. Forget about personalizing it in regard to O.J. Just think about the valuable information that mad scientists have learned about certain reactions of the American public's psyche when and if confronted with a perceived extreme outrage. The OJ matter may have ultimately been a calculated primer for a subsequent major event.

Big Ben

10-27-2006, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by sweet pea 15
But with all due respect, if you want to do a thorough investigation of these murders then you MUST include Rocky Bateman, the missing bag, and the plot to steal OJ's blood among other things if you are going to do so.

Your points are well taken sweet pea, and I am open to hearing Mario's position when he slows down to provide it and that's where it lies at this point. Furthermore, the OMIG investigative group did an excellent job uncovering powerful evidence that is little more basic and direct in pointing to malfeasance in the Simpson case. But I do believe with bird dogs willing to do their due diligence, like that which you are sharing, this magnificent fraud will ultimately unravel. I just hope that all the principals will stop dying so that we can put the question to them at the appointed time.

Big Ben

10-27-2006, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

IIRC only 9% of the population wears size 12. Sounds like an awfully big co-winky dink to me.

"IIRC only 9% of population wears size 12......" Maybe because 91 % of the world, in Asia, Africa, and South America where most of the world lives, barely reach a size beyond that of pygmies, Socal.

What does that mean anyway? "Size 12"! Can you tell me quickly, exactly, how many inches is "Size 12", Socal?

The word "Size" does not denote anything specific, the word was used to play on ones proclivity to see guilt and they went no further in examining what they were specifically being told.

How many inches is the alleged metric size 46 SILGA Sole that the FBI agent said represented a U.S. "size 12", Socal? How many inches does Simpson's foot measure, Socal?

How long are the "Bruno Magli" shoe prints inside the square sidewalk tiles at Nicole's residence at 875 South Bundy, Socal? What are the dimensions of those side walk tiles that the LAPD Det. Tom Lange testified to as being, Socal? Those are the questions that I think that you really want to be answering. All of this is in the documentary "Serpents Rising", Socal. I think you really need to see the film. www.serpentsrising.com

Big Ben

10-27-2006, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, no it's not necessary to have caught Simpson in those shoes or have them in his possession to know that he wore them at Bundy.
The bloody shoe prints were made by the same size shoes Simpson wore.
The bloody shoe prints were made by expensive shoes that photographs show Simpson wearing.

bobaugust

Bob, your remarks don't square with the facts. There are several photographs of the bloody footprints leading towards the back gate at Bundy. The beauty of the side walk is that it creates a graph effect due to the walkway having the pattern of 11 and 1/2" by 11 and 1/2" square tiles.

Several of the tiles show that the full foot print fits neatly inside with a 1/4" to a 1/2" to spare. This indicates that the total length of the shoe is no more than 11 inches in length. Simpson's foot from heel to toe is approx 12 and 7/8 inches. His foot is almost 2" longer than the shoeprints in the sidewalk tiles. His foot is 1/2" longer than the 12 and a 1/4 inch U2887 Italian size 46/U.S. size 12 Bruno Magli shoe soles.

Finally, the U2887 shoe sole was not only sold to Bruno Magli, it was sold to LORD shoes too and LORD provided its U2887 soles to 19 of its' shoe brands on several continents of the globe. No brand name ever showed up in the blood at Bundy. You need to stop spinning that yarn, Bob...

2L8 4A D8

10-27-2006, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by sassylassy

if u dont like it here...then leave! no one is forcing you to stay here and oh yeah dont let the door hit you in the ***** on your way out

bye bye!:punch:

First off, my post wasn't to you. It was to Verin! Moreover, nowhere in my post does it say that "I don't like it here! You are still your same little nasty reincarnated nic self that you when you were on the second OJ Simpson Board.

Do us all a favor ~ Here's you hat! What's your hurry? :punch: :seeya:

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

10-27-2006, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Oh please, since when are you "unwilling to fight"? That seems to be the main reason you come here. imo

You have to submit your "plausible theory" in a PM. What a laugh.

I agree Diva. She has done absolutely nothing but be nasty to all of us since she started posting on this Board.

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

10-27-2006, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
you need to give links to these 'QUOTES' you keep posting. otherwise your history of posting here does not allow me to believe any of it without a link imo

at any rate when they voted NOT GUILTY they must have thought the gloved DID NOT FIT.
IMO
MARTIN ii

:lol: :lol: :lol: What a freaking laugh! Whether you give us a link or not (which you don't), WE don't believe anything that you say ~ ever ~ period ~ never ~ nada ~ no way!

Who are you trying to impress? It certainly can't be any of US! So take it elsewhere to others who appreciates it, i.e., Netta/Willie Boy/OJ NUT/Sassylassy/OJisinnocent/Limakey and any other NG that I have left off!

JMO and MOO!!

Wukong

10-27-2006, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

There is no question that the bloody prints at Bundy were made by the U2887 shoe sole, but the issue is how would one be able to determine that they were made by Bruno Magli and not one of the other 19 shoe brands owned by LORD Shoes from around the world.

The problem is that only the Bruno Magli with the Silga sole was sold in the United States. Lord sold shoes mainly in Europe, none in the U.S. Only 40 store in the U.S. carried the Bruno Magli and each store typically had only one pair of Bruno Magli with American size 12 Lasts with the size 46 Silga sole. Obviously this is not a very common shoe. But it seems OJ owned a pair, go figure. There was a photograph of him wearing them in a Bills publication 6 months before the murders.

But as you so succinctly pointed out, I can not put OJ in those shoes with 100% certainty. But then again, you can't put anyone else in them either. What I can't figure out is how these rare shoes just happened to be owned by both OJ and the "Killer". What are the odds? Of course unless you are speculating that someone stole OJ's shoes to frame him. If I were trying to frame him, I would have left the shoes somewhere so they would be found. My guess is they are sitting at the bottom of a lake somewhere in So. Cal. as AC told Jennifer Peace. Oh yeah, there's also Mario who has evidence that Rocky threw a bag containing evidence into a lake the day after the murders. That's two references to evidence being at the bottom of a lake. Hmmm.

Speaking of Mario, that was a nice non-answer you gave Sweatpea. Your waiting for him to slow down??? If you know anything about Mario, he hasn't slowed down one day since June 13th 1994.

Wukong

10-27-2006, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

"IIRC only 9% of population wears size 12......" Maybe because 91 % of the world, in Asia, Africa, and South America where most of the world lives, barely reach a size beyond that of pygmies, Socal.

You're losing it pretty quick here Doc. I would have thought you'd be above badgering people on message boards.

9% of the AMERICAN population wear size 12. I don't know too many American pygmies:

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, have there also been studies that have been done related to what percentage of the American population wears a size 12 shoe?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, there is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what findings have been made along those lines?
MR. BODZIAK: There's a group called footwear market insights which publishes their study of approximately 260 to 300 million pairs of shoes sold in this country, and they break down the various shoe sizes and widths of the shoes sold, and this is produced for the footwear industry for their use.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what percentage wear size 12 shoes?
MR. BODZIAK: Counting all of the shoes sold, a general percentage is slightly over 9 percent for size 12.

I don't get it Doc. You already posted this:

"There is no question that the bloody prints at Bundy were made by the U2887 shoe sole..."

So why are you posting rants about shoe sizes and OJ's actual foot size? I also recall that Bodziak studied OJ's Reeboks and they were the same size as the Bruno Magli shoe. If OJ's foot was too big for the Bruno Magli, and his Reeboks are the same size as the Bruno Magli, then why is OJ wearing Reeboks that are too small for him? Buddy, next question, you bombed on this one.

Verin B.

10-27-2006, 04:40 AM

You know, I was going to be on my way and revert back to my lurker status until I got an amusingly paranoid PM from Holly. Sorry to disappoint you, but I think I may pull up a chair and stay a while. ;) Though I sat through both trials (which was hard to avoid, especially if you lived in California, which is my home state - hey SoCal!), my knowledge of the case isn't as extensive as Mr. August's, but thankfully, there are plenty of resources available to get me back up to speed.

give me a video of oj killing nicole and ron and i am switching sides.

Hello, martin. I was actually surprised to receive such an open-minded response from you. Kudos.

The idea of ng's posting their positions over and over again until they belive them can be true for g's as well. imo. don't you think?

I figured you'd probably attempt to throw that back in my face (see my second post). I would be inclined to agree with you if forensic evidence didn't point to a single logical conclusion (that Orenthal brutally murdered Ron and Nicole), but it does. I'm not the biggest fan of LE, and I don't think they handled the case as well as they could have, but the complexity of the logistics alone required by numerous levels of government to pull a frame job of that magnitude places the theory in the realm of fantasy.

Forget about personalizing it in regard to O.J. Just think about the valuable information that mad scientists have learned about certain reactions of the American public's psyche when and if confronted with a perceived extreme outrage. The OJ matter may have ultimately been a calculated primer for a subsequent major event.

Ben, our government is about as trustworthy as Orenthal himself, and we both know they're not above treachery to achieve their goals. But COME ON, what could possibly be gained from such a risky social experiment? Why vilify a sports figure beloved to people of ALL races (well, up until his history of domestic violence was put out there for all to see) just to "see what happens"? I don't think even the regular NG's here would buy into a conspiracy theory like that.

And no, I'm not going to buy your documentary to find out, sorry (which, IMO, is why you started this thread).

Cheers!

-V.

bobaugust

10-27-2006, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

However, here is my answer to the relevant question re.. the Bruno Magli Shoe Prints. Bruno Magli is no more than a brand name that contracted with SILGA GOMMA the rubber shoe sole manufacturer to provide to it rubber soles from SILGA's U2887 rubber mold. At the same time that SILGA provided shoe soles from the U2887 mold to Bruno Magli they were contracted to provid the same shoe soles from that same U2887 rubber mold to LORD and LORD provided their contingent of U2887 rubber soles to 19 shoe brands they owned on several continents of the world.

Big Ben, what evidence do you have that this particular Silga sole was to sold any other company besides Bruno Magli? Bodziak testified differently.

June 19, 1995
Based on these characteristics and the fact that Bruno Magli made these soles -- these soles are uniquely made for them by them exclusively for this shoe, as well as the dyes, which cut out the various shapes and components, which were then stitched together. The independent construction in one factory for Bruno Magli of this upper, combined with the independent design of this contoured sole with these features, in another factory combined, makes this unique.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You say in another factory. You're saying the soles were made in one factory and
the tops were made in another?

A. For Bruno Magli, and then assembled together.

Q. Based on your -- you were at the factory, weren't you?

A. Yes. The upper was made at the 4C factory; the sole was made at the Silga factory. And they were made by Bruno Magli through those factories and assembled in the 4C factory.

Q. As part of your opinion in your investigation, did you make a determination whether the dye used to make the upper was used in any other shoe?

A. I was told these were not. These were specifically made -- the soles for the bottom of the shoe and the uppers were specifically made for that design and are no longer used.

Q. By each separate factory?

A. Yes, sir. Yes.

bobaugust

bobaugust

10-27-2006, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

"IIRC only 9% of population wears size 12......" Maybe because 91 % of the world, in Asia, Africa, and South America where most of the world lives, barely reach a size beyond that of pygmies, Socal.

What does that mean anyway? "Size 12"! Can you tell me quickly, exactly, how many inches is "Size 12", Socal?

The word "Size" does not denote anything specific, the word was used to play on ones proclivity to see guilt and they went no further in examining what they were specifically being told.

How many inches is the alleged metric size 46 SILGA Sole that the FBI agent said represented a U.S. "size 12", Socal? How many inches does Simpson's foot measure, Socal?

How long are the "Bruno Magli" shoe prints inside the square sidewalk tiles at Nicole's residence at 875 South Bundy, Socal? What are the dimensions of those side walk tiles that the LAPD Det. Tom Lange testified to as being, Socal? Those are the questions that I think that you really want to be answering. All of this is in the documentary "Serpents Rising", Socal. I think you really need to see the film. www.serpentsrising.com

Big Ben, Simpson showed the detectives a pair of Reeboks he said he was wearing the day of the murders.

Bodziak compared those size 12 Reeboks to the Bruno Magli shoe size 12, European 46 and they were the same size.

November 20, 1996
Q. Did you have an opportunity to compare a pair of shoes that belonged to Mr. Simpson and the Bruno Magli size 12?
A. Yes, I did.Q. I place before you what's been marked 404, and represent that as a matter of record these are a pair of Reebok shoes, belonging to Mr. Simpson, that he gave to Detective Lange.
(The instrument herein described as Mr. Simpson's Reebok shoes was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 404.)
Q. And I ask you if you compared those shoes with the size 12 Bruno Magli that's contained in Exhibit 395?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And how did you compare that?
A. Yes. I compared the Reebok shoes, left and right Reebok shoes, with the Exhibit 395 Bruno Magli. The Bruno Magli, as I have described, or will describe, these soles are compression molded, they're known as a cup sole, they're sort of like a cup, if you poured water into them, and they're attached to the bottom of the shoe by literally placing the lasted shoe, the completed upper to them, and through glue and stitching they're applied.

The Reebok is a similar construction. It's also a cup sole. It's known as a half cup sole because the toe area -- the middle which is just flat, but the toe area and heel area are cupped. They have variations of this known as cup half cup, three-quarter cup, so forth. So the general construction is compression molded cup sole construction. So even though the Reebok is an athletic sole, its manner of manufacture makes it a comparable shoe to compare with the Bruno Magli.

And I made a comparison of the external sole dimensions -- linear dimensions, and the internal measurement of the shoes, and found that they were virtually identical; that the Bruno Magli shoe and the Reeboks, if you place them one over another, you can line up their soles from heel to toe, left to right, and they fit as well as you could possibly expect.

Q. You're saying Mr. Simpson's shoe was identical to the size 12 Bruno Magli?

A. It's the same size internally. It reads a size 12, U.S. size 12, as well as the European 46, size 12 Bruno Magli, and it's physical dimensions and characteristics for comparability are the same, yes.

bobaugust

bobaugust

10-27-2006, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

Bob, your remarks don't square with the facts. There are several photographs of the bloody footprints leading towards the back gate at Bundy. The beauty of the side walk is that it creates a graph effect due to the walkway having the pattern of 11 and 1/2" by 11 and 1/2" square tiles.

Several of the tiles show that the full foot print fits neatly inside with a 1/4" to a 1/2" to spare. This indicates that the total length of the shoe is no more than 11 inches in length. Simpson's foot from heel to toe is approx 12 and 7/8 inches. His foot is almost 2" longer than the shoeprints in the sidewalk tiles. His foot is 1/2" longer than the 12 and a 1/4 inch U2887 Italian size 46/U.S. size 12 Bruno Magli shoe soles.

Finally, the U2887 shoe sole was not only sold to Bruno Magli, it was sold to LORD shoes too and LORD provided its U2887 soles to 19 of its' shoe brands on several continents of the globe. No brand name ever showed up in the blood at Bundy. You need to stop spinning that yarn, Bob...

Big Ben, your measurements of smaller shoe prints are irrelevant. The fact is that all of the bloody shoe prints were made from one pair of shoes. Some of those prints are smaller than others based on how much blood had been transferred from them. The largest shoe print is the one that tells the size of the shoe not the smaller partial prints.

Again I have no idea where you got your information. Bodziak testified that he went to the Silga factory and was told the Silga sole that matched the pattern of the bloody shoe prints was made exclusively for Bruno Magli used only on the Lorenzo style shoes. It was a two part sole. The upper was made in one factory and the lower in another.

bobaugust

martin II

10-27-2006, 07:20 AM

V

This is in response to your comment "why vilify a loved sports hero like oj" or something to that effect.

i have posted this before but not to you.
When oj was charged and before the trial even started, a cnn poll showed that 85 % of white america belived oj was guilty. the loved one. These attitudes were maby formed by media reports or by people that did not need trial testimnony and evidence to help them decide. imo

But here are some thoughts on why oj was vilified.
--------------------------------------------

Michael Eric Dyson

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dyson.html

Why do you think the public had such strong feelings about the outcome of this case?

I think the O.J. Simpson case conjured all the paranoia, the racial anxiety, but also the racial fatigue that America has endured over the last half century. After all, O.J. was the ideal type character from central casting. If we're going to get a black guy who will conjure empathy and yet produce controversy about race in America, he's got to be a black guy whom white people love and that black people in the past have identified with and at least respected. So his exploits on the athletic gridiron gave him a sense of cachet in black America and white America. His refusal to provoke issues of racial consideration gave him carte blanche, so to speak, in white America. Here was the ideal guy.

Only a guy like O.J. could both appeal to black and whites to see race in a specific fashion. And the reason we invested so much passion in this is because black people had for years been trying to say to white America: "The justice system is broken; you've got to fix it. Here's our best chance to tell that story with a guy that in the past you've been sympathetic to. You'll never hear it with a person for whom you have no sympathy, but you'll hear it in the case of O.J. as much as you're willing to hear it."

Many white people believed: "Look, we're going to show you that we are trusting, and we have reached a high plateau in race relations. We're going to treat O.J. like we treat any other white person in America. If he's guilty, we're going to send him to jail; if he's innocent, we'll let him go." So he was the ideal person to bring out these contrasting viewpoints, but it all broke down.

Broke down how?

Well, it broke down because O.J. refused to follow suit, and black America refused to follow the script, and white America then saw that all bets were off.

O.J. refused to follow through because he claimed his blackness again in a way that was troubling to many white Americans: "Wait a minute, O.J. You haven't talked about blackness in our circles for years, indeed for decades. You've never made us feel uncomfortable about the issue of race. All of a sudden now you're claiming your allegiance to black people. You're identifying publicly with black people."

Black people themselves had to squeeze and squirm. They had to re-inscribe O.J. into the black narrative. They had to baptize him again into the community; they had to accept him. Black people are typically, if you're willing to say you're sorry, always [willing to welcome you back] with open arms: "Come on back home, Michael Jackson. Come on back home, Kobe Bryant. Come on back home, O.J. Simpson."

And then white America said: "Well, wait a minute. We had granted you honorary status, which means you have to play by our rules. You have to accept the reality that race doesn't exist. But now you're saying it exists. You have to accept the reality that race no longer is hugely significant, and it no longer rules America. But now you're saying it does. Well, if you say it does, then we're going to go back to our ways as well." All bets were off with O.J.'s acquittal.

Most liberals thought that by the 1990s, race was no longer much of an issue, but with the O.J. trial, race was suddenly front and center. Was that hard for them to accept?

Sure. Especially for white liberals in the O.J. Simpson case, it was even much more difficult. Right-wingers or conservative brothers and sisters in America who happen to be white perhaps had concluded from the very beginning that O.J. was likely to have committed the crime, whereas white liberals were willing to suspend judgment until such point it was proved in the court of law.