Goldmans Sue

[martin II]

william
Oj was in the house before Park thinks he saw him enter, other wise how
did the lights get turned on between katos trip pass the front door to the garage area and back pass the front door?

martin II

10::48 kato at pathway ashford side.

10:50 kato passes front door going to back pathway/garage area
and sees not lights on in front door area and no golf bag on bench
near front door.

10:52 Park on phone see oj going into front door. kato comes back from garage area see lights on and golf bag near bench.

question: if oj was going into the house for the first time when park saw him, How did the lights get turned on beween Katos first trip past the door going south and when he returned a few minutes later when he walked past the door and saw the lights on and the golf bag?


Mutually exclusive events: Dispelling prosecution myth, we know that Simpson could not have reached the entrance without Kaelin seeing him on the driveway. And certainly, he could not have opened the Rockingham gate to affect entry, without alerting Kaelin. Futher, we know that, had he entered at this time -- that is, had he returned from Bundy at this time -- it would have been impossible for him to be associated with either Kaelin's earthquake, or the glove that was found behind Kaelin's room. Even more impossible, had Simpson just arrived, he could not have turned on the entry light, which had been off when Kaelin passed three minutes earlier.]

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/theory02.html

[bobaugust]

n.n
thanks

And the prosecutions EDTA expert Mr Martz was demoted by the fbi for testitying above his expertise level, testifying in a manner not acceptable to the FBI and required to have his work closely supervised.imo
martin II

n.n, when Simpson returned to his estate and approached Ashford he saw that the limousine to take him to the airport had already arrived and was parked at his Ashford gate.

Simpson always parked his Bronco outside his Ashford gate. Not only because that's where his mail box was but because he didn't need a key or a remote to open that gate. Known only to Simpson, his family, and close friends the Ashford gate had a defective hinge. And if you knew how you could reach through the gate and lift it off it's hinge so it could be simply pushed open.

Simpson was forced to back up and park his Bronco outside his Rockingham gate. That gate was always kept locked. Simpson had no working remote opener in his Bronco and the only way to activate the gate to open it was from the inside the driveway or with a key. Simpson kept that key on a different key ring than his Bronco key but even if he had it he would not have used it and taken the chance the limo driver at his Ashford gate would hear it. Once the gate was activated it was not silent and would slowly swing open from one side, remain open for about 30, 40 seconds and then automatically swing back to close and lock.

Simpson had to find another way on to his estate. Based on the difference in elevations between his property and his neighbors property he knew his fence was at it's lowest point behind the guest house. That's why he made his way back there and scaled the fence.

It's against the rules on this discussion board to post links to personal web pages so I will send you a private message with the links and you can read all the details concerning this for yourself.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8817461]

I do not know of any tire tracks that tell you the color of a vehicle. The facts are that Heidstra testified to seeing a white jeep like vehicle, and there were tire tracks from a jeep Cherokee found at Bundy.

The evidence that was collected allows people to speculate and draw conclusions based on their attitudes and beliefs about what they think Simpson did. Those, who remain open and hold the prosecution to their burden of proof, realize that the evidence was insufficient.

You still didn't answer my question. What leads you to believe that the tire tracks found behind Nicole's condo were from a Jeep Cherokee?

The fact is that Nicole drove a black Jeep Cherokee that was parked in the driveway behind her condo.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8817865]

You still didn't answer my question. What leads you to believe that the tire tracks found behind Nicole's condo were from a Jeep Cherokee?

The fact is that Nicole drove a black Jeep Cherokee that was parked in the driveway behind her condo.

bobaugust

The link that I previously posted on the Cherokee. Could the tracks have belonged to Nicole's vehicle, yes? Could the tracks have belonged to the Cherokee, jeep like vehicle Heidstra saw speeding away from the scene in the opposite direction of Simpson's home, yes? Whose burden was it to show that the tracks matched Nicole's vehicle, the prosecution? Did the prosecution fail to do this, yes? Given the above facts, can a reasonable inference be drawn that the killer drove a white Cherokee and drove off in a direction opposite of Simpson's residence, yes?

[martin II]

n.n, when Simpson returned to his estate and approached Ashford he saw that the limousine to take him to the airport had already arrived and was parked at his Ashford gate.

Simpson always parked his Bronco outside his Ashford gate. Not only because that's where his mail box was but because he didn't need a key or a remote to open that gate. Known only to Simpson, his family, and close friends the Ashford gate had a defective hinge. And if you knew how you could reach through the gate and lift it off it's hinge so it could be simply pushed open.

Simpson was forced to back up and park his Bronco outside his Rockingham gate. That gate was always kept locked. Simpson had no working remote opener in his Bronco and the only way to activate the gate to open it was from the inside the driveway or with a key. Simpson kept that key on a different key ring than his Bronco key but even if he had it he would not have used it and taken the chance the limo driver at his Ashford gate would hear it. Once the gate was activated it was not silent and would slowly swing open from one side, remain open for about 30, 40 seconds and then automatically swing back to close and lock.

Simpson had to find another way on to his estate. Based on the difference in elevations between his property and his neighbors property he knew his fence was at it's lowest point behind the guest house. That's why he made his way back there and scaled the fence.

It's against the rules on this discussion board to post links to personal web pages so I will send you a private message with the links and you can read all the details concerning this for yourself.

bobaugust

bob
there is no proof that oj jumped any fense. only what you would like to tell people he did so as to have answers to unanswered questions. imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

n.n, when Simpson returned to his estate and approached Ashford he saw that the limousine to take him to the airport had already arrived and was parked at his Ashford gate.

Simpson always parked his Bronco outside his Ashford gate. Not only because that's where his mail box was but because he didn't need a key or a remote to open that gate. Known only to Simpson, his family, and close friends the Ashford gate had a defective hinge. And if you knew how you could reach through the gate and lift it off it's hinge so it could be simply pushed open.

Simpson was forced to back up and park his Bronco outside his Rockingham gate. That gate was always kept locked. Simpson had no working remote opener in his Bronco and the only way to activate the gate to open it was from the inside the driveway or with a key. Simpson kept that key on a different key ring than his Bronco key but even if he had it he would not have used it and taken the chance the limo driver at his Ashford gate would hear it. Once the gate was activated it was not silent and would slowly swing open from one side, remain open for about 30, 40 seconds and then automatically swing back to close and lock.

Simpson had to find another way on to his estate. Based on the difference in elevations between his property and his neighbors property he knew his fence was at it's lowest point behind the guest house. That's why he made his way back there and scaled the fence.

It's against the rules on this discussion board to post links to personal web pages so I will send you a private message with the links and you can read all the details concerning this for yourself.

bobaugust

According to your scenario, he did not enter through the Rockingham gate. Please, explain the blood trail leading through the Rockingham gate from the outside to the inside of the estate. Is the blood trial not consistent with someone cutting their hand reaching into the bronco and going inside the house? Here is a link showing the drops.

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

[martin II]

n.n, when Simpson returned to his estate and approached Ashford he saw that the limousine to take him to the airport had already arrived and was parked at his Ashford gate.

Simpson always parked his Bronco outside his Ashford gate. Not only because that's where his mail box was but because he didn't need a key or a remote to open that gate. Known only to Simpson, his family, and close friends the Ashford gate had a defective hinge. And if you knew how you could reach through the gate and lift it off it's hinge so it could be simply pushed open.

Simpson was forced to back up and park his Bronco outside his Rockingham gate. That gate was always kept locked. Simpson had no working remote opener in his Bronco and the only way to activate the gate to open it was from the inside the driveway or with a key. Simpson kept that key on a different key ring than his Bronco key but even if he had it he would not have used it and taken the chance the limo driver at his Ashford gate would hear it. Once the gate was activated it was not silent and would slowly swing open from one side, remain open for about 30, 40 seconds and then automatically swing back to close and lock.

Simpson had to find another way on to his estate. Based on the difference in elevations between his property and his neighbors property he knew his fence was at it's lowest point behind the guest house. That's why he made his way back there and scaled the fence.

It's against the rules on this discussion board to post links to personal web pages so I will send you a private message with the links and you can read all the details concerning this for yourself.

bobaugust


BOB

Please show me a picture indicating the difference in elavation of the sallingers and simpsons property so that your statement can be evaluated for the truth.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

<snipped>

If you think Simpson didn't jump his fence to enter his property, tell us please how you think he did get onto his estate after returning from Bundy.

bobaugust

That answer is easy. He never went to Bundy on that night.

It figures! You don't have an answer and you can't give an answer so you refer back to this ridiculous theory that has been brought up before and gone over and over and over by the NG's, ad nauseum!

Good gawd! I am amazed that you didn't ask "Where is the picture showing OJ jumping his fence to enter his property!" Oh, wait, that's coming next, right? :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

It figures! You don't have an answer and you can't give an answer so you refer back to this ridiculous theory that has been brought up before and gone over and over and over by the NG's, ad nauseum!

Good gawd! I am amazed that you didn't ask "Where is the picture showing OJ jumping his fence to enter his property!" Oh, wait, that's coming next, right? :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!


I gave a response. I cannot help it if you did not like it. So, :seeya:

[2L8 4A D8]

I gave a response. I cannot help it if you did not like it. So, :seeya:

Typical NG cop-out because you still can't and don't have a reasonable and credible answer to Bob's question! I'll just consider the source, as will everybody else! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Typical NG cop-out because you still can't and don't have a reasonable and credible answer to Bob's question! I'll just consider the source, as will everybody else! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

I will only say that you are not the reasaonable or credible authority, and :seeya: .

[martin II]

n.n, when Simpson returned to his estate and approached Ashford he saw that the limousine to take him to the airport had already arrived and was parked at his Ashford gate.

Simpson always parked his Bronco outside his Ashford gate. Not only because that's where his mail box was but because he didn't need a key or a remote to open that gate. Known only to Simpson, his family, and close friends the Ashford gate had a defective hinge. And if you knew how you could reach through the gate and lift it off it's hinge so it could be simply pushed open.

Simpson was forced to back up and park his Bronco outside his Rockingham gate. That gate was always kept locked. Simpson had no working remote opener in his Bronco and the only way to activate the gate to open it was from the inside the driveway or with a key. Simpson kept that key on a different key ring than his Bronco key but even if he had it he would not have used it and taken the chance the limo driver at his Ashford gate would hear it. Once the gate was activated it was not silent and would slowly swing open from one side, remain open for about 30, 40 seconds and then automatically swing back to close and lock.

Simpson had to find another way on to his estate. Based on the difference in elevations between his property and his neighbors property he knew his fence was at it's lowest point behind the guest house. That's why he made his way back there and scaled the fence.

It's against the rules on this discussion board to post links to personal web pages so I will send you a private message with the links and you can read all the details concerning this for yourself.

bobaugust


bob
"simpson arrived at Ashford and BACKED THE BRONCO SOUTH down rockingham to the rockingham gate"?? where did you get this from? Proof please.
MARTIN ii

[bobaugust]

The prosecution introduced Kato's phone records to show that he was on the phone and heard the alleged thumps at 10:45.

No the prosecution did not produce telephone records of that call. Kaelin only estimated the time he called Rachel, 10:10 and only estimated the time he heard the noises on his wall.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

That answer is easy. He never went to Bundy on that night.

Thank you for admitting that you believe Simpson was not at Bundy that night. At least now you have made it perfectly clear what category you fit in. We now know how to judge your credibility in discussions about this case.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

BOB

Please show me a picture indicating the difference in elavation of the sallingers and simpsons property so that your statement can be evaluated for the truth.
martin II

martin II, look at the photographs on this web page.

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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8817881]

The link that I previously posted on the Cherokee. Could the tracks have belonged to Nicole's vehicle, yes? Could the tracks have belonged to the Cherokee, jeep like vehicle Heidstra saw speeding away from the scene in the opposite direction of Simpson's home, yes? Whose burden was it to show that the tracks matched Nicole's vehicle, the prosecution? Did the prosecution fail to do this, yes? Given the above facts, can a reasonable inference be drawn that the killer drove a white Cherokee and drove off in a direction opposite of Simpson's residence, yes?

First you claim that the tire tracks matched the kind of vehicle Heidstra said he saw. Then you claimed the tire tracks matched a Jeep Cherokee.

Both claims are false. No one ever testified to that fact. The tire tracks were not matched to any kind of vehicle.

Heidstra never named the kind of vehicle he saw, he only said it was a white jeep like vehicle with tinted windows. When Heidstra was shown a photograph of Simpson's vehicle he said it resemble the vehicle he saw.

Your supposed reasonable inferences are not reasonable at all. Your concept of what you think is reasonable is very questionable since you think imaginary evidence is reasonable.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

According to your scenario, he did not enter through the Rockingham gate. Please, explain the blood trail leading through the Rockingham gate from the outside to the inside of the estate. Is the blood trial not consistent with someone cutting their hand reaching into the bronco and going inside the house? Here is a link showing the drops.

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

Based on how the gate opened from one side and the fact that these blood drops were in the center of the driveway prove that Simpson didn't enter that gate.

Here is link to the photograph.
http://www.bobaugust.com/rockgate.jpg

The argument that the blood drops outside and inside the gate tell us that Simpson entered that gate, is incorrect. The placement of Simpson's blood drops contradict that argument.

The locked Rockingham gate could be opened by activating it three different ways. Pressing a button just inside the driveway, using a remote control, or using a key in the outside gate control on the stone wall to the right of the gate. When activated the heavy gate would slowly swing inward, from one side, stay open for about 30, 40 seconds, activate automatically, swing back and lock. The gate could also be deactivated and opened manually.

Simpson had no working remote control in his Bronco. All of the evidence suggests that he didn't have his master key with him. And more importantly Simpson didn't want to be seen or heard entering his estate. It was not a silent gate.

Look at the blood drops. If Simpson had used his master key, to open the gate, it would open the same way as if it the button was pressed or the remote control was used. As the gate activated and slowly swung open, Simpson would have entered on the left side. He would not have been in the position to drip two drops of blood in the center of his driveway. There is another explanation.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Thank you for admitting that you believe Simpson was not at Bundy that night. At least now you have made it perfectly clear what category you fit in. We now know how to judge your credibility in discussions about this case.

bobaugust

:beer: Thank You :beer: Thank You :beer:

[William Anthony]

No the prosecution did not produce telephone records of that call. Kaelin only estimated the time he called Rachel, 10:10 and only estimated the time he heard the noises on his wall.

bobaugust

I seem to recall that the time was verified by the phone records, whether they were marked an entered into evidence as an exhibit or used during Kato's testimony is another matter. When I have had an opportunity to review the tapes, I will provide you with a more definitive answer.

[William Anthony]

Thank you for admitting that you believe Simpson was not at Bundy that night. At least now you have made it perfectly clear what category you fit in. We now know how to judge your credibility in discussions about this case.

bobaugust

You asked a question based on the prosecution's failure to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I then responded with an answer illuminating that failure. It matters not what you or I believe. The thing that matters is what the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

Based on how the gate opened from one side and the fact that these blood drops were in the center of the driveway prove that Simpson didn't enter that gate.

Here is link to the photograph.
http://www.bobaugust.com/rockgate.jpg

The argument that the blood drops outside and inside the gate tell us that Simpson entered that gate, is incorrect. The placement of Simpson's blood drops contradict that argument.

The locked Rockingham gate could be opened by activating it three different ways. Pressing a button just inside the driveway, using a remote control, or using a key in the outside gate control on the stone wall to the right of the gate. When activated the heavy gate would slowly swing inward, from one side, stay open for about 30, 40 seconds, activate automatically, swing back and lock. The gate could also be deactivated and opened manually.

Simpson had no working remote control in his Bronco. All of the evidence suggests that he didn't have his master key with him. And more importantly Simpson didn't want to be seen or heard entering his estate. It was not a silent gate.

Look at the blood drops. If Simpson had used his master key, to open the gate, it would open the same way as if it the button was pressed or the remote control was used. As the gate activated and slowly swung open, Simpson would have entered on the left side. He would not have been in the position to drip two drops of blood in the center of his driveway. There is another explanation.

bobaugust

I guess I did not make myself clear. You have claimed he entered behind Kato's quarters by scaling the fence, although there is no blood on the pathway. There is blood by the gate and going through the gate. How do you know that he did not let the gate open completely and enter at the point the drops were found? You rely on physical evidence. There is physical evidence that he entered through the gate, but none that he entered from behind Kato's quarters. The only person who testified that he was behind Kato's quarters where the glove was found was the MF.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8817886]

First you claim that the tire tracks matched the kind of vehicle Heidstra said he saw. Then you claimed the tire tracks matched a Jeep Cherokee.

Both claims are false. No one ever testified to that fact. The tire tracks were not matched to any kind of vehicle.

Heidstra never named the kind of vehicle he saw, he only said it was a white jeep like vehicle with tinted windows. When Heidstra was shown a photograph of Simpson's vehicle he said it resemble the vehicle he saw.

Your supposed reasonable inferences are not reasonable at all. Your concept of what you think is reasonable is very questionable since you think imaginary evidence is reasonable.

bobaugust

Spinning that rug again, are you?

[bobaugust]

I seem to recall that the time was verified by the phone records, whether they were marked an entered into evidence as an exhibit or used during Kato's testimony is another matter. When I have had an opportunity to review the tapes, I will provide you with a more definitive answer.

The calls Kaelin made to Rachel were local calls. Kaelin's telephone records documented long distance calls.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The calls Kaelin made to Rachel were local calls. Kaelin's telephone records documented long distance calls.

bobaugust

As I have stated, I will review the tapes and when I am done I will let you know, if my recollection is correct.

[martin II]

The calls Kaelin made to Rachel were local calls. Kaelin's telephone records documented long distance calls.

bobaugust

BOB
You believe what kato said he remembers about oj sweat suite and don't believe him when he says what time he heard the thumps.
SELECTIVE
martin II

[bobaugust]

You asked a question based on the prosecution's failure to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I then responded with an answer illuminating that failure. It matters not what you or I believe. The thing that matters is what the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

I asked my question based on the fact that Simpson was not on his estate at the time of the murders.

The physical evidence proves Simpson was at Bundy. Simpson's fresh blood was found at Bundy. Both victim's blood was found in Simpson's Bronco some mixed with Simpson's blood. Both victim's blood was found on the killer's glove mixed with Simpson's blood. Nicole's blood was found on Simpson's sock along with Simpson's blood. Fiber evidence was found on Ron's shirt from the killer's clothing. The same fibers were found on the killer's glove and on Simpson's sock.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I guess I did not make myself clear. You have claimed he entered behind Kato's quarters by scaling the fence, although there is no blood on the pathway. There is blood by the gate and going through the gate. How do you know that he did not let the gate open completely and enter at the point the drops were found? You rely on physical evidence. There is physical evidence that he entered through the gate, but none that he entered from behind Kato's quarters. The only person who testified that he was behind Kato's quarters where the glove was found was the MF.

The blood evidence at the Rockingham gate doesn't tell us Simpson opened that gate and entered it, it only tells us that Simpson dripped his blood outside the gate and inside the gate. There is no evidence that Simpson would have or did leave the Rockingham gate wide open.

The evidence that supports the speculation that Simpson entered is estate by scaling his fence are the thumps and vibrations Kaelin heard and felt, that tilted a picture on the back wall of his room. The physical evidence is the fresh green leaves near the glove and the bent wire on the top of the fence opposite the glove.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I asked my question based on the fact that Simpson was not on his estate at the time of the murders.

The physical evidence proves Simpson was at Bundy. Simpson's fresh blood was found at Bundy. Both victim's blood was found in Simpson's Bronco some mixed with Simpson's blood. Both victim's blood was found on the killer's glove mixed with Simpson's blood. Nicole's blood was found on Simpson's sock along with Simpson's blood. Fiber evidence was found on Ron's shirt from the killer's clothing. The same fibers were found on the killer's glove and on Simpson's sock.

bobaugust

Why do you want to rehash the Magical socks, evidence of possible cross contamination and possible evidence planting and a glove that did not fit.

The fact is that the prosecution failed to show that he was not at home at the time of the murders.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818145]

Spinning that rug again, are you?

No I'm not spinning anything, just pointing out the false information and false claims you've made on this discussion group.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818343]

No I'm not spinning anything, just pointing out the false information and false claims you've made on this discussion group.

bobaugust

I posted the link that stated what the tire tracks were. You may disagree with what the link says but I FIND IT HIGHLY INSULTING THAT YOU WOULD STATE THAT THE INFORMATION WAS MY FALSE POST, WHEN IT CAME FROM A LINK.

you have every right to disagree with the link and Hiedstra did indeed testify that it was a white jeep like vehicle that he saw.

[bobaugust]

BOB
You believe what kato said he remembers about oj sweat suite and don't believe him when he says what time he heard the thumps.
SELECTIVE
martin II

martin II, yes I do believe Kaelin's testimony about the clothing he remembered Simpson was wearing that night. I also believe Kaelin didn't know exactly what time those noises and vibrations occurred on his back wall but I do believe what Kaelin said he did after he heard them.

Different estimated times from different witnesses do not tell us when an event happened, only approximately when it happened.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

BOB
You believe what kato said he remembers about oj sweat suite and don't believe him when he says what time he heard the thumps.
SELECTIVE
martin II

Martin,

Bobaugust selectively believes what is consistent with his conclusions and dismisses other things that are not as irrelevant, false, imaginary, and ridiculous, imho.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818616]

I posted the link that stated what the tire tracks were. You may disagree with what the link says but I FIND IT HIGHLY INSULTING THAT YOU WOULD STATE THAT THE INFORMATION WAS MY FALSE POST, WHEN IT CAME FROM A LINK.

you have every right to disagree with the link and Hiedstra did indeed testify that it was a white jeep like vehicle that he saw.

You insult yourself. I never saw you post or refer to any link in the messages you made these false statements. Post the link William and lets see what you're talking about.

on 2/16/07. 02:45 PM you responded to my posting and said,
"He was one of the most noticeable people in Brentwood, but possibly took his car. He drove the wrong way from his house after the murders in a jeep cheorkee, which there were tire tracks left in the driveway and he did not own that vehicle. I guess he stole it, increasing his chances of capture."

On 2/17/07, 07:40 AM you responded to my posting and said,
"A witness testified to seeing a white jeep like vehicle, which is the type of vehicle that matched the tire tracks the tire tracks at Bundy."

bobaugust

[martin II]

Judge rules in favor oj fred on ojs past movie royalties.

martin II


http://www.accessatlanta.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/Other_Entertainment/Simpson_Lawsuit.html

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818621]

You insult yourself. I never saw you post or refer to any link in the messages you made these false statements. Post the link William and lets see what you're talking about.

on 2/16/07. 02:45 PM you responded to my posting and said,
"He was one of the most noticeable people in Brentwood, but possibly took his car. He drove the wrong way from his house after the murders in a jeep cheorkee, which there were tire tracks left in the driveway and he did not own that vehicle. I guess he stole it, increasing his chances of capture."

On 2/17/07, 07:40 AM you responded to my posting and said,
"A witness testified to seeing a white jeep like vehicle, which is the type of vehicle that matched the tire tracks the tire tracks at Bundy."

bobaugust

I do not have time to look for my post. However, here is another post and we did have discussions on the issue of the tire tracks being identified as those on a jeep cherokee, when you informed me that Nicole had a cherokee and claimed the tire tracks meant nothing.

Here is another link, although it may be the one I perviously supplied. I do not think it is. Here is an excerpt from the article.

http://web2.airmail.net/marjo/lange.htm

"At the rear of the building there is a two-car garage that goes beneath the structure. He said there was also a driveway area before the garage , and then that leads out on to the rear alley. He was asked if he observed any cars to be parked in the garage area immediately adjacent to Nicole Simpson's house. He replied that there was a sports car underneath in the garage and a Jeep Cherokee in the driveway headed in an easterly direction, not in the garage but in the driveway of the residence. He pointed out that there would have not been enough room for another car to pull up in the garage, because there was quite a bit of sporting equipment in there. If that equipment had been removed a car could have been placed in the garage, but that there were an awful lot of things to prevent that. However he did say that there was room in the driveway adjacent to the Jeep Cherokee for another vehicle ( There were tire tracks found at the crime scene that did not match any of OJS vehicles.)."

[martin II]

Martin,

Bobaugust selectively believes what is consistent with his conclusions and dismisses other things that are not as irrelevant, false, imaginary, and ridiculous, imho.

william

bob selects what help his nonsense argument and rejects all reality that does not fit his agenda.

If one were to back up from the time park says he saw kato in the walkway
and allow the minutes for kate to get off the phone look for the flashlight and walk to the driveway, it is obvious his time of 10:45 thumps is accutate.

martin II

[martin II]

william

bob selects what help his nonsense argument and rejects all reality that does not fit his agenda.

If one were to back up from the time park says he saw kato in the walkway
and allow the minutes for kate to get off the phone look for the flashlight and walk to the driveway, it is obvious his time of 10:45 thumps is accutate.

martin II


william
haidstra estimated his time of 10:35 10:40 and 10:45 and bob believes all of it.
martin II

[William Anthony]

william

bob selects what help his nonsense argument and rejects all reality that does not fit his agenda.

If one were to back up from the time park says he saw kato in the walkway
and allow the minutes for kate to get off the phone look for the flashlight and walk to the driveway, it is obvious his time of 10:45 thumps is accutate.

martin II

Martin,

I agree and bobaugust changes his theories faster than Superman changed clothes.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818660]

I do not have time to look for my post. However, here is another post and we did have discussions on the issue of the tire tracks being identified as those on a jeep cherokee, when you informed me that Nicole had a cherokee and claimed the tire tracks meant nothing.



Yes I did inform you that Nicole drove a black Jeep Cherokee after you made your false statements. The discussions we had were about you not producing the evidence to support that false statement.

I understand why you don't want to take the time to find a posting you say you made with a link to an article that the tire tracks behind Nicole's condo were identified. It isn't true.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree and bobaugust changes his theories faster than Superman changed clothes.

william
bobs problem is that two witnesses he has said he believes have given what could be called conflicting testimony.

Kato thumps at 10;40 10;45
Heidstra hearing hey hey hey at 10:40 and some kind of car at 10:45.
Heidstra NEVER said the car was a white bronco. only some kind of white truck. there must be 100 white suvs in brentwood driving on sunday night.

The issue is OJ was at neither location. He was on his bed resting for his trip.
martin II

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818682]

Yes I did inform you that Nicole drove a black Jeep Cherokee after you made your false statements. The discussions we had were about you not producing the evidence to support that false statement.

I understand why you don't want to take the time to find a posting you say you made with a link to an article that the tire tracks behind Nicole's condo were identified. It isn't true.

bobaugust

No, while engaging you in a fruitless effort, imho, to have you understand that before anyone has the right to lable someone a criminal the accused has a right to have a trial in which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is a criminal, I am studying for college and do not have the time to look back at the posts I have peviously made.

Also, perhaps it was not tire tracks belonging to a jeep. However, in any event, by my latest post we know that there were tracks that were made that did not fit any vehicle Simpson owned. Does the expression, "If it does not fit, you must acquit", ring a bell?

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818705]

No, while engaging you in a fruitless effort, imho, to have you understand that before anyone has the right to lable someone a criminal the accused has a right to have a trial in which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is a criminal, I am studying for college and do not have the time to look back at the posts I have peviously made.

Also, perhaps it was not tire tracks belonging to a jeep. However, in any event, by my latest post we know that there were tracks that were made that did not fit any vehicle Simpson owned. Does the expression, "If it does not fit, you must acquit", ring a bell?

Yes that phrase fits your mentality just fine. Unknown tire tracks found in the alley behind Nicole's condo is completely irrelevant, but to you it's evidence that exonerates Simpson. That about sums up your ability to comprehend reality.

Simpson was proven to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial. Society labels him a killer who got away with murder, and rightly so.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818711]

Yes that phrase fits your mentality just fine. Unknown tire tracks found in the alley behind Nicole's condo is completely irrelevant, but to you it's evidence that exonerates Simpson. That about sums up your ability to comprehend reality.

Simpson was proven to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial. Society labels him a killer who got away with murder, and rightly so.

bobaugust

Today I was reading, and for the life of me I cannot remember exactly what is was and it was something other than the MF issue, oh yes, Hiedstra, who was left out of the civil trial. So, the civil trial did not include all the evidence of the criminal trial, which is another of the false claims you have posted.

You do not know what is relevant and admissible in a trial. That determination is made by the judge. I understand that you do not have the slightest comprehension of the reality of what is relevant. so therefore I will not consider your above remarks as HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. I know that you do not comprehend or do not want to comprehend the reality of what the civil trial proved, despite my attempts to educate you, therefore, as always I will consider the souce. Maybe he did get away with murder or maybe he did not. That is the basis of reasonable doubt. If the prosecution had put on credible trustworthy evidence, then there would be no doubt; that my dear friend is the reality, which, imho, you fail to comprehend or either choose to ignore. yoUR POST DOES BORDER ON BAITING AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO CEASE WITH SUCH TACTICS SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE IN A CIVIL AND RESPECTUFUL DEBATE/ARGUMENT/DISCUSSION/DISAGREEMENT.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818716]

Today I was reading, and for the life of me I cannot remember exactly what is was and it was something other than the MF issue, oh yes, Hiedstra, who was left out of the civil trial. So, the civil trial did not include all the evidence of the criminal trial, which is another of the false claims you have posted.

You do not know what is relevant and admissible in a trial. That determination is made by the judge. I understand that you do not have the slightest comprehension of the reality of what is relevant. so therefore I will not consider your above remarks as HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. I know that you do not comprehend or do not want to comprehend the reality of what the civil trial proved, despite my attempts to educate you, therefore, as always I will consider the souce. Maybe he did get away with murder or maybe he did not. That is the basis of reasonable doubt. If the prosecution had put on credible trustworthy evidence, then there would be no doubt; that my dear friend is the reality, which, imho, you fail to comprehend or either choose to ignore. yoUR POST DOES BORDER ON BAITING AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO CEASE WITH SUCH TACTICS SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE IN A CIVIL AND RESPECTUFUL DEBATE/ARGUMENT/DISCUSSION/DISAGREEMENT.

What was admissible in the criminal trial has nothing to do with your personal opinions as to what you consider reasonable. It has nothing to do with the false and misinformation you post on this discussion group. The fact that you don't find the evidence in this case credible and trustworthy doesn't mean other people, more reasonable thinking people, disagree with you and find the ridiculous imaginary arguments made by the defense had no credibility.

Heidstra was left out of the civil trial? Where do you get this false information? Heidstra was a plaintiff witness in the civil trial.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818720]

What was admissible in the criminal trial has nothing to do with your personal opinions as to what you consider reasonable. It has nothing to do with the false and misinformation you post on this discussion group. The fact that you don't find the evidence in this case credible and trustworthy doesn't mean other people, more reasonable thinking people, disagree with you and find the ridiculous imaginary arguments made by the defense had no credibility.

Heidstra was left out of the civil trial? Where do you get this false information? Heidstra was a plaintiff witness in the civil trial.

bobaugust


You are correct on the Hiedsta issue. What I was speaking of and could not remember is that the evidence of the barking dog was not used to establish the time line.

How can you, when you do not consider all the evidence missed, possibly contaminated and crossed contaminated, possibly planted. mistakes and errors committed by LE criticize anyone for their beliefs as to reasonable doubt.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818725]


You are correct on the Hiedsta issue. What I was speaking of and could not remember is that the evidence of the barking dog was not used to establish the time line.

How can you, when you do not consider all the evidence missed, possibly contaminated and crossed contaminated, possibly planted. mistakes and errors committed by LE criticize anyone for their beliefs as to reasonable doubt.

There wasn't a lot of evidence missed compared to the huge amount of evidence that was collected. Only a few explainable incidents. None of the hair or fibers that were entered into evidence was the result of cross contamination. Every claim of evidence planting was proved false. Mistakes and errors made by LE were all minor mistakes. Simple human error. No mistake ever changed one single piece of evidence that proved Simpson was the killer. There is no reasonable doubt when reasonable explanations are offered.

bobaugust

[martin II]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818725]


You are correct on the Hiedsta issue. What I was speaking of and could not remember is that the evidence of the barking dog was not used to establish the time line.

How can you, when you do not consider all the evidence missed, possibly contaminated and crossed contaminated, possibly planted. mistakes and errors committed by LE criticize anyone for their beliefs as to reasonable doubt.

william
it ssems that bob believes in reasonable doubt as long as he sets the standards for what is reasonable and everyone agrees.imo

martinii

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818711]

Yes that phrase fits your mentality just fine. Unknown tire tracks found in the alley behind Nicole's condo is completely irrelevant, but to you it's evidence that exonerates Simpson. That about sums up your ability to comprehend reality.

Simpson was proven to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial. Society labels him a killer who got away with murder, and rightly so.

bobaugust

bob
please explain what you mean by "society" labels him-----
martin II

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818730]

There wasn't a lot of evidence missed compared to the huge amount of evidence that was collected. Only a few explainable incidents. None of the hair or fibers that were entered into evidence was the result of cross contamination. Every claim of evidence planting was proved false. Mistakes and errors made by LE were all minor mistakes. Simple human error. No mistake ever changed one single piece of evidence that proved Simpson was the killer. There is no reasonable doubt when reasonable explanations are offered.

bobaugust

One item missed or not collected that could possibly exonnerate a person who maintains the presumption of innocence is one item too many, imho.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818740]

One item missed or not collected that could possibly exonnerate a person who maintains the presumption of innocence is one item too many, imho.

Why don't you tell us how you think one missed drop of blood would exonerate Simpson when every other drop of blood points only to him. Does that one drop of blood mean that Simpson's blood was not there? No. Does that one drop of blood mean that all the trace evidence wasn't there? No. Does that one drop of blood change even one single piece of evidence that points to Simpson? No. Does that one drop of blood change Simpson's lying testimony? No.

So tell us William how can one drop of blood exonerate Simpson?

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

If you came to believe that the glove was planted, would you believe Simpson was innocent?

If you came to believe that Simpson did cut his hand when he said he did, would you believe that he was innocent?

If you came to believe that the blood drops at Bundy were so degraded that it was impossible to tell who's blood it was, would you then believe he is innocent?

If you came to believe that the blood on the back gate was planted, would you then believe he was innocent?

If you came to believe that the bloody fingerprint on the back gate was in fact collected and tested and it wasn't Simpson's, would you then believe he is innocent?

What if Sydney Simpson did give a statement to the police that was made public and she said that she saw the blood drops before that night, would you then believe her father was innocent?

What if in that same statement, she says that told the cops where her father was right away, would you then believe he is innocent?

What if any of the Browns' saw the blood drops earilier in the day, before they went to watch Sydney dance, would you then believe he was innocent?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

If you came to believe that the glove was planted, would you believe Simpson was innocent?

If you came to believe that Simpson did cut his hand when he said he did, would you believe that he was innocent?

If you came to believe that the blood drops at Bundy were so degraded that it was impossible to tell who's blood it was, would you then believe he is innocent?

If you came to believe that the blood on the back gate was planted, would you then believe he was innocent?

If you came to believe that the bloody fingerprint on the back gate was in fact collected and tested and it wasn't Simpson's, would you then believe he is innocent?

What if Sydney Simpson did give a statement to the police that was made public and she said that she saw the blood drops before that night, would you then believe her father was innocent?

What if in that same statement, she says that told the cops where her father was right away, would you then believe he is innocent?

What if any of the Browns' saw the blood drops earilier in the day, before they went to watch Sydney dance, would you then believe he was innocent?

limakey, you're asking me to believe things that are not true so I can't answer your questions.

If hypothetically all the evidence against Simpson did not exist than I would believe he was innocent and Nicole and Ron would still be alive.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818789]

Why don't you tell us how you think one missed drop of blood would exonerate Simpson when every other drop of blood points only to him. Does that one drop of blood mean that Simpson's blood was not there? No. Does that one drop of blood mean that all the trace evidence wasn't there? No. Does that one drop of blood change even one single piece of evidence that points to Simpson? No. Does that one drop of blood change Simpson's lying testimony? No.

So tell us William how can one drop of blood exonerate Simpson?

bobaugust

The one drop of blood, if different from Simpson's when placed in conjunction with the other unidentified and uncollected evidence that we have previously discussed, such as the bloody fingerprint and the tire tracks, would show that someone else was probably there on the night of the murders. In short what I am saying is that, as many of the experts admitted, they could not tell you when Simpson's blood was deposited there. It would be highly likely that Simpson could have bleed there at anytime prior to the night of the murders, because he had a parental and an estranged spousal connection to the scene. If the other evidence pointed to someone else other than Simpson, who had no connection to the scene or had a less frequent connection than did Simpson, then the evidence would point to that person as the killer. The problem, which I have been trying to get you to understand, is that the prosecution's failure to provide the best evidence, inter alia, contributed to the subsequent verdict, because things are not always simply a matter of black or white.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818792]

The one drop of blood, if different from Simpson's when placed in conjunction with the other unidentified and uncollected evidence that we have previously discussed, such as the bloody fingerprint and the tire tracks, would show that someone else was probably there on the night of the murders. In short what I am saying is that, as many of the experts admitted, they could not tell you when Simpson's blood was deposited there. It would be highly likely that Simpson could have bleed there at anytime prior to the night of the murders, because he had a parental and an estranged spousal connection to the scene. If the other evidence pointed to someone else other than Simpson, who had no connection to the scene or had a less frequent connection than did Simpson, then the evidence would point to that person as the killer. The problem, which I have been trying to get you to understand, is that the prosecution's failure to provide the best evidence, inter alia, contributed to the subsequent verdict, because things are not always simply a matter of black or white.

That's complete bull crap and you know it.

The blood drops found at Bundy were fresh blood that were later identified as Simpson's blood. It isn't likely or even remotely possible that Simpson left that fresh blood on the Bundy walkway prior to that night. That's only your fantasy that is contradicted by the evidence and by Simpson's own words.

The unidentified tire tracks could have been left from any vehicle that had been in that alley at any time prior to the murders. The uncollected possible fingerprint was most likely Simpson's since there isn't one single shred of other evidence that any one else but Simpson and the two victims were at Bundy that night.

Your claim that just because something was not collected might point to someone else is contracted by the reality of all the other evidence that was collected. The reality is that the uncollected blood would have pointed to the same three people that all the other blood in this case pointed to. Your suggestion that everything that was randomly not collected or unidentified is all tied together and shows someone else was there is I'm sorry to say a completely ridiculous claim.

bobaugust



bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819006]

That's complete bull crap and you know it.

The blood drops found at Bundy were fresh blood that were later identified as Simpson's blood. It isn't likely or even remotely possible that Simpson left that fresh blood on the Bundy walkway prior to that night. That's only your fantasy that is contradicted by the evidence and by Simpson's own words.

The unidentified tire tracks could have been left from any vehicle that had been in that alley at any time prior to the murders. The uncollected possible fingerprint was most likely Simpson's since there isn't one single shred of other evidence that any one else but Simpson and the two victims were at Bundy that night.

Your claim that just because something was not collected might point to someone else is contracted by the reality of all the other evidence that was collected. The reality is that the uncollected blood would have pointed to the same three people that all the other blood in this case pointed to. Your suggestion that everything that was randomly not collected or unidentified is all tied together and shows someone else was there is I'm sorry to say a completely ridiculous claim.

bobaugust



bobaugust

We previously had this discussion about the freshness of the blood drops and the DF's testimony in comparrison with the MF's testimony. Your reality is based only own your preconceived conclusions, because it is impossible to know to whom the uncollected and untested blood would have pointed. I am, likewise, sorry to say that your claim to know who the uncollected and untested blood would have pointed is completely ridiculous. I REPEAT MY REQUEST TO HAVE YOU STOP CALLING MY POSTS/CLAIMS RIDICULOUS.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8819122]

We previously had this discussion about the freshness of the blood drops and the DF's testimony in comparrison with the MF's testimony. Your reality is based only own your preconceived conclusions, because it is impossible to know to whom the uncollected and untested blood would have pointed. I am, likewise, sorry to say that your claim to know who the uncollected and untested blood would have pointed is completely ridiculous. I REPEAT MY REQUEST TO HAVE YOU STOP CALLING MY POSTS/CLAIMS RIDICULOUS.

Yes we have had discussions about the freshness of the blood and I posted Dennis Fung's testimony. Are you implying that you don't believe what Dennis Fung said about that blood?

Is there anyone you believe who testified in this case or do you think every witness was a liar? How about Officer Terrazas the first patrol officer to see the blood at Bundy. Do you believe him?

October 28, 1996 Michael Terrazas
Q. Can you put on the board exhibit 76, please? (Steve complies.)
We have exhibit 76. And was the 117 marker there when you saw this area in the morning hours of June 13?
A. No, the marker was not there.
Q. And what is the object next to it?
A. It appears to be of blood.
Q. And could you describe whether or not that was a drop of blood that you saw in the early morning hours of June 13?
A. It appears to be the same drop of bloody observed on that night.
Q. Now, the drop of blood, as you observed it that night, can you describe it?
A. Bright red in color, looked moist.

I don't know who the uncollected blood came from but it most likely would have come from the same three people that all the other blood came from. It's funny how you call my claim ridiculous and then you request me to stop calling your claims ridiculous. Stop making ridiculous claims and I'll stop calling them ridiculous.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

We previously had this discussion about the freshness of the blood drops and the DF's testimony in comparrison with the MF's testimony. Your reality is based only own your preconceived conclusions, because it is impossible to know to whom the uncollected and untested blood would have pointed. I am, likewise, sorry to say that your claim to know who the uncollected and untested blood would have pointed is completely ridiculous. I REPEAT MY REQUEST TO HAVE YOU STOP CALLING MY POSTS/CLAIMS RIDICULOUS.

You can request it all you want and you can repeat it all you want, but the fact remains that Bob and all of us on this Board and these Threads have a right to our OPINIONS! Real sorry that you don't like them, but it is still our right!

If you don't agree, then I suggest that you take it up with Freshwater and see what she has to say about it. Then tell her to put her decision in a Sticky for one and all to see with their own eyes because I know that I won't just take your word for it! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

You can request it all you want and you can repeat it all you want, but the fact remains that Bob and all of us on this Board and these Threads have a right to our OPINIONS! Real sorry that you don't like them, but it is still our right!

If you don't agree, then I suggest that you take it up with Freshwater and see what she has to say about it. Then tell her to put her decision in a Sticky for one and all to see with their own eyes because I know that I won't just take your word for it! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

I have no problem with anyone stating their opinions or for anyone championing another's point of view as long as it is done in a respectful, civil, professional and appropriate manner. I will not be so presumptuous as to think that I have the right to TELL Freshwater anything. You may feel that your rights are different from mine, and, since you wanted to seek Freshwater to tell her what to do, then I suggest that you do so. I repeat that I FIND BOBAUGUST'S POST CALLING MY POSTS/CLAIMS RIDICULOUS TO BE UPROFESSIONAL AND REQUEST HIM TO CEASE AND DESIST. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE MY REQUESTS, THEN I SUGGEST THAT YOU DO NOT READ THEM. WITH THAT SAID, :seeya:

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819130]

Yes we have had discussions about the freshness of the blood and I posted Dennis Fung's testimony. Are you implying that you don't believe what Dennis Fung said about that blood?

Is there anyone you believe who testified in this case or do you think every witness was a liar? How about Officer Terrazas the first patrol officer to see the blood at Bundy. Do you believe him?

October 28, 1996 Michael Terrazas
Q. Can you put on the board exhibit 76, please? (Steve complies.)
We have exhibit 76. And was the 117 marker there when you saw this area in the morning hours of June 13?
A. No, the marker was not there.
Q. And what is the object next to it?
A. It appears to be of blood.
Q. And could you describe whether or not that was a drop of blood that you saw in the early morning hours of June 13?
A. It appears to be the same drop of bloody observed on that night.
Q. Now, the drop of blood, as you observed it that night, can you describe it?
A. Bright red in color, looked moist.

I don't know who the uncollected blood came from but it most likely would have come from the same three people that all the other blood came from. It's funny how you call my claim ridiculous and then you request me to stop calling your claims ridiculous. Stop making ridiculous claims and I'll stop calling them ridiculous.

bobaugust

Are you saying that you have the right to call my claims ridiculous and that I do not have the right to call yours the same. It appears to be. I do not think that any blood drop would appear bright red in color and moist approximately one and a half to two hours after it was deposited. I am reporting your last sentence.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8819161]

Are you saying that you have the right to call my claims ridiculous and that I do not have the right to call yours the same. It appears to be. I do not think that any blood drop would appear bright red in color and moist approximately one and a half to two hours after it was deposited. I am reporting your last sentence.

No I didn't say you don't have the right to call a statement I make ridiculous I said it's funny how you called my statement ridiculous and then asked me to stop calling your statements ridiculous. Make sure you report that too, please.

So now you're calling Terrazas a liar based on your expertise of how fresh blood should or should not look. Funny.

Lange saw the blood drops at Bundy some four hours after Terrazas, and Lange testified to seeing tailing on one of them. One of the crime scene photographs even showed tiny splatter marks on one of those drops of blood a couple of hours after that when it was photographed. More evidence that the blood was fresh blood.

Are you now going to call Lange a liar and the photographs fake?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819170]

No I didn't say you don't have the right to call a statement I make ridiculous I said it's funny how you called my statement ridiculous and then asked me to stop calling your statements ridiculous. Make sure you report that too, please.

So now you're calling Terrazas a liar based on your expertise of how fresh blood should or should not look. Funny.

Lange saw the blood drops at Bundy some four hours after Terrazas, and Lange testified to seeing tailing on one of them. One of the crime scene photographs even showed tiny splatter marks on one of those drops of blood a couple of hours after that when it was photographed. More evidence that the blood was fresh blood.

Are you now going to call Lange a liar and the photographs fake?

bobaugust

I have not called anyone anything other than the MF, because he admitted to such. I will only say that, in my experience, which I believe we all have, it is unusual to have a blood drop appear fresh several hours after it was allegedly depositied on a surface. However, Dr. Gerdees also tesified that the blood collected from the gate, items numered 115, 116, and 117 was more concentrated than the blood drops.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819170]

No I didn't say you don't have the right to call a statement I make ridiculous I said it's funny how you called my statement ridiculous and then asked me to stop calling your statements ridiculous. Make sure you report that too, please.

So now you're calling Terrazas a liar based on your expertise of how fresh blood should or should not look. Funny.

Lange saw the blood drops at Bundy some four hours after Terrazas, and Lange testified to seeing tailing on one of them. One of the crime scene photographs even showed tiny splatter marks on one of those drops of blood a couple of hours after that when it was photographed. More evidence that the blood was fresh blood.

Are you now going to call Lange a liar and the photographs fake?

bobaugust

The truth is that I had asked you several times before to stop calling my posts/claims ridiculous, but yet you persisted. I then stated that I would likewise call yours ridiculous but reiterated my request for you to desist. I know that some of my posts contradict what you believe the truth and the facts to be, but that is the nature a debate and an adversarial proceeding. It does not benefit the listener or the debate to engage in incendiary language designed to curtail and intelligent discussion, which I why I requested you to cease and desist.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8819176]

The truth is that I had asked you several times before to stop calling my posts/claims ridiculous, but yet you persisted. I then stated that I would likewise call yours ridiculous but reiterated my request for you to desist. I know that some of my posts contradict what you believe the truth and the facts to be, but that is the nature a debate and an adversarial proceeding. It does not benefit the listener or the debate to engage in incendiary language designed to curtail and intelligent discussion, which I why I requested you to cease and desist.

This discussion group is not a debate and I'm not debating you. My discussion of the Simpson case is based on the facts and evidence in this case that prove Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. Your imagined speculation, imagined evidence, and false information in no way changes the known evidence.

Unless you can point to someone else in this world who can bleed Simpson's fresh blood your claim that Simpson wasn't at Bundy the night of the murders is a false claim.

bobaugust

[sassylassy]

Update:

Judge Orders O.J.'s Past Income Go To Goldmans

A judge on Tuesday ordered that O.J. Simpson's income from past work in movies, television and commercials go directly to the family of murder victim Ron Goldman, but he rejected the family's bid to collect Simpson's earnings on future projects.

http://perezhilton.com/topics/headline_of_the_week/headline_of_the_week_weak_20070221.php


( I still dont think they will get any money from Simpson regardless of what the judge has to say, but I guess we will see)

[martin II]

Update:

Judge Orders O.J.'s Past Income Go To Goldmans

A judge on Tuesday ordered that O.J. Simpson's income from past work in movies, television and commercials go directly to the family of murder victim Ron Goldman, but he rejected the family's bid to collect Simpson's earnings on future projects.

http://perezhilton.com/topics/headline_of_the_week/headline_of_the_week_weak_20070221.php


( I still dont think they will get any money from Simpson regardless of what the judge has to say, but I guess we will see)

I think it is more about headlines and tv appearances than collecting money that they must know is beyond their reach.

I am assumming that freds lawyers are picking up new clients from the publicity they have received from these many cases they have filed for fred.

martin II

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819181]

This discussion group is not a debate and I'm not debating you. My discussion of the Simpson case is based on the facts and evidence in this case that prove Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. Your imagined speculation, imagined evidence, and false information in no way changes the known evidence.

Unless you can point to someone else in this world who can bleed Simpson's fresh blood your claim that Simpson wasn't at Bundy the night of the murders is a false claim.

bobaugust

I guess you are right, because a debate entertains two points of view. With that said, we ( the poster world) know that you will only discuss issues with those who have opinions similar to yours. Is this done so that you can reinforce your conclusion that you are right? Is this done, because you can not engage in an open an honest discussion of the evidence and the issues?

In any event, I feel compelled to inform you, unless you are the one that created this board, that my idea of the purpose of this board is two discuss, debate, argue and to gather information on the evidence, issues and other matters related to the Simpson trial. However, if this is your board or you are in control of this board, then I apologize for having the wrong idea.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8819191]

I guess you are right, because a debate entertains two points of view. With that said, we ( the poster world) know that you will only discuss issues with those who have opinions similar to yours. Is this done so that you can reinforce your conclusion that you are right? Is this done, because you can not engage in an open an honest discussion of the evidence and the issues?

In any event, I feel compelled to inform you, unless you are the one that created this board, that my idea of the purpose of this board is two discuss, debate, argue and to gather information on the evidence, issues and other matters related to the Simpson trial. However, if this is your board or you are in control of this board, then I apologize for having the wrong idea.

I do not debate with people offering irrational arguments about the evidence in this case, I inform them. If they aren't able to accept the reality of the evidence by using imaginary excuses then that's where it ends. Some posters either intentionally create contrary arguments to be objectionable others do it out of ignorance. Either way that's not engaging in an open and honest discussion.

It's apparent you understand how incriminating the evidence is in this case and in fact proves Simpson was the killer but you argue just to argue. You're intelligent enough to know that imaginary explanations do not contradict the reality of the physical evidence and you understand what it means when a defendant consistently lies under oath, you just want to play games.

I will continue to inform the uninformed posters here who post their opinions based on false and misinformation. If they aren't smart enough to realize how wrong they are after they are informed then that's their problem, not mine.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819224]

I do not debate with people offering irrational arguments about the evidence in this case, I inform them. If they aren't able to accept the reality of the evidence by using imaginary excuses then that's where it ends. Some posters either intentionally create contrary arguments to be objectionable others do it out of ignorance. Either way that's not engaging in an open and honest discussion.

It's apparent you understand how incriminating the evidence is in this case and in fact proves Simpson was the killer but you argue just to argue. You're intelligent enough to know that imaginary explanations do not contradict the reality of the physical evidence and you understand what it means when a defendant consistently lies under oath, you just want to play games.

I will continue to inform the uninformed posters here who post their opinions based on false and misinformation. If they aren't smart enough to realize how wrong they are after they are informed then that's their problem, not mine.

bobaugust

I get it everyone that disagrees with you are irrational, or doing it out of ignorance,or uninformed or aren't smart enough to realize how wrong they are after they are informed. Why is that you think that others have the problem, when you know so little about what it takes to prove someone guilty, and, only rely on what you believe the evidence supports?

[2L8 4A D8]

I do not debate with people offering irrational arguments about the evidence in this case, I inform them. If they aren't able to accept the reality of the evidence by using imaginary excuses then that's where it ends. Some posters either intentionally create contrary arguments to be objectionable others do it out of ignorance. Either way that's not engaging in an open and honest discussion.

It's apparent you understand how incriminating the evidence is in this case and in fact proves Simpson was the killer but you argue just to argue. You're intelligent enough to know that imaginary explanations do not contradict the reality of the physical evidence and you understand what it means when a defendant consistently lies under oath, you just want to play games.

I will continue to inform the uninformed posters here who post their opinions based on false and misinformation. If they aren't smart enough to realize how wrong they are after they are informed then that's their problem, not mine.

bobaugust

:beer: Excellent Post, Bob! And if I may suggest, please use your IGNORE button. It works wonders!

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8819232]

I get it everyone that disagrees with you are irrational, or doing it out of ignorance,or uninformed or aren't smart enough to realize how wrong they are after they are informed. Why is that you think that others have the problem, when you know so little about what it takes to prove someone guilty, and, only rely on what you believe the evidence supports?

I know what it takes to prove someone guilty. Evidence and a reasonable thinking jury who understands the evidence. There was plenty of evidence that proved Simpson guilty but there wasn't a reasonable thinking jury who wanted to understand it. Only a jury with an agenda to find a black hero not guilty by believing every imaginary claim the defense gave them so they could ignore the reality of the real evidence.

Besides the fact my discussions here are about who the killer was and not limited to only the information and evidence that was known at the time of the criminal trial.

bobaugust

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819224]

I do not debate with people offering irrational arguments about the evidence in this case, I inform them. If they aren't able to accept the reality of the evidence by using imaginary excuses then that's where it ends. Some posters either intentionally create contrary arguments to be objectionable others do it out of ignorance. Either way that's not engaging in an open and honest discussion.

It's apparent you understand how incriminating the evidence is in this case and in fact proves Simpson was the killer but you argue just to argue. You're intelligent enough to know that imaginary explanations do not contradict the reality of the physical evidence and you understand what it means when a defendant consistently lies under oath, you just want to play games.

I will continue to inform the uninformed posters here who post their opinions based on false and misinformation. If they aren't smart enough to realize how wrong they are after they are informed then that's their problem, not mine.

bobaugust

bob

are you suggesting that when you 'INFORM' the ones you believe are "uninformed" you have done something other than given you opinion on the subject?
martin II

[Kayleighjo]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8819232]

bob

are you suggesting that when you 'INFORM' the ones you believe are "uninformed" you have done something other than given you opinion on the subject?
martin II

Yeah, I'd say he gives the facts.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=martin II;8819300]

Yeah, I'd say he gives the facts.

What you are calling the facts are not what the jury determined the facts to be. The jury is the only people who can determine the facts, which they did, and, according to them, the facts did not show that Simpson was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. I think I understand that you are saying bobaugust gives the facts as he believes them to be. If this is what you meant, then I cannot disagree.

[Kayleighjo]

[

What you are calling the facts are not what the jury determined the facts to be. The jury is the only people who can determine the facts, which they did, and, according to them, the facts did not show that Simpson was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. I think I understand that you are saying bobaugust gives the facts as he believes them to be. If this is what you meant, then I cannot disagree.

In a court of law the jury is the only entity that can determine the facts. In real life it's a whole new ballgame.

I appreciate your zest for law and your hard work in your studies of it, but for once try to come out of that shell and talk about this case outside the courtroom.

Come on, even the term "innocent until proven guilty" is a requirement that exists only in a court of law and no place else.

Because if what you're saying is true, then the innocent men that are being let out of jail because it's proven later that the jury determined the facts incorrectly should go right back to jail.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=Kayleighjo;8819315]

What you are calling the facts are not what the jury determined the facts to be. The jury is the only people who can determine the facts, which they did, and, according to them, the facts did not show that Simpson was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. I think I understand that you are saying bobaugust gives the facts as he believes them to be. If this is what you meant, then I cannot disagree.


i agree.

most agree that we should have a jury system and allow the tryers of fact to determine the truth of the accusations against a defendant UNTIL THEY DISSAGREE WITH THE JURY DECISION. Then it seems that these same people believe that the facts should be determined by majority public opinion.
martin II

[William Anthony]

In a court of law the jury is the only entity that can determine the facts. In real life it's a whole new ballgame.

I appreciate your zest for law and your hard work in your studies of it, but for once try to come out of that shell and talk about this case outside the courtroom.

Come on, even the term "innocent until proven guilty" is a requirement that exists only in a court of law and no place else.

Because if what you're saying is true, then the innocent men that are being let out of jail because it's proven later that the jury determined the facts incorrectly should go right back to jail.

Thank you for realizing my appreciation for the law. Someone once said that, "If the King is the law, in America the law ought to be king." In real life and in the courtroom the jury is the only one who can determine the facts that give way to any legal force and effect.

Unfortunately, your second paragraph is correct, which leads to many incorrect verdicts.

Your last paragraph is the thought producing one. My original post was not artfully phrased. Let me say that the jury does not impose sentence. Therefore, the protection is provided so that the government or the Executive can rectify wrongful jury decisions. You have made me consider the wisdom of the Separation of Powers Doctrine. The court system is designed to protect the wrongly accused, in order to prevent their wrongful incarcerations. That is why those convicted on wrong jury decisions that have been proven wrong cannot go back to jail on the same charge. Unfortunately, the jury decisions afford the guilty more protection because once the jury renders a not guilty verdict, the guilty cannot be charged with that same crime again. In the matter of a not guilty verdict the jury's decision has been final, although I am not sure that this will not change by the Camm case. In the guilty verdict it is not, because of the government's power. Although our system is imperfect, it is well designed and has served the innocent.

We may engage in speculation of what the facts prove, but once the jury has spoken via a non guilty decision the facts remain unchanged, despite our speculations.

[n.n]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819235]

I know what it takes to prove someone guilty. Evidence and a reasonable thinking jury who understands the evidence. There was plenty of evidence that proved Simpson guilty but there wasn't a reasonable thinking jury who wanted to understand it. Only a jury with an agenda to find a black hero not guilty by believing every imaginary claim the defense gave them so they could ignore the reality of the real evidence.

Besides the fact my discussions here are about who the killer was and not limited to only the information and evidence that was known at the time of the criminal trial.

bobaugust

The jury, imo, had good reasons to decide that the prosecution had no proof beyond the shadow of a doubt to convict Mr. Simpson. That's all they have to decide. It doesn't matter whether they believe a deendant is guit or not -- the decision depends on whether the prosecution could prove their points.
Btw. did you really need the word "black" in front of hero?

I am sorry, but in your posts I cannot sort out facts, factoids or fiction. There are too many keys, gate openers, walking ere and there, black bags etc. that simply have no value as evidence.

PS: Finding the truth, even outside the court room, must rely on hard evidence, facts -- not on creating multiple scenarios. Such an approach would do as preparation for a fictional work, but never as the method of establishing the truth.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

The jury, imo, had good reasons to decide that the prosecution had no proof beyond the shadow of a doubt to convict Mr. Simpson.


The standard isn't "beyond a shadow of a doubt", it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

[n.n]

The standard isn't "beyond a shadow of a doubt", it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, in that case the jury must have had "reasonable" doubt. Otherwise, the verdict would have been different.

[bobaugust]

The jury, imo, had good reasons to decide that the prosecution had no proof beyond the shadow of a doubt to convict Mr. Simpson. That's all they have to decide. It doesn't matter whether they believe a deendant is guit or not -- the decision depends on whether the prosecution could prove their points.
Btw. did you really need the word "black" in front of hero?

I am sorry, but in your posts I cannot sort out facts, factoids or fiction. There are too many keys, gate openers, walking ere and there, black bags etc. that simply have no value as evidence.

PS: Finding the truth, even outside the court room, must rely on hard evidence, facts -- not on creating multiple scenarios. Such an approach would do as preparation for a fictional work, but never as the method of establishing the truth.

n.n, my discussions here are not limited to only the information available at the time of the criminal trial or the criminal trial verdict. A discussion as to who the killer was based on all the known information and evidence in this case.

Do I believe that Simpson should have been convicted in the criminal trial? Yes. But that's not the point. The civil trial was the real search for the truth as to who the killer was. New information and new evidence was presented. A huge amount of new information learned from the many witness depositions taken before the civil trial. Mistakes that the prosecutors made in the criminal trial were corrected. And the most important difference is that Simpson testified.

If you want to limit your discussion as to what happened in the criminal trial, and only the information and evidence from the criminal trial, or the criminal trial verdict that's your choice. But if you're interested in the truth as to who the killer was based on everything we know then I and other informed posters here will be happy to help you out.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

n.n, my discussions here are not limited to only the information available at the time of the criminal trial or the criminal trial verdict. A discussion as to who the killer was based on all the known information and evidence in this case.

Do I believe that Simpson should have been convicted in the criminal trial? Yes. But that's not the point. The civil trial was the real search for the truth as to who the killer was. New information and new evidence was presented. A huge amount of new information learned from the many witness depositions taken before the civil trial. Mistakes that the prosecutors made in the criminal trial were corrected. And the most important difference is that Simpson testified.

If you want to limit your discussion as to what happened in the criminal trial, and only the information and evidence from the criminal trial, or the criminal trial verdict that's your choice. But if you're interested in the truth as to who the killer was based on everything we know then I and other informed posters here will be happy to help you out.

bobaugust

I did not follow the civil trial, but I also will agree to help you in reaching a conclusion. I will operate from a different view point than bobaugust, since he has admitted that he was convinced, during the criminal trial that Simpson was guilty and the civil trial only confirmed his conclusions.

I will operate from the standpoint that I do not know whether or not Simpson was the killer and look to evidence showing whether he was or was not.

I do believe this is the correct way to view the evidence.

[bobaugust]

I did not follow the civil trial, but I also will agree to help you in reaching a conclusion. I will operate from a different view point than bobaugust, since he has admitted that he was convinced, during the criminal trial that Simpson was guilty and the civil trial only confirmed his conclusions.

I will operate from the standpoint that I do not know whether or not Simpson was the killer and look to evidence showing whether he was or was not.

I do believe this is the correct way to view the evidence.

That's funny since the only place you're looking for evidence is the criminal trial. As long as you continue to avoid the reality of what was learned after the criminal trial and presented in the civil trial including Simpson's lying testimony you will never know whether Simpson was the killer or not. Your lack of knowledge is by your choice of viewing only the evidence you select to view, not what is available.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

That's funny since the only place you're looking for evidence is the criminal trial. As long as you continue to avoid the reality of what was learned after the criminal trial and presented in the civil trial including Simpson's lying testimony you will never know whether Simpson was the killer or not. Your lack of knowledge is by your choice of viewing only the evidence you select to view, not what is available.

bobaugust

I look for evidence everywhere, not just that which tends to incriminate. Because, I did not follow the civil trial, does not mean that I will not go on an exploration (search, for those with delicate sensibilities) with n.n for the truth. I will look for evidence that was overlooked, uncollected, found, tested, untested, contaminated or cross contaminated or pristine. I will not soley rely on works of fiction by people on either side, because their views may be innately tainted.

[bobaugust]

I look for evidence everywhere, not just that which tends to incriminate. Because, I did not follow the civil trial, does not mean that I will not go on an exploration (search, for those with delicate sensibilities) with n.n for the truth. I will look for evidence that was overlooked, uncollected, found, tested, untested, contaminated or cross contaminated or pristine. I will not soley rely on works of fiction by people on either side, because their views may be innately tainted.

Well at least you admit that you don't know all the evidence against Simpson. If you really want to learn the truth I suggest you start learning what the defendant said. Put your prosecutor hat on and read Simpson's initial statement he gave the police under oath and then read his depositions and then his testimony in the civil trial, it might just well open your eyes as to what the truth really is.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Well at least you admit that you don't know all the evidence against Simpson. If you really want to learn the truth I suggest you start learning what the defendant said. Put your prosecutor hat on and read Simpson's initial statement he gave the police under oath and then read his depositions and then his testimony in the civil trial, it might just well open your eyes as to what the truth really is.

bobaugust

No, you are the only person I know who claims to know all the evidence. I have told you how I intend to look for evidence, but thank you for the suggestion.

[bobaugust]

No, you are the only person I know who claims to know all the evidence. I have told you how I intend to look for evidence, but thank you for the suggestion.

No, I don't claim to know all of the evidence, only obviously a lot more than you. You can avoid Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and lies all you want but until you learn about what he said you will never know the truth about who the killer was.

bobaugust

[Kayleighjo]

Well, in that case the jury must have had "reasonable" doubt. Otherwise, the verdict would have been different.

Jury nullification :read:

[William Anthony]

No, I don't claim to know all of the evidence, only obviously a lot more than you. You can avoid Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and lies all you want but until you learn about what he said you will never know the truth about who the killer was.

bobaugust

Please bobaugust, you have claimed several times to know the truth and the facts. If you are claiming that the truth and the facts you know are not based on all the evidence, then I apologize. You can arrive at the truth and the facts, without knowing all the evidence.

[William Anthony]

Jury nullification :read:


So far there has been no jury nullification of the verdict.

[Kayleighjo]

So far there has been no jury nullification of the verdict.

In your opinion.

[bobaugust]

Please bobaugust, you have claimed several times to know the truth and the facts. If you are claiming that the truth and the facts you know are not based on all the evidence, then I apologize. You can arrive at the truth and the facts, without knowing all the evidence.

Yes I have said that I base my beliefs on all the evidence meaning not just the evidence that was known at the time of the criminal trial. But I'm not going to say that I definitively know all the evidence in this case since once in a while I still learn something I may have missed or something new that I wasn't aware of.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Yes I have said that I base my beliefs on all the evidence meaning not just the evidence that was known at the time of the criminal trial. But I'm not going to say that I definitively know all the evidence in this case since once in a while I still learn something I may have missed or something new that I wasn't aware of.

bobaugust

You said you know the truth and the facts. I am pleased to know that you admit that you do not know everything (evidence). I am not trying to be argumentative. I must ask. if you do not know all the evidence, how can you know the truth and what the facts are?

I can understand that based on the evidence you have looked at you believe Simpson to be the killer. Is this what you are saying? Before, you have claimed that you know Simpson is the killer based on the evidence in the criminal and civil trials. I just want to understand so that we can hold a cordial and respectful and professional discussion.

[bobaugust]

You said you know the truth and the facts. I am pleased to know that you admit that you do not know everything (evidence). I am not trying to be argumentative. I must ask. if you do not know all the evidence, how can you know the truth and what the facts are?

I can understand that based on the evidence you have looked at you believe Simpson to be the killer. Is this what you are saying? Before, you have claimed that you know Simpson is the killer based on the evidence in the criminal and civil trials. I just want to understand so that we can hold a cordial and respectful and professional discussion.

My belief that Simpson was the killer was originally based on the evidence in the criminal trial. After reading the depositions and learning about the evidence presented in the civil trial, as well as reading many books regarding this case there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

My belief that Simpson was the killer was originally based on the evidence in the criminal trial. After reading the depositions and learning about the evidence presented in the civil trial, as well as reading many books regarding this case there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

Okay, let's begin with the evidence that was not collected. Would you, at least agree that evidence could have pointed to someone else?

[Suzee10]

Jury nullification :read:


I agree and I have said this all along, jury nullification. They had their bags packed and ready to go.

[bobaugust]

Okay, let's begin with the evidence that was not collected. Would you, at least agree that evidence could have pointed to someone else?

Okay lets begin with the evidence that wasn't collected. You pick out a couple of random incidents where some blood was missed and then speculate that blood may have come from someone other than the three people that all the other blood that was collected in this case came from. I don't find that credible speculation. Is it possible? Sure almost anything you can imagine may be possible but not believable. It's possible the earth will be hit by a meteor tomorrow and destroy all life as we know it. Possible, but not believable.

Besides the fact even in the furthest stretch of imagination if I was to play your game and agree that the randomly missed blood could point to someone else, how does that eliminate Simpson from being at Bundy?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Okay lets begin with the evidence that wasn't collected. You pick out a couple of random incidents where some blood was missed and then speculate that blood may have come from someone other than the three people that all the other blood that was collected in this case came from. I don't find that credible speculation. Is it possible? Sure almost anything you can imagine may be possible but not believable. It's possible the earth will be hit by a meteor tomorrow and destroy all life as we know it. Possible, but not believable.

Besides the fact even in the furthest stretch of imagination if I was to play your game and agree that the randomly missed blood could point to someone else, how does that eliminate Simpson from being at Bundy?

bobaugust

I am not playing a game. What I am doing is trying to engage in the type of discussion that will be most beneficial to all here. Since you have said that it is possible but not likely, I will accept that. You have also asked a question as to how that uncollected evidence eliminates Simpson. For the sake of the discussion, I will say it does not.

Now, we have the possibility that there were two murderers-one being Simpson and one being someone else, agreed? I think that I must state that when I say possible I mean that the idea cannot be ruled out at this point.

[William Anthony]

I agree and I have said this all along, jury nullification. They had their bags packed and ready to go.

I will agree with the position that the jury deliberations were completed at a rapid pace. I believe that there was not much for them to deliberate, due to the way the trial was presented.

[martin II]

the crininal trial jury deliberations.

Panelist Brenda Moran doesn't think they decided a moment too soon.

"We've taken this case serious for nine months," she told reporters Oct. 4, 1995, the day after Simpson's acquittal was announced. "It didn't take us nine more months to figure it out. We're not that ignorant."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 10 a.m., Cryer told the Los Angeles Times, they took a straw vote. It was 10-2 in favor of acquittal. One of the two negative votes came from a 61-year-old white woman, Anise Aschenbach, who would later tearfully say that while Simpson may be guilty, the evidence didn't prove it.

The other dissenter has not been identified.

When deliberations began, everyone spoke at once, said Sheila Woods, a 39-year-old health inspector.

"I guess they were so full over the nine months with things to say, that everyone just started kind of talking at the same time," Woods said in an ABC "Nightline" interview broadcast Sept. 29, 1995.

After the straw vote, some questions were still unresolved. Forewoman Amanda Cooley, 51, sent a note asking for the testimony of limo driver Allan Park to be read back.

Among the questions that jurors said troubled them:

Where, exactly, did Park see a shadowy figure at Simpson's estate?
What was that unidentified person wearing?
How many cars were in the driveway?
While waiting for the reading, they voted again. Now it was unanimous. As for the initial holdouts, Woods said, "I think what they did, they listened to the other 10 explain why they thought there was reasonable doubt, and then in the next vote, it was a 12 unanimous not guilty (decision)."

The volatile issues of racism and domestic violence did not sway them, Woods said.


martin II
----------------------------------------------------

[bobaugust]

I am not playing a game. What I am doing is trying to engage in the type of discussion that will be most beneficial to all here. Since you have said that it is possible but not likely, I will accept that. You have also asked a question as to how that uncollected evidence eliminates Simpson. For the sake of the discussion, I will say it does not.

Now, we have the possibility that there were two murderers-one being Simpson and one being someone else, agreed? I think that I must state that when I say possible I mean that the idea cannot be ruled out at this point.

Yes it can be ruled out there were two killers. There is no evidence of a second killer. All of the evidence points to only three people, the two victims and Simpson. Imaginary evidence is not real evidence. The fact that some blood was randomly missed is not evidence of a second killer. That blood more likely came from one the three people that all the other blood in this case was found to come from.

Based on your reasoning since there were two incidents where some blood was missed that could be evidence of two additional killers, right? Your using flawed reasoning.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I will agree with the position that the jury deliberations were completed at a rapid pace. I believe that there was not much for them to deliberate, due to the way the trial was presented.

william

I think that your knowledge of the law and the CJS brings needed clarity to the discussion of the simpson cases on the oj threads.


Although some have chosen to attack you for you success in your educational endeavors i would like to congradulate you on your tolorence
and sense of humor in addition to the wisdom your post bring to the threads.
Keep up the good work.
martin II

[sassylassy]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/oj_must_turn_ov.html

judge ruled OJS has to pay in past royalties but not his future earnings.:read:

[martin II]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/oj_must_turn_ov.html

judge ruled OJS has to pay in past royalties but not his future earnings.:read:

sassy
thanks for keeping us abrest on this issue.

WOW it seems that OJ won big time on this issue. I would like to see the judges decision but if this is the bottom line then fred has struck out big time again.
martin II

[Suzee10]

I will agree with the position that the jury deliberations were completed at a rapid pace. I believe that there was not much for them to deliberate, due to the way the trial was presented.


You mean the way Johnnie C. directed them to send a message. They did not do any thinking on their own they only followed directions.

[martin II]

You mean the way Johnnie C. directed them to send a message. They did not do any thinking on their own they only followed directions.

suzwee

the jury followed the judges directions about deliberations and credibility or noncredibility of witnesses testimony etc. They sent a message to the prosecution and it was don't expect us to convict when you have not proven your case beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law. Dont' give us a sham case full of mistakes and lies and expect us to convict because MARCIA CLARK said the defendant was guilty.
martin II

[martin II]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/oj_must_turn_ov.html

judge ruled OJS has to pay in past royalties but not his future earnings.:read:

sassy did you read the coments after the article?

martin II

[Suzee10]

suzwee

the jury followed the judges directions about deliberations and credibility or noncredibility of witnesses testimony etc. They sent a message to the prosecution and it was don't expect us to convict when you have not proven your case beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law. Dont' give us a sham case full of mistakes and lies and expect us to convict because MARCIA CLARK said the defendant was guilty.
martin II


The jury followed JC's instructions to send a message and it had nothing to do with credibility etc. He let them know it was their time to send a message and that is what they did. Nothing more. They would not have sent simpson to jail if they had seen him on tape commiting the murders.

[2L8 4A D8]

The jury followed JC's instructions to send a message and it had nothing to do with credibility etc. He let them know it was their time to send a message and that is what they did. Nothing more. They would not have sent simpson to jail if they had seen him on tape commiting the murders.

Or, as I have previously posted, the Jury wouldn't have found OJ Guilty even if they had all been sitting at the Bundy Crime Scene in lawn chairs sipping MaiTai's as the murders were occurring right before their eyes!

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

Or, as I have previously posted, the Jury wouldn't have found OJ Guilty even if they had all been sitting at the Bundy Crime Scene in lawn chairs sipping MaiTai's as the murders were occurring right before their eyes!

JMO and MOO!!

:D Sadly, I think that is the case.

[martin II]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/oj_must_turn_ov.html

judge ruled OJS has to pay in past royalties but not his future earnings.:read:


sassy hi

I have missed your post.

I am wondering if this order covers any book deals or just royalties from movies and film type ventures.

.39 cent for the year sounds a little odd.

martin II

[n.n]

Any other verdict would have been a mockery of justice: similar to the justice served in lynchigs. The jury, like other intelligent, unbiased people did understand that the prosecution had not proven the man's guilt. That's all they had to prove. They did an excellent job, understood what they were doing -- and were not blinded by hatred (of whatever kind). Judge Ito, in my opinion, was a fair judge and, thank goodndess, he prevented a trial strongly resembling a 17th century witch trials from taking place.

[n.n]

Also, I don't understand why so many people think that the defense's victory was Mr. Cochran's work alone. He had some high carat helpers: Scheck, Shapiro, for example. What did they have in common with the jury? Money, sex, race? Without their expertise and experience Cochran would have been lost.
The fact that Mr. Simpson could afford so many brilliant lawyers led to the accusations that he "bought" his verdict. Which was a welcome slogan used by closet-racists to vent their anger without being detected. Just my opinion.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Judge Ito, in my opinion, was a fair judge and, thank goodndess, he prevented a trial strongly resembling a 17th century witch trials from taking place.

Are you kidding? Ito did a horrible job. Maybe that's why, to this day, his is the only courtroom that doesn't display his name. It was reported on the radio the other day that this was the direct result of the Simpson case.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
He had some high carat helpers: Scheck, Shapiro, for example.

Shapiro stated it was his opinion that OJ did it. Was Shapiro a "closet racist" as well?

[martin II]

Also, I don't understand why so many people think that the defense's victory was Mr. Cochran's work alone. He had some high carat helpers: Scheck, Shapiro, for example. What did they have in common with the jury? Money, sex, race? Without their expertise and experience Cochran would have been lost.
The fact that Mr. Simpson could afford so many brilliant lawyers led to the accusations that he "bought" his verdict. Which was a welcome slogan used by closet-racists to vent their anger without being detected. Just my opinion.

N.N.

You have made a very astute observaiton, one which i agree with completely.
martinII

[socaldiva]

N.N.

You have made a very as