_The_ glove and _The_ cut
BL P
Douglas A. Caprette
Middle finger left hand , both gloves were toooooo small.
BLP
Robert C. Miller
Who's blood was underneath the Bundy glove? How come no one can
come up with a logical series of events to match the "evidence"?
-bob-
John Griffin
In article <5oehqq$8pd$1...@newsd-3.alma.webtv.net>,
BL P <BET...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Douglas A. Caprette
>Middle finger left hand , both gloves were toooooo small.
That's what your hero thought, too. "I'll kill that bitch
for buying these gloves that are slightly more snug than I
like them. Bitch made me look silly, standing there holding
a microphone with too-tight gloves in that picture."
Leave the thinking to those who are equipped for the job, fool.
* -------------------The alt.fan.oj-simpson FAQ--------------------- *
*Q1: Did that lying, wife-beating, illiterate scumbag Simpson do it? *
* A: Yes. *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
Robert C. Miller
Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
> In article <33AB14...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Robert C. Miller <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >BL P wrote:
> >>
> >> Douglas A. Caprette
> >>
> >> Middle finger left hand , both gloves were toooooo small.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Who's blood was underneath the Bundy glove? How come no one can
> >come up with a logical series of events to match the "evidence"?
> >-bob-
>
> I must have missed it the first time.
I've got a 30,000 word essay that I need to update, but in short
I believe that the murder was done by several people, that it was
done to set up OJ but not necessarily to convict him, that the
ultimate authors of this probably reside in the intelligence
community, and that it was done as a provocation to exacerbate
race relations, to weaken the judicial system, and to generally
to help prepare the population for some very ugly genocidal things
coming up in the next century. Sounds pretty wild, but I think
the physical evidence shows one man, certainly Simpson, could not
have done it. However, there are pieces of evidence like the gloves
and the shoes that point so strongly to Simpson that if he hadn't
done it, someone was trying to implicate him, and to do so beforehand.
The blood evidence is demonstrably planted, but we have the gloves
(although they don't fit) and we have the photos (and with RIT
involved in their "verification", it opens up a connection to
the CIA). By examining the people involved in the case, those who
are the nightly commentators, the book writers, the lawyers (especially
for Simpson), points to past intelligence activities, particularly
psychological operations and provocations. Since most people know
nothing about psyops or even the concept of a provocation, they
immediately scoff at the possibility. Others are just scared of the
possibility and refuse to look at the evidence. That's the short of
it.
-bob-
John Griffin
In article <33AC28...@worldnet.att.net>,
Robert C. Miller <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>> In article <33AB14...@worldnet.att.net>,
>> Robert C. Miller <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >BL P wrote:
>> >> Douglas A. Caprette
>> >> Middle finger left hand , both gloves were toooooo small.
>> >> BLP
BLP's brain is the thing that's too small.
>> >Who's blood was underneath the Bundy glove? How come no one can
>> >come up with a logical series of events to match the "evidence"?
>> >-bob-
Who cares whose blood, if anyone's, was under the glove? It
has absolutely no evidentiary value because there are thousands
of plausible explanations - regardless of who did the deed.
The explanations don't have to be simple enough for you to
comprehend. Even though you've admitted numerous times that
you can't understand them, they're clear enough to anyone whose
head isn't buzzing with paranoid bullshit.
>> *You* said you posted one in January. Could you post it again?
>> I must have missed it the first time.
"Logical" doesn't mean the same thing to bob that it means to
a normal person - especially those who produce dictionaries.
>I've got a 30,000 word essay that I need to update,
You sure do...try to incorporate some of the actual evidence in it if
you're really going to waste more time. If you're using a unix system,
the best way to update it is "rm 30000wordessay.bullshit".
> but in short
>I believe that the murder was done by several people, that it was
>done to set up OJ but not necessarily to convict him, that the
>ultimate authors of this probably reside in the intelligence
>community, and that it was done as a provocation to exacerbate
>race relations, to weaken the judicial system, and to generally
>to help prepare the population for some very ugly genocidal things
>coming up in the next century. Sounds pretty wild,
Don't apologize...everyone takes the source into account.
> but I think
>the physical evidence shows one man, certainly Simpson, could not
>have done it.
"Certainly Simpson"? Now, that's funny.
Simpson is obviously one person who would have had little
if any trouble killing two unarmed people with a knife.
(In case you haven't noticed, he has dropped the "poor arthritic OJ"
bullshit, whining that he needs lots of tennis shoes because he plays
basketball.)
> However, there are pieces of evidence like the gloves
>and the shoes that point so strongly to Simpson that if he hadn't
>done it, someone was trying to implicate him, and to do so beforehand.
They were so pissed off at him, they went and killed someone
else and did a half-assed job of setting him up, overlooking
some simple ideas which would have made even you idiots think
he was the guilty party and "planting" evidence in the most
unlikely places. Dumb.
>The blood evidence is demonstrably planted,
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!!! If it's demonstrable, do it!
I know you think you've done that. You haven't come close.
> but we have the gloves
>(although they don't fit)
To correct that: "...but we have the gloves which he didn't mind
having to "lose" because they fit too snugly and were too well-worn
for his image."
>and we have the photos (and with RIT
>involved in their "verification",
Wow! With RIT involved in their verification! Wow! So what?
There's no doubt of the authenticity of the photos. When you
have to resort to making libellous comments about someone you
know fuck-all about, you sure as hell don't have an argument.
> it opens up a connection to
>the CIA).
Sure it does...hee hee hee...fool.
> By examining the people involved in the case, those who
>are the nightly commentators, the book writers, the lawyers (especially
>for Simpson), points to past intelligence activities, particularly
>psychological operations and provocations. Since most people know
>nothing about psyops or even the concept of a provocation, they
>immediately scoff at the possibility. Others are just scared of the
>possibility and refuse to look at the evidence. That's the short of
>it.
Each piece of evidence outweighs all your paranoid, stupid rambling.
I think you should just abandon your silly pretense of rationality
and claim that the CIA has a time machine and they went back a couple
of years to plant those photos. Don't worry, it won't cost you.
BL P
RESPONSE TO JOHN (IMBECILE ) GRIFFIN
Evidently the "bitch" had enough men to have given each a pair.
Zlomsowitch the junkie, Allen the so called friend of O.J.,
Kaelin the freeloader and Shipp the O.J.
wannabe, don't forget Furhman the hater of black men with white women.
Furhman
with the facination of her new boobs. How about the fags at the
Mezzaluna. Maybe
Ron was double dipping.
BLP
Fred Goldrich
In article <5oi6ot$c...@big.aa.net>, John Griffin <hilb...@big.aa.net> wrote:
>
>Simpson is obviously one person who would have had little
>if any trouble killing two unarmed people with a knife.
Oh yeah? How could he have killed them
simultaneously with a penknife?
--
Fred Goldrich
gold...@panix.com
carrot
Does Rich Little do Bob as well as you?
BM.
Robert C. Miller
John Griffin wrote:
>
>
>
> Who cares whose blood, if anyone's, was under the glove?
From the location of the bodies, it certainly appears that it's
Nicole's blood under the glove. If it is her blood, and if the
glove came off in a struggle with Goldman, then she was down
and dying, bleeding out, before Goldman went down. Goldman would
have been walking through the bleedout. He didn't. It also screws
up the idea that Goldman walked up and got surprised that something
untoward was happening. The logical explanation is that the glove
went down there after Nicole was down and dying. However, we have
the blood spatters on Goldman's boot that indicate that both Nicole
and Ron were standing when the blood spattered on the top of his
boot. That's why it appears that the two were probably subdued,
killed simultaneously by several people, one person each holding
them from behind and someone in front. After they were killed and
their bodies arranged, the glove was left between the two bodies.
I know that this is upsetting to you, Griffin. You should calm down.
It's okay that you are wrong sometimes.
-bob-
>
Robert C. Miller
Well, once you buffoons understand the meaning of the blood
spatters on Goldman's boot, go back to the dictionary and
look up "simultaneously."
-bob-
Robert C. Miller
Has anyone seen any of Ron's modeling work?
-bob-
John Griffin
In article <33AD90...@worldnet.att.net>,
>> Fred Goldrich wrote:
>> > In article <5oi6ot$c...@big.aa.net>, John Griffin <hilb...@big.aa.net> wrote:
>> > >Simpson is obviously one person who would have had little
>> > >if any trouble killing two unarmed people with a knife.
>> > Oh yeah? How could he have killed them
>> > simultaneously with a penknife?
>> Does Rich Little do Bob as well as you?
>> BM.
>Well, once you buffoons understand the meaning of the blood
>spatters on Goldman's boot, go back to the dictionary and
>look up "simultaneously."
>-bob-
What kind of dictionary are you referring to?!
"Irrelevant, stupid bullshit" is not part of the definition
of "simultaneously" - although your remarks are consistently
irrelevant and stupid at the same time.
Note to any rookies out there: Crazy bob is the author (or the aper; I'm
not sure which) of the two most idiotic remarks ever made about the
Simpson case. "Control cuts" on Ron Goldman's neck is the number one
all-time stupidity, but this brain-dead bullshit about blood on the boot
is a close second. I can't repeat the whole thing because I always start
laughing when I think about the abysmal stupidity displayed by such
nonsense, but basically he says that a blood drop on top of the boot
proves that Simpson is innocent. I'm not kidding, sad as it is. He tries
to support this lunacy with his imitation of reasoning, but he gets so
mired in his own muck that it sounds like some little kid. If you humor
him, bob is capable of saying just about anything, as long as it's
reeeeeeaaaallly stupid and illogical.
John Griffin
No...but BLP's impression of a wooden dummy is pretty good.
Unknown
>Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>>
>> In article <33AB14...@worldnet.att.net>,
>> Robert C. Miller <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >BL P wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Douglas A. Caprette
>> >>
>> >> Middle finger left hand , both gloves were toooooo small.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> BLP
>> >
>> >Who's blood was underneath the Bundy glove? How come no one can
>> >come up with a logical series of events to match the "evidence"?
>> >-bob-
>>
>> *You* said you posted one in January. Could you post it again?
>> I must have missed it the first time.
>
>I've got a 30,000 word essay that I need to update, but in short
>I believe that the murder was done by several people, that it was
>done to set up OJ but not necessarily to convict him, that the
>ultimate authors of this probably reside in the intelligence
>community, and that it was done as a provocation to exacerbate
>race relations, to weaken the judicial system, and to generally
>to help prepare the population for some very ugly genocidal things
>coming up in the next century. Sounds pretty wild, but I think
>the physical evidence shows one man, certainly Simpson, could not
>have done it. However, there are pieces of evidence like the gloves
>and the shoes that point so strongly to Simpson that if he hadn't
>done it, someone was trying to implicate him, and to do so beforehand.
>The blood evidence is demonstrably planted, but we have the gloves
>(although they don't fit) and we have the photos (and with RIT
>involved in their "verification", it opens up a connection to
>the CIA). By examining the people involved in the case, those who
>are the nightly commentators, the book writers, the lawyers (especially
>for Simpson), points to past intelligence activities, particularly
>psychological operations and provocations. Since most people know
>nothing about psyops or even the concept of a provocation, they
>immediately scoff at the possibility. Others are just scared of the
>possibility and refuse to look at the evidence. That's the short of
>it.
>And then my alarm went off.
>-bob-
John Griffin
In article <33AD90...@worldnet.att.net>,>John Griffin wrote:
Since that's the best you can do... who cares whose blood,
if anyone's, was under the glove.
When the only person who gives that any credibility at all is
stuck with just repeating the above lame bullshit over and over,
it's obviously irrelevant.
By the way, bob, "who cares" is about as "calm" as it gets - not
that I don't appreciate being regaled with your hilarious "thoughts."
confused
BET...@webtv.net (BL P) wrote:
>RESPONSE TO JOHN (IMBECILE ) GRIFFIN
>
>Evidently the "bitch" had enough men to have given each a pair.
>Zlomsowitch the junkie, Allen the so called friend of O.J.,
>Kaelin the freeloader and Shipp the O.J.
>wannabe, don't forget Furhman the hater of black men with white women.
>Furhman
>with the facination of her new boobs. How about the fags at the
>Mezzaluna. Maybe
>Ron was double dipping.
>
Well BLP's 'true' colors finally come out.
Dennis Rodman
> I'm not kidding, sad as it is. He tries
>to support this lunacy with his imitation of reasoning, but he gets so
>mired in his own muck that it sounds like some little kid. If you humor
>him, bob is capable of saying just about anything, as long as it's
>reeeeeeaaaallly stupid and illogical.
Judging from your ramblings, you seem to be talking more about
yourself than of Bob.
carrot
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------443223073D3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Robert C. Miller wrote:
>
> carrot wrote:
> >
> > Robert C. Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > carrot wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Fred Goldrich wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <5oi6ot$c...@big.aa.net>, John Griffin <hilb...@big.aa.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Simpson is obviously one person who would have had little
> > > > > >if any trouble killing two unarmed people with a knife.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh yeah? How could he have killed them
> > > > > simultaneously with a penknife?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Fred Goldrich
> > > > > gold...@panix.com
> > > >
> > > > Does Rich Little do Bob as well as you?
> > > > BM.
> > >
> > > Well, once you buffoons understand the meaning of the blood
> > > spatters on Goldman's boot, go back to the dictionary and
> > > look up "simultaneously."
> > > -bob-
> >
> > Translation: once you buffoons understand that 1 + 1 = 0 go back to the
> > dictionary and look up the word "addition".
> > BM.
>
> carrot, I don't think you can answer any of these questions, can
> you? How come there was blood under the glove, what about the
> blood spatters on the boot?
> -bob-
I answered these question many times over the past few months as did
many others. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to instruct
you that 1 + 1 = 2. It's apparently beyond you.
BM.
--------------443223073D3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="B.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="B.txt"
=1A
--------------443223073D3--
Robert C. Miller
to come up with a scenario that fit the crime scene. The best
you can do is insult. Granted, Griffin can do very little more
than that, but at least he tried.
Robert C. Miller
John Griffin wrote:
>
> In article <33af069a...@news.pacbell.net>,
> Bob, let alone for you! By the way, if I had been addressing myself, I
> would have followed up my own article. I'll explain that to you later, if
> you can't figure it out for yourself. Meanwhile, keep up the good work!
> You stuff is hilarious, even though it's all been posted and refuted over
> and over for years. It's always a treat to find a new flagellant here.
>
> * -------------------The alt.fan.oj-simpson FAQ--------------------- *
> *Q1: Did that lying, wife-beating, illiterate scumbag Simpson do it? *
> * A: Yes. *
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
Hey Griffie, your insults take longer than carrot's, but they
still avoid the questions, don't they?
-bob-
Robert C. Miller
So now that you've calmed down and had a glass of milk,
why is there blood under the glove? And you seem to be
overlooking how both victims were standing while they
were bleeding out.
-bob-
Kathy**
Well, it looks like BLP's true colors have reared their ugly head, I
wonder BLP were you proud of this post? Most people would be ashamed of
it, but I have a feeling you wouldn't understand why. In reality it does
show your a pretty disgusting person and most of us are ashamed to think
you would consider yourself human and above a four legged animal, at
least this post shows what you really are. Your just a piece of trash,
with bigoted views against people. And you really think you can judge
others? What a pitiful thing you are. I can't classify you as a person,
since most people I know have human compassion and understanding and
they don't try to judge others due to the way they were born.
John Griffin
In article <33AF03...@worldnet.att.net>,
Robert C. Miller <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>carrot, I don't think you can answer any of these questions, can
>you? How come there was blood under the glove, what about the
>blood spatters on the boot?
>-bob-
Easy...these things were planted.
They were planted in your mind by Freed.
There they found lots of fertilizer and
are growing like hell.
John Griffin
In article <33ae711...@news.pacbell.net>,
Dennis Rodman <rm...@wcw.com> wrote:
>Fred Golddigger: "This case isn't about money, I don't want the
>murderers money, I just want to hear a jury say he's guilty"
>Jury: We find the defendant guilty on all charges.
>Fred Golddigger: "All right, now give me all the money, screw the
>verdict, I want the money"
"Golddigger"...damn, but that's cute. It's fun to get a glimpse into this
sort of bottom-of-the-barrel immaturity, but the anti-Semitism is sad.
Since Simpson murdered Goldman's son and was pardoned by the jury, taking
his money is the only way to punish him. It means a hell of a lot more to
him than human life. Responsible citizens want to see that sucker
dumpster diving.
Kris Van Allen
>The blood evidence is demonstrably planted,
Kris - I keep asking someone to demonstrate exactly how all the blood was
planted - but I don't hear anything that matches any evidence.
Come on plant believers - how was the blood planted??? or switched, or
cantaminated....etc.
Kris Van Allen
In article <5oork2$20q$2...@spock.dis.cccd.edu>, kvan...@mail.cccd.edu says...
Kris - I mean contaminated for all you spelling nuts out there ;-)
...........
Kris Van Allen
In article <33AD90...@worldnet.att.net>,
robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>John Griffin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Who cares whose blood, if anyone's, was under the glove?
>
>From the location of the bodies, it certainly appears that it's
>Nicole's blood under the glove. If it is her blood, and if the
>glove came off in a struggle with Goldman, then she was down
>and dying, bleeding out, before Goldman went down.
Kris - since blood does NOT flow up, how else would you expect the blood to
flow?? You are only going for this based on what you see (or don't see) in a
photo. Blood would flow UNDER the cap or glove, therefore, the cap or
glove could have been on the ground before Nicole was killed.
And it certainly does not exclude that the cap or glove may have been dropped
AFTER Nicole was killed.
bob
Goldman would
>have been walking through the bleedout. He didn't. It also screws
>up the idea that Goldman walked up and got surprised that something
>untoward was happening. The logical explanation is that the glove
>went down there after Nicole was down and dying. However, we have
>the blood spatters on Goldman's boot that indicate that both Nicole
>and Ron were standing when the blood spattered on the top of his
>boot.
Kris - why do assume this?? Blood drops can go in any direction, including an
upsidedown U where the blood kicked up and dropped on Ron's shoe as he lay
dying.
Bob
That's why it appears that the two were probably subdued,
>killed simultaneously by several people, one person each holding
>them from behind and someone in front. After they were killed and
>their bodies arranged, the glove was left between the two bodies.
Kris - only one need be subdued prior to killing Ron - Nicole's head wound
shows that.
Now their bodies were "arranged"??? I think the blood flow EXCLUDES any
arranging - their feet would have been all in Nicole's blood. Only ONE person
stepped in blood - that was OJ and his ugly-ass BM's.
Bob>
>I know that this is upsetting to you, Griffin. You should calm down.
>It's okay that you are wrong sometimes.
>
>-bob-
>>
Kris - Bob - calm down - you are going to have to do better than this.
The "arranging" thing was really a wild shot.
Tell me how "they" could "arrange" Nicole and Ron and not step in the buckets
of Nicole's blood?
I think they could have done a better job of arranging Ron, he still looked
like he died where he fell. And Nicole bled right where she was cut - no
second river after she was "moved" no smudge marks in blood to show she was
moved, gee, no evidence of moving them at all!!
How did Richard Speck kill 8 women with a knife??? How does ANY multiple
killer kill more than one person with a knife????
When did we make up the "one killer - only one victim" rule??kris
Kris Van Allen
>>
>> RESPONSE TO JOHN (IMBECILE ) GRIFFIN
>>
>> Evidently the "bitch" had enough men to have given each a pair.
Kris - there is only evidence for 2 pair - both showed up on OJ within 3 weeks
of her purchase.
blp
>> Zlomsowitch the junkie, Allen the so called friend of O.J.,
>> Kaelin the freeloader and Shipp the O.J.
>> wannabe, don't forget Furhman the hater of black men with white women.
>> Furhman
>> with the facination of her new boobs.
Kris - are you now claiming she gave Fuhrman a pair???
blp
How about the fags at the
>> Mezzaluna. Maybe
>> Ron was double dipping.
>>
>>
>>
>> BLP
>
>Has anyone seen any of Ron's modeling work?
>-bob-
Kris - I remembered seeing him on one of those wierd dating shows - he
actually did rather well.
......
carrot
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------8055E613E09
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dennis Rodman wrote:
>
> >
> >In article <5oork2$20q$2...@spock.dis.cccd.edu>, kvan...@mail.cccd.edu says...
> >>
> >>
> >>>The blood evidence is demonstrably planted,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Kris - I keep asking someone to demonstrate exactly how all the blood was
> >>planted - but I don't hear anything that matches any evidence.
> >>
> >>Come on plant believers - how was the blood planted??? or switched, or
> >>cantaminated....etc.
> >>
> >
> Fuhrman, VanAtter, or Lange, or all three drive out to Bundy and
> either collect blood from Simpsons driveway or the street in front of
> his house.
>
> or
>
> Above named people take a swatch(es) from the collected evidence at
> Rockingham belonging to Simpson, dampen them and create new swatches
> from them.
>
> Place them into new bindles (minus Mazolla's initials, (an oversight))
> and switch the swatches collected at Bundy with them.
>
> Time involved, if blood was obtained at Rockingham, about 1 hour
> if blood was obtained from collected swatches, about 5 minutes.
>
> Would they do this? Well it appears they did it with the rear gate
> blood, and the sock blood. How else could Savage of KNBC news have
> possibly known that Simpsons and Nicoles blood would be found on that
> sock? Remember that she released that story with the results of what
> the D.O.J. would find while those socks were still at the LAPD lab,
> having NEVER been tested. Now someone within the LAPD leaked that
> story to her, someone who obviously new in advance what would be found
> on those socks. If they themselves didn't put that blood on the socks,
> or knew who did, how could they tell Savage what the results would be?
> As to the EDTA issue on those socks, even Roger Marxs admitted that
> there were elements of EDTA found in the blood that was not found in
> the surrounding control swatches. This would eliminate the possibility
> of laundry soap as the contaminate of the blood.
> >
This has all been debunked countless times, but it's still fun to watch
you flagellate a moribund equine.
BM.
--------------8055E613E09
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="B.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="B.txt"
=1A
--------------8055E613E09--
BL P
Kris , once and for all::::::::::
There was no one going around with a dropper dripping nice little neat
drops all over. Since the lab was accessable to
those other than the criminalist , and the
reference to missing initials on the envelope went unrefuted by the
prosecuton (except to make Mazzola lie
and recant her earlier statement that she initialed each and everyone)
the bell cannot be unrung. The planting was done in the lab and taken
from the known sample of O.J.'s blood. How else do you think that the
LAPD & LADA kept putting
out statements of test results before testing was completed. Remember
the
photo of the crusted blood vial when
Colin Yamauchie testified? Not only had it run down the sides , there
was no obvious attempt to clean it up. I have had blood drawn many
times, naver have I seen a drippy , crusty blood vial.
Even you must admit that this was no pistine investigation, evidence was
embellished upon because, they were fearful of losing, I AGAIN will say
that
they screwed up the evidence in such a way , only the killer knows for
sure.
Pro'Js all together o~( %% OJ DID IT.
BLP
Robert C. Miller
Fred Goldrich wrote:
>
> >>Fred Goldrich wrote:
> >
> >>> In article <5oi6ot$c...@big.aa.net>, John Griffin <hilb...@big.aa.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> >Simpson is obviously one person who would have had little
> >>> >if any trouble killing two unarmed people with a knife.
> >
> >>> Oh yeah? How could he have killed them
> >>> simultaneously with a penknife?
> >
> >
> >But, Fred...you left out "silently."
>
> Oops, you're right; _mea culpa_.
>
> But there's no time to look back. I'm working
> up my routine about the blood under the Bundy glove.
> After that, I think it's Al Walker on the demeanor evi-
> dence.
>
> -- Fred Goldrich
>
> --
> Fred Goldrich
> gold...@panix.com
Fred, you can't answer it.
-bob
Robert C. Miller
-bob
Robert C. Miller
Dearest Kris,
If you look at a photo of the glove, you'll see it wasn't a flow
from Nicole, it was a large, round spatter partly obscured by the
glove on top of it. The rest of the spatter isn't on top of the
glove, it's underneath it. That suggests that Nicole was bleeding
copious amounts of blood before the glove landed there.
How did Goldman get past all the blood from Nicole to get where
he struggled with his killer? Did he daintily step over the blood
or was he already inside? If he was already inside, what was he
doing while Nicole was being killed?
There are spatters of both Nicole's and Ron's blood on the top of Ron's
boot, and the shape of the spatters shows that the source of the blood
was above the boot. How could both be standing and bleeding on Ron's
boot? Once Ron is down, his boots are not in the right position,
relatively flat on the ground with him in a standing position. Instead
the toes are pointing up. So Nicole's spatter had to land on his boot
while both he and she were standing.
Which leaves us with the glove. From the above, it didn't come
off in the struggle, in which case why is it right there directly
between the two bodies? If Simpson dropped it after the killing,
he had to have seen it. He would have had to have picked up the
envelope right next to it. If he didn't pick up the envelope, who
did?
Why is there blood on the steps above where Nicole rests? You see,
the evidence is not internally coherent. There are big problems
here with the one man, one knife theory.
-bob
Dennis Rodman
Tell me Kris, with all the dirt kicked around by Goldman (the deep
hole dug out as he was killed) how could the killer not have some of
that dust and dirt not get on his socks? Since you like to experiment,
have someone kick a lot of dirt around as you hold onto them and see
if any of that dirt floating through the air lands on your feet and
socks. Then explain to me why not as much as a single speck soil from
Bundy was found on the socks from Simpson bedroom? You seem logical,
and willing to keep an open mind, so really consider this point before
you answer. Anyone that works in a garden knows this just isn't
possible considering there was soil on the walkway that had settled
from the air. Some of it would have gotten onto those socks had they
been worn by the killer that night.
Dennis Rodman
>Since Simpson murdered Goldman's son and was pardoned by the jury, taking
>his money is the only way to punish him. It means a hell of a lot more to
>him than human life. Responsible citizens want to see that sucker
>dumpster diving.
Why is that? I'll tell you why, it's the only way YOU and people like
YOU ever stand a chance to rub elbows with someone like Simpson.
But then again I'm sure O.J. would never hang out in the same
dumpsters that you do. He has way to much class to lower himself to
your level.
John Griffin
In article <5opheu$g42$1...@newsd-3.alma.webtv.net>,
BL P <BET...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Response to posting by (Kathy ) 6/23/97:
>Whats the matter Kathy can't you handle the truth? attacking me does not
>change the fact that Nicole Brown- Simpson hung
>around some shady characters. Many apparently were of color , shady
>nontheless.
Wow. That's really exciting. You think it's a big deal that
she hung around with "shady" characters, and you temporarily
abandon your brain-dead racist bullshit to admit that being
"of color" doesn't automatically elevate one out of the "shady"
category.
If you want to make your ignorant, irrelevant remarks about her,
why not acknowledge the fact that she married a murderer? This
is the only one of those things that's supported by any hard
evidence.
>Don't expect that your assessment of me and what you think of me will
>deter my posting in this NG. I post here for dialogue about somethinfg I
>feel strongly about.It
>didn't take long to notice that my opinion was unpopualar among most in
>this group.
No one wants to stop you from posting. Your appalling stupidity
is one of the most entertaining features of this group.
>I could care less, if you think for one minute that I will be
>intimidated by the likes of you , you got another think coming.
I think you meant to say you "couldn't" care less. I'll explain
the difference to you if you can't figure it out for yourself.
>John (imbecile) made the "bitch " reference , I simply included it in my
>reply.
>Nicole obviously wasn't a bigot, she also
>wasn't a saint. When everyone tries to pull the proverbial wool over the
>eyes of others, for fear that the truth will get out,
>it only arouses suspicion. Why are you so willing to overlook so many
>occurances
>of the case, investigation , and criminal trial, simply because some of
>the truth just might happen to be ugly?
I didn't refer to anyone as a bitch, dimwit.
Your "truths" all relate to completely irrelevant considerations
and are only rumors.
>Never will I be convinced that O.J. Simpson murdered two healthy people,
>disposed of possible bloody clothing and
>a weapon. came home got impeccably
>dressed (within 5 minutes) and left for Chigago. Like I said in one of
>my earlier
>postings, SHOW ME A CRIME, AND I'LL CREATE A TIME. Problem is that in
>order to fit everything in a 1 hour period, there
>was an enormous amount of flexability
>required. Your beleiving a story does not make in true. Some poeple make
>decisions based on bits and peices of
>possible truth, thank God that there are some of us who made our
>decision based on what was presented in court,
>without adding wild and imagined bull, not lies designed by Marcia
>Clarke and Chris
>Darden and company.
There was plenty of time. You did NOT make any decision in this
case. Your out-of-control emotions won't let you participate in
anything remotely resembling the rationality needed for such a
thought process.
If your were intelligent enough to actually make a decision,
the evidence would be within your mental capacity. You aren't
and it isn't.
>Maybe something will bring the truth to the forefront in the near future
>, not yet.
Several people bring the truth to your attention every day if you read
this newsgroup. We can get your attention for the fleeting moments of
its span, but we can't do anything about your inability to perceive and
understand.
>The civil trial was a farce, all of you so called goodies never cried
>foul when the rules were not adhered to and the judge
>was bought and paid for. This has been similar to many of your claims of
>superiorty in the past, you don't really
>buy the stupidity you simply go along because pretending still makes you
>get that warm fuzzy feeling anyway. (Example) when someone tells me that
>I look twenty years younger, in my heart I know the real truth. It never
>fails to bring a big smile to my face reguardless.
God, you're stupid. When you actually think you have a better
grasp of law and courtroom procedure than a respected jurist,
you're beyond hope.
>I kind of like whats happening now, The
>Browns and Goldmans are fighting for the money they never really wanted
>in the first place. People who lie and deceive eventually cancel
>eachother out.
I like anything that punishes that murdering asshole Simpson. Let
'em fight. Simpson lies and tries to deceive, and he sure as hell
"cancelled Nicole out."
>I hope that you the self proclaim (Lady
>Redneck) get my point.
If you knew what point you get across with your amazingly
stupid remarks, you'd probably have sense enough to hope
no one else noticed. You are a fucking idiot.
Here's the truth you've been looking for, bimbo...
alwalker
BLP,
Your right on point, clear, and dont sugar coat your comments.
The truth hurts, and these politically correct little kids
wouldnt know the facts if they bit them on the ass.
KEEP RATTLING THEIR LITTLE CAGES.
AL WALKER
BL P wrote:
>
> RESPONSE TO JOHN (IMBECILE ) GRIFFIN
>
> Evidently the "bitch" had enough men to have given each a pair.
> Zlomsowitch the junkie, Allen the so called friend of O.J.,
> Kaelin the freeloader and Shipp the O.J.
> wannabe, don't forget Furhman the hater of black men with white women.
> Furhman
> with the facination of her new boobs. How about the fags at the
MSLU123
Gee Hillbilly:
Can't you come up with something other then the age bit nor downgrading
everyone that doesn't think like you. Do you have a self esteem problem?
Can't you answer questions when we Pro J's ask them...expecially when the
are legitimate? Or are you only 14 years old and have no wisdom as yet?
Robert C. Miller
Another excellent point.
-bob
carrot
BM.
Kris Van Allen
In article <33aef6ab...@news.pacbell.net>, rm...@wcw.com says...
>
>>You stuff is hilarious
>
>So is you's! But even though my stuff has been posted over and over
>for years, there are still people like you that aren't quite
>intelligent enough to understand it. But they say that even a dumb
>animal can learn, so perhaps there is hope for the No-J'rs.
Kris - over and over for years??? Another clone!!!!!!
........
Kathy**
Hey Al,
I don't have the time like you do to write a novel for each
post, but your right I'm not the mother of two young daughters,
I have a son and a daughter, my son's b-day is Monday and he
turns 9, my daughter is 7 :)
What you don't like is when you misstate the evidence which
you tend to do, Is I will correct it, and post the testimony
to show I'm right.
Concerning the real world, I have a feeling I know more about
the real world than you will ever know.
alwalker wrote:
>
> Have a problem with the truth do you ?
> Where has it been written that you have
> even a clue what the real world is ?
> BLP says whats on her mind, you sugar coat
> and post little gossipy items that say nadda.
> That translates to Kathy repeats what others
> have said (testimony), and what others have done,
> but has little of life's actual experience from
> which to draw her own conclusions.
> So like the little school marm she pictures
> herself to be, she berates BLP for honesty,
> and for using the terms those people she spoke
> about would use.
> You are so politically correct, you havent
> a clue whats actually going on right in front
> of you.
> For months now you have changed the values
> of evidence, like making an afro american hair
> into OJ's hair. Like fibres of OJ's clothing
> he wore the night of the murders, when what was
> actually found were blue black fibres with no
> match to anything they found belonging to OJ.
> Then you say how could they plant OJs this and
> that, when the video's clearly show a blanket
> from inside the house was put on the body of
> his ex, and the body of goldberg was pulled
> thru the same area.
> The condition you suffer from is much
> worse than having blinders on, you wish so
> badly to do something, that you will take
> any liberty that will aid you in this.
> I have no axe to grind, my problem with
> types like you is how easily you find it to
> accuse someone of anything, including being
> a murderer.
> Then your little mind comes up with a
> post like this one about BLP. You lynch
> mob types and hate mongres just cant stand
> your position to be questioned.
> Then you have no reply to the factual
> post about the people involved in this
> case, so you come up with this prissy
> little commentary abou the language used
> by BLP.
> Its incredible how you call this woman
> an animal, and trash, in between being
> bigoted and other lovely things, THEN YOU
> SAY HER CALLING THESE PEOPLE THESE THINGS
> PRECLUDES HER FROM HAVING AN OPINION ?
> WHAT ABOUT YOU ? Doesnt the names you called
> BLP put you in the same animal class? Your
> quick to call her less than human, but you
> can call names with impunity, is that it ?
> Who are you to try and speak for others?
> "Most people would be ashamed"? Speak for
> kathy, not for anyone else miss prissy.
> And again we find you making so many
> posts and reply's, its very difficult to
> believe you are the mother of two young
> daughters. Or do you lock them in a room
> like that other woman who spent hours on
> the net ??
> Your in a glass house, and your
> throwing stones kathy.
Kathy**
BL P wrote:
>
> Response to posting by (Kathy ) 6/23/97:
>
> Whats the matter Kathy can't you handle the truth? attacking me does
> not
> change the fact that Nicole Brown- Simpson hung
> around some shady characters. Many apparently were of color , shady
> nontheless.
What version of the truth? The real truth or rumors that you have
decided are true, with nothing to back them up? I have no problem
with truth, I do have a problem with people who spread lies as truth
though.
> Don't expect that your assessment of me and what you think of me will
> deter my posting in this NG. I post here for dialogue about somethinfg
> I feel strongly about.It
What makes you think I wanted you to stop posting? You must
really think your something here, that we all await with baited breath
to see the next great post you spew out. Believe it or not I don't.
> didn't take long to notice that my opinion was unpopualar among most
> in
> this group.
> I could care less, if you think for one minute that I will be
> intimidated by the likes of you , you got another think coming.
Are you attempting to scare me? You failed. I have no
problem with anyone posting, most of us don't. Some are worth reading
some are a waste of time. I can't help but wonder why you feel so
threatened by everyone, you seem to think everyone's trying to run you
off the NG. Hate to burst your ego, your not that important.
> John (imbecile) made the "bitch " reference , I simply included it in
> my
> reply.
Interesting I didn't see that post, your the one that I saw use
it first.
> Nicole obviously wasn't a bigot, she also
> wasn't a saint. When everyone tries to pull the proverbial wool over
> the
> eyes of others, for fear that the truth will get out,
> it only arouses suspicion. Why are you so willing to overlook so many
> occurances
> of the case, investigation , and criminal trial, simply because some
> of
> the truth just might happen to be ugly?
I don't ignore the truth, that's the problem for you. I do ridicule
those like you who think rumors are truth. I don't know one person who
is a saint. Now I could be like you and start attacking the heck out of
OJ, like you like to do to Nicole. And OJ has a lot of stuff in his
closet that isn't very nice. Yet, there's a difference btwn you and I, I
prefer to talk about the facts of the case and testimony, you prefer to
take allegations and unfounded statements and post them as gospel.
> Never will I be convinced that O.J. Simpson murdered two healthy
> people,
> disposed of possible bloody clothing and
> a weapon. came home got impeccably
> dressed (within 5 minutes) and left for Chigago. Like I said in one of
> my earlier
> postings, SHOW ME A CRIME, AND I'LL CREATE A TIME. Problem is that in
> order to fit everything in a 1 hour period, there
> was an enormous amount of flexability
> required. Your beleiving a story does not make in true. Some poeple
> make
> decisions based on bits and peices of
> possible truth, thank God that there are some of us who made our
There's your problem, instead of trying to rely on bits and pieces
of the truth, why don't you listen to the whole truth?
> decision based on what was presented in court,
> without adding wild and imagined bull, not lies designed by Marcia
> Clarke and Chris
> Darden and company.
I made my decision on the evidence also. Not on "what if's" the defense
tried. As I said before anyone can make a allegation, proving it is a
different matter.
> Maybe something will bring the truth to the forefront in the near
> future
> , not yet.
> The civil trial was a farce, all of you so called goodies never cried
> foul when the rules were not adhered to and the judge
How do you know what anyone said since you weren't in this NG during
the civil trial? Are you assuming again? Tsk tsk.
> was bought and paid for. This has been similar to many of your claims
> of
> superiorty in the past, you don't really
> buy the stupidity you simply go along because pretending still makes
> you
> get that warm fuzzy feeling anyway. (Example) when someone tells me
> that
> I look twenty years younger, in my heart I know the real truth. It
> never
> fails to bring a big smile to my face reguardless.
I don't believe in false compliments to make my day.
> I kind of like whats happening now, The
> Browns and Goldmans are fighting for the money they never really
> wanted
> in the first place. People who lie and deceive eventually cancel
> eachother out.
I'm glad that they are going for the $$$, it ensures OJ won't
be able to keep it. And that is what they want.
> I hope that you the self proclaim (Lady
> Redneck) get my point.>
You have a point? I didn't notice it. BTW I asked you this before
do you know what the definition of a redneck is? I gather you don't
since you never replied. You shouldn't use words unless you know
what they mean.
dmitri gusev
"Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>If you look at a photo of the glove, you'll see it wasn't a flow
>from Nicole, it was a large, round spatter partly obscured by the
>glove on top of it.
I looked at the photos
http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~dmiguse/glove2.gif
http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~dmiguse/glove3.gif
one more time, and from glove3.gif it appears that
the blood simply flowed under the glove. Doesn't
look like spatter to me.
>The rest of the spatter isn't on top of the
>glove, it's underneath it. That suggests that Nicole was bleeding
>copious amounts of blood before the glove landed there.
>
>How did Goldman get past all the blood from Nicole to get where
>he struggled with his killer? Did he daintily step over the blood
>or was he already inside? If he was already inside, what was he
>doing while Nicole was being killed?
>
>There are spatters of both Nicole's and Ron's blood on the top of Ron's
>boot, and the shape of the spatters shows that the source of the blood
>was above the boot. How could both be standing and bleeding on Ron's
>boot?
As you may know, the prosecution theory was that the perp
attacked Nicole first, inflicted some injuries and knocked
her unconscious, then killed Goldman, then finished off
Nicole by inflicting the large gaping wound to her throat.
If so, no wonder if he was the one who dripped Nicole's blood
on Goldman's boot. Alternatively, the fountain of blood
caused by the large wound to Nicole's throat could produce
spatter. We don't know what the exact position of her body
was when that wound was inflicted.
>Once Ron is down, his boots are not in the right position,
>relatively flat on the ground with him in a standing position. Instead
>the toes are pointing up. So Nicole's spatter had to land on his boot
>while both he and she were standing.
She did not have to be standing then, see the argument above.
>Which leaves us with the glove. From the above, it didn't come
>off in the struggle, in which case why is it right there directly
>between the two bodies?
Of course, it came off in the struggle.
>If Simpson dropped it after the killing,
>he had to have seen it. He would have had to have picked up the
>envelope right next to it. If he didn't pick up the envelope, who
>did?
>
>Why is there blood on the steps above where Nicole rests?
Because the position of her body changed between the moment
when the perp inflicted the large gaping wound and the
moment when he left the scene. This is no big deal.
>You see, the evidence is not internally coherent. There are
>big problems here with the one man, one knife theory.
I respectfully disagree. The one man, one knife theory stands.
Its problems are virtually nonexistent, while the multiple
killers theory is pretty much dead.
Enjoy!
Dmitri
--
Dmitri A. Gusev
Computer Science Department
Indiana University, Bloomington
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/dmiguse.html
Robert C. Miller
dmitri gusev wrote:
>
> "Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >If you look at a photo of the glove, you'll see it wasn't a flow
> >from Nicole, it was a large, round spatter partly obscured by the
> >glove on top of it.
>
> I looked at the photos
>
> http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~dmiguse/glove2.gif
> http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~dmiguse/glove3.gif
>
> one more time, and from glove3.gif it appears that
> the blood simply flowed under the glove. Doesn't
> look like spatter to me.
I suggest, then, that you go to a bookstore and look at a photograph
with better resolution. For ex, the one in Fuhrman's book, MURDER
IN BRENTWOOD. There is blood flow coming from the direction of
Fuhrman, but the round bloodstain partially obscured by the glove
has spatter marks extending out from the circle. Blood doesn't
flow that way.
But let's give you your supposition and say that the glove came
off during a fight with Goldman, and blood flowed under the glove.
How come there's Nicole's blood on the steps above where she lays?
How come OJ's hand, cut in the fight, doesn't leave a smear of
blood on Nicole as he slashed her throat? I can't imagine a
scenario where with just a knife hand you can lift a body, cut
the throat so that it bleeds on the steps, sets her down still with
just his knife hand, picks up the envelope, still with just his
knife hand, and only then when he walks away (and only the first
time he walks away) does he bleed five drops from his right hand.
That's why I keep asking No-js for a scenario that matches the
evidence. It's a lot easier for two guys cutting two throats from
behind to not get blood on their shoe soles than for a guy with
a bleeding hand to not bleed.
-bob
RON
Al baby, I don't blame you one bit for being down on Kathy. She has the
unmitigated gall to stick to facts. In your world, that has got to be
the worst possible sin.
Kris Van Allen
In article <33B05C...@worldnet.att.net>,
robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>Kris Van Allen wrote:
>>
>> In article <33AD90...@worldnet.att.net>,
>> robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net says...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> RESPONSE TO JOHN (IMBECILE ) GRIFFIN
>> >>
>> >> Evidently the "bitch" had enough men to have given each a pair.
>>
weeks
>> of her purchase.
>>
>> blp
>> >> Kaelin the freeloader and Shipp the O.J.
>> >> wannabe, don't forget Furhman the hater of black men with white women.
>> >> Furhman
>> >> with the facination of her new boobs.
>>
>>
>> blp
>> >> Mezzaluna. Maybe
>> >> Ron was double dipping.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> BLP
>> >
>> >-bob-
>>
>> Kris - I remembered seeing him on one of those wierd dating shows - he
>> actually did rather well.
>> I was talking about his acting career.
>-bob
Kris - getting ANY TV exposure is great for an aspiring actor,
Make that "it's great for an ALIVE aspring actor"
.......
....
Kris Van Allen
In article <5opjd8$hkv$1...@newsd-5.alma.webtv.net>, BET...@webtv.net says...
>BLP:
>Kris , once and for all::::::::::
>
>There was no one going around with a dropper dripping nice little neat
>drops all over.
Kris - BL P, once and for all I know that - I never said YOU said that -
remember the original poster that I replied to???? HE SAID THAT and I have
reminded you of that several times
BLP
Since the lab was accessable to
>those other than the criminalist ,
Kris - show me on the lab computer log
BLP
and the
>reference to missing initials on the envelope went unrefuted by the
>prosecuton (except to make Mazzola lie
>and recant her earlier statement that she initialed each and everyone)
Kris - yeah, but you also have to show there was something to plant
BLP
>the bell cannot be unrung. The planting was done in the lab and taken
>from the known sample of O.J.'s blood.
Kris - like I keep asking - WHAT KNOWN, the key word here is KNOWN and WHEN it
was known, and without EDTA.
When, exactly, did this "swtch" occur?
BLP
How else do you think that the
>LAPD & LADA kept putting
>out statements of test results before testing was completed.
Kris - the last person to talk is Savage saving her ass. She has never
revealed her source, and never will because she did not follow verification of
her "story". For all we know, some cop sarcastically answered the question
"who's blood do you think is on the socks?" and he answered "Nicole's of
course" and it was printed as a known truth or as a test result - something no
one could have KNOWN, but could have guessed.
Unless you know the question asked, and have a transcript of the answer, the
plain truth of the matter is YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STORY IS.
But what we do know, is no one knew the test results.
BLP
Remember
>the
>photo of the crusted blood vial when
>Colin Yamauchie testified? Not only had it run down the sides , there
>was no obvious attempt to clean it up. I have had blood drawn many
>times, naver have I seen a drippy , crusty blood vial.
Kris - anyone got that photo??? When was the photo taken? Got a trascript
date?
When you have blood drawn, do you also shake the tube, then open it???
BLP>
>Even you must admit that this was no pistine investigation, evidence was
>embellished upon because, they were fearful of losing, I AGAIN will say
>that
>they screwed up the evidence in such a way , only the killer knows for
>sure.
Kris - they had the classic open and shut caase, the killer's rare gloves,
rare and expensive shoes, the killer's hair, the killer's blood at both Bundy
and Rockinham and in his car, why would they need to embellish the blood
evidence???
If they needed to embellish, they should have planted the knife and clothes.
BLP
Kris Van Allen
In article <5onpn7$a...@big.aa.net>, hilb...@big.aa.net says...
>
>In article <33ae711...@news.pacbell.net>,
>Dennis Rodman <rm...@wcw.com> wrote:
>
>>Fred Golddigger: "This case isn't about money, I don't want the
>>murderers money, I just want to hear a jury say he's guilty"
>
>>Jury: We find the defendant guilty on all charges.
>
>>Fred Golddigger: "All right, now give me all the money, screw the
>>verdict, I want the money"
>
>"Golddigger"...damn, but that's cute. It's fun to get a glimpse into this
>sort of bottom-of-the-barrel immaturity, but the anti-Semitism is sad.
>
>his money is the only way to punish him. It means a hell of a lot more to
>him than human life. Responsible citizens want to see that sucker
>dumpster diving.
>
>*Q1: Did that lying, wife-beating, illiterate scumbag Simpson do it? *
>* A: Yes. *
>*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
..........
dmitri gusev
"Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:dmitri gusev wrote:
:> "Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:>
:> >If you look at a photo of the glove, you'll see it wasn't a flow
:> >from Nicole, it was a large, round spatter partly obscured by the
:> >glove on top of it.
:>
:> I looked at the photos
:>
:> http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~dmiguse/glove2.gif
:> http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~dmiguse/glove3.gif
:>
:> one more time, and from glove3.gif it appears that
:> the blood simply flowed under the glove. Doesn't
:> look like spatter to me.
:
:I suggest, then, that you go to a bookstore and look at a photograph
:with better resolution. For ex, the one in Fuhrman's book, MURDER
:IN BRENTWOOD. There is blood flow coming from the direction of
:Fuhrman, but the round bloodstain partially obscured by the glove
:has spatter marks extending out from the circle. Blood doesn't
:flow that way.
OK, suppose there was some spatter there. If that was
Goldman's blood spattered before the left-hand glove came
off, I see no problem.
:But let's give you your supposition and say that the glove came
:off during a fight with Goldman, and blood flowed under the glove.
:How come there's Nicole's blood on the steps above where she lays?
See my answer from the message you responded to:
:> Because the position of her body changed between the moment
:> when the perp inflicted the large gaping wound and the
:> moment when he left the scene. This is no big deal.
Next time, read more carefully.
:How come OJ's hand, cut in the fight, doesn't leave a smear of
:blood on Nicole as he slashed her throat?
Do not assume that all blood that was on Nicole got tested.
This was not the case.
:I can't imagine a scenario where with just a knife hand you
:can lift a body, cut the throat so that it bleeds on the steps,
:sets her down still with just his knife hand, picks up the
:envelope, still with just his knife hand, and only then when
:he walks away (and only the first time he walks away) does he
:bleed five drops from his right hand.
The left hand was the injured one. More importantly,
the five drops in question were easier to separate from the
rest of the blood at the scene exactly because they were
located away from the bodies. It is quite possible that
more blood of the perp went undetected.
:That's why I keep asking No-js for a scenario that matches the
:evidence. It's a lot easier for two guys cutting two throats from
:behind to not get blood on their shoe soles than for a guy with
:a bleeding hand to not bleed.
Whether the perp left more than five drops of blood behind is one thing,
where that blood went and why it was not discovered is another
story. How can one say if the pool of blood eventually washed
down did not contain a single drop of Simpson's blood? From
the known test results, one cannot say that. Do not assume
that all blood on the scene was tested. This would require
way too much work, realistically.
Robert Hickey
In <5ov6ik$799$1...@newsd-106.bryant.webtv.net> B1...@webtv.net (RON)
writes:
>Al baby, I don't blame you one bit for being down on Kathy. She has
>the unmitigated gall to stick to facts. In your world, that has got to
>be the worst possible sin.
I just want to go on record as saying that from the post above, looks
like webTV is only a contemptible contraption when in the wrong hands.
From the looks of this post, as long as the poster is intelligent,
seems that webTV shouldn't be held against them. Like in BLP's case,
she is a dumbass and would *still* be a dumbass if she was on a
computer. This one is different.
The poster above would only have the advantage of including quotes in
his posts so as to make them even *more* readable. The quality would be
the same. Good job RON!
If only BLP could grasp the sense of the matter, she might be
salvageable...nope.....WHAT WAS I THINKING????!!!! Welcome.
Robert (No-j welcome wagon <G>)
Robert C. Miller
Clio wrote:
>
> BL P <BET...@webtv.net> wrote in article
> <5opheu$g42$1...@newsd-3.alma.webtv.net>...
> > Response to posting by (Kathy ) 6/23/97:
> >
> > Whats the matter Kathy can't you handle the truth?
> > Don't expect that your assessment of me and what you think of me will
> > deter my posting in this NG. I post here for dialogue about somethinfg I
> > feel strongly about.
> > Never will I be convinced that O.J. Simpson murdered two healthy people,
>
> I tend to agree with you (on that point and that point alone) but will you
> please explain to me what your statement:
>
> > How about the fags at the
> > Mezzaluna. Maybe
> > Ron was double dipping.
>
>
> Clio
It clearly doesn't, but what it does point out is how
controlled the news about this case was. No one knows
anything about the Mezzaluna or Ron Goldman but the
rumors and the little in Freed's book and Bosco's book,
and of course those two guys never see the light of day.
-bob
Robert C. Miller
dmitri gusev wrote:
>
> "Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> :dmitri gusev wrote:
> :> "Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> >If you look at a photo of the glove, you'll see it wasn't a flow
> :> >from Nicole, it was a large, round spatter partly obscured by the
> :> >glove on top of it.
> :>
> :> I looked at the photos
> :>
> :> http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~dmiguse/glove2.gif
> :> http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~dmiguse/glove3.gif
> :>
> :> one more time, and from glove3.gif it appears that
> :> the blood simply flowed under the glove. Doesn't
> :> look like spatter to me.
> :
> :I suggest, then, that you go to a bookstore and look at a photograph
> :with better resolution. For ex, the one in Fuhrman's book, MURDER
> :IN BRENTWOOD. There is blood flow coming from the direction of
> :Fuhrman, but the round bloodstain partially obscured by the glove
> :has spatter marks extending out from the circle. Blood doesn't
> :flow that way.
>
> OK, suppose there was some spatter there. If that was
> Goldman's blood spattered before the left-hand glove came
> off, I see no problem.
to her body.]
> :But let's give you your supposition and say that the glove came
> :off during a fight with Goldman, and blood flowed under the glove.
> :How come there's Nicole's blood on the steps above where she lays?
>
> See my answer from the message you responded to:
>
> :> Because the position of her body changed between the moment
> :> when the perp inflicted the large gaping wound and the
> :> moment when he left the scene. This is no big deal.
>
> Next time, read more carefully.[Which means that the perp lifted the head with his bleeding
left hand while cutting with the right? Then how come he didn't
bleed on Nicole? According to your scenario, Dmitri, she got
it after Goldman, right? How else could Goldman get into the
yard without walking through all the blood that Nicole spurted?]
>
> :How come OJ's hand, cut in the fight, doesn't leave a smear of
> :blood on Nicole as he slashed her throat?
>
> Do not assume that all blood that was on Nicole got tested.
> This was not the case.[But there was no smear of blood from someone holding her head.]
>
> :I can't imagine a scenario where with just a knife hand you
> :can lift a body, cut the throat so that it bleeds on the steps,
> :sets her down still with just his knife hand, picks up the
> :envelope, still with just his knife hand, and only then when
> :he walks away (and only the first time he walks away) does he
> :bleed five drops from his right hand.
>
> The left hand was the injured one. More importantly,
> the five drops in question were easier to separate from the
> rest of the blood at the scene exactly because they were
> located away from the bodies. It is quite possible that
> more blood of the perp went undetected.[If he holds her head up with his bleeding hand, a hand that in
moments will drip blood five quick drops, he would have bled on
her. He didn't]
>
> :That's why I keep asking No-js for a scenario that matches the
> :evidence. It's a lot easier for two guys cutting two throats from
> :behind to not get blood on their shoe soles than for a guy with
> :a bleeding hand to not bleed.
>
> Whether the perp left more than five drops of blood behind is one thing,
> where that blood went and why it was not discovered is another
> story. How can one say if the pool of blood eventually washed
> down did not contain a single drop of Simpson's blood? From
> the known test results, one cannot say that. Do not assume
> that all blood on the scene was tested. This would require
> way too much work, realistically.[Sure, there was a lot of blood that wasn't tested, there was
a lot of evidence that was lost at that crime scene. But if OJ
held her head with his left hand as he cut with his right,
there would have been blood smears on her shoulders, on her neck,
on her hair. Anywhere he grabbed her to move her into position.]
>
> Enjoy![I did. Thank you.]
Clio
Kris Van Allen
>
>If you look at a photo of the glove, you'll see it wasn't a flow
>from Nicole, it was a large, round spatter partly obscured by the
>copious amounts of blood before the glove landed there.
>
>How did Goldman get past all the blood from Nicole to get where
>he struggled with his killer?
Kris - Ron was killed first - Nicole had that big head bruise - enough to
knock her out.
Please acknowlege that the testimony was that she was hit hard enough in the
head to disable her or knock her out.
BOB: Did he daintily step over the blood
>or was he already inside? If he was already inside, what was he
>doing while Nicole was being killed?
Kris - the question is what was he doing after Nicole was hit. I don't even
think they saw OJ coming - for all we know they could have been kissing.
OJ knocks her out, she falls to the ground, ron yells "hey hey hey" as OJ
takes him on, kills him, then kills Nicole.
BOB>
>There are spatters of both Nicole's and Ron's blood on the top of Ron's
>boot, and the shape of the spatters shows that the source of the blood
>was above the boot.
kris - no it doesn't.
The spatter flight pattern and the boot may have a definate relationship to
each other, but you cannot say what position the boot was in when the meeting
of the boot and blood occurred. Also you do not know if the knife dripped the
blood.
BOB
How could both be standing and bleeding on Ron's
>boot? Once Ron is down, his boots are not in the right position,
Kris - the problem here is that you think that having his boots flat on the
ground is the only position where blood could have gotten on the top.
It is not.
BLP
>relatively flat on the ground with him in a standing position. Instead
>the toes are pointing up. So Nicole's spatter had to land on his boot
>while both he and she were standing.
Kris - only IF the blood came directly from Nicole, all of her blood only
flowed down and no one kicked up blood, the knife did not pick up any blood,
and the gloves did not drip blood. But that is not the case.
The killer stepped in the blood which can kick up blood to land on top of his
boot, the knife could have dripped the blood or flung the blood there. It
could have been flung over there when he dropped her gushing neck to the
ground splaterring the pools of blood.
BLP>
>Which leaves us with the glove. From the above, it didn't come
>off in the struggle, in which case why is it right there directly
>between the two bodies?
Kris -if it was pulled off and dropped, why would it NOT drop between the 2
bodies?
What of the above leads you to believe it was not pulled off during the
struggle?
BLPIf Simpson dropped it after the killing,
>he had to have seen it.
Kris - the killer OBVIOUSLY did NOT see it or the killer wiould have picked it
up, right?
blp: He would have had to have picked up the
>envelope right next to it. If he didn't pick up the envelope, who
>did?
Kris - why would he have HAD to have picked up the envelope? I'm not sayng he
didn't, just why would he have HAD to?
Maybe OJ was curious as to what was in the envelope.
BLP
>Why is there blood on the steps above where Nicole rests?
Kris - the evidence is he put a foot on her back, and pulled her head up by
the chin, and slit her throat. Where he would have pulled her up to is
exactly where the blood would have spurted out. What direction is the blood
flowing in the aorta? UP you say? Well, I guess that is the direction the
blood would have spurted like a fountain before he dropped her head back down.
BLP
You see,
>the evidence is not internally coherent. There are big problems
>here with the one man, one knife theory.
>
>-bob
Kris - the only problem is you keep making these assumptions that have no
basis, or assume something could only have happened one way.
And you keep ignoring the evidence that Nicole was knocked out.
Jim
Clio wrote:
> I tend to agree with you (on that point and that point alone) but will you
> please explain to me what your statement:
>
> > How about the fags at the
> > Mezzaluna. Maybe
> > Ron was double dipping.
>
> has to do with the guilt or innocence of OJ?
I wonder if Simpson was a "fag", the pro-j's would be ready to "lynch"
him? I find it quite ironic that the more vocal the pro-j in accusing
no-j's of reaching their conclusions in this case based on race, the
greater that persons biases against other groups. - Jim
--
Anti-Spam Alert: If You Wish To Reply, Lose The Attitude.
John Griffin
Reposted! See below the renewed request for Crazy Bob's logical
multiple-killer scenario that fits the evidence. (yuk yuk)
In article <33B2FC...@worldnet.att.net>,
Robert C. Miller <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>That's why I keep asking No-js for a scenario that matches the
>evidence. It's a lot easier for two guys cutting two throats from
>behind to not get blood on their shoe soles than for a guy with
>a bleeding hand to not bleed.
No, bobbie, the reason you keep asking is that you aren't bright
enough to comprehend the dozens of completely plausible scenarios
we have written just for the hell of it.
NOTICE:
Your turn. How did the "other killers" manage to avoid leaving
even a submicroscopic trace of their presence at the scene? Try
to write something that fits the evidence. (That's a joke - the
evidence says you're totally full of shit.)
I decided to repost this because I haven't seen Bob's scenario yet. I've
asked several times, but maybe his news server is like his mind - nothing
is getting through to him.
Egk
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 10:07:26 GMT, joy...@worldnet.att.net (Joyce
Roberts) wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 23:55:55 -0700, Jim
><ther...@Attitude.TheOffice.net> wrote:
>
>>Clio wrote:
>>
>>> I tend to agree with you (on that point and that point alone) but will you
>>> please explain to me what your statement:
>>>
>>> > How about the fags at the
>>> > Mezzaluna. Maybe
>>> > Ron was double dipping.
>>>
>>> has to do with the guilt or innocence of OJ?
>>
>>I wonder if Simpson was a "fag", the pro-j's would be ready to "lynch"
>>him? - Jim
>>--
>>Anti-Spam Alert: If You Wish To Reply, Lose The Attitude.
>>
>
>Well, Jim, I am one pro-J who certainly would not lynch
>him for being gay. I think it is interesting in that
>it would help to possibly define his relationship with
>his father and Nicole, and possible in the settlement
>for his death if it were known. Historically, the life
>of a homosexual has had less value to a jury than the
>life of a straight person.
>
>Joyce
hahahahahahahah. Actually, you're probably very near the TOP of the
list of people he was talking about, Joyce. You're very quick to
label people with names or did you forget your "faggot" references
made towards me? Your lame attempt to flame yourself with "nigger
bitch" then blame it on me was especially precious. Then you did
yourself proud and claimed you reserved that epithet for my mother.
Just cuz I wouldn't join you in your name calling doesn't mean others
didn't notice YOU. You routinely do more to show your lack of
character then any insult hurled at you could.
The shrill cries of "bigot" and "racism" coming from you, Patty and
Wee-wee every time someone disagrees with you are exactly why I so
enjoy exposing you all with your own words. Bigotry and prejudice and
hatred seem fine with you three as long as it's your own.
As Jim said, "I find it quite ironic that the more vocal the pro-j is
in accusing
no-j's of reaching their conclusions in this case based on race, the
greater that persons biases against other groups."
**************************************************************************
There'd be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't
take that as an invitation to walk all over you. - Calvin & Hobbes
**************************************************************************
Robert C. Miller
[For someone who can analyze evidence, please look at the following
statement:]
Kathy** wrote:
>
> Robert we did this months ago, again your misstating facts, you claim
> there was no blood on Nicole from OJ, yet you don't know that, we do
> know that there were blood drops on Nicole's back that were supposed to
> be tested, the coroners office forgot to collect them as instructed and
> washed them off.[So you are saying that the blood on her back was from OJ?
Or it MIGHT have been from OJ? Or it could have been from
OJ? You still have the problem that in order to cut her
throat he would have had to have grabbed her by the hair,
or the face or under the chin to rip that throat. There is
no blood there from Simpson. It may comfort you to take
a position like Bugliosi that because the LADA didn't test
a most of the blood at the crime scene that a lot of it
was Simpson's. That kind of blind speculation has no
evidentiary value. So while I have your attention, how did
the killer cut her throat? How did he pull back her head
with his bleeding hand, just cut in a fight with Goldman,
bleeding moments later as he walks away from the scene,
and not leave any blood on Nicole's hair, or face or chin
or neck? -bob]
Thomas P. Jabine
When did Bob get it down two two killers? The last I heard there
were four -- one holding each victim from the back and one
stabbing and slashing from the front. Does Bob have a new theory
now? And how did Ron get the bruises on his knuckles in Bob's
new version of the "facts?" It sounds like he (Bob) still has
some changes to make before he can claim to have explained the
evidence.
John Griffin
In article <19970625200...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
MSLU123 <msl...@aol.com> wrote:
>Gee Hillbilly:
Gee Lucy...ask me a question. Show me something I wrote that you can
refute. Show me something you've written that either makes sense, doesn't
sound hopelessly illiterate, that you can support with some actual facts,
or that doesn't depend on some crazy speculation that you don't even
understand. If you've done that, I seem to have missed it.
I'm sadly afraid that you might be suggesting that I haven't answered the
idiotic questions Crazy Bob keeps robotically blurting between answers.
Few, if any, of us are going to take the extra time to try to make those
answers accessible to you and the like. Even worse, it could be that you
intended some of the statements you've made as questions but forgot to put
one of these little "?" thingies at the end. For example, when you say
"the footprints were moving but the blood drops were standing still" or
something like that, are you asking me to come up with some rational
support for that because no one else has come anywhere near doing it? Or
maybe you were asking me to rewrite it for you in a way that a native
English speaker might do?
What the hell, let's have a "wisdom" tournament. Invite your friends.
Here are the preliminary seedings for the tournament:
Last (tie): Lucy, Kari, BLP, "c", Schreck.
Next-to-last: All other Simpson disciples.
First: Everyone else.
Four of the above five designated losers have claimed that they derived
their conclusion that Simpson is innocent from the actual evidence. If
you aren't lying, you're demonstrating a complete and probably terminal
lack of wisdom.
dmitri gusev
:> "Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:> :dmitri gusev wrote:
:> :> "Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> >If you look at a photo of the glove, you'll see it wasn't a flow
:> :> >from Nicole, it was a large, round spatter partly obscured by the
:> :> >glove on top of it.
:> OK, suppose there was some spatter there. If that was
:> Goldman's blood spattered before the left-hand glove came
:> off, I see no problem.
: [Bob: Except that it appears to be Nicole's from its proximity
: to her body.]
Well, Ron Goldman's shoe was situated right next to the left-hand
glove. The area where the bodies were is pretty small.
:> :But let's give you your supposition and say that the glove came
:> :off during a fight with Goldman, and blood flowed under the glove.
:> :How come there's Nicole's blood on the steps above where she lays?
:>
:> See my answer from the message you responded to:
:>
:> :> Because the position of her body changed between the moment
:> :> when the perp inflicted the large gaping wound and the
:> :> moment when he left the scene. This is no big deal.
:[Which means that the perp lifted the head with his bleeding
:left hand while cutting with the right? Then how come he didn't
:bleed on Nicole?
I don't think we know he didn't bleed on her. I, for one, don't
remember any testimony indicating that there was no blood found
on Nicole's hair. Given that, in the end, there was blood
all over the place, this possibility seems very unlikely.
:According to your scenario, Dmitri, she got it after Goldman,
:right? How else could Goldman get into the yard without walking
:through all the blood that Nicole spurted?]
That's right, and this is exactly the prosecution version.
:> :How come OJ's hand, cut in the fight, doesn't leave a smear of
:> :blood on Nicole as he slashed her throat?
:>
:> Do not assume that all blood that was on Nicole got tested.
:> This was not the case.
:[But there was no smear of blood from someone holding her head.]
I thought the perp held her by the hair. Given that only five
small droplets of OJ's blood situated relatively far apart from
each other were discovered, I would not expect a large smear.
A small spot could very well go undetected, IMO. Again, I
do not recall any testimony saying that there was no blood
in any place where the perp could possibly hold Nicole's head
while slashing her throat.
:If he holds her head up with his bleeding hand, a hand that in
:moments will drip blood five quick drops, he would have bled on
:her. He didn't
I would call these drops small and slow. The number of bloody
shoeprints detected dwarfs the number of droplets. Again, we
don't know if the perp bled on Nicole. Quite possibly, he
did. The victims simply lost much more blood, so search
for a single drop from the perp would be an almost
impossible task. Mind you, the criminalists did not even know
if the perp bled at all then.
:But if OJ held her head with his left hand as he cut with his right,
:there would have been blood smears on her shoulders, on her neck,
:on her hair.
Nicole's own blood could then wash away or obscure the smear. You
cannot say in good faith that there was never a smear.
The murder scene evidence appears quite consistent with
the one man, one knife theory.
One more thing: someone else asked me for a Pro-J scenario.
I am pretty much out of Pro-J scenarios. Arnelle's role
is still of some interest to me, especially since it was
revealed during the civil trial that Park mentioned two cars
in the driveway in his taped conversation with Bob Shapiro
and Skip Taft before the limo driver talked to the cops and
had a chance to see the evidence photo taken the morning of
June 13. In other words, the defense theory that that photograph
triggered a false recollection was smoke and mirrors from
the very beginning.
About Mazzola's initials that may have "disappeared" from bindles.
Either Mazzola's recollection that she initialed some of the
bindles while helping Fung to pack the swatches was wrong, or
the bindles with her initials were replaced in an attempt
to cover up the fact of the rookie's participation in
the blood evidence collection in this high-profile case.
Recall that Dennis Fung initially testified to the Grand Jury
that he collected that evidence, and later offered a lame
"I means we" excuse when the videotape of Mazzola collecting
evidence was produced. Degradation of blood on swatches strongly
suggests that the Bundy swatches themselves are genuine.
Enjoy!
Clio
>I wonder if Simpson was a "fag", the pro-j's would be ready to "lynch"
>him? I find it quite ironic that the more vocal the pro-j in accusing
>no-j's of reaching their conclusions in this case based on race, the
>greater that persons biases against other groups. -
I don't think that is necessarily so. That is why I was so shocked by
BLP's little tangent. Many of the Pro-J's dwell of Nicole's alleged
promiscuity, or call her a bad mother (which is totally baseless since
none of the OJ players alleged she was not a good mother.)
Sometimes I wonder if Walker is going to bust out into some
anti-semetic speal but he had yet to do anything but flirt with the
issue.
Since that remark came from BLP, I think it is just another example of
her lifting herself up at the expense of others, all the while
claiming to be a noble martyr for the cause. A technique she has
mastered like no one else.
Sherlock the Cat
So what you are saying is that we are either liars or without sense. What
I wish to know is how a man with the handle ASSMAN can believe that his
comments have any weight of creditability. Considering the idea of
anatomy, ASS is far from the brain. Anyway, your insults are because we
disagree with you. You accuse us of being disciples??? Please tell me,
when did O.J. Simpson become ordained and start his own religion? Why do
my opinions or the opinions of others threaten you to the point of your
making rude comments about people you nothing about, except that we
disagree with you?
For my part I did indeed see the entire criminal trial. The verdict was
correct. O.J. Simpson is innocent in my eyes of killing these two people.
I also didn't need Rockne harmon to tell me about the Love notes being
passed between Clark and Darden as I watched their sexual banter as the
trial progressed. In fact Clark's flirtation with anything in pants made
it difficult to watch the proceedings, but I did. another thing that was
clear to me and others i have spken with is that the prosecutors were well
aware of Simpson's innocence, hence all the fighting about evidence being
left out of the trial as it would make it clear that he is innocence.
Why wouldn't the prosecution team want Dr. Christian Rykart<sp> testify
about his being threatened by drug dealers because of Faye Resnick and that
he slept with a gun under his pillow because he was so frightened of being
murdered in his sleep?
Kari
Kathy**
Robert C. Miller wrote:
>
> [For someone who can analyze evidence, please look at the following
> statement:]
>
> Kathy** wrote:
> >
> > Robert we did this months ago, again your misstating facts, you
> claim
> > there was no blood on Nicole from OJ, yet you don't know that, we do
> > know that there were blood drops on Nicole's back that were supposed
> to
> > be tested, the coroners office forgot to collect them as instructed
> and
> > washed them off.[So you are saying that the blood on her back was
> from OJ?
The blood on her back is from her killer, even Dr Henry Lee says
that, or are you going to say he doesn't know what he's talking
about also?
Since I believe OJ is the killer yes I believe it is OJ's. Of course
we can't be 100% sure since it wasn't tested.
> Or it MIGHT have been from OJ? Or it could have been from
> OJ? You still have the problem that in order to cut her
> throat he would have had to have grabbed her by the hair,
> or the face or under the chin to rip that throat. There is
> no blood there from Simpson. It may comfort you to take
Geez Bob I have said from the beginning he took her by the
hair and sliced her throat. Or do you somehow think that people's
knuckles face upwards at all times? Anyone with a touch of common sense
can figure it out, I gather I have to explain in detail to you. He grabs
her hair with the left hand, which way does he grab it, pulling
back on the hair? He could have his knuckles facing upwards or downwards
depending on how he held the hair. Let's not forget he also kept a foot
on her body to keep it down, he then sliced her throat open and dropped
her down.
> a position like Bugliosi that because the LADA didn't test
> a most of the blood at the crime scene that a lot of it
> was Simpson's. That kind of blind speculation has no
> evidentiary value. So while I have your attention, how did
You won't have my attention for long, to be honest you bore me.
> the killer cut her throat? How did he pull back her head
> with his bleeding hand, just cut in a fight with Goldman,
> bleeding moments later as he walks away from the scene,
> and not leave any blood on Nicole's hair, or face or chin
> or neck? -bob]
Gee Bob I answered in detail in email, you asked for what I thought
happened, I did notice you never disputed my account, but you did stop
filing my private email with ridiculous questions that had been answered
over and over again in the newsgroup.
Hey Bob show me the proof that no blood of the killers was in Nicole's
hair, face, or head area. I can show you the proof the killers blood was
there.
Herman Rouge Willett
In article <5p3ug5$g...@sawtail.cs.indiana.edu>, dmitri gusev (dmi...@cs.indiana.edu) writes:
>"Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>:dmitri gusev wrote:
>:> "Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>:> :dmitri gusev wrote:
>:> :> "Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>:> :>
>:> :> >If you look at a photo of the glove, you'll see it wasn't a flow
>:> :> >from Nicole, it was a large, round spatter partly obscured by the
>:> :> >glove on top of it.
>:> :>
>:> OK, suppose there was some spatter there. If that was
>:> Goldman's blood spattered before the left-hand glove came
>:> off, I see no problem.
>: [Bob: Except that it appears to be Nicole's from its proximity
>: to her body.]
>
>Well, Ron Goldman's shoe was situated right next to the left-hand
>glove. The area where the bodies were is pretty small.
>
Where was Fred Goldmans' shoe?
---
Herman R. Willett
Information Systems Technology Specialist
hrwillet@dynasoft_.win.net
http://www.win.net/~dynasoft_
Herman -- KA5NHE -- Beaumont, Tx
16 years of business software development and 18 years
of industrial control and data aquisition software
development. 23 years experience in the computer field
developing hardware and software. 20++ years telcom and
networking experience.
********************************************************
* Those with high self-discipline usualy get ridiculed *
********************************************************
LaughingAtYou
>From: hilb...@big.aa.net (John Griffin)
>Duuuuuhhhhhh....maybe he grabbed her with the palm of
>his hand, rather than the back of his hand where the
>cut was situated? I know this sounds awfully strange
>to you, but some of us always do it that way.
Well the bigmouth admits that he's a wife abuser! Yeah Griffin it
sounds real strange to most of us who don't beat our wives, but
obviously you're the expert on wife battering. At least you've finally
posted something that isn't a lie!
Robert C. Miller
Kathy** wrote:
>
> I haven't seen his scenario either, he says he posted it in Jan I think
> I was still a active participant at that time, so somehow my server
> didn't pick up his post, I would think if Bob had ever been to the Bundy
> crime scene he would realize without question why there couldn't have
> been 2-4 killers in the area where Nicole and Ron were killed. There
> wouldn't have been a place for them to all stand around it was way to
> small.
[But not too small for OJ to hide from everyone? If I say that there were
three or four people, I don't believe that they were hidden. Perhaps there
was a drug deal about to happen and Nicole was expecting them. Perhaps it
was someone that Nicole knew, that she was expecting, and so the element
of surprise wasn't their appearance, but that they got violent. -bob]
Kris Van Allen
In article <33B1AA...@worldnet.att.net>,
robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>Dennis Rodman wrote:
>>
>> Tell me Kris, with all the dirt kicked around by Goldman (the deep
>> hole dug out as he was killed) how could the killer not have some of
>> that dust and dirt not get on his socks? Since you like to experiment,
>> have someone kick a lot of dirt around as you hold onto them and see
>> if any of that dirt floating through the air lands on your feet and
>> socks. Then explain to me why not as much as a single speck soil from
>> Bundy was found on the socks from Simpson bedroom? You seem logical,
>> and willing to keep an open mind, so really consider this point before
>> you answer. Anyone that works in a garden knows this just isn't
>> possible considering there was soil on the walkway that had settled
>> from the air. Some of it would have gotten onto those socks had they
>> been worn by the killer that night.
>
>Another excellent point.
>-bob
-Kris - the evidence is that the dirt did not kick up into his socks.\
If there was so much dirt, why wasn't there any dirt in the bloody footprints
leaving the area?
Why wasn't there dirt kicked all around to the sidewalk area?
You can leave an impression or gouge a hole without necessarily kicking up
dirt. Was the dirt real dry and dusty, or was it garden moist and clumpy, but
not muddy? Was it soft ground where a "hole" gouge could be easily made, of
was it hard clay ground?
How was the "hole" made? With his knee as he fell? By digging his heels into
the ground for leverage? These actions would not kick up dirt, or kick dirt on
to OJ's shoes and socks.
There's a big difference in how much dirt flies between dusty dirt and garden
moist and clumpy dirt. Dusty flies all over, moist and clumpy does not.
You guys latch on to something and say "here's proof" without thinking about
all the conditions or what the evidence shows - sort of like the "dripping in
blood" claim (if he was dripping in blood, then why wasn't the killer dripping
the blood?)kris
alwalker
Clio wrote:
>
> > Why certainly rely on lies and the interpretations
> >you put on testimony. Even tho the judge told clark and
> >deedrick they could not say hair or fibres are a match,
> >(because it is scientificaly not possible, and has been so
> >ruled by the calif supreme court). You our resident little
> >parrot, will insist the hair and fibres match OJ, when that
> >was absolutely not true!!
>
> You have me confused with someone else. Why would I claim that hairs
> found on the knit cap matched OJ's hair. Same with Bronco carpet
> fibers. I think he is not guilty, remember?
___________________________________________
Yeah, Kathy, how dare you rely on actual testimony when you can use
perfectly good conjecture? <g>
____________________________________________
I was replying to your little tweek, did you forget
the above pasted comment of yours ?
And the only portion that was intended to be addressed
by you is the last part.
I did neglect to mention, that the bulk of my post
was to reply to kathy and her use of her own words,
and calling it factual testimony.
> Tell me what my position is Al.
All that was for kathy, Im sorry for your
confusion clio.
> > The joke is how you and others, claim and try to act
> >as tho you post only factual information.
>
> Never claimed that Al. Show me when I said that.
>
See ? it wasnt intended for you, I cant show
that you did that !
> > Ride that fence clio, you do it without insults
> >and or nasty implications, and thats a pleasure.No
> >kidding
>
> It would be a pleasure if you started doing the same.
>
> Clio
Sorry, but your much more forgiving than I. But one
thing I will never do, is be nasty to you.
Tweek or needle ? maybe, but never think its meant
to be nasty, OK?
al
Robert C. Miller
> >suspicious that the fingerprint on the gate and the blood on her back
> >were "lost"?
> It would only be suspicious IF the police knew Simpson wasn't the
> murderer before collecting the evidence. Since both pieces were lost
> before Simpson returned from Chicago.[Yes.]
>
> >Those are two pieces of evidence that should nail the killer.
> If they had collected them, you'd just claim they were planted.
>
> <snips>
> >We know it's bleeding fast because there are five drops of blood
> >leading away from the bodies.
> Now THINK about this statement, now go look at the photos of the scene,
> consider that the footprints DO NOT indicate running...Now explain
> "bleeding fast"
[I don't necessarily believe that the blood was dripping from a
wound from the killer, it may have been dripping from the killer's
knife, etc. As you know, I am sure that it wasn't Simpson's blood
at all. However, as the official scenarios go, Simpson got a cut
in the fight with Goldman, then killed Nicole, then walked away,
dripping five drops of blood. Even if he were walking slowly,
casually, we're still talking about five drops of blood in what,
ten seconds, twenty seconds, a half a minute if he's really, really
dragging. That's fast enough that if he's grabbing Nicole's hair
to hack her throat, he should have left blood there. Picking up
the envelope, he should have left blood there. -bob]
Sherlock the Cat
Considering there were only five drops of OJ.'s blood at Bundy, and the
testing of any swatches of this blood was withheld until Ito ruled which
was well after the preliminary hearing. How did Matheson have any results
to testify about the conventional testing from the blood at the scene was
the same type a grouping as simpson? He did testify to this at the
preliminary hearing. common blood testing always destroy's samples so
how'd they destructive testing on these swatches of blood drops?????? Why
didn't anyone ask this question before??? It isn't reasonable at all.
ojo...@hotmail.com
>John Griffin wrote:
>We DO NOT have any tangible reason to think the police destroyed,
>altered, fabricated or interfered in any other way with any item
>of evidence.
What about several cops running around the crime scene,
throwing out evidence, stepping through it, moving evidence,
covering up victims with blankets, running over to Rockingham,
climbing walls and violating an individual’s constitutional rights,
a lone racist cop just back from the crime scene wondering off alone,
finding a wet glove that should be dry, seeing blood inside the
bronco which can’t be seen from the outside, missing sample
blood, disappearing/reappearing socks, edta where it shouldn’t
be, fresh blood 3 weeks after the event, stomach contents thrown
out, the main detective carrying the suspect’s blood sample all
over creation, in addition to evidence from the victims, no blood
on socks, then blood seen later, bronco broken into while in
police custody, evidence swatches/envelopes mislabeled, suspicious
dna counts, suspicious blood spatter patterns, footprints never
investigated, blood types never investigated, fingerprints never
investigated, cops lying on the witness stand, DA’s office silencing
critics, witnesses for the prosecution in proven collusion, evidence
presented only to mislead the jury then recanted later, defense experts
banned from examining critical evidence, constantly changing timeline,
false leaks and false rumors supplied to the media to mislead all, phony
and incomprehensible motive "evidence," a judge married to a cop,
a juror related to the DA’s office, dark, blurry photographs allowed
into evidence at the last moment only to reinforce an original notion
which still has no basis in fact, and on and on and on?
No-J’s continually amaze me...tangibly speaking.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
confused
"Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>John Griffin wrote:
>> A FAR MORE VIABLE theory is that the blood was conclusively shown to be
>> Simpson's and they fabricated a story about having lost it as part of the
>> LAPD conspiracy to help him get away with these murders. As you know,
>> this is the only conspiracy theory that has ever had any rational support.
>[Right, because they all LOVE OJ. Yeah, okay. -bob]
Makes as much sense as 'they ALL hate OJ (because he married a white
women)''
confused
"Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>That's fast enough that if he's grabbing Nicole's hair
>to hack her throat, he should have left blood there.
And you know he didn't how?
>Picking up the envelope, he should have left blood there.
Since there wasn't blood on the envelope, HE likely didn't pick it up.
John Griffin
>>John Griffin wrote:
I have a feeling lots of things "amaze" you.
Thanks for illustrating my point. I particularly liked it when you
regurgitated the "wet glove" bullshit that only a fool could repeat
without embarrassment. Basically, you enumerated some of the police
ineptitude I alluded to, and interspersed the usual litany of
insubstantial allegations, fabrications and distortions in a lame
attempt to give them credibility by association.
Once again, you show that you can be a really funny guy,
when you try to be serious.
Net result of your goofy babbling:
>>We DO NOT have any tangible reason to think the police destroyed,
>>altered, fabricated or interfered in any other way with any item
>>of evidence.
You probably noticed that "in any other way" in my original article
referred to a previous mention of their ineptitude. Ordinarily, I
wouldn't attribute such astuteness to you, but you did snip it.
Robert C. Miller
>
> >> A FAR MORE VIABLE theory is that the blood was conclusively shown to be
> >> Simpson's and they fabricated a story about having lost it as part of the
> >> LAPD conspiracy to help him get away with these murders. As you know,
> >> this is the only conspiracy theory that has ever had any rational support.
>
> >[Right, because they all LOVE OJ. Yeah, okay. -bob]
>
> Makes as much sense as 'they ALL hate OJ (because he married a white
> women)''
[Never said that they all hated them, or even that hate was the
motivation for planting evidence against Simpson. Clearly, the
switched swatches were done by someone with access to the police
lab, but a lot of the other evidence could have been manipulated
by the killers. I would presume the Bundy glove and cap were
placed where they were found after the murders by the killers,
just as the Bruno Magli footprints were made deliberately after
the fact by one of the killers. -bob]
Robert C. Miller
Kris Van Allen wrote:
>
> BOB
> Perhaps there
> >was a drug deal about to happen and Nicole was expecting them.
>
> paraphenalia in her house, or found drugs in her. None was found.
[I guess you believe that since the cops did not find any drugs
that Nicole never used drugs? And I guess they didn't find any
drugs on her galpal in the locked rehab place, meaning that
she wasn't a druggie either? There have been plenty of reports
of drugs in the world surrounding Nicole and Ron, the Mezzaluna,
Keith Z., etc. Maybe she was a saint among sinners, but if the
sinners hung around her, maybe she would not be surprised if
some of those sinners' business acquaintances might just drop
by.
At the criminal trial, we hear about the randomness of Goldman
just happening to show up at Nicole's, but there is plenty of
information about the two of them working out together at the
same gym, that Goldman's boss (Debello) had warned him about
messing around with Nicole, this information given to the cops
on the morning of the 13th, Ron and Nicole being counselled by
the same therapist, Dr. Jennifer Ameli, to believe that these
two people were just total strangers. No, the truth about their
relationship was deliberately hidden by the prosecution, and
the media went along, in order to push the prosecution's version
of events.
I don't necessarily say that there had to have been a drug deal,
it was just a possibility. Whatever the reason, she may very
well have been expecting the killers, just not expecting what
was going to happen. -bob]
Robert C. Miller
> >to hack her throat, he should have left blood there.
> And you know he didn't how?
>
> >Picking up the envelope, he should have left blood there.
>
> Since there wasn't blood on the envelope, HE likely didn't pick it up.
[Oh, but there was plenty of blood on the envelope, and someone did
pick it up. Are you saying that someone besides OJ picked up that
envelope? If so, who? You see, we are now getting somewhere, little
c. -bob]
Sperzel
alwalker <"keep it"@stone like.thee> wrote in article
<5pef0n$n...@camel2.mindspring.com>...
!
> The entire case against OJ rests on the blood being his. If the blood
> drops from rockingham were placed in the envelopes that were supposed to
> have the bundy drops in them, the entire house of cards falls down.
Actually, the blood is not even half of the case. You left out his absence
from Rockingham when Park got there, the absence of his Bronco, the thumps
heard behind Kato's wall and OJ's lack of concern about a possible prowler,
the cut on his hand he can't account for, his lies about when he was in his
Bronco calling Paula, his constantly changing alibi, the fact that a
Bronco-type vehicle was seen leaving Bundy (by a defense witness, no less),
and OJ's complete lack of interest in "the real killer." Oh yeah, then
there's his unusually heavy sweating on a cool night and the shoes, sweat
suit, and gloves...
> It is not likely that OJ is the killer. The idea is to get away with
> murder, not advertise your going to do it. There is a lot of talk about
> all the evidence. Bullshit evidence is more like it. The entire idiot
> culture of L A thinks it knows OJ did it. They have been jerks for a
> long time, and they continue to prove they still are daily.
>
And the most prominent example of that last sentence is our own:
> al walker
Have a day :|
Clio
On 2 Jul 1997 21:53:52 GMT, "Sperzel" <Spe...@aol.com> wrote:
>Actually, the blood is not even half of the case. You left out his absence
>from Rockingham when Park got there, <snip>
>the cut on his hand he can't account for,
And just like Park didn't see a Bronco at Rockingham, no one saw a cut
on OJ's hand on the way to Chicago.
It doesn't mean that he didn't have a cut on his hand and it doesn't
mean that the Bronco wasn't there. Just means no one saw it.
IMO, not seeing and not being aren't the same thing.
Clio
Kris Van Allen
In article <33B7E3...@worldnet.att.net>,
robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>Kathy** wrote:
>>
>> I haven't seen his scenario either, he says he posted it in Jan I think
>> I was still a active participant at that time, so somehow my server
>> didn't pick up his post, I would think if Bob had ever been to the Bundy
>> crime scene he would realize without question why there couldn't have
>> been 2-4 killers in the area where Nicole and Ron were killed. There
>> wouldn't have been a place for them to all stand around it was way to
>> small.
>
>[But not too small for OJ to hide from everyone?
Kris - who said he hid? He could just as easily walked up when they were
talking or otherwise engaged.
BOB If I say that there were
>three or four people, I don't believe that they were hidden.
Kris - just GETTING 3-4 killers and 2 victims in the area is impossible -
unless they practiced stuffing 3 people in a phone booth and killing one.
BOB
Perhaps there
>was a drug deal about to happen and Nicole was expecting them.
Kris - if Nicole was a druggie, then they would have found drugs or
paraphenalia in her house, or found drugs in her. None was found.
BOB
Perhaps it
>was someone that Nicole knew, that she was expecting, and so the element
>of surprise wasn't their appearance, but that they got violent. -bob]
Kris - got violent over what?
The element of suprise would not be the appearence of OJ either.
The element of suprise was when he knocked out Nicole.kris
confused
"Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>confused wrote:
>>
>> "Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >[Right, because they all LOVE OJ. Yeah, okay. -bob]
>>
>> Makes as much sense as 'they ALL hate OJ (because he married a white
>> women)''
>
>[Never said that they all hated them,
But you did imply that for a 'reverse' conspiracy they ALL must love
him.
> I would presume the Bundy glove and cap were placed where they
>were found after the murders by the killers, just as the Bruno Magli
>footprints were made deliberately after the fact by one of the killers.
But not the knife...
confused
"Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> There have been plenty of reports
>of drugs in the world surrounding Nicole and Ron, the Mezzaluna,
>Keith Z., etc.
You forget the biggie, the one that was found positive for drugs,
Simpson.
>At the criminal trial, we hear about the randomness of Goldman
>just happening to show up at Nicole's, but there is plenty of
>information about the two of them working out together at the
>same gym, that Goldman's boss (Debello) had warned him about
>messing around with Nicole,
Yep, plenty of information, yet neither side introduced it into court.
Why was that?
>No, the truth about their relationship was deliberately hidden by
>the prosecution, and the media went along, in order to push the
>prosecution's version of events.
Oh, you mean that the prosecution 'hide' the possible motive of
jealously and the media went along. Of course, it isn't possible, not in
the least, likely, that these reports of yours are wrong, is it? It
couldn't be that the reason none of these things weren't introduced into
court by either side or exploited in the press is that they weren't
defensible, could it?
John Griffin
In article <33bad24a...@news.mindspring.com>,
Clio <mdu...@mindspring.bounce.com> wrote:
>On 2 Jul 1997 21:53:52 GMT, "Sperzel" <Spe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Actually, the blood is not even half of the case. You left out his absence
>>from Rockingham when Park got there, <snip>
>>the cut on his hand he can't account for,
>And just like Park didn't see a Bronco at Rockingham, no one saw a cut
>on OJ's hand on the way to Chicago.
Cut-----------> /
Bronco-------->xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(not to scale - expand x's to about 10 feet for optimal point-getting)
>It doesn't mean that he didn't have a cut on his hand and it doesn't
>mean that the Bronco wasn't there. Just means no one saw it.
>IMO, not seeing and not being aren't the same thing.
You can't say that, because you weren't seen there.
>Clio
The question about the Bronco's whereabouts absolutely would not have been
left unanswered if there were a frameup. Someone - maybe a traffic cop;
maybe Ron Shipp - would have sworn he was there at 10:30 and the Bronco
was not. Of course, you might say the evil conspirators who managed this
brilliantly designed and executed frameup weren't smart enough to think of
something so absurdly simple and obvious, or maybe they were too busy
trying to think of the least likely place to plant the glove.
Anyway, that weird broad saw the murderer in his Bronco partway between
Bundy and Rockingham just before Park spotted him trying to sneak into
his house.
The question about the whereabouts of the Bronco is rather silly. All it
takes is a little common sense. We know Simpson wasn't home all the
time, because he spent part of the evening butcherin' and bleedin' at
Bundy. He didn't take the Bentley, because he didn't want to open the
gate, possibly waking Kato The Bimbo after going to all that trouble
setting him up for an alibi. He sure as hell didn't walk (because he's a
poor arthritic cripple, you know) and if he had taken a taxi, someone
would have a record of the trip.
confused
"Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>[Oh, but there was plenty of blood on the envelope, and someone did
>pick it up. Are you saying that someone besides OJ picked up that
>envelope?
We are now getting somewhere, at least you now admit Simpson was there.
Are you saying Simpson picked it up? And what is the proof of this?
Robert C. Miller
Sperzel wrote:
>
> alwalker <"keep it"@stone like.thee> wrote in article
> <5pef0n$n...@camel2.mindspring.com>...
> !
> > The entire case against OJ rests on the blood being his. If the blood
> > drops from rockingham were placed in the envelopes that were supposed to
> > have the bundy drops in them, the entire house of cards falls down.
>
see it when he left. He also claimed to have seen the car that Arnelle
was driving around town that night. That's real solid, pal.]
> the thumps [Which ones? The ones at 10:40 as Kaelin initially testified, or the
ones that eventually ended up after 10:50? And the one thump in
Marcia's book or the three thumps he first heard?]
> heard behind Kato's wall and OJ's lack of concern about a possible prowler,
> the cut on his hand he can't account for, [Read Bosco's book. Simpson accounts for all cuts. Read how Lange
and Vannatter do the whoopsy daisy with the tape recorder. And if
you haven't read it, don't make statements you can't back up.]
his lies about when he was in his
> Bronco calling Paula, his constantly changing alibi, the fact that a
> Bronco-type vehicle was seen leaving Bundy (by a defense witness, no less),
that night?]
> and OJ's complete lack of interest in "the real killer."[Complete lack of interest? When did you want him to do it, while
he was in jail or when he was fighting the civil case or now that
he's bankrupt? And what do you want him to do in order to prove
to you that his has an interest in "the real killer"? Killers,
by the way.]
> Oh yeah, then
> there's his unusually heavy sweating on a cool night[Unusually heavy sweating? How much is unusually heavy sweating?
You ever feel a little hot and wet after getting out of a hot
shower? Or are you confident enough to send a man to jail for
life because he's warm after taking a shower?]
> and the shoes[which no one has ever seen him wear, and the only proof are
those photos that show up two years later under dubious circum-
stances...]
> sweat suit, [which whether or not he actually owned one has never been proven
to have anything to do with the murder, and, of course, there is
no proof that he ever owned one]
>and gloves...[which didn't fit. Gee, sounds like you've got a leadpipe cinch
here, buddyboy. -bob]
John Griffin
In article <5pef0n$n...@camel2.mindspring.com>, alwalker <no, spams> wrote:
>dmitri gusev wrote:
>> About Mazzola's initials that may have "disappeared" from bindles.
>> Either Mazzola's recollection that she initialed some of the
>> bindles while helping Fung to pack the swatches was wrong, or
>> the bindles with her initials were replaced in an attempt
>> to cover up the fact of the rookie's participation in
>> the blood evidence collection in this high-profile case.
>> Recall that Dennis Fung initially testified to the Grand Jury
>> that he collected that evidence, and later offered a lame
>> "I means we" excuse when the videotape of Mazzola collecting
>> evidence was produced. Degradation of blood on swatches strongly
>> suggests that the Bundy swatches themselves are genuine.
> Those of you who wish to portray the missing initials and dates as
>abherations of mazzolas memory, fail to mention the first time she said
>they were missing was three weeks after she prepared them. THREE WEEKS!
Now, there's some superfluous information for you.
> She first mentioned it when shown the envelopes by the DA in his
>offices during rehearsal for mazzolas testimony in front of the grand
>jury. And that was even sooner, two weeks after the fact! So its
>not likely the problem was faulty memory. Its more likely that mazzolas
>memory was perfect, that soon after it happened. So its an even money
>bet that the blood was switched.
Nice try, changing the subject from the envelopes to the blood!
It's an even money bet that Fung threw away the envelopes with
her initials so he could take credit for everything. (*)
> Wouldnt swatches of blood from rockingham substituted for ones from
>bundy degrade in a similar manner ? Or to at least to the same degree ?
>And why does degradation indicate the place of initial procurement?
>The degradation can be intentional or accidental, how could you
>determine which ?
Easily. If you could find a motive and some evidence of
whatever the hell intentional degradation is, you would
have determined that that's what happened.
> And didnt mazzola also testify at the grand jury? wasnt it there
>that she first swore under oath that the envelopes were not the ones
>she prepared ?
Fung switched them so he could take credit. This is obligatory
behavior for a supervisor or manager (bureaucrat). (*)
> You say the blood swatches are apparently genuine, genuine what?
>blood? or from bundy? and if thats your contention, how ? Would blood
>degrade differently from bundy than from rockingham ?
Lacking any known motivation to tamper with the evidence, and having
evidence of an age-old motivation to take credit (*) for an underling's
work, common sense tells you what happened. The degradation question is a
contrivance intended to support a desired conclusion - not a result of an
examination of the evidence.
> I find the ease with which uninvolved third parties can pronounce
>someone guilty of murder incredible !
Me, too. Usually there are some legitimate questions.
> The entire case against OJ rests on the blood being his. If the blood
>drops from rockingham were placed in the envelopes that were supposed to
>have the bundy drops in them, the entire house of cards falls down.
Well, actually such a thing would have been one of the
steps in constructing your mythical house of cards.
> It is not likely that OJ is the killer. The idea is to get away with
>murder, not advertise your going to do it. There is a lot of talk about
>all the evidence. Bullshit evidence is more like it. The entire idiot
>culture of L A thinks it knows OJ did it. They have been jerks for a
>long time, and they continue to prove they still are daily.
There's no doubt that he did it.
Who're we going to believe...100% of the evidence, or al-Hyeguy?
(*) It is becoming increasingly clear that there was some kind of
concerted effort within the LAPD to clear Simpson, once it was obvious
that he was the murderer. It could be that Fung's actions were a part of
this rather than just the usual bureaucratic manipulation.
Robert C. Miller
alwalker wrote:
> > >the cut on his hand he can't account for,
> >
> > on OJ's hand on the way to Chicago.
> >
> > mean that the Bronco wasn't there. Just means no one saw it.
> >
> > IMO, not seeing and not being aren't the same thing.
>
> the bronco, it could very well have been there, and he just not notice
> it. Cochran was clear about the park statement, and one of the things
> the jury asked to repeat was parks testimony.
> No one at anyy time can say for sure OJ was not at rockingham during
> those minutes, NO ONE WITH A FAIR MINDED WAY OF LOOKING ANYWAY.
> AL
>
> > Clio
[And he didn't see Kato's car, and he saw the one Arnelle was
driving around when it wasn't there, and he didn't see the
Bronco when he pulled out of Rockingham and it would have been
right in his headlights. -bob]
Robert C. Miller
Kathy wrote:
>
> I'm answering Patricia's post here I never saw the original.
> Patty, I never said there wasn't any evidence doesn't mean there wasn't
> any evidence against OJ, you did. I said the evidence was washed off, as
> was testified to in the criminal trial. I also stated that Dr. Lee also
> said the killers blood was on Nicole. Since there were only three blood
> types at the Bundy crime scene that we know of, Nicole's, Ron's and OJ's
> I go to the next logical step that the blood on Nicole that was from the
> killer was OJ's, since he's the only one of the three left alive. Please
> use your own words instead of trying to attribute something to me I did
> not say.[The above is the danger of logic in the hands of the inexperienced.
OJ's blood on the swatches sent to Cellmark are not the blood drops
found on the driveway. If the blood drops on Nicole's back were
never recovered and tested, Kathy, you can assume that they are
OJ's blood. That shows how well you adhere to the scientific method.
Why don't you reproduce the Lee statement? The blood on her back
may appear to be the killer's blood, but clearly it wasn't tested.
But if you want to agree with Lee's findings, then you also buy
his suggestion that there were more than one killer, or that if
Simpson had been the killer he should have sustained more
physical injuries? -bob]
Sperzel
Robert C. Miller <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
article
> [And he didn't see Kato's car, and he saw the one Arnelle was
> driving around when it wasn't there, and he didn't see the
> Bronco when he pulled out of Rockingham and it would have been
> right in his headlights. -bob]
>
driveway and he would have run into the damn thing Bob! Try to keep your
hysterical alibi-mania to a merely laughable rather than high comedic
level...
Have a day :|
Kathy
Robert C. Miller wrote:
> is if, in your theory of the crime, Simpson was the killer, either
> he picked up the envelope (because, clearly, someone picked up the
> envelope after the murders) or someone else picked up the envelope.
> If Simpson, why isn't his blood there? If not Simpson, who? -bob]
Robert I suggest you look at Lange's testimony to find out who picked up
the envelope. It was testified to.
--
Kathy
remove the "**"'s to reply in email
http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/ - Crime scene photo's
Robert C. Miller
[Oh, so you can only see the five-foot corridor in front of your
car when you drive down the street? Better get those headlights
adjusted, smartypants. -bob]
alwalker
Robert C. Miller
Kathy wrote:
>
> Robert C. Miller wrote:
> >
> > confused wrote:
> > >
> > > "Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >[Oh, but there was plenty of blood on the envelope, and someone did
> > > >pick it up. Are you saying that someone besides OJ picked up that
> > > >envelope?
> > > We are now getting somewhere, at least you now admit Simpson was there.
> > > Are you saying Simpson picked it up? And what is the proof of this?
> >
> > [Of course I'm not saying that Simpson was there. What I am saying
> > is if, in your theory of the crime, Simpson was the killer, either
> > he picked up the envelope (because, clearly, someone picked up the
> > envelope after the murders) or someone else picked up the envelope.
> > If Simpson, why isn't his blood there? If not Simpson, who? -bob]
>
> Robert I suggest you look at Lange's testimony to find out who picked up
> the envelope. It was testified to.
[No, not the next morning, my dear. Right after the blood
was flowing. And who pried open the envelope? Lange? -bob]
confused
"Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> [I heard an interesting report on marijuana's false positives in
>drug-testing.
<yeah, and we heard that Simpson confessed>
>Actually, drug-testing is at a pretty pisspoor level of accuracy now.
This isn't the issue at hand. It also ignores that he was the only one
tested that came up positive.
>If Simpson smoked dope the night of the murders, he'd be driving that
>Bronco to the 7-11, not Bundy.]
And were is it documented how Simpson reacts to dope? Some people react
outside the 'norm'.
>> >At the criminal trial, we hear about the randomness of Goldman
>> >just happening to show up at Nicole's, but there is plenty of
>> >information about the two of them working out together at the
>> >same gym, that Goldman's boss (Debello) had warned him about
>> >messing around with Nicole,
>> Yep, plenty of information, yet neither side introduced it into court.
>> Why was that?
>Well, are you denying the information?
That someone said it...no. What about the 'supressed' recording of the
cell phone to his mother. The one where he confesses?
>If you grasp the concept of a show trial, then you will understand that
>both sides are actually different faces of the same trial.]
If you can show some evidence of it, I may consider it. But you do
forget in a 'show' trial where the defendent has provided council, the
defendant is guilty. 'The show' is in exchange for a 'not guilty'.
>[Well, read the Lange and Vannatter book. Read the stuff about Ameli.
>You tell me. Were they complete strangers?]
From the evidence, yes.
Robert C. Miller
confused wrote:
>
> "Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > [I heard an interesting report on marijuana's false positives in
> >drug-testing.
> <yeah, and we heard that Simpson confessed>
>
> >Actually, drug-testing is at a pretty pisspoor level of accuracy now.
> This isn't the issue at hand. It also ignores that he was the only one
> tested that came up positive.
had, that he'd smoked dope that night. Quite honestly, marijuana in
and of itself doesn't make people violent. Alcohol, amphetamines,
cocaine. Not marijuana. Whether he smoked dope or not is absolutely
irrelevant to whether he committed the crime. Whether or not Ron
and Nicole used cocaine and thus were part of the Mezzaluna cocaine
milieu is more to the point. A coke deal could put some shady
characters at Bundy on June 12th. Even you can't construct a
theory where OJ killss Ron and Nicole over a joint. Do you
understand? Can you grasp the point?]
> >If Simpson smoked dope the night of the murders, he'd be driving that
> >Bronco to the 7-11, not Bundy.]
> And were is it documented how Simpson reacts to dope? Some people react
if Simpson smoked dope, or that he smoked dope that night. Marijuana
stays in a person's system for weeks, up to a month after usage.
Now I wouldn't be surprised if after Simpson came back from Chicago
into the hell of LA that he didn't light up a few joints to calm
himself down. It is a tranquilizer, you know.]
>
> >> >At the criminal trial, we hear about the randomness of Goldman
> >> >just happening to show up at Nicole's, but there is plenty of
> >> >information about the two of them working out together at the
> >> >same gym, that Goldman's boss (Debello) had warned him about
> >> >messing around with Nicole,
> >> Yep, plenty of information, yet neither side introduced it into court.
> >> Why was that?
> >Well, are you denying the information?
> That someone said it...no. What about the 'supressed' recording of the
> cell phone to his mother. The one where he confesses?
[You mean the one where his mother asks him to turn himself in
and he says he was "set up"?]
>
> >If you grasp the concept of a show trial, then you will understand that
> >both sides are actually different faces of the same trial.]
> If you can show some evidence of it, I may consider it. But you do
> forget in a 'show' trial where the defendent has provided council, the
> defendant is guilty. 'The show' is in exchange for a 'not guilty'.
> [Look, a show trial has nothing to do with justice, or with who did
what. It's a play, performed for the public. Simpson wasn't in on it.
But at least some of his attorneys undoubtedly were.]
> >[Well, read the Lange and Vannatter book. Read the stuff about Ameli.
> >You tell me. Were they complete strangers?]
> From the evidence, yes.[Go back and read the book. Ron and Nicole were an item. -bob]
confused
"Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>[When I said that they all love OJ, my tongue was firmly planted
>in cheek. Nevertheless, I don't ascribe any personal animus
>behind this crime. It was a planned job, done for the purpose
>of causing racial strife, weakening our protections under the
>judicial system, etc. As far as the cap and glove and not the knife,
>yes. -bob]
You poor deluded soul.
Robert C. Miller
> >of drugs in the world surrounding Nicole and Ron, the Mezzaluna,
> >Keith Z., etc.
> You forget the biggie, the one that was found positive for drugs,
> Simpson.
of accuracy now. For ex, when doing hair tests to check for drugs,
there are often false positives for any marijuana molecules on
hair (as in walking through a room where someone may have smoked
some) versus in hair. Which is all irrelevant as to Simpson. If
Simpson smoked dope the night of the murders, he'd be driving that
Bronco to the 7-11, not Bundy.]
> >At the criminal trial, we hear about the randomness of Goldman
> >just happening to show up at Nicole's, but there is plenty of
> >information about the two of them working out together at the
> >same gym, that Goldman's boss (Debello) had warned him about
> >messing around with Nicole,
> Yep, plenty of information, yet neither side introduced it into court.
> Why was that?[Well, are you denying the information? Look at Lange and Vannatter's
book, they reproduce the report they wrote on what Debello told them
on the morning of the 13th. You are right that the prosecution didn't
enter that information, and you are also right that the defense wasn't
terribly vigorous in pushing that information. One might argue that
the defense's motive was to not give another motive for Simpson to
want to off Goldman, but there is nothing to indicate that he'd have
known that Goldman was going to be there. If you grasp the concept of
a show trial, then you will understand that both sides are actually
different faces of the same trial.]
>
> >No, the truth about their relationship was deliberately hidden by
> >the prosecution, and the media went along, in order to push the
> >prosecution's version of events.
> Oh, you mean that the prosecution 'hide' the possible motive of
> jealously and the media went along. Of course, it isn't possible, not in
> the least, likely, that these reports of yours are wrong, is it? It
> couldn't be that the reason none of these things weren't introduced into
> court by either side or exploited in the press is that they weren't
> defensible, could it?[Well, read the Lange and Vannatter book. Read the stuff about Ameli.
Robert Hickey
In <5pgk9j$v...@camel4.mindspring.com> alwalker <"keep it"@stone
like.thee> writes:
>Clio wrote:
>> IMO, not seeing and not being aren't the same thing.
>
> Exactamundo Clio, park even said on cross, he just didnt notice
>the bronco, it could very well have been there, and he just not notice
>it.
So does the same go for the people who said the Killer didn't have cuts
on his hand from the plane? Just 'cause they didn't see them is not
reason to believe with absolute certainty that he had no cuts.
Hell, he even *said* he cut himself (the razor-sharp cellphone,
remember?) before catching the plane. God, you're (or should I say
"your"...) gullible!
Sorry I wasted my time replying to you, goofus, I forgot I was
killfiled.....HHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Robert