Candace Garvey Tells Time
Walter Bennett
prosecutorial wall.
Mr. Cochran: AND LET'S TELL THE COURT AND JURY, HOW LONG DID THIS
CONCERT LAST, THIS RECITAL LAST FROM BEGINNING TO END?
A I WOULD SAY ABOUT TWO HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES APPROXIMATELY.
Q SO WHEN YOU FIRST WALKED IN, WHAT TIME OF THE EVENING WAS IT?
A IT WAS FIVE O'CLOCK.
Q AND SO THAT YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT LASTED UNTIL ABOUT 7:15?
A YES.
A little further in her testimony Mrs. Garvey gives us a bit more
insight on when the Browns departed. She informs Mr. Cochran that:
Mr. Cochran: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU LEFT THEN THE PAUL REVERE MIDDLE SCHOOL
AT ABOUT 7:15 THAT AFTERNOON, RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q LAST TIME YOU SAW MR. SIMPSON THAT EVENING WHEN HE WAS AT PAUL REVERE
WAS AT ABOUT THAT SAME TIME, 7:15 OR A LITTLE BEFORE?
A YES.
Q DID YOU EVER SEE HIM OUTSIDE LIKE YOU SAW HIM IN THE VIDEO, SMILING?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER OF THIS WITNESS AT THIS POINT, YOUR
HONOR
Prior to this testimony, Candace had stated that Simpson had not left
the auditorium. Was he sharing the moment with his daughter giving her
flowers? Thus, if her testimony is true and correct (While I do not
doubt Candace's friendship with Nicole, I wonder about her veracity -
she couldn't see the man sitting next to Simpson when she stood right
next to Simpson because it was to dark, but she could see the angry look
on Simpson face from across the room) and if she left at 7:15, Simpson
and Justin had not done the father and son, "Wow, you are getting
heavy," act for the camera. So, to be fair, we must slip that 7:15
time a bit more.
The Browns stayed to the very end. Does this tell anyone the earliest
time that the dinner party could have left the school and arrived at the
restaurant? Think about it; it's taken five years so far, but I am sure
it will come to some of you real soon.
Wagner, help me out here, if the recital ended at 7:15, if Simpson was
not outside yet, if Ron hadn't directed his actors, how long would you
estimate that it would take two car loads of people to load up and drive
from the school to the Mezzaluna and then disembark, group up, enter the
restaurant together, be seated, and order? Twenty minutes, is that fair?
Remember, there was some interpersonal relationships going on at the
school.
Using Crawford's time of arrival of 6:30 to 7 and departure of 8:30 to
9, the party was in the restaurant for an hour and an half to two hours.
Tanner's 6:30ish to 8:30 is undefined. So, let's bracket 6:30 by 15
minutes on either side. Now, the dinner group stayed at the Mezzalune 1
hour and 45 minutes to 2 hours and 15 minutes. Tia Gavin is a bit more
precise than her co-workers. She has the group arriving at 6:45 to 6:50
for a 6:30 reservation and leaving at 8:30 to 9 or 8:45ish. Guess
Nicole was hoping that Sydney was going to perform early in the show.
Tia verifies that my use of a 15 minutes bracket is justifiable. Once
again we are faced with a time at the restaurant of 1 hour and 45
minutes to 2 hours and 15 minutes. I am going with Tia's times since
she was directly involved with the party. The total time the order was
open is not a guess. It was 1 hour and 14 minutes. Splitting the 31
minutes in excess of that period in half would allow 16 minutes to be
seated and order and 15 minutes at the end of the meal to pay and leave.
Now, taking the earliest time the party could have arrived at the
restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
Now let Juditha make the call at 9:37.
I love a mystery!
It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot,
irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is
known, but to question it.
-J. Bronowski
[The Ascent of Man]
Robert Miller
Walter Bennett wrote:
[And now the CHP is saying that the drive back to Dana Point was
two to two and a half hours on that Sunday night. Nine-fifteen plus
two and a half hours would put the clock at 10:45. That would give
time for farewells, use of the bathroom to empty the bladder after
a big dinner and a long drive. Then, around 11 pm, Juditha could
call her daughter. This is after Allan Park has pulled the limo into
Rockingham. The golf bag is loaded. Simpson has showered. Kato
has heard the thumps. Park has missed seeing the Bronco. The
old man has walked his dog past the Bundy murder scene twenty
minutes earlier. Nicole is still alive. The candles are lit. The children
are asleep. The bath is drawn. Someone's jacket is hanging on a
chair in the kitchen.]
carrot
Libraryboy
carrot <carrot...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <37F60E15...@slip.net>, Robert says...
>> [And now the CHP is saying that the drive back to Dana Point was
>>two to two and a half hours on that Sunday night. Nine-fifteen plus
>>two and a half hours would put the clock at 10:45. That would give
>>time for farewells, use of the bathroom to empty the bladder after
>>a big dinner and a long drive.
You forgot to mention the time to read the first couple of chapters of
Great Expectations out loud to the asembled family members after dinner.
In your scenario, what was the sequence of calls, and who called who at
what time, after The Browns' supposed arrival at home at 10:45? Also, if
the Browns arrived at 10:45, what time do you think Goldman left the
restaurant?
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
Oh sure, there you go again with those damn details! You sure know how
to screw up one of [Bob's] wet dreams.
Prien
home,
>ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
>Date: Sat, 02 October 1999 04:09 AM EDT
>Message-id: <23837-37...@storefull-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
summarized the testimony relating to the time the Browns spent at the recital
as follows:
>Now, taking the earliest time the party could have arrived at the
>restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
>gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
>
>Now let Juditha make the call at 9:37.
Walter, that sure looks like the last nail in the coffin for the prosution's
case.
That, I think also accounts for the statement in the petition on behalf of
Simpson that the Browns must have been traveling well over 100 miles per hour
to make it.
Sure is a mystery, isn't it.
ThePuppetMaster
Nope, the only mystery is why you can't explain how Nicole could have
possibly called Ron to bring the glasses to her before 10pm if as you
claim she didn't know they were missing until Juditha called her at
11pm. This is only the ninth opportunity you've been invited to answer
that question. That sure looks like the last nail in the coffin for
your fantasy.
Robert Miller
carrot wrote:
> In article <37F60E15...@slip.net>, Robert says...
> >
> >
> >
> >> Now, taking the earliest time the party could have arrived at the
> >> restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
> >> gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
> >>
> >> Now let Juditha make the call at 9:37.
> >>
> >> I love a mystery!
> >>
> >> It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot,
> >> irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is
> >> known, but to question it.
> >>
> >> -J. Bronowski
> >> [The Ascent of Man]
> >
> > [And now the CHP is saying that the drive back to Dana Point was
> >two to two and a half hours on that Sunday night. Nine-fifteen plus
> >two and a half hours would put the clock at 10:45. That would give
> >time for farewells, use of the bathroom to empty the bladder after
> >a big dinner and a long drive. Then, around 11 pm, Juditha could
> >call her daughter. This is after Allan Park has pulled the limo into
> >Rockingham. The golf bag is loaded. Simpson has showered. Kato
> >has heard the thumps. Park has missed seeing the Bronco. The
> >old man has walked his dog past the Bundy murder scene twenty
> >minutes earlier. Nicole is still alive. The candles are lit. The children
> >are asleep. The bath is drawn. Someone's jacket is hanging on a
> >chair in the kitchen.]
> >
>
> Bob, you ignorant slut.
>
> rotfl
> bm.
[I wonder where ignorant slut is in your universe compared
to, say, cretin. The latter is a putdown suggesting
an intellectual superiority, the former suggesting a
moral superiority additionally. And yet, as you have
displayed to us time and again, you are a cowardly
little twit. Does this mean that you can better appreciate
the agony of self-hate in which you writhe? Does
your greater intellect provide you richer experiences
during your episodes of self-loathing? When you
set yourself on fire should we piss on you?]
Robert Miller
Libraryboy wrote:
> In article <7t57s3$2b...@edrn.newsguy.com>,
> carrot <carrot...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <37F60E15...@slip.net>, Robert says...
> >> [And now the CHP is saying that the drive back to Dana Point was
> >>two to two and a half hours on that Sunday night. Nine-fifteen plus
> >>two and a half hours would put the clock at 10:45. That would give
> >>time for farewells, use of the bathroom to empty the bladder after
> >>a big dinner and a long drive.
>
> You forgot to mention the time to read the first couple of chapters of
> Great Expectations out loud to the asembled family members after dinner.
>
> In your scenario, what was the sequence of calls, and who called who at
> what time, after The Browns' supposed arrival at home at 10:45? Also, if
> the Browns arrived at 10:45, what time do you think Goldman left the
> restaurant?
[I thought they were reading VALLEY OF THE DOLLS in June 1994.
I do not know who may have called from the Browns' house before
eleven that night. I do not have an immediate explanation of the glasses,
and nothing in those telephone calls precludes Goldman from having
left the Mezzaluna before ten. You figure if they were going to Dr.
Ameli for counseling, Ron probably had Nicole's phone number.
It appears that someone at the Mezz is not telling nothing but the
truth. Opens up another can of worms.]
Robert Miller
ThePuppetMaster wrote:
> On 02 Oct 1999 22:02:29 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>
> >To account for the Brown arrival and departure from the dinner and their trip
> >home,
> >>ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
> >>Date: Sat, 02 October 1999 04:09 AM EDT
> >>Message-id: <23837-37...@storefull-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
> >>
> >
> >summarized the testimony relating to the time the Browns spent at the recital
> >as follows:
> >>Now, taking the earliest time the party could have arrived at the
> >>restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
> >>gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
> >>
> >>Now let Juditha make the call at 9:37.
> >
> >Walter, that sure looks like the last nail in the coffin for the prosution's
> >case.
> >
> >That, I think also accounts for the statement in the petition on behalf of
> >Simpson that the Browns must have been traveling well over 100 miles per hour
> >to make it.
> >
> >
> >Sure is a mystery, isn't it.
>
> Nope, the only mystery is why you can't explain how Nicole could have
> possibly called Ron to bring the glasses to her before 10pm if as you
> claim she didn't know they were missing until Juditha called her at
> 11pm. This is only the ninth opportunity you've been invited to answer
> that question. That sure looks like the last nail in the coffin for
> your fantasy.
[Maybe Ron didn't come over with the glasses at all. Maybe
he was just going to come over. You know, the candles, the
drawn bath, the denim jacket in the kitchen. Maybe Ron
had gotten a piece and before he left Nicole's she got her call
from mom. Maybe Nigg or DeBello were supposed to
bring the glasses over, and it turned out to be a group of
killers. Gee, that would mean that Karen Crawford lied
about the events that night, but we already know that
the Browns, in changing their story about their trip home
had lied about the times. Did Michael Nigg lie about
his whereabouts that night? How about DeBello?]
dick wagner
You address me and so I put my oar in here where I otherwise might not.
You say, "Wagner, help me out here, if the recital ended at 7:15 [as
Candace Garvey testified]..." Then you go on to estimate that it would
be twenty minutes from the "end of the recital" to arrival at the
Mezzaluna. Since this conflicts with the statements by people at the
restaurant that Nicole’s party arrived between 6:30 and 7:00 (and
implicitly invoking the principle that they can not arrive at the
Mezzaluna before they leave Paul Revere) you ask me to explain. ME!
Why poor me? But since you ask; I will do what I can.
As I have often said, it is my practice to believe (almost) ALL
witnesses and NO attorneys until there is an irresolvable
contradiction. I do believe you have stumbled onto one of those here,
Walter. So, we can believe Candace (and probably any preprinted program
which scheduled two hours for the event) or believe Tia Gavin, Karen
Crawford, and John DeBello, all of whom gave estimates in the 6:30 to
7:00 range. Incidentally, Nicole herself implicitly agreed with the
Mezzaluna employees, since she scheduled the dinner for 6:30 and thereby
estimated that would be her arrival time, whatever the period allocated
by the printed program. So, just on the weight of sheer numbers,
Candace is outvoted.
But more than that is the circumstances of the observation. The
Mezzaluna employees were at work, and the time of day is at least of a
small importance to what they are doing, and it can be expected they
would pay some attention to it. This is particularly true for Crawford
that has a reservation book in front of her, and has to direct bus boys
to arrange tables and prepare for guests that are expected at particular
times. The people who went to the dance recital, on the other hand, are
in a circumstance where they are not much concerned with time
(typically). Once they get there, they are going to stay until it ends,
whether that is sooner or later than planned. Then, because it is the
end of the daylight hours on a Sunday, they will proceed in free style
to have dinner. Time is not real important. They will have dinner when
dinner is before them, whatever the time. So, I think that Candace was
not the most reliable person to ask about the time that the recital
ended.
As to the elapsed time from the end of the recital and arrival at the
restaurant... I feel quite confident in telling you that the travel
time alone is five minutes. Marla took me over this same route on our
last meeting, and I was surprised myself that it is so direct, short,
and uncomplicated. Practically no traffic, and few signals. Only two
streets. Five minutes, Walter; take it to the bank. But there is also
the time to applaud, present a bouquet, pose for pictures, and all of
those pleasantries. The five minutes swells to fifteen, I guess, but I
am not positive about this.
My best understanding of ALL of the Mezzaluna testimony is that the
party walked through the door at 6:40. Backing up fifteen minutes from
that means that the recital was over at 6:25, which is just shy of 1-1/2
hours for a 2 hour event. Frankly, that is surprising to me, Walter,
but it is possible. We are, after all, dealing with an amateur
production involving kids. This then leads me to understand Candace’s
experience as being that she thought the recital ended "about quarter
after the hour," but she did not realize it was "about 6:15" and not
"about 7:15". A later reconstruction by referring to the program would
lead her to think it had been 7:15. Also, the sun is not real helpful
in this situation, since on that day sunset was about 8:15, and was a
considerable time after both 6:15 and 7:15.
This is just my comfortable understanding of the situation, Walter, and
I realize that what sits well with me may not with you.
--dick wagner
confused
>>PuppetMaster wrote:
<snips>
>> Anyone driving
>>65 on the 405 at that time of evening is
>>going to receive more than their fare
>>share of single finger salutes.
>
>Not if you are driving a pusher equipped black and white with California
>Highway Patrol on the side and tri-colored emergency lights on top.
Were they?
MIRSE
>From: ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
>Date: Sat, 02 October 1999 04:09 AM EDT
Now, taking the earliest time the party could have arrived at the
restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
Now let Juditha make the call at 9:37.
I love a mystery!
*********
Does anyone remember what time the ice cream man said that Nicole and the
kids entered the ice cream shop that was near the restaurant? I forgot.
Thanks. Mi...@aol.com
ThePuppetMaster
Mirse, what's more important than that is the time that Tia Gavin said
they arrived at Mezzaluna. She recalled they were late about 15
minutes for their 6:30 reservation, which put them there at about 6:45
to 6:50. Here is her testimony on that point.
Q NOW, DID YOU HAPPEN TO SEE NICOLE BROWN AND HER PARTY ARRIVE THAT
NIGHT?
A YES.
Q ABOUT WHAT TIME DID THEY GET THERE?
A THEY WERE LATE FOR THEIR RESERVATION ABOUT 15 OR 20 MINUTES. SO I'D
SAY 6:45 OR 6:50.
Q HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE IN HER PARTY?
A 10.
Q DID IT HAVE -- DID IT INCLUDE ANY CHILDREN?
A YES. THERE WERE FOUR I THINK.
Q HAD YOU EVER MET HER BEFORE THAT NIGHT?
A NO, I HAD NOT.
Q THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME?
A UH-HUH. YES.
Q DO YOU RECALL WHAT SHE WAS WEARING?
A YES. A BLACK DRESS, SHORT BLACK DRESS WITH A BLACK BLAZER OVER IT.
Q WAS IT LIKE A HALTER DRESS?
A YES.
Q DO YOU RECALL WHETHER THERE WERE ANY OLDER PEOPLE IN THE PARTY WITH
HER?
A YES, THERE WERE. THERE WAS AN OLDER GENTLEMAN AND WOMAN AS WELL.
Q AND WERE THERE SOME WOMEN APPROXIMATELY HER AGE AS WELL?
A YES.
Q DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHETHER SHE HAD A DATE OR AN ESCORT WITH
HER?
A I THINK THE ONLY GENTLEMAN THERE WAS HER FATHER.
Q DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME NICOLE AND HER PARTY LEFT?
A BETWEEN 8:30 AND 9:00, 8:45ISH.
In spite of what some bogus webpage claims, the drive from Mezzaluna
to Dana Point is about 65 miles, and on a Sunday night at 8:30 can
easily be driven in about 45 to 50 minutes considering the average
speed on the 405 South to Dana Point is a minimum of 70-75mphs.
Anyone driving 65 on the 405 at that time of evening is going to
receive more than their fare share of single finger salutes.
Marsha Clark asked "AND YOU RECALL SEEING RON ACTUALLY LEAVE THE RESTAURANT AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?"
To which Karen Crawford replied "YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE DOOR."
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>
>
>ThePuppetMaster wrote:
>
>> On 02 Oct 1999 22:02:29 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>>
>> >To account for the Brown arrival and departure from the dinner and their trip
>> >home,
>> >>ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
>> >>Date: Sat, 02 October 1999 04:09 AM EDT
>> >>Message-id: <23837-37...@storefull-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>> >>
>> >
>> >summarized the testimony relating to the time the Browns spent at the recital
>> >as follows:
>> >>Now, taking the earliest time the party could have arrived at the
>> >>restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
>> >>gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
>> >>
>> >>Now let Juditha make the call at 9:37.
>> >
>> >Walter, that sure looks like the last nail in the coffin for the prosution's
>> >case.
>> >
>> >That, I think also accounts for the statement in the petition on behalf of
>> >Simpson that the Browns must have been traveling well over 100 miles per hour
>> >to make it.
>> >
>> >
>> >Sure is a mystery, isn't it.
>>
>> Nope, the only mystery is why you can't explain how Nicole could have
>> possibly called Ron to bring the glasses to her before 10pm if as you
>> claim she didn't know they were missing until Juditha called her at
>> 11pm. This is only the ninth opportunity you've been invited to answer
>> that question. That sure looks like the last nail in the coffin for
>> your fantasy.
>
> [Maybe Ron didn't come over with the glasses at all. Maybe
>he was just going to come over. You know, the candles, the
>drawn bath, the denim jacket in the kitchen. Maybe Ron
>had gotten a piece and before he left Nicole's she got her call
>from mom. Maybe Nigg or DeBello were supposed to
>bring the glasses over, and it turned out to be a group of
>killers. Gee, that would mean that Karen Crawford lied
>about the events that night, but we already know that
>the Browns, in changing their story about their trip home
>had lied about the times. Did Michael Nigg lie about
>his whereabouts that night? How about DeBello?]
Gee [Bob], everyone seems to be telling lies except your hero. Imagine
that, all of these people with absolutely no reason to lie, no reason
to want to frame Simpson for murder, just get on that witness stand
and lie their asses off for no reason. With no regard for breaking the
law by committing perjury, with no concern they are lying to send an
innocent man to jail, they just hop up there and lie away. Now that is
almost as hard to believe as it is to try and believe Simpson was 100%
truthful.
Walter Bennett
>In spite of what some bogus webpage
>claims, the drive from Mezzaluna to Dana
>Point is about 65 miles, and on a Sunday
>night at 8:30 can easily be driven in about
>45 to 50 minutes considering the average
>speed on the 405 South to Dana Point is a
>minimum of 70-75mphs. Anyone driving
>65 on the 405 at that time of evening is
>going to receive more than their fare
>share of single finger salutes.
Not if you are driving a pusher equipped black and white with California
Highway Patrol on the side and tri-colored emergency lights on top.
The drive would be made at the legal speed limit by the California
Highway Patrol cruiser. That is what the CHP interviewee would state.
It would not be trying to equal the Brown's speed because that would be
breaking the law. If this issue were raised in a courtroom, the CHP
time, computed at the known speed limit, would survive. The speed and
time would be adjusted by any work the California Department of
Transportation was doing on the most probable route selected by the
Automobile Association of America.
Walter Bennett
me out
>here, if the recital ended at 7:15 [as
>Candace Garvey testified]..." Then you go
>on to estimate that it would be twenty
>minutes from the "end of the recital" to
>arrival at the Mezzaluna. Since this
>conflicts with the statements by people at
>the restaurant that Nicole's party arrived
>between 6:30 and 7:00 (and implicitly
>invoking the principle that they can not
>arrive at the Mezzaluna before they leave
>Paul Revere) you ask me to explain. ME!
>Why poor me? But since you ask; I will do
>what I can.
You could have done much more than you did. You could have opened your
mind to an area of testimony that is not thread bare.
> As I have often said,
it is my
>practice to believe (almost) ALL witnesses
>and NO attorneys until there is an
>irresolvable contradiction. I do believe you
>have stumbled onto one of those here,
>Walter. So, we can believe Candace (and
>probably any preprinted program which
>scheduled two hours for the event) or
>believe Tia Gavin, Karen Crawford, and
>John DeBello, all of whom gave estimates
>in the 6:30 to 7:00 range. Incidentally,
>Nicole herself implicitly agreed with the
>Mezzaluna employees, since she
>scheduled the dinner for 6:30 and thereby
>estimated that would be her arrival time,
>whatever the period allocated by the
>printed program. So, just on the weight of
>sheer numbers, Candace is outvoted.
Candace is not an attorney; she was not a defense witness. Her
emotional outburst on the stand showed her hostility to Simpson's cause.
But more importantly, you could have read and heeded to Judge Ito's jury
instructions:
<cite>
You are not bound to decide an issue of fact in accordance with the
testimony of a number of witnesses which does not convince you, as
against the testimony of a lesser number or other evidence which appeals
to your mind with more convincing force. You may not disregard the
testimony of the greater number of witnesses merely from caprice, whim,
prejudice or from a desire to favor one side as against the other. You
must not decide an issue by the simple process of counting the number of
witnesses who have testified on the opposing sides, the final test is
not in the relative number of witnesses, but in the convincing force of
the evidence.
You should give the testimony of a single witness whatever weight you
think it deserves. However, testimony by one witness which you believe
concerning any fact is sufficient for the proof of that fact. You should
carefully review all evidence upon which the proof of such fact depends
<end cite>
In this case you should have taken Ito's advice.
> But more than that is
the
>circumstances of the observation. The
>Mezzaluna employees were at work, and
>the time of day is at least of a small
>importance to what they are doing, and it
>can be expected they would pay some
>attention to it. This is particularly true for
>Crawford that has a reservation book in
>front of her, and has to direct bus boys t
You state that the employees had a better handle on the time than
Candace Garvey. May I try to dispute that idea. If what you say is
possible, the recital and all the interpersonal relation that were
documented to have happened were over at 6:30, Candace, who left the
recital at 5:30 before her daughter performed, to go and be with her new
baby, returned to find the parking lot empty and the recital over. But
her testimony destroys that idea. She left at 5:30 and returned at, or
about, 6:30. I would say she was keeping very good tabs on the clock up
to the point she started to return to the school. After arriving back
at the school, I just feel that she would be able to tell whether she
remained there for more than a minute or two.
Mr. Cochran: SO WHEN YOU FIRST WALKED IN, WHAT TIME OF THE EVENING WAS
IT?
A IT WAS FIVE O'CLOCK.
Q AND SO THAT YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT LASTED UNTIL ABOUT 7:15?
A YES.
Q AND OF THAT TWO HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES, MA'AM, WHAT TIME WERE YOU
OUT OF THE AUDITORIUM, DID YOU LEAVE AND GO BACK HOME?
A I GUESS I LEFT AT ABOUT 5:30 AND CAME BACK AROUND 6:30.
Remember, she came back because her daughter and several other children
had not performed.
What else was on Fleishmans (sic) video. What was on Candace's
husband's video (also in Garvey's testimony). The identify of others on
either video would probably be known to other parents, children, or
teachers. Who else was shooting videos. I am sure that if this method
of choosing the time the recital enden had been used, my group of at
arms length witnesses would be far bigger than your group. Don't want
to use undocumented videos, then how about just the parents of the
children who performed near the end. They would know if they left
before 6:30 or not.
dick, it did not happen the way the prosecution said it did no matter
what the employees of the Mezzaluna testified to.
Now, a subject must be address that has never been mentioned by me.
Maybe now is still to early. Could the employees of the Mezzaluna have
a need to lie; no, that is to harsh. Could the employees of the
Mezzaluna have a need to agree with the prosecution?
A hint. How does the order machine know that children are eating. In
addition to indicating the server, it's three functions are to indicate
to management the dishes that are popular and the dishes that are not.
Maintain stock. And provide management with data for the worksheet to
use when computing tips earned by an employee for IRS.
If I feed ten people and order only nine plates, what happens to the
money paid for the tenth plate? No, you can't say that it will be
noticed because customers, at least in Nicole's case included the tip in
the bill. Thus, any monies above and beyond the price of the meal would
be considered a tip. I call it the Employee Imposed European System.
It also works best when everyone shares in the ill gotten gains.
We are told by Crawford that the machine has never worked correctly.
How long do you believe any self-respecting owner is going to put up
with that. His records are incorrect. If there is an audit, he is up
shit creek with out a paddle. Not only that, since the time span is
long, the IRS investigator WILL consider the owner a party to the scam.
Do you think the police may have stumbled on to something like this and
used it to pressure the Mezzaluna employees? No, that's not possible.
It would widen the conspiracy to convict and innocence man to
unspeakable proportions.
ThePuppetMaster
Bennett) wrote:
>>PuppetMaster wrote:
>
>>In spite of what some bogus webpage
>>claims, the drive from Mezzaluna to Dana
>>Point is about 65 miles, and on a Sunday
>>night at 8:30 can easily be driven in about
>>45 to 50 minutes considering the average
>>speed on the 405 South to Dana Point is a
>>minimum of 70-75mphs. Anyone driving
>>65 on the 405 at that time of evening is
>>going to receive more than their fare
>>share of single finger salutes.
>
>Not if you are driving a pusher equipped black and white with California
>Highway Patrol on the side and tri-colored emergency lights on top.
>
>The drive would be made at the legal speed limit by the California
>Highway Patrol cruiser. That is what the CHP interviewee would state.
>It would not be trying to equal the Brown's speed because that would be
>breaking the law. If this issue were raised in a courtroom, the CHP
>time, computed at the known speed limit, would survive. The speed and
>time would be adjusted by any work the California Department of
>Transportation was doing on the most probable route selected by the
>Automobile Association of America.
>
>I love a mystery!
>
>It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot,
>irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is
>known, but to question it.
>
> -J. Bronowski
> [The Ascent of Man]
I don't care what method they choose to use, the distance involved is
less than 70 miles. At 65 mph that is still only about an hour and 10
minute drive. That's a far cry from 2 to 2-1/2 hours as that bogus web
site claims. As for possible routes to Dana Point, from Brentwood
there are only two, one is down Pacific Coast Highway, the other is
down the 405. Sorry Waldo, there ain't no mystery except how this
clown expects any judge to believe that Dana Point is 130 to 200 miles
from Brentwood, because that is the only way it could take anyone that
long to make that trip unless they were walking.
Robert Miller
ThePuppetMaster wrote:
[People don't lie their asses off for no reason. You just don't acknowledge
the reasons. Did DeBello have a reason not to testify at the criminal trial? Did
Michael Nigg have a reason for being gunned down execution-style?
Simpson didn't testify at the criminal trial, as you may recall if you put on
your thinking cap.]
Robert Miller
MIRSE wrote:
> >Subject: Candace Garvey Tells Time
> >From: ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
> >Date: Sat, 02 October 1999 04:09 AM EDT
>
> Now, taking the earliest time the party could have arrived at the
> restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
> gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
>
> Now let Juditha make the call at 9:37.
>
> I love a mystery!
> *********
> Does anyone remember what time the ice cream man said that Nicole and the
> kids entered the ice cream shop that was near the restaurant? I forgot.
> Thanks. Mi...@aol.com
[He said between nine and ten.]
Robert Miller
ThePuppetMaster wrote:
> In spite of what some bogus webpage claims, the drive from Mezzaluna
> to Dana Point is about 65 miles, and on a Sunday night at 8:30 can
> easily be driven in about 45 to 50 minutes considering the average
> speed on the 405 South to Dana Point is a minimum of 70-75mphs.
> Anyone driving 65 on the 405 at that time of evening is going to
> receive more than their fare share of single finger salutes.
>
> Marsha Clark asked "AND YOU RECALL SEEING RON ACTUALLY LEAVE THE RESTAURANT AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?"
>
> To which Karen Crawford replied "YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE DOOR."
[So I guess that the ice cream store clerk lied, eh?]
Robert Miller
Walter Bennett wrote:
[However, the ice cream man was lying through his teeth. Or
ice cream store clerks have worse memories than waiters.]
Libraryboy
Walter Bennett <ste...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>PuppetMaster wrote:
>
>>In spite of what some bogus webpage
>>claims, the drive from Mezzaluna to Dana
>>Point is about 65 miles, and on a Sunday
>>night at 8:30 can easily be driven in about
>>45 to 50 minutes considering the average
>>speed on the 405 South to Dana Point is a
>>minimum of 70-75mphs. Anyone driving
>>65 on the 405 at that time of evening is
>>going to receive more than their fare
>>share of single finger salutes.
>
>Highway Patrol on the side and tri-colored emergency lights on top.
>
>The drive would be made at the legal speed limit by the California
>Highway Patrol cruiser. That is what the CHP interviewee would state.
>It would not be trying to equal the Brown's speed because that would be
>breaking the law. If this issue were raised in a courtroom, the CHP
>time, computed at the known speed limit, would survive. The speed and
>time would be adjusted by any work the California Department of
>Transportation was doing on the most probable route selected by the
>Automobile Association of America.
You wouldn't want to get Simpson off the hook by playing fast and loose
with the facts, would you? Let's see, I wonder who will be the first to
claim the police got the Browns to lie about the time they got home by
threatening them with a speeding ticket.
BL Parker
carrot...@newsguy.com (carrot) Re: Candace Garvey Tells Time
This friend of Nicole's and Simpson hater nails important times to the
prosecutorial wall.
Mr. Cochran: AND LET'S TELL THE COURT AND JURY, HOW LONG DID THIS
CONCERT LAST, THIS RECITAL LAST FROM BEGINNING TO END?
A I WOULD SAY ABOUT TWO HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES APPROXIMATELY.
Q AND SO THAT YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT LASTED UNTIL ABOUT 7:15?
A YES.
insight on when the Browns departed. She informs Mr. Cochran that:
Mr. Cochran: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU LEFT THEN THE PAUL REVERE MIDDLE SCHOOL
AT ABOUT 7:15 THAT AFTERNOON, RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q LAST TIME YOU SAW MR. SIMPSON THAT EVENING WHEN HE WAS AT PAUL REVERE
WAS AT ABOUT THAT SAME TIME, 7:15 OR A LITTLE BEFORE?
order and 15 minutes at the end of the meal to pay and leave.
restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
Now let Juditha make the call at 9:37.
It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot,
irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is
known, but to question it.
-J. Bronowski
[The Ascent of Man]
was two to two and a half hours on that Sunday night. Nine-fifteen plus
two and a half hours would put the clock at 10:45. That would give time
for farewells, use of the bathroom to empty the bladder after a big
daughter. This is after Allan Park has pulled the limo into Rockingham.
The golf bag is loaded. Simpson has showered. Kato has heard the thumps.
Park has missed seeing the Bronco. The old man has walked his dog past
the Bundy murder scene twenty minutes earlier. Nicole is still alive.
The candles are lit. The children are asleep. The bath is drawn.
Someone's jacket is hanging on a chair in the kitchen.]
***********************************************
Bob, you ignorant slut.
rotfl
bm.
Carrot, I have accused you of contributing
little to this group, for a professor of higher learning you have sunk
to a new low.
cordially
b.l.p.
"Treat people as if they were what you think they ought to be, so they
can become what they should be".
MIRSE
>From: ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
>Date: Sun, 03 October 1999 05:56
dick, it did not happen the way the prosecution said it did no matter
what the employees of the Mezzaluna testified to.
********
I'm confused. I thought that Simpson's defense team---who probably went
through every piece of prosecution evidence with a fine tooth comb---accepted
the evidence that Mrs. Brown made her phone call around 9:30 p.m.
1. The neighhbor who returned from his trip and checked his mail: Didn't he
see the Akita dog wandering in the street between 10:30 and 11 p.m.?
2. Schwab: Didn't Schwab check the Akita and find blood on the dog around
11p.m.?
3. The two events above tells me that Nicole and Goldman were killed BEFORE
11p.m.
4. Resnick supposedly called Nicole that night from the rehab center. Anyone
have any idea what time the call was made?
5. Brown's trip home: How far is the Brown's home from Brentwood? Is it 65,
100, or 200 miles?
6. Where I live, it is unofficially accepted that people can drive at least
5 miles over the speed limit. For example, if the speed limit is 55 mph, then
most people seem to drive 60 to 65 mph. Those of you who live in California,
what is the speed limit on the highway from Brentwood to the Brown's home, and
what is the unofficial accepted speed limit in California over the posted
speed limit, especially on a Sunday night?
Thanks. Mi...@aol.com
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>
>
>ThePuppetMaster wrote:
>
>> On 03 Oct 1999 04:10:04 GMT, mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
>>
>> >>Subject: Candace Garvey Tells Time
>> >>From: ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
>> >>Date: Sat, 02 October 1999 04:09 AM EDT
>> >
>> >
>> >Now, taking the earliest time the party could have arrived at the
>> >restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
>> >gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
>> >
>> >Now let Juditha make the call at 9:37.
>> >
>> >I love a mystery!
>> A YES.
>> Q DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHETHER SHE HAD A DATE OR AN ESCORT WITH
>> HER?
>> A I THINK THE ONLY GENTLEMAN THERE WAS HER FATHER.
>> Q DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME NICOLE AND HER PARTY LEFT?
>> A BETWEEN 8:30 AND 9:00, 8:45ISH.
>>
>> In spite of what some bogus webpage claims, the drive from Mezzaluna
>> to Dana Point is about 65 miles, and on a Sunday night at 8:30 can
>> easily be driven in about 45 to 50 minutes considering the average
>> speed on the 405 South to Dana Point is a minimum of 70-75mphs.
>> Anyone driving 65 on the 405 at that time of evening is going to
>> receive more than their fare share of single finger salutes.
>>
>> Marsha Clark asked "AND YOU RECALL SEEING RON ACTUALLY LEAVE THE RESTAURANT AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?"
>>
>> To which Karen Crawford replied "YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE DOOR."
>
> [So I guess that the ice cream store clerk lied, eh?]
Probably not, more than likely he just made an honest mistake as to
the time.
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>
>
>ThePuppetMaster wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 21:32:31 -0700, Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >ThePuppetMaster wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 02 Oct 1999 22:02:29 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >To account for the Brown arrival and departure from the dinner and their trip
>> >> >home,
>> >> >>ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
>> >> >>Date: Sat, 02 October 1999 04:09 AM EDT
>> >> >>Message-id: <23837-37...@storefull-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >summarized the testimony relating to the time the Browns spent at the recital
>> >> >as follows:
>> >> >>Now, taking the earliest time the party could have arrived at the
>> >> >>restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
>> >> >>gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Now let Juditha make the call at 9:37.
>> >> >
>> Marsha Clark asked "AND YOU RECALL SEEING RON ACTUALLY LEAVE THE RESTAURANT AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?"
>>
>> To which Karen Crawford replied "YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE DOOR."
>
> [People don't lie their asses off for no reason. You just don't acknowledge
>the reasons. Did DeBello have a reason not to testify at the criminal trial? Did
>Michael Nigg have a reason for being gunned down execution-style?
>Simpson didn't testify at the criminal trial, as you may recall if you put on
>your thinking cap.]
DeBello had one of the best reasons I can think of. He wasn't called
as a witness. But then again neither was Col. Sanders, Ronald
McDonald, or The Clown with the giant dome. So what?
I would imagine anyone gunned down "execution" style unless done by
accident, had a reason why they died that way. Since it happens many
times a year why do you feel Nigg is somehow connected to Simpson?
Yes, I'm quite aware that Simpson didn't testify at the Criminal
trial, but he did in the civil trial and did one hell of a job showing
how he's a total liar.
dick wagner
Not only do you have your opinion, which you try to foist as fact, but
you presume to know how I think, and instruct me on a more correct way
of doing it.
I had said that ONE FACTOR in evaluating conflicting testimony was the
number of witnesses on the two sides of the question, and you give me
judge's instructions that say I should not consider that alone. I did
not consider that alone, I also went on to tell you why the quality of
the experience was different for the two sets of witnesses. Your
assertion that I should have "heeded Ito's advice" is just an indication
that your reading comprehension need some work.
The alternative, believing a single witness's version when it is in
conflict with the testimony of every other witness and all other known
circumstances, is called "grasping at straws," Walter. No wonder life
is a mystery for you.
--dick wagner
Walter Bennett
Your post could not be read by my Webbie. This is what I got when I
opened the attachment.
MZP
Libraryboy
Sometimes it's not so bad having WebTV!
begin 644 Happy99.exe
Oops, delete unread.
ThePuppetMaster
>>Subject: Re: Candace Garvey Tells Time
>>From: ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
>>Date: Sun, 03 October 1999 05:56
>
>
>dick, it did not happen the way the prosecution said it did no matter
>what the employees of the Mezzaluna testified to.
>
>********
> I'm confused. I thought that Simpson's defense team---who probably went
>through every piece of prosecution evidence with a fine tooth comb---accepted
>the evidence that Mrs. Brown made her phone call around 9:30 p.m.
You're not confused, you're exactly correct in your thoughts. But to
Pro-J's this case cannot be viewed using logic and facts, to see this
from the Pro-J prospective you must answer each of your
questions/statements in the following manner.
>1. The neighhbor who returned from his trip and checked his mail: Didn't he
>see the Akita dog wandering in the street between 10:30 and 11 p.m.?
He lied.
>2. Schwab: Didn't Schwab check the Akita and find blood on the dog around
>11p.m.?
He lied too.
>3. The two events above tells me that Nicole and Goldman were killed BEFORE
>11p.m.
But your beliefs are based on lies created by the prosecution to
convict an innocent man.
>4. Resnick supposedly called Nicole that night from the rehab center. Anyone
>have any idea what time the call was made?
No because part of the conspiracy was getting the phone companies to
alter their billing records to frame Simpson.
>5. Brown's trip home: How far is the Brown's home from Brentwood? Is it 65,
>100, or 200 miles?
It doesn't matter, all that matters is it couldn't have been done in
the time required to place a 9:37 call.
>6. Where I live, it is unofficially accepted that people can drive at least
>5 miles over the speed limit. For example, if the speed limit is 55 mph, then
>most people seem to drive 60 to 65 mph. Those of you who live in California,
>what is the speed limit on the highway from Brentwood to the Brown's home, and
>what is the unofficial accepted speed limit in California over the posted
>speed limit, especially on a Sunday night?
Well you don't live here, and besides the LAPD, LADA, LASO, and
everyone that lives in LA conspired to frame Simpson.
> Thanks. Mi...@aol.com
See Mirse that is how you have to look at everything if you're going
to be a Pro-J. Forget logic, forget tests, forget documented records,
forget it all because it doesn't matter since everything that points
to Simpson's guilt had to have been planted.
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
DON'T OPEN THAT FILE!!!! I had a virus this morning that I either
received from usenet or in e-mail called Happy99.worm
it attached itself to my WSOCK32.dll. Every time I sent out e-mail or
a usenet post it sent that damned virus. I noticed it when about 5
posts I had answered suddenly went from 7 to 20 lines to over 200
lines. I've since repaired the damaged files on my system and canceled
the posts I had sent, but if you have those files on your system
delete them, do not attempt to run that program.
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
> [However, the ice cream man was lying through his teeth. Or
>ice cream store clerks have worse memories than waiters.]
Or as would be expected he had no reason to even notice what time it
was when she came in, or to even remember her from any other customer.
I'm sure that Nicole wasn't the only woman with 2 kids to walk into
Baskin-Robbins that night. He could easily have confused her with any
number of women with kids. Without prior knowledge that she was going
to be murdered an hour later by Simpson, why would she warrant any
special attention by some ice cream store employee.
Prien
>Robert Miller mil...@slip.net
>Date: Sun, 03 October 1999 10:25 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37F7676B...@slip.net>
quoted the the following reference the poster made to Crawford's testimony
> Marsha Clark asked "AND YOU RECALL SEEING RON ACTUALLY LEAVE THE RESTAURANT
>AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?"
(Prien's comment: its Marcia.)
>>
>> To which Karen Crawford replied "YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE DOOR."
>
> [So I guess that the ice cream store clerk lied, eh?]
>
Yeah, but at what TIME did the event occur. It's critical to note Clark asks
the COMPOUND QUESTIONS:
"Did you see Goldman leave the restaurant?"
and
"Do you know when that event occurred?"
To which Crawford ONLY ANSWERS (in effect): "I saw him leave."
She however also leaves the implication, thereby creating the illusion, that
she also knew it to be at 10:50.
This testimony is a con game.
ThePuppetMaster
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha spoken like a true Simpsonlicking hero
worshipping moron.
Marsha Clark asked "AND YOU RECALL SEEING RON ACTUALLY LEAVE THE RESTAURANT AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?"
To which Karen Crawford replied "YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE DOOR."
Prien
>ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
>Date: Sun, 03 October 1999 05:56 AM EDT
>Message-id: <22235-37F...@storefull-136.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
noted infered from the erros on the bill that:
>We are told by Crawford that the machine has never worked correctly.
>How long do you believe any self-respecting owner is going to put up
>with that. His records are incorrect. If there is an audit, he is up
>shit creek with out a paddle. Not only that, since the time span is
>long, the IRS investigator WILL consider the owner a party to the scam.
>
>Do you think the police may have stumbled on to something like this and
>used it to pressure the Mezzaluna employees? No, that's not possible.
>It would widen the conspiracy to convict and innocence man to
>unspeakable proportions.
>
>I love a mystery!
>
>It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot,
>irreverence to their studies; they are no
>We are told by Crawford that the machine has never worked correctly.
>How long do you believe any self-respecting owner is going to put up
>with that. His records are incorrect. If there is an audit, he is up
>shit creek with out a paddle. Not only that, since the time span is
>long, the IRS investigator WILL consider the owner a party to the scam.
>
>Do you think the police may have stumbled on to something like this and
>used it to pressure the Mezzaluna employees? No, that's not possible.
>It would widen the conspiracy to convict and innocence man to
>unspeakable proportions.
You are clicking on all cylinders. The things wrong with the customer bills
and the clock in the order register tells volumes about what must really have
been happending at the restaurant. None of it was kosher.
It is also worth noting with respect to Wagner's accounting of the recital time
that according to Kelly's comments during Denise's deposition, there were 33
acts on the program, with Sydney's peformance scheduled next to last, I
believe. Garvey's child was also peforming in one of the last if not the last
act.
Denise also mentioned there was a 15 minute intermission.
I have attended numerous recitals of this kind involving my daughter, and will
make only the following observations about how they went:
None started on time.
There was a lot of introductory stuff and promotional puffery by the producer
before each act about how well the children were doing which is naturally done
to encourage the parents to stay with (and pay for) their child's
participation.
They always drag on far beyond any scheduled ending time.
Parents afterwards spend a lot of time chit chatting while kids run around
being kids as they say their good-byes following the end of the class in which
they had been enrolled and for which the recital was the place of exposition
for their accomplishments.
There is not a chance in the universe that recital ended a New York nanosecond
before 7:00 p.m. NOT ONE NANOSECOND before.
That's period, paragraph, end of story.
The Mezzaluna witnesses are all either wrong or lying about the time. Period.
Walter Bennett
>>Walter Bennett wrote:
>>>PuppetMaster wrote:
>>><snips>
>>>Anyone driving
>>>65 on the 405 at that time of evening is
>>>going to receive more than their fare
>>>share of single finger salutes.
>>Not if you are driving a pusher equipped
>>black and white with California Highway
>>Patrol on the side and tri-colored
>>emergency lights on top.
>Were they?
Now I am confused. They "who." Surely, you are not implying that the
Browns stole a CHP cruiser and struck out for Dana Point with the lights
flashing.
I love a mystery!
It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot,
Robert H. Risch
>It is also worth noting with respect to Wagner's accounting of the recital time
>that according to Kelly's comments during Denise's deposition, there were 33
>acts on the program, with Sydney's peformance scheduled next to last, I
>believe. Garvey's child was also peforming in one of the last if not the last
>act.
>
Kelly was complaining about the highly detailed nature of the questions the
Bakers were asking. He may have been using hyperbole.
MR. KELLY: Theoretically she could explain or detail every act she saw, the
33 acts at the recital, and everything else.
>Denise also mentioned there was a 15 minute intermission.
>
I can't find that in her deposition. You have given us very little reason
to trust you, Prien. Better give more exact quotes and references.
Robert R.
---------
--had anyone else noticed how easily he'd pulled them off?
Paula Barbieri
confused
>MIRSE wrote:
>> Does anyone remember what time the ice cream man said that Nicole and the
>> kids entered the ice cream shop that was near the restaurant? I forgot.
>> Thanks. Mi...@aol.com
>
> [He said between nine and ten.]
So simpson lied?
confused
> [However, the ice cream man was lying through his teeth. Or
>ice cream store clerks have worse memories than waiters.]
Or simpson was lying thru his teeth and has a memory worse than
both.
confused
>There is not a chance in the universe that recital ended a New York nanosecond
>before 7:00 p.m. NOT ONE NANOSECOND before.
>
>That's period, paragraph, end of story.
>
>The Mezzaluna witnesses are all either wrong or lying about the time. Period.
Check the shadows on the video taken after the recital if you want
to know the time. Once you know when sunset was on june 12 you can
figure the time from the shadows.
Walter Bennett
>Gee [Bob], everyone seems to be telling
>lies except your hero.
Ain't that the truth. Are you saying that you finally see it our way?
>Imagine that, all of these people with
>absolutely no reason to lie, no reason to
>want to frame Simpson for murder, just
>get on that witness stand and lie their
>asses off for no reason.
Guess you don't see it our way. Nothing is done without reason. We
might not know the reason, but there is always a reason for doing
things. But I can see that trying to get you to give up the idea that
the employees at the Mezzaluna who testified told the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, is like trying to herd cats.
>With no regard for breaking the law by
>committing perjury, with no concern they
>are lying to send an innocent man to jail,
>they just hop up there and lie away....
I know that you may be right, but the idea that Crawford, Tanner, and
Gavin all committed perjury just keeps hanging in there, day in and day
out, like a booger that you can't thump off.
ThePuppetMaster
Bennett) wrote:
>>PuppetMaster wrote:
>
>>Gee [Bob], everyone seems to be telling
>>lies except your hero.
>
>Ain't that the truth. Are you saying that you finally see it our way?
>
>>Imagine that, all of these people with
>>absolutely no reason to lie, no reason to
>>want to frame Simpson for murder, just
>>get on that witness stand and lie their
>>asses off for no reason.
>
>Guess you don't see it our way. Nothing is done without reason. We
>might not know the reason, but there is always a reason for doing
>things. But I can see that trying to get you to give up the idea that
>the employees at the Mezzaluna who testified told the truth, the whole
>truth, and nothing but the truth, is like trying to herd cats.
>
>>With no regard for breaking the law by
>>committing perjury, with no concern they
>>are lying to send an innocent man to jail,
>>they just hop up there and lie away....
>
>I know that you may be right, but the idea that Crawford, Tanner, and
>Gavin all committed perjury just keeps hanging in there, day in and day
>out, like a booger that you can't thump off.
I find that Kleenex or a handkerchief and blowing ones nose tends to
not make that a problem.
>
>I love a mystery!
>
>It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot,
>irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is
>known, but to question it.
>
> -J. Bronowski
> [The Ascent of Man]
Walter Bennett
confused
>Guess you don't see it our way. Nothing is done without reason. We
>might not know the reason, but there is always a reason for doing
>things. But I can see that trying to get you to give up the idea that
>the employees at the Mezzaluna who testified told the truth, the whole
>truth, and nothing but the truth, is like trying to herd cats.
And yet it is only rumor that claims they may be lying. Speaking of
herding cats, why is it easier to believe that all these people
lied, all these records were changed, all the lawyers worked against
this one man than it is to believe that simpson may have done it?
carrot
>
>
>
>carrot wrote:
>
>> In article <37F60E15...@slip.net>, Robert says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Walter Bennett wrote:
>> >
>> >> This friend of Nicole's and Simpson hater nails important times to the
>> >> prosecutorial wall.
>> >>
>> >> Mr. Cochran: AND LET'S TELL THE COURT AND JURY, HOW LONG DID THIS
>> >> CONCERT LAST, THIS RECITAL LAST FROM BEGINNING TO END?
>> >>
>> >> A I WOULD SAY ABOUT TWO HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES APPROXIMATELY.
>> >>
>> >> Q SO WHEN YOU FIRST WALKED IN, WHAT TIME OF THE EVENING WAS IT?
>> >>
>> >> A IT WAS FIVE O'CLOCK.
>> >>
>> >> Q AND SO THAT YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT LASTED UNTIL ABOUT 7:15?
>> >>
>> >> A YES.
>> >>
>> >> A little further in her testimony Mrs. Garvey gives us a bit more
>> >> insight on when the Browns departed. She informs Mr. Cochran that:
>> >>
>> >> Mr. Cochran: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU LEFT THEN THE PAUL REVERE MIDDLE SCHOOL
>> >> AT ABOUT 7:15 THAT AFTERNOON, RIGHT?
>> >>
>> >> A THAT'S CORRECT.
>> >>
>> >> Q LAST TIME YOU SAW MR. SIMPSON THAT EVENING WHEN HE WAS AT PAUL REVERE
>> >> WAS AT ABOUT THAT SAME TIME, 7:15 OR A LITTLE BEFORE?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Tia verifies that my use of a 15 minutes bracket is justifiable. Once
>> >> again we are faced with a time at the restaurant of 1 hour and 45
>> >> minutes to 2 hours and 15 minutes. I am going with Tia's times since
>> >> she was directly involved with the party. The total time the order was
>> >> open is not a guess. It was 1 hour and 14 minutes. Splitting the 31
>> >> minutes in excess of that period in half would allow 16 minutes to be
>> >>
>> >> Now, taking the earliest time the party could have arrived at the
>> >> restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
>> >> gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
>> >>
>> >> Now let Juditha make the call at 9:37.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot,
>> >> irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is
>> >> known, but to question it.
>> >>
>> >> -J. Bronowski
>> >> [The Ascent of Man]
>> >
>> >two to two and a half hours on that Sunday night. Nine-fifteen plus
>> >two and a half hours would put the clock at 10:45. That would give
>> >time for farewells, use of the bathroom to empty the bladder after
>> >a big dinner and a long drive. Then, around 11 pm, Juditha could
>> >call her daughter. This is after Allan Park has pulled the limo into
>> >Rockingham. The golf bag is loaded. Simpson has showered. Kato
>> >has heard the thumps. Park has missed seeing the Bronco. The
>> >old man has walked his dog past the Bundy murder scene twenty
>> >minutes earlier. Nicole is still alive. The candles are lit. The children
>> >are asleep. The bath is drawn. Someone's jacket is hanging on a
>> >chair in the kitchen.]
>> >
>>
>>
>> rotfl
>> bm.
>
>to, say, cretin. The latter is a putdown suggesting
>an intellectual superiority, the former suggesting a
>moral superiority additionally. And yet, as you have
>displayed to us time and again, you are a cowardly
>little twit. Does this mean that you can better appreciate
>the agony of self-hate in which you writhe? Does
>your greater intellect provide you richer experiences
>during your episodes of self-loathing? When you
>set yourself on fire should we piss on you?]
confused
>
>
>which time was she operating inder?????
Can you translate this into english?
confused
>>Subject: Candace Garvey Tells Time
>>From: ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
>>Date: Sat, 02 October 1999 04:09
>
>she was directly involved with the party. The total time the order was
>open is not a guess. It was 1 hour and 14 minutes. Splitting the 31
>minutes in excess of that period in half would allow 16 minutes to be
>seated and order and 15 minutes at the end of the meal to pay and leave.
>
>Now, taking the earliest time the party could have arrived at the
>restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
>gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
Of course Walter forgets that this would make simpson a liar as he
claims to have talked to sydney at Nicole's house before 9:00.
>**********
> 1. The video of Simpson and the Browns outside the school after the school
>event: Did it have a timer on it? I don't remember.
We do know that it was still daylight. According to-
http://www.jabberwocky.com/photo/suntimes.html
Sunset: 8:08 PM in brentwood
Walter Bennett
>1. The neighhbor who returned from his
>trip and checked his mail: Didn't he see
>the Akita dog wandering in the street
>between 10:30 and 11 p.m.?
Yes, he testified to that. But before he saw the dog, he drove by
Nicole's garage area and went up the alley to his home. Guess what he
didn't see - Nicole's Bronco. I wonder if Nicole was out shopping? I
believe others stated that they saw nothing in the alley either.
MIRSE
>From: pr...@aol.com (Prien)
>Date: Sun, 03 October 1999 03:51 PM EDT
"Did you see Goldman leave the restaurant?"
and
"Do you know when that event occurred?"
To which Crawford ONLY ANSWERS (in effect): "I saw him leave."
She however also leaves the implication, thereby creating the illusion, that
she also knew it to be at 10:50.
********
I think you mean "9:50" not "10:50" as you state above. Mi...@aol.com
ThePuppetMaster
Actually what she said was:
BPa2739152
ThePuppetMaster
It's not, but it is easier than admitting they've been wrong and
acting like complete fools.
MIRSE
>From: ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
>Date: Sat, 02 October 1999 04:09
she was directly involved with the party. The total time the order was
open is not a guess. It was 1 hour and 14 minutes. Splitting the 31
minutes in excess of that period in half would allow 16 minutes to be
seated and order and 15 minutes at the end of the meal to pay and leave.
Now, taking the earliest time the party could have arrived at the
restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
Now let Juditha make the call at 9:37.
**********
1. The video of Simpson and the Browns outside the school after the school
event: Did it have a timer on it? I don't remember.
2. There sure were a lot of parents and school children at the recital. It
would be interesting if we could talk to say 10 to 15 of those parents and ask
them what time the event was over: Was it around 6:30 p.m. or closer to
7:15p.m.?
3. The more parents and students we could talk to, the better chance we would
have of getting a correct time.
4. We might even get lucky and find out that some of the parents had
videotapes of the event, videotapes with the time displayed.
5. Maybe some of the parents at the recital read this newsgroup and can help us
out by telling us what time the event ended. Just a thought.
Mi...@aol.com
ojgr...@hotmail.com
The man of a 1000 identities which one am I ? wrote:
> On 03 Oct 1999 19:51:19 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>
> >In responding to some comments,
> >>Robert Miller mil...@slip.net
> >>Date: Sun, 03 October 1999 10:25 AM EDT
> >>Message-id: <37F7676B...@slip.net>
> > quoted the the following reference the poster made to Crawford's
testimony
> >
RESTAURANT
> >>AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?"
> >>>
DOOR."
> >>
> >>
> >Yeah, but at what TIME did the event occur. It's critical to note
Clark asks
> >the COMPOUND QUESTIONS:
> >
> >and
> >"Do you know when that event occurred?"
> >
> >To which Crawford ONLY ANSWERS (in effect): "I saw him leave."
> >
> >She however also leaves the implication, thereby creating the
illusion, that
> >she also knew it to be at 10:50.
> >
> >
> >
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha spoken like a true Simpsonlicking hero
> worshipping moron.
>
RESTAURANT AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?"
>
> To which Karen Crawford replied "YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE DOOR."
>
>
sub-human, thats why you can't be Ron or Griffin. They don't use
signature lines that can be so easily refuted, and they don't CONTINUE
to use it AFTER it has been refuted.
I haven't checked the context, but the testimony snippet you've been
using to taunt Prien doesn't prove anything. Clark's question is
compound and leading and the answer MIGHT be construed to mean she saw
him leave at 9:50, but she can ALSO DENY IT (I was only answering 'did
you see him leave' - remember your hero Fuhrman about 'address'
or 'speak about' ?)
Clark should've asked her point blank
DId you actually see him leave ?
Yes
To your best recollection when was that ?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ThePuppetMaster
Cretin only a moron like you would even consider that as refutable.
There is nothing that anyone with 1/2 a brain could misunderstand
there. Crawford understood and answered the question. She watched Ron
Goldman leave work the night he was murdered at 9:50p.m. Prien and the
rest of you cretins can whine about that all you want, but it's not
changing the fact that Nicole had to have talked with her mother
before 11pm.
Libraryboy
Or maybe, to follow up on confused's suggestion, someone could go over
there next June and film from the same angle until the shadows match.
Maybe Geraldo could do it live.
MIRSE
>From: ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 01:38 AM EDT
Yes, he testified to that. But before he saw the dog, he drove by
Nicole's garage area and went up the alley to his home. Guess what he
didn't see - Nicole's Bronco. I wonder if Nicole was out shopping? I
believe others stated that they saw nothing in the alley either.
I love a mystery!
*********
I don't understand your point:
1. Again, I don't think Nicole had a Bronco.
2. Are you saying that the man who just arrived from the airport didn't see ANY
cars parked in the back of any of the condos, or are you saying that the man
ONLY did not see cars in back of Nicole's condo?
3. I think the reason that Cochran was asking the man about what cars he saw
or did not see in the alleyway was to point out that Simpson's Bronco was not
parked anywhere in the back. I don't think it was his point to show that
Nicole's car or cars were not there.
4. I find it confusing that you think that someone drove off with Nicole's car
betweeen 11 p.m. and midnight, but the person or persons brought it back just
before the police arrived around midnight.
I'm just wondering where the person could have gone with the car, which,
again, I don't think was a Bronco.
Mi...@aol.com
Kristin VanAllen
>
(snipped a lot)
>
>
> sub-human,
so now you are into sub-human beliefs - do you really believe there is a
sub-human class?You know who else believes in sub-human classes? Are you
like those people?
> thats why you can't be Ron or Griffin. They don't use
> signature lines that can be so easily refuted, and they don't CONTINUE
>
> to use it AFTER it has been refuted.
>
> I haven't checked the context,
how typical of you - but that doesn't stop you from replying to
something of which you do not know the context.....
> but the testimony snippet you've been
> using to taunt Prien doesn't prove anything. Clark's question is
> compound
a compound question is 2 questions, not one question like 'did you see
him leave at ten minutes to ten?' . If she asked "did you see him leave?
(AND) Did he leave at 9:50?" then you have a compund question.
> and leading and the answer MIGHT be construed to mean she saw
> him leave at 9:50, but she can ALSO DENY IT (I was only answering 'did
>
> you see him leave' - remember your hero Fuhrman about 'address'
> or 'speak about' ?)
except the question to Fuhrman WAS truly a compound - ie TWO separate
questions grammatically.
If she did not see him leave at 9:50, she would have had to have said
no to the question as it was grammatically ONE question - not 2.
ThePuppetmaster
>>Subject: Re: Candace Garvey Tells Time
>>From: ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
>>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 01:38 AM EDT
>
>Yes, he testified to that. But before he saw the dog, he drove by
>Nicole's garage area and went up the alley to his home. Guess what he
>didn't see - Nicole's Bronco. I wonder if Nicole was out shopping? I
>believe others stated that they saw nothing in the alley either.
>
>I love a mystery!
>*********
> I don't understand your point:
>1. Again, I don't think Nicole had a Bronco.
She didn't, she had a black Jeep Wagoneer.
>2. Are you saying that the man who just arrived from the airport didn't see ANY
> cars parked in the back of any of the condos, or are you saying that the man
>ONLY did not see cars in back of Nicole's condo?
Why would he even look to see if her car was there. Using that he said
he didn't notice her car there isn't the same as saying, NO, there was
no parked there. All it's saying is he didn't notice if it was there
or not. I'm sure if he were asked if she had laundry hanging in her
back yard it would be same answer.
>3. I think the reason that Cochran was asking the man about what cars he saw
>or did not see in the alleyway was to point out that Simpson's Bronco was not
>parked anywhere in the back. I don't think it was his point to show that
>Nicole's car or cars were not there.
You're correct Mirse. These cretins are sinking and grabbing for
anything to try and stay afloat. Only it's not working.
>4. I find it confusing that you think that someone drove off with Nicole's car
>betweeen 11 p.m. and midnight, but the person or persons brought it back just
>before the police arrived around midnight.
That's the logic of pro-j mind, they're infected with cretinism.
Walter Bennett
Pro'jrs, but I just could not resist the temptation to play not only
with the brown&goldmansnifferlickers but also with the misguided just a
bit.
I fully expect this post to be <snipped> to the bone. Be my guest. But
you know what, Snipping won't change lies into the the truth, whatever
that may be.
>You are clicking on all cylinders.
Thank you. I feel that if things get any better, I may have to hire
someone to help me enjoy it.
>The things wrong with the customer bills
>and the clock in the order register tells
>volumes about what must really have
>been happending at the restaurant. None
>of it was kosher.
Boy, if the date of the credit card charge was wrong, customers would be
paying more interest than necessary or the bank was getting less. Must
check Crawford's testimony on that. Hello, Crawford, here I come again.
>It is also worth noting with respect to
>Wagner's accounting of the recital time
>that according to Kelly's comments during
>Denise's deposition, there were 33 acts on
>the program, with Sydney's peformance
>scheduled next to last, I believe. Garvey's
>child was also peforming in one of the last
>if not the last act.
That's right. That's why she could leave the school, go home to her new
baby, possibly serve the infant the warm milk from the bottles on her
chest, and get back to the recital before her daughter performed.
Garvey had to be watching the clock like a hawk to manage being where
she needed to be when she needed to be there.
>Denise also mentioned there was a 15 >minute intermission.
And the old "looks like most of them are back" method is always used to
restart the program. Any bets that the intermission took less than 15
minutes.
Prien, you old scoundrel, thanks for having the cards in dummy that I
needed to make my seven no thrump, double, redoubled, redoubled bid.
Even grits ain't gooder than this.
>I have attended numerous recitals of this
>kind involving my daughter, and will make
>only the following observations about how
>they went:
>None started on time.
Nor ended on time.
>There was a lot of introductory stuff and
>promotional puffery by the producer
>before each act about how well the
>children were doing which is naturally
>done to encourage the parents to stay
>with (and pay for) their child's
>participation.
Yeah, like we need more parental participation with the dance group.
We have a little boy and a polka dot shirt and stripped pants, would his
parents please stand up and identify yourselves. There will be a candy
sale to buy props for the dance school. Be sure to make your checks
payable to "Need More Money" otherwise the children will not be given
credit for their sales. Oh, yes, and the child that brings in the most
money will get . . . .
Wait a minute, who sponsored the recital? If it was the Paul Revere
Middle School in Brentwood that sponsored the show, IT IS A SCHOOL MUCH
DIFFERENT FROM ANY THAT I KNOW OF. IT CAN DO THINGS THAT NO OTHER
SCHOOL DISTRICT IN CALIFORNIA CAN. IT CAN HOLD SCHOOL FUNCTIONS ON
SUNDAYS. IF A SCHOOL IN MY NECK OF THE WOODS TRIED TO HOLD A RECITAL OR
ANYTHING ELSE ON A SUNDAY, THE PRINCIPAL, SUPERINTENDANT, AND THE ENTIRE
SCHOOL BOARD WOULD BE OUT OF WORK IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE RECALL VOTE ON
MONDAY. Emphasis mine.
>They always drag on far beyond any
>scheduled ending time.
Yeah, songs run about 3 and a half to 4 and a half minutes, never been
to one that the songs were butchered down to a minute or so. After the
"glad you could come and how hard the children worked", each act has an
introduction at the beginning and applause at the end. Call each act a
5 minute little masterpiece. 33 times 5, let's see, subtract 1 because
it's odd, half the balance, and tack on a five because the original
number is odd. 165 minutes. Let's subtract successive 60s. First one
60 and then another 60, now - oops - no more 60s, only 45 minutes are
left. Aha, the recital lasted 2 hours and 45 minutes. Give or take a
few acts that refused to perform or were cut short by tears, happens
more than you think, and the Browns couldn't have left before 7:40ish.
Bracket 7:40ish and the earliest the Browns could have left the recital
is 7:25. Wow, that is still way to late. Anybody got a handle on how
long children songs last?
>Parents afterwards spend a lot of time chit
>chatting while kids run around being kids
>as they say their good-byes following the
>end of the class in which they had been
>enrolled and for which the recital was the
>place of exposition for their
>accomplishments.
Been there done that. How many video cameras were running before,
during, and after the show. I know Garvey's husband had one; I know
Faye's ex had one; and I now know that Scott Kennedy also had one:
Mr. Douglas is speaking seeking sanctions against the prosecution for
violation of Brady (sanctions for prosecutorial misconduct for not
turning over possibly exculpatory evidence to the defense).
The defense was advised by:
MR. SCOTT KENNEDY, ONLY LAST WEEK OF ITS EXISTENCE AND WERE ABLE TO SEE
IT FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY LAST FRIDAY WHEN WE WERE ABLE TO RECEIVE A
COPY DIRECTLY FROM MR. KENNEDY. YOUR HONOR,
WE HAD RAISED THE ISSUE OF THIS TAPE IN COURT ON THURSDAY, AND BOTH MR.
DARDEN AND MISS CLARK CLAIMED TO HAVE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ITS EXISTENCE
BUT THAT THEY WOULD CHECK INTO IT. WE LEARNED FROM THE TESTIMONY OF
CANDACE GARVEY THAT AT -- ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON, THIS SAME COPY OF THIS
TAPE WAS SHOWN TO HER AND SHE HAD A CHANCE TO PREVIEW IT IN PREPARATION
FOR HER TESTIMONY. KENNEDY CLAIMS, YOUR HONOR, THAT HE HAD SENT A COPY
OF THE TAPE TO THE PROSECUTION BACK IN JULY. AND SINCE EARLY JULY, WE
HAD REPEATEDLY . . . .
Mr. Kennedy thinks that there is something on his video that is
important. Did it actually get into evidence?
>There is not a chance in the universe
>that the recital ended a New York
>nanosecond before 7:00 p.m. NOT ONE
>NANOSECOND before.
>That's period, paragraph, end of story.
I agree with you, Prien, and the rest of the Pro'jrs, but I fear that
the brown&goldmansnifferlickers do not cotton to this view. To them the
testimony of the Mezzaluna employees is gospel. They must be living at
the Stradford Wives' community. However, the real world does not
include past events happening before present ones.
Denise Brown provides aid and comfort to the enemies of her cause, to
the people who believe that the LAPD rushed to judgment and conspired to
convict an innocence man:
Q WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE AUDITORIUM, WAS IT FULL OF PEOPLE?
(Would that be at or around five o'clock since so many people are
already there and she doesn't state anywhere in her testimony that I can
find that the program had already started?)
Denise Brown: PACKED. YES.
Q AND WERE YOU GIVEN A PROGRAM FOR THE RECITAL?
A YES, WE WERE.
Q SO DID YOU KNOW WHEN AND AT WHAT POINT SIDNEY WOULD BE DANCING IN THE
RECITAL?
A YES, WE DID. SHE WAS SECOND TO LAST.
Q AND HOW LONG WAS THE RECITAL SCHEDULED TO LAST, IF YOU KNOW? From the
lips of Denise Brown: I THINK IT WAS -- IT LASTED LONGER THAN IT WAS
SUPPOSED TO.
How long was it suppose to last? Any guess at this point.
I REMEMBER THAT. IT LASTED A COUPLE OF HOURS
Now in my book the word "couple" means TWO. FIVE plus TWO is SEVEN.
Oh, what else did Denise say, "IT LASTED LONGER THAN IT WAS SUPPOSED
TO." When I add the extra minutes and the intermission mention by
Prien, I get 7:40.
I'll say it again, No'jrs. It did not happen the way the prosecution
said it did no matter what the employees of the Mezzaluna testified to.
>The Mezzaluna witnesses are all either >wrong or lying about the time.
Period.
Prien, do you mean Tanner lied when he answered Marcia and said:
Q AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME SHE GOT THERE APPROXIMATELY?
Tanner: 6:30ISH
You are joking aren't you, you mean Crawford lied when she said:
Q DO YOU RECALL APPROXIMATELY WHEN SHE ARRIVED?
Crawford: I BELIEVE SHE ARRIVED BETWEEN 6:30 AND 7:00
(I wonder if she misspoke about the time Ron left and the door he used.)
And Tia, poor Tia, you mean she lied also when she declared for all the
world to hear:
Q ABOUT WHAT TIME DID THEY GET THERE?
Tia: THEY WERE LATE FOR THEIR RESERVATION ABOUT 15 OR 20 MINUTES. SO I'D
SAY 6:45 OR 6:50
So according to the criminal trial testimony of Candace Garvey and
Denise Brown the employees of the Mezzaluna lied their collective asses
off. The only question that remains now is why.
>That's period, paragraph, end of story.
I love a mystery!
confused
>In article <37ffb65f...@news.earthlink.net>,
> The man of a 1000 identities which one am I ? wrote:
>> Marsha Clark asked "AND YOU RECALL SEEING RON ACTUALLY LEAVE THE
>RESTAURANT AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?"
>>
>> To which Karen Crawford replied "YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE DOOR."
>
>sub-human, thats why you can't be Ron or Griffin. They don't use
>signature lines that can be so easily refuted, and they don't CONTINUE
>to use it AFTER it has been refuted.
>
>I haven't checked the context, but the testimony snippet you've been
>using to taunt Prien doesn't prove anything. Clark's question is
>compound and leading and the answer MIGHT be construed to mean she saw
>him leave at 9:50, but she can ALSO DENY IT (I was only answering 'did
>you see him leave' - remember your hero Fuhrman about 'address'
>or 'speak about' ?)
>
>Clark should've asked her point blank
>
>DId you actually see him leave ?
Well how about this-
Feb. 7
Q DID YOU SEE HIM LEAVE THE RESTAURANT AT SOME POINT?
A YES, I DID.
Q DO YOU RECALL ABOUT WHAT TIME IT WAS?
A HE LEFT AT ABOUT TEN MINUTES TO 10:00.
Q DO YOU RECALL WHAT EXIT HE LEFT THROUGH?
A HE LEFT THROUGH THE SIDE EXIT THAT GOES OUT ONTO GORHAM.
Now do you see how prien set you up for a fall?
confused
>She however also leaves the implication, thereby creating the illusion, that
>she also knew it to be at 10:50.
>
>This testimony is a con game.
>
>
No, your post is a con game. This was asked a few lines earlier.
Q DID YOU SEE HIM LEAVE THE RESTAURANT AT SOME POINT?
A YES, I DID.
Q DO YOU RECALL ABOUT WHAT TIME IT WAS?
A HE LEFT AT ABOUT TEN MINUTES TO 10:00.
Q DO YOU RECALL WHAT EXIT HE LEFT THROUGH?
A HE LEFT THROUGH THE SIDE EXIT THAT GOES OUT ONTO GORHAM.
There is no mistake, no "compound" question here. BTW: because a
sentence begins with "AND" doesn't make it compound.
Q STUART TANNER?
A YES.
Q AND YOU RECALL SEEING RON ACTUALLY LEAVE THE RESTAURANT
AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?
A YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE DOOR.
Walter Bennett
>And yet it is only rumor that claims they
>may be lying. Speaking of herding cats,
>why is it easier to believe that all these
>people lied, all these records were
>changed, all the lawyers worked against
>this one man than it is to believe that
>simpson may have done it?
Yes it is.
Walter Bennett
>1. The video of Simpson and the Browns
>outside the school after the school event:
>Did it have a timer on it? I don't
>remember.
Wouldn't make any difference anyway. If it didn't fall in with the
prosecution's timeline, the timer would have been wrong and Macia would
have moved heaven and hell to not allow it in.
2. There sure were a lot of parents and school children at the recital.
It would be interesting if we could talk to say 10 to 15 of those
parents and ask them what time the event was over: Was it around 6:30
p.m. or closer to 7:15p.m.?
Don't know about a lot, but I know at least three cameras were running.
3. The more parents and students we could talk to, the better
chance we would have of getting a correct time.
That would have been what investigators looking for the truth, whatever
it is, would have done.
4. We might even get lucky and find out that some of the parents had
videotapes of the event, videotapes with the time displayed.
Those videos were taken by parents and friends of the children. What do
parents do with videos of their offspring. Someone will view one twenty
years from now and see a black helicopter in the background. Just
joking.
5. Maybe some of the parents at the recital read this newsgroup and can
help us out by telling us what time the event ended. Just a thought.
And a damn good one. I fear, however, that if one showed up and did not
toe to the Simpson Did It line, he or she would be run out before he or
she could make his or her point.
Walter Bennett
>>Walter Bennett wrote:
>>Now, taking the earliest time the party
>>could have arrived at the restaurant, 7:30
>>to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes
>>of family gathering, they could not have
>>left before 9 to 9:15.
>Of course Walter forgets that this would
>make simpson a liar as he claims to have
>talked to sydney at Nicole's house before
>9:00.
I can't find any place where he says that in the criminal trial
testimony. Is that where you claim the morons came to the wrong
verdict?
Prien
Nicole's car in the driveway,
>mi...@aol.com (MIRSE)
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 02:09 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19991004140942...@ng-fs1.aol.com>
notes that Nicole did not have a Bronco and asks
>4. I find it confusing that you think that someone drove off with Nicole's
>car
>betweeen 11 p.m. and midnight, but the person or persons brought it back just
>before the police arrived around midnight.
> I'm just wondering where the person could have gone with the car, which,
>again, I don't think was a Bronco.
>
Perhaps I can help you nout there.
Let me first stipulate that Nicole actually owned a Cherokee jeep. Small
point.
I think Karpf's testimnony that Wlater quoted before was pretty clear -- he did
ot see any cars when he was in the alley.
Who said anything about the Cherokee having to be driven away for Karpf not to
have seen it parked in the driveway? What is really strange about the car
having been found parked in the dsriveway with the door locked but ajar is what
is it doing there in the first place? Wouldn't Nicole,who was apparently home
for the evening, have parked her car inthe garage and closed the door when she
returned from the recital?
But suppose the car was not driven anywhere but simply moved out of the garage
by the perpetrators? Now that would account for where it was found the morning
after but not seen by Larpf the evening before after the deed had allegedly
already been done when he went by around 10:45.
But if it wasn't done until after 11:00, there is no inconsistency whatever
between Karpf not seeing it before 11:00 and it appearing sometime afterwards
to be found where it was after the murder had been committed.
Just a thought.
Walter Bennett
>>MIRSE wrote:
>Why would he even look to see if her car
>was there. Using that he said he didn't
>notice her car there isn't the same as
>saying, NO, there was no parked there.
>All it's saying is he didn't notice if it was
>there or not. I'm sure if he were asked if
>she had laundry hanging in her back yard >it would be same answer.
Narrow alley. Headlight on. One just sees thing under those
conditions.
3. I think the reason that Cochran was asking the man about what cars he
saw or did not see in the alleyway was to point out that Simpson's
Bronco was not parked anywhere in the back. I don't think it was his
point to show that Nicole's car or cars were not there. You're correct
Mirse.
These cretins are sinking and grabbing for anything to try and stay
afloat. Only it's not working.
>>4. I find it confusing that you think that
>>someone drove off with Nicole's car
>>betweeen 11 p.m. and midnight, but the
>>person or persons brought it back just
>>before the police arrived around midnight.
Why just 11:00 to midnight. How about 9:45, 10:00.
>That's the logic of pro-j mind, they're
>infected with cretinism.
>>I'm just wondering where the person could
>>have gone with the car, which, again, I
>>don't think was a Bronco.
Who said anyone other than Nicole used the Jeep Wagoneer? Your legs
must hurt after make that leap.
ThePuppetMaster
Bennett) wrote:
>>PuppetMaster wrote:
>
>>>MIRSE wrote:
>
>>Why would he even look to see if her car
>>was there. Using that he said he didn't
>>notice her car there isn't the same as
>>saying, NO, there was no parked there.
>>All it's saying is he didn't notice if it was
>>there or not. I'm sure if he were asked if
>>she had laundry hanging in her back yard >it would be same answer.
>
>Narrow alley. Headlight on. One just sees thing under those
>conditions.
One sees lots of things that they don't pay attention to because it's
not out of the ordinary. Can you honestly say you can tell everyone
about every car parked on your street when you pulled into your drive
last time? I just drove in about 30 minutes ago, I know there were
vehicles in front of my neighbors, but i didn't pay a bit of attention
to what they were, and quite honestly I couldn't say which houses I
saw those cars in front of, I just recall see some parked cars. Do I
recall seeing cars yesterday as I was in and out of the house several
times? No, I'm sure there were there because there usually is, but
there was nothing unusual that made them stand out.
Marsha Clark asked "AND YOU RECALL SEEING RON ACTUALLY LEAVE THE RESTAURANT AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?"
To which Karen Crawford replied "YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE DOOR."
confused
>>confused wrote:
>>Of course Walter forgets that this would
>>make simpson a liar as he claims to have
>>talked to sydney at Nicole's house before
>>9:00.
>I can't find any place where he says that in the criminal trial
>testimony.
Of course not. HE DIDN'T TESTIFY IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL! But he did
mention the call to Syndey in his deposition, and in the statement
to the police. Just because he chose not to talk about it before he
was forced to, doesn't make it any less valid. Unless he is a liar,
of course.
> Is that where you claim the morons came to the wrong
>verdict?
Why would you call the jurors "morons"?
The only morons I can think of are those that claim that the
"evidence" proves that the party at the mezzaluna couldn't have
ended a *new york nanosecond* earlier than 9:00. Even though Simpson
testified that he talked to syndey it was before 9:00. How do we
know simpson isn't mistaken? He talked to Reichardt after Snydey and
both of them agreed that that call took place at or before 9:00.
Clearly the party broke up before 8:30 but that then throws the
supposed 11:00 call into question.
So morons discard anything that puts the SUPPOSED 11:00 call into
question.
ThePuppetMaster
>ojgr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>In article <37ffb65f...@news.earthlink.net>,
>> The man of a 1000 identities which one am I ? wrote:
>
>>> Marsha Clark asked "AND YOU RECALL SEEING RON ACTUALLY LEAVE THE
>>RESTAURANT AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?"
>>>
>>> To which Karen Crawford replied "YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE DOOR."
>>
>>sub-human, thats why you can't be Ron or Griffin. They don't use
>>signature lines that can be so easily refuted, and they don't CONTINUE
>>to use it AFTER it has been refuted.
>>
>>I haven't checked the context, but the testimony snippet you've been
>>using to taunt Prien doesn't prove anything. Clark's question is
>>compound and leading and the answer MIGHT be construed to mean she saw
>>him leave at 9:50, but she can ALSO DENY IT (I was only answering 'did
>>you see him leave' - remember your hero Fuhrman about 'address'
>>or 'speak about' ?)
>>
>>Clark should've asked her point blank
>>
>>DId you actually see him leave ?
>
>Well how about this-
>Feb. 7
> Q DID YOU SEE HIM LEAVE THE RESTAURANT AT SOME POINT?
> A YES, I DID.
> Q DO YOU RECALL ABOUT WHAT TIME IT WAS?
> A HE LEFT AT ABOUT TEN MINUTES TO 10:00.
> Q DO YOU RECALL WHAT EXIT HE LEFT THROUGH?
> A HE LEFT THROUGH THE SIDE EXIT THAT GOES OUT ONTO GORHAM.
>
>
>Now do you see how prien set you up for a fall?
KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!
ThePuppetMaster
>pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>
>>She however also leaves the implication, thereby creating the illusion, that
>>she also knew it to be at 10:50.
>>
>>This testimony is a con game.
>>
>>
>No, your post is a con game. This was asked a few lines earlier.
>
> Q DID YOU SEE HIM LEAVE THE RESTAURANT AT SOME POINT?
> A YES, I DID.
> Q DO YOU RECALL ABOUT WHAT TIME IT WAS?
> A HE LEFT AT ABOUT TEN MINUTES TO 10:00.
> Q DO YOU RECALL WHAT EXIT HE LEFT THROUGH?
> A HE LEFT THROUGH THE SIDE EXIT THAT GOES OUT ONTO GORHAM.
>
>There is no mistake, no "compound" question here. BTW: because a
>sentence begins with "AND" doesn't make it compound.
>
> Q STUART TANNER?
> A YES.
> Q AND YOU RECALL SEEING RON ACTUALLY LEAVE THE RESTAURANT
>AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?
> A YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE DOOR.
>
Thanks Mike. I was going to look for that later on so the Screeching
Housewife Subhuman Lowlife could see for herself. She seems to think
that Prien has destroyed my little sig file with his mindless babble
about compound questions. I love how these morons get themselves so
convinced of some stupid little argument that the miss parts that kick
them square in their fat asses.
ojgr...@hotmail.com
mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:
> ojgr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >In article <37ffb65f...@news.earthlink.net>,
> > The man of a 1000 identities which one am I ? wrote:
>
> >RESTAURANT AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?"
> >>
> >> To which Karen Crawford replied "YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE
DOOR."
> >
> >signature lines that can be so easily refuted, and they don't
CONTINUE
> >to use it AFTER it has been refuted.
> >
> >I haven't checked the context, but the testimony snippet you've been
> >using to taunt Prien doesn't prove anything. Clark's question is
> >compound and leading and the answer MIGHT be construed to mean she
saw
> >him leave at 9:50, but she can ALSO DENY IT (I was only
answering 'did
> >you see him leave' - remember your hero Fuhrman about 'address'
> >or 'speak about' ?)
> >
> >Clark should've asked her point blank
> >
> >DId you actually see him leave ?
>
> Well how about this-
> Feb. 7
> A YES, I DID.
> Q DO YOU RECALL ABOUT WHAT TIME IT WAS?
> A HE LEFT AT ABOUT TEN MINUTES TO 10:00.
> Q DO YOU RECALL WHAT EXIT HE LEFT THROUGH?
> A HE LEFT THROUGH THE SIDE EXIT THAT GOES OUT ONTO GORHAM.
>
>
>
Poor confused, always looking for that 'gotcha!'.
I have no dog in thsi fight - If you check the above , I said 'I
haven't checked the context' - just that the snippet used by sub-human
implicitly amounts to a DENIAL that she could testify to the time.
I have already posted to the effect that that with the FULL testimony
cites Prien's parsing amounts to a hill of beans. If he wants to
assert nobody saw when RLG left, he has to accuse Crawford of perjury.
ThePuppetMaster
You're right, your dog had it's ass kicked early on in the games. Oh
by the way cretin, what makes you think anyone other than complete
assholes ever thought I was Ron or Griffin? You and your fantasizing
cretin friends seem to think that everyone is as stupid as you are.
Walter Bennett
>I can't find that in her deposition. You
>have given us very little reason to trust
>you, Prien. Better give more exact quotes
>and references.
Criminal trial testimony of Denise Brown on February 6, 1995:
MR. DARDEN: WAS THERE EVER A BREAK IN THE -- BREAK OR --
THE COURT: INTERMISSION.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: INTERMISSION.
WAS THERE EVER A BREAK OR INTERMISSION DURING THE RECITAL?
Denise Brown: GOD (call on those you serve), IT WAS SO LONG, I THINK
THERE WAS A BREAK, YEAH. Q DID YOU LEAVE THE AUDITORIUM, DO YOU RECALL?
A NO. ONLY AT THE END.
Must have been a pretty long break if some of the people had enough time
to leave the auditorium.
And I am sure to find a statement about the 15 minutes if you really
want to push it.
Now apologize to Prien.
BPa2739152
The next time Brown saw Simpson, she said, was at the dance recital the night
of the murders. Simpson, Brown testified, was "nervous and angry and upset."
She and her husband sat in front of Simpson during the recital, and Brown
claimed he acted strangely from the minute he arrived.
"Mr. Simpson came down and he put his hands on his hips and he didn't say a
word," Brown said. "He looked through me, and I started to feel uncomfortable."
************************************************
More hyperbole, this time from Lou Brown, it took a video tape to show that he
wasn't telling the truth.. They were sucking up as they had done for eighteen
years. Why, Faye Resnick claimed in her second book that OJ had banged Juditha
anyway. This was a disfunctional bunch.
**************************************************
But later, lead defense attorney Robert Baker played a videotape shot the night
of the recital that showed Brown kissing Simpson good night. The former
football star was also joking around with Brown's husband, Lou, on the tape.
confused
>Poor confused, always looking for that 'gotcha!'.
As are you.
>I have no dog in thsi fight -
More than that, you have asked Prien to support his statements at
least as much as the No-J's have. The "set you up for a fall" part
was a reference to what he was attempting to do. You haven't fallen
for it no matter how it is sugar coated.
Kariana
when he changed it to 10:00 then from 9 to 10.
Kariana
Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net> wrote in message
news:37F76700...@slip.net...
>
>
> MIRSE wrote:
>
> > >Subject: Candace Garvey Tells Time
> > >From: ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
> > >Date: Sat, 02 October 1999 04:09 AM EDT
> >
> > Now, taking the earliest time the party could have arrived at the
> > restaurant, 7:30 to 7:45, allowing an hour and 45 minutes of family
> > gathering, they could not have left before 9 to 9:15.
> >
> > Now let Juditha make the call at 9:37.
> >
> > I love a mystery!
> > *********
> > Does anyone remember what time the ice cream man said that Nicole and
the
> > kids entered the ice cream shop that was near the restaurant? I forgot.
> > Thanks. Mi...@aol.com
>
> [He said between nine and ten.]
>
Libraryboy
Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>In responding to Walter Bennet's points about the witness who did ot see
>Nicole's car in the driveway,
>>mi...@aol.com (MIRSE)
>>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 02:09 PM EDT
>>Message-id: <19991004140942...@ng-fs1.aol.com>
>
>notes that Nicole did not have a Bronco and asks
>
>>car
>>betweeen 11 p.m. and midnight, but the person or persons brought it back just
>>before the police arrived around midnight.
>>again, I don't think was a Bronco.
>>
>
>
>Let me first stipulate that Nicole actually owned a Cherokee jeep. Small
>point.
>
>I think Karpf's testimnony that Wlater quoted before was pretty clear -- he did
>ot see any cars when he was in the alley.
>
>Who said anything about the Cherokee having to be driven away for Karpf not to
>have seen it parked in the driveway? What is really strange about the car
>having been found parked in the dsriveway with the door locked but ajar is what
>is it doing there in the first place? Wouldn't Nicole,who was apparently home
>for the evening, have parked her car inthe garage and closed the door when she
>returned from the recital?
>
>But suppose the car was not driven anywhere but simply moved out of the garage
>by the perpetrators? Now that would account for where it was found the morning
>after but not seen by Larpf the evening before after the deed had allegedly
>already been done when he went by around 10:45.
>
>But if it wasn't done until after 11:00, there is no inconsistency whatever
>between Karpf not seeing it before 11:00 and it appearing sometime afterwards
>to be found where it was after the murder had been committed.
>
>Just a thought.
Even that is arguable.
Libraryboy
BPa2739152 <bpa27...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>The next time Brown saw Simpson, she said, was at the dance recital the night
>of the murders. Simpson, Brown testified, was "nervous and angry and upset."
>She and her husband sat in front of Simpson during the recital, and Brown
>claimed he acted strangely from the minute he arrived.
>
>"Mr. Simpson came down and he put his hands on his hips and he didn't say a
>word," Brown said. "He looked through me, and I started to feel uncomfortable."
>************************************************
>More hyperbole, this time from Lou Brown, it took a video tape to show that he
>wasn't telling the truth.. They were sucking up as they had done for eighteen
>years. Why, Faye Resnick claimed in her second book that OJ had banged Juditha
>anyway. This was a disfunctional bunch.
All except Simpson, Betty? Do you think a normal, self-respecting,
mentally healthy man would "bang" his wife's mother behind her back? Do
you believe that he did?
Ron
wrote:
>WALTER:
>
> Not only do you have your opinion, which you try to foist as fact, but
>you presume to know how I think, and instruct me on a more correct way
>of doing it.
>
> I had said that ONE FACTOR in evaluating conflicting testimony was the
>number of witnesses on the two sides of the question, and you give me
>judge's instructions that say I should not consider that alone. I did
>not consider that alone, I also went on to tell you why the quality of
>the experience was different for the two sets of witnesses. Your
>assertion that I should have "heeded Ito's advice" is just an indication
>that your reading comprehension need some work.
>
> The alternative, believing a single witness's version when it is in
>conflict with the testimony of every other witness and all other known
>circumstances, is called "grasping at straws," Walter. No wonder life
>is a mystery for you.
>
Not much to add to that, but since I seldom if ever bother reading Waldo's
incredibly foolish, misstated-evidence filled rubbish, maybe you can help
me out here.
>
Have you ever seen ANYTHING he didn't think was a goddam mystery?
Ron
(ThePuppetMaster) wrote:
>>> Now do you see how prien set you up for a fall?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Poor confused, always looking for that 'gotcha!'.
>>
>>I have no dog in thsi fight - If you check the above , I said 'I
>>haven't checked the context' - just that the snippet used by sub-human
>>implicitly amounts to a DENIAL that she could testify to the time.
>>
>>I have already posted to the effect that that with the FULL testimony
>>cites Prien's parsing amounts to a hill of beans. If he wants to
>>assert nobody saw when RLG left, he has to accuse Crawford of perjury.
>>
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
>
>You're right, your dog had it's ass kicked early on in the games. Oh
>by the way cretin, what makes you think anyone other than complete
>assholes ever thought I was Ron or Griffin?
Do you mean to say you're not?
Ron
<delete nonsense by the 2 "dimwits of deception">
>> >
>> >
>> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha spoken like a true Simpsonlicking hero
>> worshipping moron.
>>
>> Marsha Clark asked "AND YOU RECALL SEEING RON ACTUALLY LEAVE THE
>RESTAURANT AT TEN MINUTES OF 10:00?"
>>
>> To which Karen Crawford replied "YEAH, I SAW HIM WALK OUT THE DOOR."
>>
>>
>
>sub-human, thats why you can't be Ron or Griffin. They don't use
>signature lines that can be so easily refuted, and they don't CONTINUE
>to use it AFTER it has been refuted.
>
That's for sure. Nobody can refute Griffin's FAQ sig line, and nobody can
refute mine.....mainly because I don't use them. That's 2 out of 3, but
you've yet to show me where anybody refuted Rich's. I ain't seen you do it,
and it DAMN sure wasn't preen. Which one of the zombies are you claiming
did the job?
Ron
ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett) wrote:
>>PuppetMaster wrote:
>
>>In spite of what some bogus webpage
>>claims, the drive from Mezzaluna to Dana
>>Point is about 65 miles, and on a Sunday
>>night at 8:30 can easily be driven in about
>>45 to 50 minutes considering the average
>>speed on the 405 South to Dana Point is a
>>minimum of 70-75mphs. Anyone driving
>>65 on the 405 at that time of evening is
>>going to receive more than their fare
>>share of single finger salutes.
>
>Not if you are driving a pusher equipped black and white with California
>Highway Patrol on the side and tri-colored emergency lights on top.
>
Were the Brown's driving one mystery boy?
>
>The drive would be made at the legal speed limit by the California
>Highway Patrol cruiser. That is what the CHP interviewee would state.
>
Waldo, please tell us just how you know what the CHP interviewee 'would
state', OK?
>
Cretin.
confused
>"dysfunctional bunch", for sure. This is the foundation from which
>the testimony against OJS emerges. This was also the testimony that
>was bleached by the media and spun into the "angel murdered by jealous
>ex-husband", i.e., "blonde murdered by blackman" scenario.
> This dysfunction has nothing to do with "morality." For our
>purposes, what it has to do with is: behavior that is considered
>socially 'aberrant' and the truth and veracity of witnesses whose
>behavior may be contested as such.
Yet this could also be true-
This is the foundation from which the testimony for OJS emerges.
This was also the testimony that was dumbed down by minority leaders
and spun into the "Football legend accused of impossible murder",
i.e., "Sucessful black man framed by racist society" scenario.
This dysfunction has nothing to do with "morality." For our
purposes, what it has to do with is: behavior that is considered
socially 'aberrant' and the truth and veracity of witnesses whose
behavior may be contested as such.
confused
>There is not a chance in the universe that recital ended a New York nanosecond
>before 7:00 p.m. NOT ONE NANOSECOND before.
>That's period, paragraph, end of story.
>The Mezzaluna witnesses are all either wrong or lying about the time. Period.
It appears that you may be correct-
Q: Let me show you a telephone call at 7:32 p.m. on June 12 from
your Rockingham residence to Lomita. This is Exhibit 40.
Tell me if that's the call that you made to Stockdale.
A: Where is it, now?
Q: It's 7:32 p.m.
A: I don't recognize the phone number, but it could very well be.
No phone records checked? Go thru the depo he is asked about dozens
of calls some from his home others from his cell.
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>His original statement was 10:30. Before the police detectives got to him,
>when he changed it to 10:00 then from 9 to 10.
>
> Kariana
So I guess OJ was lying when he said he talked with Nicole and Sydney
BEFORE 9:00pm? Is your hero lying again?
NKC
<snips>
>More hyperbole, this time from Lou Brown, it took a video tape to show that he
>wasn't telling the truth.. They were sucking up as they had done for eighteen
>years. Why, Faye Resnick claimed in her second book that OJ had banged Juditha
>anyway. This was a disfunctional bunch.
"dysfunctional bunch", for sure. This is the foundation from which
the testimony against OJS emerges. This was also the testimony that
was bleached by the media and spun into the "angel murdered by jealous
ex-husband", i.e., "blonde murdered by blackman" scenario.
This dysfunction has nothing to do with "morality." For our
purposes, what it has to do with is: behavior that is considered
socially 'aberrant' and the truth and veracity of witnesses whose
behavior may be contested as such.
OJS was in the same mix. What we all need to apply is
PERSPECTIVE, which Betty and Walter, et al, are putting forward: this
was a group of highly financed [rich] people who were involved in
non-traditional socio-sexual activities, for which they were
accustomed to covering up, and which they knew well how to lie about.
Juditha and OJ? Probably. Nicole and OJ's maid? Probably. Ron and
Debello? Uhh, okay. Ron and Kato? Why not.
Crossing paths, covering up, watching backs, saving your own ass.
That was the behavior.
Then you extrapolate from that behavior, and you have a
perspective on these peoples' sworn testimony.
Certainly not necessarily reliable.
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>"dysfunctional bunch", for sure. This is the foundation from which
>the testimony against OJS emerges. This was also the testimony that
>was bleached by the media and spun into the "angel murdered by jealous
>ex-husband", i.e., "blonde murdered by blackman" scenario.
> This dysfunction has nothing to do with "morality." For our
>purposes, what it has to do with is: behavior that is considered
>socially 'aberrant' and the truth and veracity of witnesses whose
>behavior may be contested as such.
> OJS was in the same mix. What we all need to apply is
>PERSPECTIVE, which Betty and Walter, et al, are putting forward: this
>was a group of highly financed [rich] people who were involved in
>non-traditional socio-sexual activities, for which they were
>accustomed to covering up, and which they knew well how to lie about.
>Juditha and OJ? Probably. Nicole and OJ's maid? Probably. Ron and
>Debello? Uhh, okay. Ron and Kato? Why not.
>Crossing paths, covering up, watching backs, saving your own ass.
>That was the behavior.
> Then you extrapolate from that behavior, and you have a
>perspective on these peoples' sworn testimony.
> Certainly not necessarily reliable.
You're not only an old racist, you're a perverted one as well. Oh
please tell me you've never reproduced!
Libraryboy
>> This dysfunction has nothing to do with "morality." For our
>>purposes, what it has to do with is: behavior that is considered
>>socially 'aberrant' and the truth and veracity of witnesses whose
>>behavior may be contested as such.
So basically what you are saying, is, you'd have to be a fool to
trust a man who "bangs" his wife's mother.
NKC
wrote:
Not exactly. I'm saying that it would be foolish to expect either
party to testify to that behavior in the context of a homicide
investigation/trial in which "wife" is the victim.
Walter Bennett
>One sees lots of things that they don't pay
>attention to because it's not out of the
>ordinary. Can you honestly say you can
>tell everyone about every car parked on
>your street when you pulled into your drive
>last time?
No, I can honestly say that I can not tell you about every car parked on
my street when I pulled into my drive last time. But I can tell you
that I did notice that my neighbor's, to the north two houses away,
little red truck wasn't parked at the curb, that my neighbor's, to the
north next door to me, had his van and his wife's slant back something
parked in their driveway. My next door neighbor to the south had no
cars in front of his house or in the driveway, but that's not unusual
because he and his wife, both pull into the garage even if it is for
just a brief stop.
Not out of the ordinary is the key. I don't concentrate on noticing
these things; my mind just does. After living here for several years I
expect to see and not see a lot of things. I can't list them for you
because I don't know what they are. I just know that if something is
there when it shouldn't be or not there when it should be - according to
my brain - I Favorite it, that's Control D it for you PC buffs, for a
brief period. If it disturbs me, it will ultimately pop up in
conversation at some time in the future.
Now when you take into consideration the follow I fail to see him not
taking notice:
Marcia Clark: I'M GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHERE YOU WERE LIVING ON
THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994. Eva Stein: I WAS LIVING ON 873 SOUTH
BUNDY. Q AND DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT IS IN RELATIONSHIP TO 875 SOUTH
BUNDY? A IT'S JUST NORTH.
Q IS THAT RIGHT NEXT DOOR?
A YES. IT'S THE BUILDING RIGHT NEXT DOOR
Ms. Clark:NOW, DO YOU HAVE AN ENTRANCE THAT OPENS OUT ONTO THAT ALLEY,
SIR? A MY GARAGE OPENS OUT INTO THE ALLEY.
Q DO YOU USE THAT GARAGE TO GO IN AND OUT OF YOUR APARTMENT?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND AS OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, SIR, HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN LIVING
THERE? A IT WOULD BE ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF YEARS.
Q DID YOU EVER KNOW WHO WAS LIVING AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY IN JUNE OF 1994?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND WHO WAS THAT?
A NICOLE SIMPSON BROWN
And,
Q BY MR. COCHRAN: MR. KARPF, SIR, WITH REGARD TO YOUR RETURNING HOME,
WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT YOU PROCEEDED FROM DOROTHY INTO THIS
ALLEYWAY HEADING NORTH TO GO INTO YOUR PARTICULAR RESIDENCE?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q IS THAT CORRECT?
AND AS YOU THEN OF NECESSITY IN PROCEEDING NORTHBOUND, YOU PASSED BY
875; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND DID YOU SEE ANY VEHICLES OUT THERE WHEN YOU DROVE PAST AT --
A NOTHING THAT I RECALL.
Q -- 10:50 OR 11:00?
YOU DON'T RECALL ANYTHING AT ALL?
A NO.
The reference at this point to me is clearly the condo owned by Nicole
at this point. And as far as Karpf is concerned not seeing anything is
not out of the ordinary because he knows his neighbor keeps her cars in
the garage.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY OTHER PARTIES IN THAT ALLEY WHEN YOU DROVE IN THERE
THAT YOU RECALL AT THIS POINT?
A NO
In this testimony Johnnie calls for reported observation of anything
else in the alley.
But it is as clear as the nose on your faces MIRSE and PuppetMaster that
the question beginning with a junction word that shows connection, "AND
DID YOU SEE ANY VEHICLES OUT THERE WHEN YOU DROVE PAST AT--10:50 TO
11:00," preceded by, "... AS YOU THEN OF NECESSITY IN PROCEEDING
NORTHBOUND, YOU PASSED BY 875," pointed to one specific area.
How wide is that alley?
Walter Bennett
I have posted the testimony of another witness, dick. Your "every other
witness and all other known circustances," is flawed, I am sorry to say.
One day you will know it too.
The recital did not end until 7:15 or later. The Brown party could not
have arrived at the restaurant at 6:30ish to 6:45ish. Therefore, the
other witnesses, unlike Candace Garvey and Denise Brown, must have
misspoke or out and out lied. Either way you have shot yourself in the
foot with your mouth.
Why Tanner, Crawford, and Givens lied is the mystery.
Your world of seeing is believing must be soothing to your intellect.
No real problems can ever exist for you. You see it you believe it and
that's that. Well, dick, I am really sorry that I am the first to tell
you that magicians do exist, good ones. Some of them have hands quicker
than the eyes. Others have mouths faster than the ears. Both of them
reek havoc in the world.
Ronnie, if you don't see the world any different than dick, all I can
say is that this thread must be driving you jokers to desperation.
ThePuppetmaster
>I love a mystery!
>
>It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot,
>irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is
>known, but to question it.
>
> -J. Bronowski
> [The Ascent of Man]
That's a nice song and dance but it still comes down to, "he didn't
notice it" not that it was or wasn't there. I know what cars are
usually parked in my neighbors drives too, but that doesn't mean if
I'm pulling in or out and thinking about something else that I look to
see if they're there or not. People take things for granted, and
unless there is something extremely unusual about something there is
no reason to make a mental note of it. Had Karpf have specifically
been looking for her car that would be one thing, but since he had
absolutely no reason to be doing that it's not the least bit unusual
that he didn't pay any attention to what was or wasn't there. Unlike
Alan Park that was looking for curb addresses and was able to see it
because the Bronco wasn't there at the time, Karpf was concentrating
on his driving, opening his garage door, and any number of other
possibilities.
Walter Bennett
>Were the Brown's driving one mystery
>boy?
Rhetorical questions don't require answers. Especially ones as stupid
as yours.
>Waldo, please tell us just how you know
>what the CHP interviewee 'would state',
>OK?
Inferring from:
Petitioner's assertions of the time inconsistencies created by People's
Exhibit #35 in the criminal trial and Civil Exhibit #26 have been
confirmed by interviews with the California Highway Patrol, the
California Department of Transportation ("CALTRANS"), and the Automobile
Association of America ("AAA"). Those interviews substantiate the drive
time from Brentwood to Dana Pointe is between an hour and a half and two
hours, almost twice the duration inexplicably submitted by officers of
the court.
confused
>>confused wrote:
>
>>And yet it is only rumor that claims they
>>may be lying. Speaking of herding cats,
>>why is it easier to believe that all these
>>people lied, all these records were
>>changed, all the lawyers worked against
>>this one man than it is to believe that
>>simpson may have done it?
>
>Yes it is.
But Why?
confused
>Criminal trial testimony of Denise Brown on February 6, 1995:
>
>MR. DARDEN: WAS THERE EVER A BREAK IN THE -- BREAK OR --
>THE COURT: INTERMISSION.
>Q BY MR. DARDEN: INTERMISSION.
>WAS THERE EVER A BREAK OR INTERMISSION DURING THE RECITAL?
>Denise Brown: GOD (call on those you serve), IT WAS SO LONG, I THINK
>THERE WAS A BREAK, YEAH. Q DID YOU LEAVE THE AUDITORIUM, DO YOU RECALL?
>A NO. ONLY AT THE END.
>Must have been a pretty long break if some of the people had enough time
>to leave the auditorium.
I don't see any testimony that claims that "some of the people had
enough time to leave the auditorium." Only that there was some kind
of break.
>Now apologize to Prien.
I'm sorry he is a dink.
Libraryboy
MIRSE <mi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Candace Garvey Tells Time
>>From: pr...@aol.com (Prien)
>>Date: Tue, 05 October 1999 08:22 PM EDT
>
>
>It was not, in fact I who first posted the last snipped about Clark asking
>whether Crawford recalled seeing Goldman leave the restaurant at ten minutes to
>ten as the complete answer to the point I intially made that no one had
>definitively asserted they had seen Goldman depart the restaurant at the time
>claimed.
>
>It was in fact I who posted the more complete exchange to show the deception
>Clark was perpetrating with her questioning.
>***********
>1. What about the cross-examination of the restaurant worker Crawford? Who did
>it? Did that defense lawyer point out Clark's "deception" as you call it?
Hey, you can't expect every legal team to be as sharp as Beaver and Prien.
Prien
>From: ojgr...@hotmail.com
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 07:00 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7tbbj3$pt4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
responds in part to some NoJ's parsing of Crawford's testimony about "seeing"
Goldman leave by confirming THAT:
>I have already posted to the effect that that with the FULL testimony
>cites Prien's parsing amounts to a hill of beans. If he wants to
>assert nobody saw when RLG left, he has to accuse Crawford of perjury.
ojg, AT LEAST TRY TO KEEP THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
It was not, in fact I who first posted the last snipped about Clark asking
whether Crawford recalled seeing Goldman leave the restaurant at ten minutes to
ten as the complete answer to the point I intially made that no one had
definitively asserted they had seen Goldman depart the restaurant at the time
claimed.
It was in fact I who posted the more complete exchange to show the deception
Clark was perpetrating with her questioning.
I do, however, concede that when I cited the longer exchange, I did omit the
following question and answer that has been posted in OJG's respone:
"Do you RECALL what exit he walked through?
"He left through the side exit that goes onto Gorham?"
First, the snippet is unnecessary and actuall redundant for the point I was
making.
OJG, focus on the ISSUE. It is did Crawford SEE Goldman leave and KNOW WHAT
TIME IT WAS WHEN THE EVENT OCCURRED. That is, did she simultaneously note BOTH
the DEPARTURE and THE TIME.
No you think the NoJ you rely on has actually made a relevant point?
Then read the question that he is pinning his claim on. It is: "Do you RECALL
what exit he used?" The act of RECALLING is not, and in no way refers to the
act of SEEING. Clark in fact switches her verbs in her questioning about the
departure. Her opening question in this sequence is: "Did you SEE him leave
the restaurant AT SOME POINT?" That's the direct and specific question that
leaves vague "at what point."
Clark then fills in the rest by switching to the verb RECALL, WHICH REFERS TO
NOTHING AS DIRECT OR DEFINITIVE AS THE SPECIFIC ACT OF SEEING HIM LEAVE OR
KNOWING THE TIME.
The deception is even more subtle and complete than as I first described it.
There is still not the slightest definite testimony that anyone actually saw
Goldman depart at the time claimed.
That's period, pragraph, end of story.
Thanks for letting me nail it down more specifically.
MIRSE
>Date: Tue, 05 October 1999 03:40
>Q BY MR. COCHRAN: MR. KARPF, SIR, WITH REGARD TO YOUR RETURNING HOME,
>WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT YOU PROCEEDED FROM DOROTHY INTO THIS
>ALLEYWAY HEADING NORTH TO GO INTO YOUR PARTICULAR RESIDENCE?
>A THAT IS CORRECT.
>Q IS THAT CORRECT?
>AND AS YOU THEN OF NECESSITY IN PROCEEDING NORTHBOUND, YOU PASSED BY
>875; IS THAT CORRECT?
>A THAT'S CORRECT.
>Q AND DID YOU SEE ANY VEHICLES OUT THERE WHEN YOU DROVE PAST AT --
>A NOTHING THAT I RECALL.
>Q -- 10:50 OR 11:00?
>YOU DON'T RECALL ANYTHING AT ALL?
>A NO.
( A few passages later:)
>But it is as clear as the nose on your faces MIRSE and PuppetMaster that
>the question beginning with a junction word that shows connection, "AND
>DID YOU SEE ANY VEHICLES OUT THERE WHEN YOU DROVE PAST AT--10:50 TO
>11:00," preceded by, "... AS YOU THEN OF NECESSITY IN PROCEEDING
>NORTHBOUND, YOU PASSED BY 875," pointed to one specific area.
>
>How wide is that alley?
**********
Walter: Schwab, the man walking his dog, said that the Akita dog ran up to
him around 11 p.m. Schwab said he examined the dog and he saw blood on the dog.
If the neighbor Karpf saw the Akita roaming the street a few minutes after he
drove behind Nicole's home around 10:50 and 11 p.m.----you quote Karpf's
testimony above about him driving behind Nicole's home on the way to his own
home next door--- and Schwab saw blood on the same Akita a few minutes later
around 11p.m., then it seems to me that the murders happened
before 11 p.m., when Schwab said he saw blood on the Akita.
Do you also believe like I do that the blood on the Akita means that the
murders occurred before 11 p.m., if we are to believe the testimonies of the
neighbor Karpf, whom you seem to believe, and Schwab?
Mi...@aol.com