THE ROCKINGHAM LAYOUT
dick wagner
http://wagnerandson.com where it is shown together with the 22
illustrations which are mentioned in this article. It is a detailed and
rather accurate description of Simpson's gounds and the interior of his
house (including the second floor). The article contains a few pictures
that you may not have seen before, and a few aspects that have been
mentioned in the transcript now become clear. Also, some errors in the
prosecution depiction of the estate are corrected now.]
In previous articles, I have described the Simpson interview videotape
and given captures from that which show glimpses of the interior and
exterior of Simpson's estate. (See "The Simpson Interview Tape,"
"Simpson's Back Walkway," and "The Gates at Rockingham" on our site,
http://wagnerandson.com .) The numbering of figures in those three
article continues with this fourth installment in the series of four, at
Figure 26. The subject here is the development of the most accurate
possible layout of the estate, and draws on whatever other sources we
could find, as well as the interview tape.
PROSECUTION VERSION: We began our analysis of the Rockingham layout
with the prosecution exhibit, which is shown here as the top of Figure
26 [2ROCKHAM.JPG]. Having driven by Simpson's estate myself (360 N.
Rockingham Ave. in the Brentwood section of Los Angeles, CA 90049), I
immediately realized that the depiction of Rockingham as narrower than
Ashford was wrong; the opposite is the case. Also, I was disturbed by
the omission of the streetlight, whose place could easily have been
shown, since the significant events had been at nighttime, and the
illumination was important in understanding the possibilities. The
prosecution depicted a notch on the north side of the Rockingham
driveway, about long enough for a single car, but it was reported that
on the murder night Simpson's daughter Arnelle came home late and parked
behind the Bentley; no room for that in the prosecution's diagram. A
careful viewing of the Simpson interview tape showed details different
than the prosecution diagram along the spooky south walkway, and aerial
photographs showed that the looping Ashford walkway on the courtroom
drawing is actually pretty much straight.
I undertook to reconcile all of the available sources of information
and construct the best true plot of the grounds, and floor plan of the
house that I could. That is shown in the lower part of Figure 26, where
artifacts of the trial (Bronco, blood drops, etc.) are superimposed.
The interior floor plan of Figure 26b is close to the fact, but some
small details are better depicted in a later drawing of the interior
only.
EVOLUTION OF THE DESIGN: In the fall of 1994, a pre-trial hearing was
held on the defense objection to the introduction of evidence gathered
at Rockingham. Although the admissibility of this had been judged and
upheld in the preliminary hearing, the defense believed that later
events warranted another look (there had been later visits by the
authorities). Simpson's housekeeper, Gigi Guarin, was brought to
explain who had visited, under what circumstances, where they went, and
what, if anything, they took away -- as far as she had seen. To
facilitate this discussion, defense attorney Johnny Cochran presented
exhibits which he purported to be "architect prepared drawings" of the
estate plot plan and the floor plans of the first and second floor.
(See Figure27 [1FLR_03.JPG].)
These certainly looked like authentic architect drawings. They were
wrinkled as drawings get when the are frequently rolled and unrolled,
and they used the symbols and conformed to the style and standards of
architect drawings. At the outset, we took them to be the gold standard
definition of the house at the time of the crimes, but as we worked with
them, we began to notice small differences from photographs taken in the
weeks after the crime. We particularly noticed 1) small departures in
the driveway and paths, 2) the landscaping in June 1994 was not as shown
on the drawings, and 3) small differences in the area of the
kitchen/foyer interface occur. Also, in its furnished condition the
living room (and perhaps some other places) have non-load bearing
partitions that do not show up on the drawings. So, we finally
considered that Cochran's exhibits were a good representation, but not
quite exact. An example of these drawings is shown in Figure 28
[1FLR_07.JPG].
(We also notice that during the preliminary hearing, the prosecution
used a different plot plan, to which Kato and Park testified. This was
very crude -- more a sketch than a drawing -- and did not show any
interior details of the house or the landscaping. However, it more
accurately portrayed the position and shape of the walks and driveways,
and was probably constructed from actual observations, rather than
having the professional imprimatur of being an "architect" drawing. In
particular, this early prosecution diagram did not contain the erroneous
vehicle niche in the Rockingham driveway. Once the prosecutors got
sight of the "official" defense plot plan, they adopted it on the lawyer
theory that a good sounding pedigree -- "architect drawing," in this
case -- is more importnat than what your own eyes show you.)
A second epoch for which there is documentary indication is in the days
and weeks after the crimes. Most of the aerial views and all of the
evidentiary photographs show the situation in this time period. Figure
29 [2ESTATES.JPG] is representative, and shows Simpson's estate, and the
Salingers' (Wolfgang & Marta) next door to the south from the air; the
perspective is from the north west. The forested division between the
properties can be seen, and also Simpson's drive and the children's play
yard in front are well depicted. One can see that in the front yard,
the trees are considerably denser near the Ashford gate, and sparser
near the Rockingham gate, than the prosecution exhibit shows. This
photograph also illustrates that there is a break in the roof line of
the breakfast nook. That will have some significance when we discuss
the kitchen interior.
(Simpson occasionally mentioned that "Mrs. Nebeker" lived across the
street. Upon consulting a Westside phone book for the fall of 1994, we
discovered an entry for "NEBEKER EUGENE A, 400 N ROCKINGHAM AVE, LOS
ANGELES, CA, 90049-2638". So, apparently Mrs. Nebeker lived across
Ashford, not Rockingham, from Simpson. Interestingly, like Simpson's
home, the residence at 400 N. Rockingham has also been demolished and
rebuilt since 1997.)
Although the architectural drawings, and the prosecution exhibit based
on them, give no hint, the aerial photographs show that there were
several trees on the inside of the Rockingham wall between the Bronco's
parking position and the streetlight at Ashford. I saw when I was there
after dark that these trees blocked the Bronco location from being
directly illuminated by the streetlight. In another example, the
observations of Figures 2, 3, and 4 in "View from the Rockingham Gate"
are photographs taken across Simpson's front yard, and the view there is
incompatible with the landscaping shown in the courtroom drawings. In
our analysis we have concluded that the architectural drawings were
valid at some time considerably before 1994, but by the time of the
crimes were out of date. Nonetheless, these drawings were used as the
basis for nearly all of the court presentations, on both sides. Jurors
could be forgiven if they wondered how two cars could have been parked
in the driveway niche big enough for only one, and if they had
difficulty visualizing other details of the attorneys tales.
The third epoch was December 1995, when Simpson produced his interview
video. As far as we could tell, the house and grounds had not changed
much since the time of the crimes, except that the gardeners had scalped
the eugenia hedge along the back walk.
After Simpson lost the civil case in January of 1997 the furnishings
were removed from the Rockingham house, and the house was refurbished
for sale to a new buyer. The pictures here of the wet bar and the
living room depict the situation during the refurbishing.
The final public images of the house and grounds were those shown on a
Good Morning America program when the house had been remodeled and was
up for sale (late 1997). Interior partitions had been removed and some
small changes to the buildings had been made. Kitchen cabinets had been
redone, for example, and skylights had been added in Kato's bungalow.
Photographs herein of that time period show the ABC logo in the lower
left. (The quarter million dollar remodeling was a wasted effort. The
new buyer -- investment banker Kenneth Abdalla -- paid nearly $4 million
dollars for it, had it demolished, and built a new house in its place.
A pretty pricey neighborhood when the lot alone is worth more than most
people make in a lifetime.)
FOYER AND VICINITY: Immediately as one came in the front door, he was
in a foyer. Figure 30 [FOYER1.JPG] is taken from in the foyer looking
at the inside of the ornate glass paneled front door. To the left is a
door to a small coat closet, and to the right is a small bathroom, the
door jamb of which just appears in the figure. The three small blood
drops (evidence item #12) were found about in line with the light
switches in the middle of the picture, and a couple of feet from the
wall. The intercom, with which to communicate with the gate, is on the
south wall just to the left of the bathroom door.
If you turned around in the position you were in to see Figure 30, you
would be looking into the interior of the house, and you would see the
scene of Figure 31 [!INT13.JPG], which like the previous picture is from
the interview tape. You are looking down a long corridor that finally
ends in the family room. Immediately on the left is the winding
stairway to the second floor, and just beyond that is the door to an
office. Because there are two or three areas in the house that have
been referred to as "office," we have called this the "front office."
Looking to the right of the office door, there is a little piece of
wall, and then the corridor. On the left of the corridor, and out of
sight here, is the living room, which at this time was divided into two
parts by a north-south partition. At the far end of the living room,
near French doors to the backyard, was Eunice Simpson's piano, which
made the news briefly when the civil trial victors tried to confiscate
it as part of OJ's estate.
Among the rumored incidents of Simpson's abuse of Nicole, there was one
during the early years when he reportedly "locked her in the wine
cellar," presumably in the Rockingham house since Simpson was living
there when he first met Nicole. But, there is no such wine cellar
indicated on any floor plan or photograph that we have seen. However, a
wine cellar requires steps to get down into, and the only place there
could be down-going steps that do not show up on the first-floor plan is
under the up-going winding staircase to the second floor. We looked on
the floor plan at the place where the top of such cellar steps would be
and we found an unidentified closet at the back of the front office.
There appears to be sufficient head height there -- about 8 feet -- and
so we believe that to get to the stairs down to the wine cellar one
would go into the office, go completely through that to the (apparent)
closet at the back, and upon going through the "closet door" would find
himself at the head of a stair well, and facing to the east.
Near the center of Figure 31 is the doorway to the family room, and at
the far end of that is dimly seen the oriel (bay window). As the gaze
moves to the right, one sees the double doors to the formal dining room,
and then even farther right, near the foreground, is the kitchen door.
The arrangement near the front door is shown from the outside in Figure
32 [OFFICWIN.JPG] from Good Morning America. The foyer door is recessed
slightly in the front wall, and there are small windows on either side
of it. The window on the right is in the small bathroom off the foyer,
and the window on the left is at the back of the tiny coat closet.
Farther to the left are the large leaded glass windows of the front
office, and farther to the right of the bathroom window are the kitchen
windows over the sink, and the kitchen doors. The garage is on the
extreme right in this picture taken from the Rockingham driveway.
The foyer is shown in a unique perspective in Figure 33 [STAIRS1M.JPG,
(Good Morning America)]. Here we are looking down over the second floor
railing at the foyer floor. The curving stairway is seen, together with
the chandelier hanging in the center of the two-story tall space.
(Simpson mentioned this in the video when he was trying to explain why
Park may have thought he saw "the lights go on in the house." Even with
this picture, the claim is unpersuasive.)
LIVING SPACE: After one progresses down the main corridor past the
office door, the left hand wall is open again, and now to the long
living room, which has a couple of fireplaces on the far (north) wall.
Going down to the fireplace and looking east toward the back yard, one
could see the scene of Figure 34 [LIV_ROOM.JPG], as it looked during
remodeling with furniture and partitions removed. Here the space to the
French doors and back yard is unobstructed. On the extreme right a
workman is seen, passing the doors to the dining room. Behind him (to
the left of his position in the picture) is the narrow door at the end
of the long corridor, leading into the family room.
Moving to the center of the living room and looking to the right from
the previous picture, one would see Figure 35 [DINEROOM.JPG, (Good
Morning America)]. The small doorway into the family room is in about
the middle of the picture, and the wide doors into the dining room are
on the right. Barely visible at the very back of the dining room is the
right end of the glass wall behind the wet bar. Along the left wall of
the dining room there is a bright vertical streak. That is
approximately where the Heiseman Trophy display case was located.
I have mentioned the door from the long corridor into the family room
several times, and now we will walk through that door and turn to the
right to see Figure 36 [!INT11.JPG] (interview tape). On the left side
of the picture is the entertainment center -- big screen TV, theater
quality stereo, and a couple of smaller individual television sets up
near the ceiling. Out of the picture to the left is the oriel. This
picture was taken in December, so there is a Christmas tree to the right
of the entertainment center. To the right of that are French doors to
the back yard and pool. It was through the farthest of these doors
("D") that Arnelle brought the detectives into the house. To the right
of the doors is the step-down pool/trophy room, and the corner of the
pool table is just visible. Moving even farther to the right, one is
again at the level of the main house, and the wet bar is at the extreme
right edge of the picture, the backs of several armless chairs, facing
the bar counter, can be seen.
The pool/trophy room is seen in more detail in Figure 37 [MC_POOL.JPG],
from Marcia Clark's book, showing the situation in the era just after
the crimes. The floor here is down two steps from the main house. At
the back left of the pool room is seen an open door (also "O" on Figure
36); this connects to the back office in the bungalow complex, and after
going through that finally comes to Kato's room. It was back along this
path that Det. Fuhrman escorted Kato on the morning after the murders.
Just to the right of this picture is the wet bar, and that is the place
where Fuhrman deposited Kato before continuing into the breakfast nook
to confer with the other detectives.
The back of the bar is seen in Figure 38 [WETBAR.JPG]. This is the
view looking east from the back bar entry, which is from the dining room
(even though the front of the bar is on the family room). The view
through the French doors at the end of the room is the back yard in the
vicinity of the pool, and the rightmost of those doors is the
"detectives door." This is the view after the furnishings had been
stripped, so the shelves in front of the blue glass wall are bare. That
blue glass is actually an external leaded window, with the utility area
of the south walk on the other side. So, during the daytime (as in this
picture) it is illuminated by sunlight.
KITCHEN: Figure 39 [KITCHEN1.JPG from E!] shows the kitchen as it was
when Simpson lived there. A sink and windows onto the Rockingham
driveway are at the far left side of the picture. There is an island in
the middle, and a range and oven at the far end. At the extreme right
is a door into the foyer. Out of the picture to the left is the annex
projecting into the driveway that contains the breakfast nook, and at
the end of that, the kitchen doors. Out of the picture to the right is
the doorway into the dining room.
The kitchen is also shown in Figure 40 [KITCHEN2.JPG, Good Morning
America], after remodeling. This is from a perspective to the right of
the previous picture, and one can see through the door into the foyer.
To the right of that door is an open door to a small pantry. It is
useful to notice the flooring, since that occurs in the next photo, and
serves to tie the two together.
Figure 41 [OFF_KTCH.JPG] is from Fuhrman's book, and shows a police
negotiator talking to Simpson by phone during the low-speed chase from
Simpson's own kitchen. He is standing at the opposite end of the
kitchen from the foyer door, and is in the doorway that leads to the
laundry and maid's room. There is a small secretary's niche in the left
foreground, and a couple of recesses into the garage wall beyond the
doorway. On the far end is seen the sloping roof beyond the break in
the roofline pointed out by the arrow in Figure 29. Rattan chairs
around the breakfast nook table are seen in the lower right, and the
kitchen doors are out of the picture in the upper right.
If one were to go through the doorway that the policeman is blocking in
the previous picture, he would come -- after about 10 feet -- to the
washing machine, dryer, and the laundry room door to the south walk.
Just beyond (and to the left) of the dryer is the maid's room. But,
immediately as one goes through this door, there is another door on the
right hand wall, going into the garage. A scene in that messy place is
shown in Figure 42 [EXHIB134.JPG] from the criminal trial. This is the
view from near the garage door, looking back toward the door into the
house. Bicycles are strewn against the south wall, there is a glass
paned door going to the south walk, and on the right is a red Testarosa
automobile (which is shown covered in some of the garage interior
pictures). Out of the picture to the left is the door into the house,
and in that area is a home gym with equipment, paraphernalia, and wall
mounted mirrors.
BACK YARD: Figure 43 [YARD04.JPG] shows the back of the house when it
was up for sale. The living room, and the end of the French doors
there, are peeking out on the right side of the building. At the right
end of the near wall is the oriel, and moving to the left, one sees the
French doors to the family room. At the extreme right of the picture is
the "detectives door." On the second floor, the balcony on the right,
and the French door there, are on the master bedroom. The windows
behind a tree to the left are the master bathroom. Extensive paving
between the house and the pool is seen in the foreground, and the pool
itself is beyond the picture to the right. The tennis court is beyond
the pool.
Figure 44 [EXTER'R6.JPG] is an unusual perspective of the back yard;
the photographer's back was essentially against the inside of the
Ashford wall and the camera was pointed south. The building in the
distance is the north side of the bungalows, and the door (marked "K")
is Kato's outside door. The roof to the right of this shows the three
skylights over the back office. The pool is in the middle distance, and
the path to the tennis court passes on the close side of the tree.
Toward the upper right, the steps descending from the house level to the
pool level are seen.
SECOND FLOOR: The few pictures that we have seen of the second floor
do not seem to contradict the architects drawing of that area, and so we
have simply rectified the distortions of perspective in the videocapture
of the exhibit (a better version of the drawing behind Gigi's head in
Figure 27), and present that here as Figure 43 [TOP2.JPG].
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: When all of the foregoing indications are put
together, there results the first-floor plan of Figure 46
[RHAM_INT.JPG].
Two notations on that drawing require explanation. A long broken line
coming in the front door, proceeding down the main corridor, and turning
right in the family room is shown, and is labeled, "Camera's Path."
This refers to the interview video in which Simpson was trying to
persuade that Park could not have seen the interior lighting condition
from his position at the Ashford gate. In this demonstration, the
camera begins at the Ashford gate (and the house appears dark), proceeds
down the driveway, turns at the porch, and heads for the font door. At
that point, the door opens to reveal that the interior is completely and
normally lit (but the chandelier is not on). The camera proceeds down
the main corridor, following the path indicated in Figure 46 until it
reaches the family room.
Figure 31 shows the scene just after the door has been opened and the
camera enters the foyer (looking east), and Figure 36 shows the last
scene, after the camera has turned into the family room and is pointed
south. Substantially, the lights in the back of the house (living room
and family room) are on for this demonstration and the lights in the
foyer, kitchen, and front office are not on. In Simpson's claimed
scenario, that he had been packing and going up and down stairs with
luggage, it seems unnatural that the foyer light would be off. In the
scenario that we believe, that Park saw him as Simpson first went into
the darkened house, and that Simpson then proceeded to the washing
machine where he tore off the sweatsuit he had worn to Bundy, the
kitchen lights would probably go on immediately after Simpson went into
the house, easily causing the effect ("lights went on") that Park saw.
So, Simpson's demonstration is unconvincing -- in fact,
counter-productive.
Also shown in Figure 46 is a notation of, "Interview Location," in the
family room, and a pair of rays reaching out toward the front of the
house from there. This is our interpretation of the place in which the
sit-down portion of the interview (more than an hour) was conducted.
The rays indicate the region seen by the camera. A representative frame
of the interview was shown in Figure 2 [INTERVW4.JPG], and is here
repeated. It was like a treasure hunt for us to figure where this was
photographed, with the clues being the objects in the scene.
Notice that behind Simpson, and to the left of him in the picture, is a
counter with drawers below; there are pictures and small plants on this
counter, and it appears to separate the place of the interview from
another room that has double doors. A sloping stair railing can be seen
through those doors. The only stair railing like that in the house is
the stairs to the second floor in the foyer, and the only double doors
in the main house are the dining room doors. So, we concluded that the
room on the other side of the counter is the dining room. Behind
Simpson's shoulder and to the right of him in the picture, is an opening
in the wall, a doorway in the other direction beyond that, and finally a
wall with a picture in the far distance. The opening and the doorway
are consistent with the east end of the main corridor, which occurs
shortly after the dining room doors. But, the wall with the painting
confounded us for a time. It is too close to be the east side of the
office wall, and finally we realized that it was a partition in the
living room, with a picture on the wall, and some furniture below that.
The one feature that we looked hard for but never could find an
indication of, on either photograph or floor plan, was the Jacuzzi.
Kato says it is down in the region of the "bridge" across the neck of
the pool, but we could not see any indication on the deck in that area.
Marcia Clark says that the wall behind the Jacuzzi is decorated, but we
could not find anything like that either. There is some round structure
within the pool, and it is possible that the Jacuzzi is integrated into
the pool, but the indication is rather feeble, and we have not indicated
a Jacuzzi in our diagrams.
(A comprehensive tour of Simpson's Rockingham estate -- as it really
was.)
Dick Wagner • Van Nuys, CA (2/06/03) R_LAYOUT.TXT
Prien
>From: dick wagner wag...@westworld.com
>Date: 2/8/2003 10:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3E45CE...@westworld.com>
notes about prosecution's Rockingham layout:
>The
>prosecution depicted a notch on the north side of the Rockingham
>driveway, about long enough for a single car, but it was reported that
>on the murder night Simpson's daughter Arnelle came home late and parked
>behind the Bentley; no room for that in the prosecution's diagram.
Now I wonder why they skipped that? Just another of those harmless prosecution
errors.
It was, of course, because Park saw two cars there, when he should only have
seen one, because Arnelle arrived home after Simpson left. So they revised the
diagram to make it appear only one car would have been there. This is why the
jurors wanted their read back, to make sure they had remembered correctly Park
claiming to see two cars.
This issue was debated at the time on this newsgroup, and a number of
participants who argued for Simpson's innocence pointed out the significance of
Park's testimony on this, as well as Clark's deft avoidance of it.
Prien
djd61993
news:20030208232340...@mb-bk.aol.com...
> >Subject: THE ROCKINGHAM LAYOUT
> >From: dick wagner wag...@westworld.com
> >Date: 2/8/2003 10:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3E45CE...@westworld.com>
>
> notes about prosecution's Rockingham layout:
>
>
>
> >The
> >prosecution depicted a notch on the north side of the Rockingham
> >driveway, about long enough for a single car, but it was reported that
> >on the murder night Simpson's daughter Arnelle came home late and parked
> >behind the Bentley; no room for that in the prosecution's diagram.
>
> Now I wonder why they skipped that? Just another of those harmless
prosecution
> errors.
>
> It was, of course, because Park saw two cars there, when he should only
have
> seen one,
Please provide Park's testimony that he saw two cars. In lieu of that,
please provide your evidence that there were 2 cars.
Thank you for your response.
Duane
Bob August
djd61993 wrote:
> "Prien" <pr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030208232340...@mb-bk.aol.com...
>
>>>Subject: THE ROCKINGHAM LAYOUT
>>>From: dick wagner wag...@westworld.com
>>>Date: 2/8/2003 10:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <3E45CE...@westworld.com>
>>
>>notes about prosecution's Rockingham layout:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The
>>>prosecution depicted a notch on the north side of the Rockingham
>>>driveway, about long enough for a single car, but it was reported that
>>>on the murder night Simpson's daughter Arnelle came home late and parked
>>>behind the Bentley; no room for that in the prosecution's diagram.
>>
>>Now I wonder why they skipped that? Just another of those harmless
>
> prosecution
>
>>errors.
>>
>>It was, of course, because Park saw two cars there, when he should only
>
> have
>
>>seen one,
>
>
> Please provide Park's testimony that he saw two cars. In lieu of that,
> please provide your evidence that there were 2 cars.
> Thank you for your response.
> Duane
Duane, Park did indeed testify that he thought there were two cars
parked in Simpson's driveway. He told how when he returned to the
Rockingham gate to enter, he thought the turn would be too tight, so he
went back to the Ashford gate. He also testified that he thought the
small dark colored bag was behind the second car.
Park was mistaken. Only the Bentley was parked in the driveway at that
time. When Arnelle came home later, she parked her car behind the Bentley.
bobaugust
Bob August
Good pictures, Dick.
bobaugust
dick wagner
I had explained that among other errors in the prosecution diagram of
Simpson's estate they had depicted the parking on the north side of the
Rockingham driveway as a niche long enough for one car. In fact, it is
a cut-back edge to the driveway that has no boundry on the far (east)
end. Of this error, you say,
"Now I wonder why they skipped that? Just another of those harmless
prosecution errors."
As I explained in the article, there is apparently no sinister purpose
to this, but it is only a result of the attorney's slap dash interest in
the truth, and their devotion to appearance. During the preliminary
hearing, the prosecution used a crude sketch of the estate which did not
contain the "driveway niche" error, but the defense came with a much
more impressive looking (but wrong) diagram showing the niche. Because
the defense picture was prettier (and had the pedigree of being
"architect prepared") the prosecutors used that henceforth.
Now, I don't know whether this error was "harmless," (or whether any
error in court is harmless) but it is not sinister, insofar as it came
from the defense originally.
Perhaps you are right in your speculation that there was doubt among
the jurors (about Park's testimony) that was facilitated by the
erroneous drawing. But, that must have been a fortuitous (for the
prosecution) coincidence, since the prosecution's depiction of the
estate was set before Park testified in the criminal trial.
--dick wagner
djd61993
news:3E465236...@lvcm.com...
Bob,
Thanks for clearing that up. Too bad Preen shakes in his boots whenever
anyone asks him to produce evidence for his assertions.
Duane
missmarple8
That's beautiful, bobaugust, "Park was mistaken". You are right
though, and he was mistaken about a lot of things, actually most
things he testified to. How he ever got to be said to be "the honest
limo driver" and that this actually meant something is beyond me. I
don't think he tried to decieve anyone, he was just somewhat screwed
up.
However, the jury figured it out.
Miss Marple
Prien
>From: "djd61993" djd6...@attbi.com
>Date: 2/9/2003 1:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <32x1a.50756$be.36360@rwcrnsc53>
the exalted brain dead moron blabbers and blubbers:
>Bob,
>Thanks for clearing that up. Too bad Preen shakes in his boots whenever
>anyone asks him to produce evidence for his assertions.
>Duane
Yeah, Duane, I was really quivering ovr that one.
Prien
Bob August
Miss Marple, that is what made him Park honest witness. Did he change
his testimony after he found out he was mistaken? No. Did Kato Kaelin
change his testimony after he found out he was mistaken? No. Both were
credible honest witnesses. All witness make mistakes. This was not an
especially rememberable night for Allan Park while it was taking place.
He was concentrating on the responsibility of his job, not trying to
memorize everything that was happening around him.
The only person who continually changed his testimony was Simpson. Gee,
I bet you can't figure out what that means, right, Miss Marple?
Park said he wasn't completely sure that there were two cars parked in
the driveway, he only said that is what he thought he saw. But Park had
no doubt that when he arrived at Rockingham there was no vehicle parked
outside the Rockingham gate. Considering that he drove by that gate
three different times, located the house by the house numbers on the
curb, where the Bronco was later parked, is the important fact that the
genius jurors did not seem to comprehend. Just like the genius Miss
Marple can not comprehend it. Just like the genius Miss Marple who
believes the our lying hero and thinks that Simpson never went to Bundy
that night, right? Funny.
bobaugust
John Junot
I found one definite and one other possible arror in your layout.
WHAT YOU HAVE LABELED AS THE "FIRST GATE" ON THE SOUTH PATHWAY IS
DEFINITELY NOT THE FIRST GATE MENTIONED IN THE CASE TESTIMONY.
What you have labeled in error is actually a seven foot tall gate that
is NOT mentioned anywhere else in the public reconrd. Only people who
have seen the interview tape (or, of course, had been there) could be
aware of its existence.
The REAL "first gate" is immediately in front of the three steps
leading down to the south path just before the side garage door that
OJ opens.
It was only about waist high and broken off its hinges. Read the
appropiate passage in the Eliot book where Kaelin first goes down the
south path.
Also, you can actually see that gate on the interview tape. Put your
vcr on frame-by-frame advance and watch for it as OJ first starts down
the path. It is just by the tree trunk sticking out.
Also, based on Sue Silva's testimony, I hd been under the impression
that thre was a door that went directly from the garage into what you
have labeled the "breakfast area, but Silva could have easily mistated
the ddescription of the door that actually opens into the maid's
hallway, because it is only a few feet from the 'kitchen'.
Great work!
John J.
djd61993
It was pretty evident. <chuckle>
Duane
dick wagner
We had you acutely in mind when we went through the months-long effort
to interpret photos of the Rockingham place and render maps and plans of
it. I believe that we verified virtually everything you have said about
the interior of the house, and the external doors. (I am fairly
confident that the only path from the garage into the house is via the
maid's hallway, which -- as you say -- is only a couple of steps from
the kitchen. And, if the swinging door happens to be detented into an
open position -- as in the picture of the cop on the phone -- it could
almost seem like the back garage door opens into the breakfast area.)
FIRST GATE: I think you overstate the case to say, "WHAT YOU HAVE
LABELED AS THE "FIRST GATE" ON THE SOUTH PATHWAY IS DEFINITELY NOT THE
FIRST GATE MENTIONED IN THE CASE TESTIMONY."
I don't know if you caught it, John, but I discussed in some detail the
question of the "first gate" etc. in my recent article, "Gates at
Rockingham." In that article, I recognized the stray chain link panel
behind a tree near the garage side door, and identified that it could be
the "first gate." However, there is another definite gate at the end of
the garage, where the utility area begins, and it seemed to me that was
more likely the "first gate." (I also identified and showed a picture
of the "second gate" at the end of the utility area.) My conclusion in
that article was that the gate at the end of the garage was PROBABLY the
"first gate," but I recongnized the POSSIBILITY that the one by the side
door was.
Now, as to Marc Eliot's mention, I see on p. 92, "Kato then proceeded
to the end of the garage, where a wrought-iron gate led to a long,
narrow pathway behind the main house that extends its entire length,
past his guest house, Arnelle's and the maid's quarters. The gate was
broken off its hinges..."
So, apparently, Kato describes the "first gate" as being at the end of
the garage. That, then, would also be the gate that we identify as the
"first gate." (However, there are no "wrought-iron" gates back there,
only chain link.)
I continue in my former understanding, John, to believe that the "first
gate" was at the end of the garage, but I recognize the possibility
(which will require more than I have seen yet to realize) that the
"first gate" might be at the garage side door.
Thanks for taking the time to comment on this specialized point.
--dick wagner
John Junot
> JOHN:
>
> We had you acutely in mind when we went through the months-long effort
> to interpret photos of the Rockingham place and render maps and plans of
> it. I believe that we verified virtually everything you have said about
> the interior of the house, and the external doors. (I am fairly
> confident that the only path from the garage into the house is via the
> maid's hallway, which -- as you say -- is only a couple of steps from
> the kitchen. And, if the swinging door happens to be detented into an
> open position -- as in the picture of the cop on the phone -- it could
> almost seem like the back garage door opens into the breakfast area.)
Come to think of it, the picture of the cop on the phone precludes my
prefvious conception of the door from the garage to the kitchen. You
are right. Silva's testimony was ambiguous. BTW, accoriding to
Silva, there was a keypad next to that door. Depending on the effort
involves, you might want to designate the keypad locations on your
diagram.
>
> FIRST GATE: I think you overstate the case to say, "WHAT YOU HAVE
> LABELED AS THE "FIRST GATE" ON THE SOUTH PATHWAY IS DEFINITELY NOT THE
> FIRST GATE MENTIONED IN THE CASE TESTIMONY."
>
> I don't know if you caught it, John, but I discussed in some detail the
> question of the "first gate" etc. in my recent article, "Gates at
> Rockingham." In that article, I recognized the stray chain link panel
> behind a tree near the garage side door, and identified that it could be
> the "first gate." However, there is another definite gate at the end of
> the garage, where the utility area begins, and it seemed to me that was
> more likely the "first gate."
Why is "more likely"? I consider your idea imp0ossible simply because
there is no doubt Kaelin manhandles it to get into the path. Can you
imagine doing that in the pitch dark with a seven foot tall gate?
(I also identified and showed a picture
> of the "second gate" at the end of the utility area.) My conclusion in
> that article was that the gate at the end of the garage was PROBABLY the
> "first gate," but I recongnized the POSSIBILITY that the one by the side
> door was.
>
> Now, as to Marc Eliot's mention, I see on p. 92, "Kato then proceeded
> to the end of the garage,
I see the point of confusion. Eliot/Kaelin was referring to the WEST
end of the garage.
where a wrought-iron gate led to a long,
> narrow pathway behind the main house that extends its entire length,
> past his guest house, Arnelle's and the maid's quarters. The gate was
> broken off its hinges..."
>
> So, apparently, Kato describes the "first gate" as being at the end of
> the garage.
The WEST or "front" end.
That, then, would also be the gate that we identify as the
> "first gate." (However, there are no "wrought-iron" gates back there,
Unfortunately the whole gate is not shown on the interview video.
Only a corner of it is seen, and that extremely briefly. I want to
suggest that, if one could see the whole thing, it would have
decoration on it that would cause one to believe it was wrought iron.
The seven foot gate would DEFINTELY NOT be mistaken for wrought iron,
espcially if you had to move and lift it.
> only chain link.)
>
> I continue in my former understanding, John, to believe that the "first
> gate" was at the end of the garage, but I recognize the possibility
> (which will require more than I have seen yet to realize) that the
> "first gate" might be at the garage side door.
Actually, just before the three steps leading down to the pathway
John Junot
I also suggest checking Kaelin's criminal trial testimony on this
point. Maybe that would settle it once and for all.
dick wagner
You have now elaborated on the reasons why you think the "first gate"
was the one near the garage side door (at the top of the steps), and I
have read your thoughts. I would say that (to the degree you have made
correct interpretations) these are "indications" that favor your idea of
where the gate was; they are not absolute proof. There are also
"indications" that the first gate was where I think it was, but there is
no absolute proof of that position, either. At the end of the day, you
apparently are more persuaded by one set of indications, and I am by
another.
However, of your claim that the quote from Eliot's book that refers to
this as at "the end of the garage," means the west end of the garage...
I think you are making a tortured interpretation of words. It would be
virtually universal for a person to enter that south passageway from the
west end, do his buisness, and return to the west end. (There is the
theoretical possiblity that a person could come out of the laundry room
door, but Simpson says that was virtually never used -- it had bottle
water containers stashed there.)
So, if the usual understanding is that one progressed initially down
that path from west to east, then the location you are talking about is
at the "beginning of the garage," but Eliot says the first gate was at
the "end of the garage." I flatly do not believe your interpretation on
this, John, any more than I believe August's similarly tortured
interpretation that when Heidstra said he first heard the dog bark it
was "Very near," he meant very near to the condo, not very near to
himself. Both cases are just a clever twisting of words completely out
of their usual understanding.
However, I will agree with anyone who says that Eliot was not trying
for a surveyor's precision, and that he threw around the language as to
make a saleable result. On this basis, I interpret that "wrought iron
gate" was Eliot's gratuitous invention to make the scene seem more
"estate-like."
Also, I would remind you that there are other stray chain link panels
on that back walk (on the south side, near the utility area), so the
fact that there is a chain link panel does not automatically make it a
"gate." (The idea that there would be a wrought iron "decoration" on a
chain link gate in the never-seen back walk is bizarre, at least, John.)
As to your assertion to me that, "I consider your idea impossible
simply because there is no doubt Kaelin manhandles it to get into the
path. Can you imagine doing that in the pitch dark with a seven foot
tall gate?" I sure can, John, and I am old and decrepit. I do not
think this is nearly the task that you make it to be. (Incidentally, I
think the gate at the east end of the garage is six feet, not seven, but
it is a petty point.)
None of which is to say that you are definately wrong, only that I do
not think that your reasons for believing that the first gate was near
the garage side door are compelling. More persuasive to me is the fact
that there DEFINITELY IS a chain link gate (with "backward hinges" so
that it could easily become "broken off its hinges") at the east end of
the garage.
So, you have one idea that I can not disprove, and I have another that
you can not disprove. It's called a "disagreement," John, and it
happens all the time. No problem.
--dick wagner
ps: BTW, as to your "Depending on the effort involves, you might want
to designate the keypad locations on your diagram"... I have already
done that, John. Check the green diamond symbols in Figure 46.
Bob August
Dick, just a fast response to your continued misunderstanding about what
Heidstra said.
You write,
"I flatly do not believe your interpretation on this, John, any more
than I believe August's similarly tortured interpretation that when
Heidstra said he first heard the dog bark it was "Very near," he meant
very near to the condo, not very near to himself."
Read Heidstra's words, Dick. His words tell us what he meant.
Heidstra had previously heard the Akita barking from the front of
Nicole's condo, behind the gate numerous times. This time when Heidstra
came to the corner it sounded like the barking was very close because
the Akita was not behind the gate. The Akita was in the street. Not on
the east side, not walking, but in the street in front of Nicole's
condo. That is what he meant by "close".
July 12, 1995
MR. HEIDSTRA: No. He didn't sound like he was behind the gate. He was on
the street somehow. It sound like it. He was very close by when I came
to the--
MR. DARDEN: The Akita was walking on the street?
MR. HEIDSTRA: No. I didn't see him, but he sound very close, very close
when I came to the corner.
MR. DARDEN: Did it sound to you as if the Akita was on the east side of
Bundy?
MR. HEIDSTRA: No. That I couldn't see. No, I don't think so.
MR. DARDEN: Are you certain that the Akita was not at 875 south Bundy
when you heard the barking?
MR. HEIDSTRA: I couldn't say that. It sounded like he was on the street
and he was in front of the condo or something like that.
MR. DARDEN: Did it sound to you as if the Akita was walking up and down
the street?
MR. HEIDSTRA: No, no, no, no, no. Was not walking.
bobaugust
dick wagner
We are discussing what Heidstra meant when he described the unseen
Akita as being "close by" and "Close, very close."
You say, "Read Heidstra's words, Dick. His words tell us what he
meant." I have read his words -- as you posted here and often before.
He does tell us, and I understand. I daresay you are one of the very
few who does not. You have contrived an elaborate (and tortured)
explanation of his testimony to match your equally tortured explanation
of the crime.
This is just one more example of what you must go to in order to
support your collapsed idea of "Simpson Did It." Previously, you have
also showed that you can not believe the simple declarative sentences of
witnesses Fenjves, Stein, and Storfer about the time that the dog
started barking. You do not believe Karpf's simple aritimetic about the
time he got home from the airport, nor his statement that when he saw
the Akita barking in the street he had a leash on. You do not believe
the simple first-hand reports of Fuhrman, Vannatter, Fung and Phllips
that they did not see any evidence of someone coming over the Salinger's
fence. You have to declare that the photo of blood flowing uphill from
Goldman's neck to his mouth is an optical illusion...
Your idea of this crime is just an impossible rationalization for your
cherished "Simpson Did It" that you have concocted; it buzzes eternally
in your head, and to support it you have to pick and chose to believe
some witnesses and disbelieve others. It is an exercize that entertains
you to do, I suppose, but few rational adults could subscribe to your
version of things.
As I said, and you have not refuted with sterile old transcript that
you have twisted out of recognizability, I don't believe your little
sham.
Poor Bob. Living in his private little reality.
--dick wagner
Bob August
I see you still continue with your dumb bull crap again, Dick. When ever
you are wrong, you simply can not admit it and just spew the other
examples of your complete misunderstandings and distortions of what
happened, and what I have said. That figures.
I posted Heidstra words for you again. And again, anyone who reads what
his says most likely understands those words. It seems that the Prien
part of your brain just can not comprehend english again.
Just like the Prien part of your brain can not understand that I do
believe what Fenjves, Stein, and Storfer said about the barking they
heard. Not the different estimated times they made, but the facts that
they testified to.
Just like the Prien part of your brain can not understand that I do
believe Fuhrman, Vannatter, when they said they could not tell from the
thick foliage that anyone had been behind the Salingers property, seven
hours after the murders. No one could tell if Simpson had been there,
Dick. That is the reality of thick foliage. That is until the foliage
was trimmed back and evidence exposed. The bent wires were revealed
showing us exactly where Simpson scaled his fence.
I do not have to rationalize that "Simpson did it" I understand the
indisputable proof that he did. You are the one, Dick, with your
foolish, false, and distorted arguments that Simpson was there, but
didn't do it. You are the one who tries to rationalize your screwed up
proven false fabrications because you just can not accept the truth of
this crime. So once again you turn things around again and blame me for
your failures. Funny.
bobaugust
PinkPantherIIIII
>though, and he was mistaken about a lot of things, actually most
>things he testified to. How he ever got to be said to be "the honest
>limo driver" and that this actually meant something is beyond me. I
>don't think he tried to decieve anyone, he was just somewhat screwed
>up.
>
>However, the jury figured it out.
>
>Miss Marple
The jury figured it out? What did they figure out? They were blind with
Cochran's brilliant smoke screen. Allan Park was one of the best witnesses
that prosecution had, not to mention all of the evidence, where were you during
the presentation of evidence in this trial? Filing your nails? Why do you
support O.J.? Is he beyond everyone else? Is he good enough to slaughter two
innocent people because he is pissed off, and he can get away with that? Is
that what you want to believe in your heart, and if yes, why? He was a jealous
asshole who stalked his ex wife, beat the shit out of her at times, watched her
with other men, he was completely pissed that she was seeing other men after
their divorce. He went over there that night to beat the crap out of her
AGAIN, but this time, he decided to finish off the job.. he wore his little
knit cap and gloves that he never wore, to cover up his fingerprints, in the
middle of summer, because he thought he was some smart ass guy who could get
away with it. Well he did get away with it didn't he, Miss Marple!!!! He paid
a fortune to have a bunch of slick defense attorneys to get him OFF. O.J. had
just been broken -up with by Paula, Nicole had totally dissed him at Sydney's
recital, he wasn't invited to dinner afterwards, and he decided this was his
perfect opportunity to get even with that bitch... once and for all. He didn't
expect a male visitor that night, but whoa, he had to get rid of theone and
only witness to him killing Nicole! He barely made it in time to catch his
limo, poor thing! Allan Park had been buzzing the gate for nearly 25 minutes!
O.J. was trying his ass off to hurry up, wasn't he? Man, he was one frantic
dude, he fell against that wall, I wonder if that hurt, then he jammed up to
the front of his house then FINALLY answered his gate buzzer, "oh man, I
overslept".. right. Later he told the police he had been chipping golf balls..
what a liar he is.. such a sweet little story, after he rushed home after
slaughtering 2 people to death, parked his bronco up on the curb, leaving blood
everywhere, he could have done better than that, don't you think? Why didn't
he take the stand Miss Marple? If you were accused of killing your ex, during
YOUR trial, would you take the stand, if you were INNOCENT? Who wouldn't!!!!
What scared him so much to get on that stand in front of the jury, in front of
the whole world? When you are innocent, you will do anything in your power to
stand up for what is RIGHT.... what did O.J. do? He put on a big show for the
whole world, struggling with those gloves, and then slipped them off so
quickly, poor poor baby... he is just an innocent little freak isn't he? He
was just set up, ohhhh the poor guy. He won a Heisman trophy and everything,
how could a man like that commit homicide? Oh God forbid! Too bad that his
blood leaked a big trail from killing Nicole and Ron, all the way to the back
gate at Bundy, all the way home, inside his bronco, he was furiously wiping up
blood, almost causing a crash at the intersection Jill Shively saw him at..
damn, he wasn't supposed to be seen by anyone, especially when he had his
headlights turned off, that is against the law, isn't it, when it's dark? You
could get a ticket for that! Damn, he was getting really pissed that night,
that little Nissan was just in his way! Oh my God!!! He really had to hurry..
he really screwed up again by jumping that fence, bumping Kato's wall, dropping
his bloody glove, and trying desperately to hold on to that bloody sharp
knife! Ahh! He dropped everything, shit! But lo and behold, Johnnie Cochran
came running to this million dollar rescue! Holy shit, it's another black man
in trouble? Well golly .. sounds like Michael Jackson, only this one doesn't
involve 12 year old kids... whew.. let's see.. okay, ahem, you're innocent
O.J., I can tell brother. Would you like to discuss this over some KFC? Would
you like a line of coke or anything to cool your heels today? I can see you're
a brother, and as a brother myself, I can see you are absolutely 150% not
guilty, so let's discuss the plan.. you didn't do it.. umm the Rodney King
trial was a lost case! Let me take care of the jury, we'll make sure they all
feel sympathy for you cuz you're black and rich, and no prob dude, we'll get
you off. YEP.. that is the deal.. poor O.J., it must really be great being
him, not being caught and all. Being rich and insecure, he let Johnnie tell
him what to do, he was just out of LIES wasn't he? He sure got what he paid
for that day didn't he? Damn, his trip to the Bahamas on the Miss Turnberry
just didn't work out, shoot! He was ready to do it too! He had A.C. come
rushing to his rescue at Bob Kardashian's house, he had the disguise, he had
the money, the clothes packed, he told Bob, man dude, I'm going to kill myself
here, no there, no wait, I'm going to Nicole's grave, yeah that's it, I'm
supposed to be feeling sad because she died .. oh yeah!!!!! But he was scared
shitless! He didn't know what the hell he was doing, how can he KILL
himself??? The one person he loves the MOST? No!!!! What would that do to his
kids??? His mother????? He was imagining the newspaper's headlines following
that day he took his own life here. Oh no, he couldn't pull the trigger, and
leave his precious remains all over for the public to see and take pictures of
it, not this man. He was to be respected. He was O.J.!!!! Please people,
stop trying to figure this case out, it is no mystery.. O.J. had the motive, he
had the anger, he had the disguises and left plenty of everyone's blood on 2
different properties that night. Look at that.. look at him.. he is not some
great guy, he is putting on a huge act, that is what he does best. I wish
someone would slit his neck, and get away with that too. That is what he
deserves, but who is a bigger coward than him to do such a terrible thing,
murder? Who would murder that awesome guy???????? Let me know if you have any
more bullshit you'd like to discuss. The evidence is there, the gut feeling is
there, if you'd just snap out of your little debate over who is really the
killer in this case, you'd sleep better at night, and quit wasting so much of
your precious time defending this SICK ASS MURDERER. One more thing.. if it
was one of your own kids that was murdered, would you still think it was the
mob? Would you watch the ex beat your kid to a pulp, have his voice on tape
during a 911 call, and think nothing of it? You'd just let him go cuz he's
famous, right? Like if it was ... Brad Pitt or Jack Nicholson.. you'd let it
slide, put it out of your mind, they are rich actors! They would never do THAT
would they? Oh noooooo... just think it was YOUR OWN CHILD... I am sick of
rich people getting away with murder because they have the money to do it! It
damn well pisses me off!!!! When O.J. answered his phone in that Chicago hotel
room and they told him, "Your ex-wife was killed".. did he ask them, "WHICH
WIFE?" No, he knew that already. Didn't he?
Bob August
When Simpson answered his phone in that Chicago hotel room and Phillips
told him, "Your ex-wife has been killed." Did he ask them, "which wife?"
Good one, PinkPantherIIIII.
bobaugust
missmarple8
If Allan Park was "one of the best witnesses the prosecution had", I'd
say they didn't have much. The poor kid was just a regular eyewitness
and statistically as such had about a 50% error rate. Of course you
get to pick which 50% of his observations you think were correct and
in what 50% he erred (or was "honest but mistaken", as bobaugust puts
it). I get to pick too. And so does a jury.
Park saw two cars in the driveway.
He didn't see Kaelin's car outside the Ashford gate, where he spent
some time.
He didn't see the Bronco when he arrived, but didn't see it when he
left either.
He did see a car to the left of the Rockingham gate when they left.
He saw Mr. Simpson wearing a dark coat when he entered the house. He
later changed it to carrying one when he left for the airport.
He saw Kaelin waive at him when he entered the driveway, which he said
he didn't.
He didn't hear Kaelin say "I hope O.J. hasn't overslept", which he
said he did.
He heard O.J. say that and that he saw him waive.
Just a few of his small mistakes.
Miss Marple
missmarple8
Phillip's testimony, February 16
A: I TOLD HIM WHO I WAS, I WAS DETECTIVE RON PHILLIPS FROM THE LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THAT I HAD SOME BAD NEWS FOR HIM AND HE
SAID SOMETHING ABOUT, "WHAT'S THAT?" AND I SAYS, "WELL, I GOT SOME BAD
NEWS. YOUR EX-WIFE, NICOLE SIMPSON, HAS BEEN KILLED."
Miss Marple
Bob August
Just a few of your mistakes, Miss Marple. Park did see Kaelin's car.
March 28, 1995
Q WHEN YOU PULLED UP TO THE ASHFORD GATE, SIR, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER
THERE WERE ANY CARS NEAR THIS GATE?
A UH, YES. THERE WAS ONE.
Q AND WHAT CAR DID YOU NOTICE?
A IT WAS, UH, FROM WHAT I COULD REMEMBER, A BLACK 300ZX.
Q A BLACK 300ZX?
A YES.
Park never saw the Bronco parked outside the Rockingham gate when he
arrived, because it wasn't there. Park located the house by looking at
the house numbers. There was no vehicle parked by those house numbers
when he arrived. Park drove past the Rockingham gate, turned the corner
and parked on Ashford. He then drove back to the Rockingham gate, and
looked up the driveway. There was no vehicle parked outside the gate. He
backed up his limo and returned to the Ashford gate.
When Park exited the Rockingham gate he was concentrating on traffic.
There was a car approaching him on his right, and he was looking to his
left to make sure no cars were coming from that direction. When the car
past, him he turned left and followed it.
Park did say that there was something on his right, but he wasn't paying
any attention to it.
March 28, 1995
Q AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT CAR APPROACHING YOU COMING SOUTH -- COMING --
WAS IT COMING TOWARD YOU FROM THE NORTH?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU DO?
A FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, I HAD TO EDGE OUT JUST A LITTLE BIT FOR -- THERE
WAS -- FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, THERE WAS A CAR TO THE LEFT, AND WHEN HE
CAME OUT, SOMETHING WAS OBSTRUCTING MY VIEW OVER HERE ON THE RIGHT, AND
I EDGED OUT AND I LET THE CAR GO BY AND THEN I LEFT.
Q BY MS. CLARK: YOU SAID SOMETHING WAS OBSTRUCTING YOUR VIEW ON THE RIGHT?
A YES.
Q WAS THAT TO THE NORTH OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE?
A YES, THE AREA I WAS LOOKING AT THE CAR.
Q OKAY.
AND DID YOU LOOK TO PAY CLOSER ATTENTION TO WHAT IT WAS THAT WAS
OBSTRUCTING YOUR VIEW TO THE RIGHT OF THE NORTH -- THAT IS, TO THE
RIGHT, NORTH OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE?
A NO. I WAS STRICTLY LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC.
Park always said that he saw Simpson wearing all dark clothing. Not a
jacket. He said that when Simpson later exited the house, dressed, he
was either wearing or carrying a dark colored coat.
Park did not say Kaelin waved at him. Kaelin did not say he did not wave
at Park.
March 28, 1995
Q AFTER THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE, DID YOU
HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHERE MR. KAELIN WAS?
A FROM WHAT I REMEMBERED, HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK.
Q DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?
A FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, HE KIND OF GAVE ME A HAND GESTURE TO LET ME KNOW
HE WAS THERE.
Park did not ever say he saw Simpson wave. Simpson fabricated that.
Both Park and Kaelin heard Simpson tell Kaelin that he would get the
small dark colored bag that was behind the car on the driveway. Simpson
denies that ever happened.
Miss Marple you are hung up on the wrong witness. If you really want to
read outright lying, inconsistencies, and contradictions, you have to
read what our lying hero fabricated. He contradicted both Kaelin and
Park about almost everything they said happened in that ten or so
minutes before they left for the airport.
Allan Park and Kato Kaelin were honest witnesses, who were mistaken
about some of the details they recalled, but both of them testified to
facts that completely incriminate our hero. Simpson's fabrications were
all unbelievable except to people who want to be deceived, like yourself.
bobaugust
Bob August
Very good Miss Marple. Thank you, I only confirmed what was said from
Lange and Vannatter's book. Phillips testimony is more accurate.
PinkPantherIIIII's response to you should enlighten you as to the
absurdity of your defense of our hero and how you continue to deceive
yourself about the truth of this crime.
bobaugust
dick wagner
You are somewhat dismissive of the reliability of Allan Park's
testimony and say, "The poor kid was just a regular eyewitness and
statistically as such had about a 50% error rate." I do not think so
little of a "regular eyewitness" as you, and expect that most witnesses
will have a high reliability -- much better than 50%. I am sure that
Park was better than 50% too.
TWO CARS: The thing that launched you on this opinion was the fact
that Park mis-stated the situation of cars in Simpson's driveway that
Sunday night. He testified that two cars were in the Rockingham
driveway when he left (the Bentley and Arnelle's Saab, presumably) when
there is near conclusive reason to believe only the Bentley was there.
Simpson himself addressed this error in Park's testimony on his
interview tape when he held up a 3"x5" snapshot he said Marcia Clark had
a copy of in her office (and presumably Park saw a copy there). It was
taken the next morning and showed two cars in the driveway. As Simpson
explained it, Park had it virtually on the authority of the DA that
there had been two cars in the driveway, and he could be forgiven if
that colored his recollection. At least Simpson thought it was a
forgiveable and understandable mistake.
EXTREMIST CONCLUSION: Now, you have taken this one clear-cut mistake
that Park made, characterized him as unreliable, and explain a variety
of inconsistencies in other places as being because he also made a
mistake there. It is not logically accurate to do that, Miss Marple,
and it is unfair to Park to do it. Each inconsistency should be
evaluated on its own, and not explained according to a reputation for
Park that you have created based on one incident (the "two cars").
THE BRONCO AT 10:15: Among the other "errors" you claim for Park is
the fact that he did not see the Bronco parked near the Rockingham gate
when he left through that gate at about 10:15 to take Simpson to the
airport. Almost all reviewers of the case agree that the Bronco must
have been parked there at that time.
As I explained (and showed with diagrams) in the article "What Park
Saw" on our site at http://wagnerandson.com , the lighting at the times
of Park's various sighting of the Bronco parking place was vastly
different. That parking place received virtually no ambient lighting,
and an object parked there could be seen only in the light of an
approaching car's headlights.
At 10:23, when he arrived, and 10:39 when he turned around, his limo
was pointed directly at the parking place, and if the Bronco had been
there it would have been full in the headlights. The white Bronco
against the inky darkness of everything else would have been highly
conspicuous, and Park would have seen it. He did not see it on these
occasions, and it is a very reliable indication that the Bronco was not
there at those times.
At 10:15 when Park left, the headlight beam was at first transverse to
the Bronco, and as Park turned left the headlights moved away from the
Bronco on his right. Therefore, the Bronco was never illuminated by
Park himself, or any nearby fixed lights when Park left. However, the
intersection of Ashford, a hundred feet to the north, was faintly aglo
in the pink sodium vapor light of the streetlight there, and there was a
car coming southbound from farther up. The Bronco was silhouetted
against both of these slight sources, but a silhouette is not enough to
tell for sure whether it is a car, SUV, or pickup truck parked there,
and certainly not enough to tell the color.
So, Park's testimony that he saw "something" parked there is exactly
consistent with what he would have actually seen if the Bronco had been
in the place where it was found the next morning. If he had said that
he had definitely seen the Bronco in that place, his testimony would
have been suspect... There was not enough light for him to make such a
definite determination.
CONTRADICTION WITH KATO: Then you point out (and I agree) that in the
several appearances of Park and Kato their stories do not match
perfectly. When that happens, you automatically assume it is Park who
is wrong and Kato who is right, because you have previously satisfied
yourself as to Park's unreliability. In fact, Miss Marple, when I have
looked at these contradictions I have more often concluded that it was
Kato who was wrong, and not innocently so, but because he was hiding
something.
All things considered, Miss Marple, I think that Park was a very
reliable witness, and his only unequivicol error (two cars) occurred for
a very understandable reason (and had no significant effect on the
conclusions about the case that the jury would reach).
--dick wagner
Prien
>Date: 2/14/2003 2:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <becbb46c.03021...@posting.google.com>
Outs the idiots:
>I am sick of
>> > rich people getting away with murder because they have the money to do
>it! It
>> > damn well pisses me off!!!! When O.J. answered his phone in that Chicago
>hotel
>> > room and they told him, "Your ex-wife was killed".. did he ask them,
>"WHICH
>> > WIFE?" No, he knew that already. Didn't he?
>>
>>
>> When Simpson answered his phone in that Chicago hotel room and Phillips
>> told him, "Your ex-wife has been killed." Did he ask them, "which wife?"
>>
>> Good one, PinkPantherIIIII.
>>
>> bobaugust
>
>Phillip's testimony, February 16
>
>A: I TOLD HIM WHO I WAS, I WAS DETECTIVE RON PHILLIPS FROM THE LOS
>ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THAT I HAD SOME BAD NEWS FOR HIM AND HE
>SAID SOMETHING ABOUT, "WHAT'S THAT?" AND I SAYS, "WELL, I GOT SOME BAD
>NEWS. YOUR EX-WIFE, NICOLE SIMPSON, HAS BEEN KILLED."
>
>Miss Marple
>
Stick a fork in 'em Miss Marple. I am really so tired of the asinine noJ no
nothing blabbering all their lies that anyone with the slightest knowledge of
the case can demolish with ease.
Great hit on the dimwits of the age.
Prien
Bob August
I would think that you would be sick and tired of all of your dumb
conspiracy arguments, Prien. Maybe that is why you do not post your
false opinions and responses anymore to the truth of this case.
Miss Marple was correct in posting Phillips testimony. At least she gets
something right once in a while. That's better than you have ever done,
Prien.
bobaugust
Bob August
Just a small correction to the time Park left for the airport. 11:15 not
10:15. Both Park and Kaelin were honest, reliable witnesses. There is no
evidence that Kaelin was ever hiding anything. He answered every
question that was asked of him, honestly as he could recall.
Yes, Kaelin and Park's versions did not match exactly. But both versions
were consistent with each other. It is Simpson's fabrication that he
created after reading Kaelin's and Park's testimony that contradicts
both witnesses.
Simpson lied about going out to his Bronco during the ten or so minutes
before leaving for the airport. Both Kaelin and Park dispute that.
Simpson lied about never telling Kaelin he would get the small dark bag
himself that was on the driveway behind the car. Both Kaelin and Park
dispute that. Simpson's fabrications even contradict themselves.
Kaelin and Park were honest, reliable witnesses who testified
consistently as to what they remembered that night, despite small
obvious mistakes both made. That is the inherent problem with every
witness who testified. Most witnesses made small mistakes, mostly about
estimated times.
The only way to know what really happened that night is to listen to
what the witnesses agreed on, and what other sources support their versions.
Nothing supports Simpson's versions. He fabricated them trying to fit
them between the cracks of what witnesses testified to. But he not only
contradicted the witnesses, he contradicted himself. That is what
happens when someone lies and fabricates. You should be the first to
understand that Dick, since you have learned that first hand with your
fabrications, right?
bobaugust
missmarple8
Phillips testimony is under oath. Pinkpanther copied what she read in
a book, in which you can say anything you want. It's called
spreading gossip. What you "confirmed what was said from Lange and
Vanatter's book" doesn't make it anymore correct, it's gossip from
gossip.
Miss Marple
Bob August
No, Miss Marple, Lange and Vannatter's book is certainly not gossip.
Apparently you don't even know the difference between gossip and truth.
It's no wonder you are so confused, deceived and outright wrong when it
comes to understanding the truth of Simpson's crimes.
bobaugust
missmarple8
Just shows you how powerful a photo can be. I do believe that the
picture Park saw, with two cars in the driveway, added confusion to
his memory, just like you say. We can be quite certain that Arnelle's
Saab was not there at the time Park was at Rockingham.
Park described that when he turned onto Ashford he drove a little too
fast and missed the Rockingham gate (at least in the Prelims) and then
made a U-turn, with the intention to drive back to and enter through
the Rockingham gate.
11 Q And so you were right next to this area here
12 that I'm indicating with my pen, which is just above the
13 line that seems to indicate the edge of the driveway
14 uppermost on the Rockingham side?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Now, why were you looking up that driveway,
17 for what purpose?
18 A To drive into it.
19 Q And why did it seem inaccessible to you?
20 A It just seemed too narrow. The two walls
21 here, and just the way the cars were and the way the
22 driveway bent this way, it didn't look as easy as the
23 other side, as coming in straight ahead and then making
24 the turn.
It's a little different to refer to "the cars" when it regards his
decision to not use the Rockingham gate. "The way the cars were" was
what made that driveway seem "inaccessible". The Bentley alone in its
niche could not have left him with that impression, so I think another
car was there, the Bronco, to make it seem like so. Like you said, it
was dark on that corner.
I think the Bronco was there all night long. Rosa Lopez saw it at
about eight, again after ten and testified that it was in the same
position as it was found the next morning.
I have been wondering about that U-turn. How could Park have made a
U-turn with a stretch limo on that narrow street?
Miss Marple
Prien
>Message-id: <becbb46c.03021...@posting.google.com>
>
notes about cars parked in drive:
>I think the Bronco was there all night long. Rosa Lopez saw it at
>about eight, again after ten and testified that it was in the same
>position as it was found the next morning.
I think you are exactly correct. What Park was confused about with the
pictures they showed him, however, was the COLOR of the car, not the number
parked there. The pictures showed a DARK car (Arnelle's) parked in the drive.
So Park jumped to the conclusion that must have been the car that was parked
there, which is how he described it at the trials.
There was, however, NO CAR parked on Rockingham, either when he arrived or when
he left. His testimony about that is also clear.
In fact, I think that what Simpson called Kato about was to move the Bronco out
from the driveway to the street rather than asking him to set the alarm.
We have only Kato's word about what Simpson asked him to do. I don't recall
Simpson ever confirming that (I could be wrong, but I can't recall reading in
the transcripts about him confirming it at the depositions or the civil trial),
He instead talks about how he moved the Bronco, but Park makes clear that
there was a second car in the drive that could not have been there without it
having been moved after Simpson left and before Arnelle arrived.
What happened to this second car was the subject of a prolonged debate on this
news group during the trial. I regret I no longer have copies of the postings,
and that Dimitri shut down the web site where they appeared.
What is really odd about the cars issue is that both Cochran and Clark avoided
it like the plague. It is hard to see how the same issue could equally hurt
opposing parties at a trial. The only reason I can see for the defense to
avoid the issue is that by pursuing it, they would have been required to assume
the burden of proving the location of the car. The only way they could have
done that is by putting Simpson on the stand. As Beaver has repeatedly pointed
out, however, a defense should never permit itself to be maneuvered into the
position of assuming the burden of proving anything. That may explain
Cochran's failure to explore this issue.
Clark's reason for avoiding it is obvious. If the Bronco was parked in the
driveway when Park arrived, Simpson could not have driven it there from Bundy
after PARK GOT THERE, AND Simpson could not then have been away from Rockingham
during the time of the murders. Another perfect alibi for Simpson.
Prien
Bob August
Wow, Miss Marple has solved her delusions with another delusion. Good
one, Miss Marple. So Park could not tell the difference between a car
parked on the street next to the gate and a car Park could not identify
parked behind the large Bentley on the dark driveway, right?
I guess because you Miss Marple can not understand such simple things
you think no one else can either, right? And of course referring to the
most discredited witness who ever appeared in the Simpson case, Rosa
Lopez, adds support to your delusions. Another good one.
You are so desperate to deceive yourself Miss Marple, that you will
invent and create anything, to avoid the truth. Look at the pictures
again Miss Marple. In the dark, the turn Park thought would be difficult
would be difficult with only the Bentley parked in the driveway.
Hmmm. I wonder if that is why everyone who used that driveway always
entered through the Ashford gate and exited through the Rockingham gate.
No one ever said they ever entered through the Rockingham gate. But that
never occurred to you, did it?
bobaugust
Bob August
Prien gives us some more delusions. Simpson asked Kaelin to move the
Bronco, so that was the second car Park saw in the driveway.
You have done a masterful job, Prien, taking Miss Marple's delusion a
step further into fantasy land. If you want to read another incorrect
theory read this. Even thought it is wrong it sure makes more sense than
yours and Miss Marple's delusions.
http://www.bobaugust.com/theory.htm
bobaugust
John Junot
Here's ONE paertinent passage from Kaelin's criminal trial testimony.
It is from March 23. If you have the videotapes of the trial, you can
look it up and find beyond all doubt extaly where he was pointing on
the diagram when he said this.:
A: OKAY. SO I HAD THE FLASHLIGHT AND THE LIMO WAS HERE, (INDICATING),
SO I START WALKING THIS WAY, (INDICATING), AND I HAD THE LIGHT ON AND
I WENT -- THERE IS A GATE HERE, (INDICATING), THAT IS -- I COULD PICK
UP THE GATE. YOU CAN PICK IT UP, IT IS NOT WORKING, SO I LEANED IT
AGAINST THE TREE
Okay, that partiuclar part is important. The westmost, small gate is
right next to a largre tree protuding into the walkway, and it is a
natural plae to lean something like the gate. the second gate, the
seven foot gate, is not close to any convenient tree, and if one was
doing was Kaelin did, the logical place to lean it would have been the
back or side of the garage.
I amy look some more.
AND I WENT DOWN JUST A BIT -- THE PEN LIGHT -- THE LIGHT WAS PRETTY
DIM. I LOOKED A LITTLE BIT AND THEN I CAME BACK.
MS. CLARK: OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS INDICATED HE WALKED
SOUTH ON THE DRIVEWAY OVER TO THE GARAGE AREA, MADE A LEFT AT THE
CORNER OF THE GARAGE AND WALKED IN ON THAT SOUTH PATHWAY A SHORT
DISTANCE.
John Junot
this is Kaelin's testimony on the gate from the civil trial on
Novermeber the 19th.
Also, the previously cited criminal testimony was on March 22nd, not
23rd. sorry.
A. I went back, followed this -- the driveway, and I went behind by
the garage area, where I -- there's a little
Notice the 'little'. While 'litle' is a relative term, it doesn't
seem likely he would apply it to a seven-foot gate. But a wist-high
gate? Sure.
gate here that's off the hinge, I picked it up and I moved to the
side and I walked down just a bit of the way with the pen light and
tried to look.
missmarple8
Depends on what picture you look at.
And Park went there with the intention to enter through the Rockingham
gate. Only decided to move to the Ashford gate after he found the
Rockngham driveway "inaccessible".
Miss Marple
dick wagner
We are discussing Park's testimony about the Bronco. You say that you
think it was actually in the place where it was found the next morning,
"I think the Bronco was there all night long. Rosa Lopez saw it at
about eight, again after ten and testified that it was in the same
position as it was found the next morning."
As I have mentioned, Miss Marple, I considered this question very
carefully and created diagrams showing the lighting at the times of the
various observations. ("What Did Allan Park See?" at
http://wagnerandson.com .) I was interested first of all, to know
whether Park could have seen what he claimed, considering the lighting.
The exercize (and my own after-dark visit to the place) convinced me
that if the Bronco was in its place when Park arrived at 10:23 he would
have seen it, and if it were there when he came back to inspect the
Rockinham gate at 10:39 he would also see it. In both situations, the
white Bronco would be the only bright object (illuminated by Park's own
headlights) in an otherwise dark scene. Not only COULD he have seen it;
the Bronco would have been VERY conspicuous.
But at the 11:15 departure for LAX, Park's headlights are transverse to
the Bronco and would not illuminate it. His only clue would be its
silhouette against the pink-lighted intersection at Ashford and the
headlights of a briefly approaching car. Hence, he was uncertain about
what was parked there.
Then, I fold into this Rosa Lopez testimony that she saw the Bronco in
that place at about 8:30 and 10:10. (I use Bosco's interview with her
for this time, not the more generous -- and less accurate -- time Johnny
Cochran promoted of 10:20.) But, when I consider scenarios that satisfy
both Park's testimony and Lopez', there occurs the possibility that I
believe: Simpson parked the Bronco on Rockingham earlier in the day,
probably expecting to move it to Ashford before he left on the trip;
consequently it was there at 8:30 and 10:10 for Lopez to see; Simpson
drove away from his estate in that car at 10:22, and it was not there
for Park to see at 10:23 when he arrived at the estate, or at 10:39 when
he drove down to look at the Rockingham gate. Simpson returned at 10:45
and parked again where the Bronco had been before. Because of the
geometry of the estate, the walls and the landscaping, Park was unaware
of the Bronco's return. But, because the Bronco had been returned,
there was "something" for Park to see in its place at 11:15.
That is an explanation in which everybody (Park and Lopez) can be
believed, and which is consistent with the lighting conditions under
which Park made his observations. In fact, Miss Marple, I think it is
the true scenario for the Bronco's movements.
As to the transcript fragment you posted... Once Park has fixed in his
mind the erroneous idea that there were two cars parked on the
Rockingham driveway, it would not be surprising that such an image would
creep into his descriptions of other things. I do not think that Park
lied (but really knew different) when he said there were two cars
there. I am sure he really believed there had been two cars. But, as
Simpson says on the interview tape, the limo coming in from Ashford
would have to back out on Ashford upon leaving if there were. There is
not room for the limo to make the turn if two cars are parked on the
Rockingham driveway. There was only the Bentley; no doubt.
You ask about Park's U-turn, and I looked back into the article I
previously mentioned and found my synopsis after reviewing transcript...
________________________________________
ALLAN PARK IN THE GRAND JURY: ... He made a right turn on Ashford
[from northbound on Rockingham], a U-turn, and then parked facing west
until some time between 10:35 and 10:40, when he repositioned the limo.
This he did by driving the few yards to Rockingham, turning left to go
down and inspect the Rockingham gate, then backing up past Ashford,
turning left on Ashford, going down to Simpson's Ashford gate, and
pulling in there with his front bumper alsmost to the gate.
_________________________________________
You wonder how Park could have made the U-turn on narrow Ashford with
that long limo. Me too; it was a challenge. But, did you realize that
there was a driveway for Mrs. Nebeker's property (across Ashford from
Simpson) a few yards east from Simpson's driveway, and looking on
aerials to be wider than Simpson's Ashford apron? I imagine that by
turning in there first, a limo driver could effect a U-turn. (Just my
guess, of course.)
--dick wagner
dick wagner
You suggest that we resolve the question of the location of the "first
gate" by referring to the videotape of Kato's criminal trial testimony
where he points to the place, and you are even helpful enough to provide
the section of transcript in which he does.
<Sigh> I wish that were possible John, and if it were, we would have
posted the result of looking at the video at the outset of this
discussion. We, ourselves, looked at exactly what you are referring to
several weeks ago.
VIDEOTAPE REALITIES: We have found that when the courtroom video shows
a point of interest (whether it was expected or not) it is MUCH more
informative than the sterile transcript alone. We have seen many cases
where a witness's expression or body language, or his verbal mode
reveals much not hinted in the transcript. Most noteable, there can be
pauses as long as five minutes when much non-verbal activity goes on,
and no clue in the transcript.
However, it also does sometimes (madeningly often) happen that things
"indicated" on the transcript do not show up on the video. Maybe the
camera is not on the exhibit at that moment. Maybe (as during
Heidstra's testimony before the aerial photo he had put the pointer on
Karpf's gate, and later the pointer moves back to Nicole's, we do not
see whether Heidstra or Cochran is holding the pointer) we do not know
who is "speaking" visually. Maybe the exhibit is so sloppy and
inaccurate, the witness only makes vague motions in the general vicinity
of what he is talking about... We have been disappointed to sometimes
see all of these effects.
(However, we were able to get many accurate locations from the videos
of Park's and Kato's testimony, too, and have prepared a composite
drawing of the front of Simpson's house to consolidate the positions of
many things they pointed out in their testimony. Eventually, I hope to
build an article around this, and henceforth the interpretation of that
part of the testimony should be made more clear.)
IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE: You will not believe this John, but Rose and
I both went through the roof when we saw Kato point to the "first
gate." He pointed to a place on the south wall of the garage almost
exactly half-way between where you think the gate was and where I think
it was. Believe me when I say I'm sorry. Putting this gate at the east
end of the garage does nothing in particular for my scenario, and I
would be quite happy to move it if I had persuasive reason to do so.
But, after reading the much you have had to say, I think you have a
reasonable alternative position, but I am still not convinced.
Once again, John, I am sorry to say that the video is no help in this
particular.
--dick wagner
Bob August
Look at any of the pictures Miss Marple. You can see two of them on this
web page,
http://www.bobaugust.com/lookat.htm
Considering the fact that Simpson never ever said he ever parked the
Bronco behind the Bentley, only Arnelle parked her car there, your new
delusion is not supported by anything except your desperation.
Desperation to avoid the truth because everything you have ever argued
has been wrong. So it seems to avoid the conclusion that any normal
person would come to, you simply start making things up.
bobaugust
dick wagner
Interesting, John. You cite Kato's testimony in which he describes the
"first gate" as "little," and that certainly does seem to imply that it
is a half-height gate, rather than a full height gate. The chain link
gate at the east end of the garage is a full-height gate at the time of
Simpson's interview tape (and it is also not "off its hinges" at that
time). You have identified the chain link panel behind a tree near the
garage as being a half-height gate, though I can not see enough of it
myself to confirm that. So, your logic is that the panel behind the
tree is the "first gate off its hinges," and you do not have an
explanation for the more unequivicol full-size gate on the interview
video at the east end of the garage. (The second gate must surely be
the half-height gate at the end of the utility area and the beginning of
the bungalows.)
Perhaps so, John. This is a good indication for your argument, I
should say. But the situation is still ambiguous for me; there are
indications in both directions. At this point you have moved me from
being inclined to say the first gate was at the east end of the garage
to saying that I just can not chose between the two possibilities.
Does it really make a difference?
--dick wagner
John Junot
dick wagner <wag...@westworld.com> wrote in message news:<3E53B1...@westworld.com>...
> JOHN JUNOT:
>
> Interesting, John. You cite Kato's testimony in which he describes the
> "first gate" as "little," and that certainly does seem to imply that it
> is a half-height gate, rather than a full height gate. The chain link
> gate at the east end of the garage is a full-height gate at the time of
> Simpson's interview tape (and it is also not "off its hinges" at that
> time). You have identified the chain link panel behind a tree near the
> garage as being a half-height gate, though I can not see enough of it
> myself to confirm that. So, your logic is that the panel behind the
> tree is the "first gate off its hinges," and you do not have an
> explanation
I find that phrasing curious, Dick. why does that gate need an
"explanation"? It just didn't get noticed by Kaelin, and never played
any part of anyone's testimony, so no record was ever made of it. My
guess is -- nd you can call it an "explnation" -- is that the full
size gate was open on the murder night as it was open as it was in the
videotape, and so might as well have not been there at all as far as
anyone going down the path as concerned.
for the more unequivicol full-size gate on the interview
> video at the east end of the garage. (The second gate must surely be
> the half-height gate at the end of the utility area and the beginning of
> the bungalows.)
No argument about that.
>
> Perhaps so, John. This is a good indication for your argument, I
> should say. But the situation is still ambiguous for me; there are
> indications in both directions. At this point you have moved me from
> being inclined to say the first gate was at the east end of the garage
> to saying that I just can not chose between the two possibilities.
>
> Does it really make a difference?
That is an interesting question, and I was mulling over that very
thing a few night ago and so can give you this reply:
First, there is the factor of historical 'truth' or at least accuracy.
In this case, as far as your Layout article is concerned, you should
at least add a note that there is some doubt as to which gate was the
gate Kaelin moved, and mentioning my alternative.
Second, as far as MY theory is concerned, the answer is "Yes, it does
make a difference."
It STRENGTHENS my case. Had you not brought the subject up again, I
would not have.
You see, what is important to MY theory is NOT which gate it was that
was closed at 11:00 when Kaelin went to the south path, but that BOTH
THE GATES WERE CLOSED.
Now, thee are only two ways those gates could have ben closed: (1)
sombody had been back there that night, but had gone to the trouble
of, in the pitch dark, stopping, turning around and closing the gates,
or, (2)THE GATES HAD ALWAYS BEEN CLOSED AND **NO ONE** HAD BEEN BACK
THERE THAT NIGHT.
This is where the broken nature of the gate comes in. With the seond
gate, at the west end of the guest house, you could argue that it
would have been easy to close the gate, or that incidental wind and
ground movement would have been enough to close it.
Not so with 'Kaelin's Gate'. Being broken off its hinges, it required
a act of perception and will to open as close it.
Now, the 'rules' of the various "OJ on the south path" theories
(including yours) are that the conditions are those of pitch darkness,
and "OJ" in a hurry, with his left hand in mouth (you) or pants
pocket(Fuhrman).
Among other things, this has "OJ" doing things unnessesary and
time-consuming, and thus not in his interest (why the hell not just
leave that gate open? Why in the corld would it even occur to someone
in "OJ"s state of mind to even bother closing the gate?
Furhtermore, in YOU theory, Dick, you have "OJ" manhandling that gate
WITH ONE HAND. (His left hand is in his mouth, remember?)
This is why YOUR idea that the full-size gate was 'Kaelin's gate', as
I said, work's in my favor. For, it it was that full-size gate, then
it was that much more difficult for "OJ" to have done what you said he
did -- manhandle it closed with one hand in the pitch dark.
>
> --dick wagner
Bob August
Good one, John. You ask, "Why in the corld would it even occur to
someone in "OJ"s state of mind to even bother closing the gate?"
Funny, maybe so no one could tell he came from there?
It strengthens your case? What case? Your completely proven wrong
uninformed theory that Kaelin was the real killer? That's funny.
Both gates were not closed. Come on John, you know that. The middle gate
was half open.
bobaugust
missmarple8
> someone in "OJ"s state of mind to even bother closing the gate?"
>
> Funny, maybe so no one could tell he came from there?
>
> It strengthens your case? What case? Your completely proven wrong
> uninformed theory that Kaelin was the real killer? That's funny.
>
> Both gates were not closed. Come on John, you know that. The middle gate
> was half open.
>
> bobaugust
At the Grand Jury hearings, the Prelims, the Criminal trial and the
Civil trial the middle (or second) gate was closed when Mr. Simpson
left for the airport. Then fuhrman writes a book where he says the
gate was "half open" in the early morning, but no less, this is what
bobaugust needs to believe.
Fuhrman is of course not under oath when he writes his tales (as he
was when he testified that there were no obstacles, that at first he
didn't really remember if there were gates or not). Not that it would
matter to him though. But it must have been important to him to make
that point somehow.
Miss Marple
dick wagner
I had asked why it was important whether the "first gate" was near the
garage side door or at the end of the garage. You point out that if it
was at the end of the garage then it was a full-height gate (about 6'
tall) as clearly seen on Simpson's interview video. If it was near the
garage side door (and the gate at the east end of the garage was just
overlooked and unmentioned by anybody) then it was probably a
half-height (about 3') gate as hinted vaguely in the interview video.
This becomes relevant, because you are striving to "save" my scenario
<G>, and a small gate is easier for Simpson to maneuver in the dark than
a big gate. Well, I think you understand the situation that I have
specified for my scenario, but you misunderstand the way in which the
gate was "broken off its hinges." First the situation...
As you say, I believe that Simpson went down that back walk with the
Bundy glove absently in his right hand and his bleeding left finger to
his mouth. He encountered the first gate -- whichever that was -- and
because it was still attached by the bottom hinge but dragging on the
ground, he was able to open it by shoving against it with his right
forearm (or even to grip the edge of the gate while he also held the
glove in his right fingers). At the second gate there was less of a
problem, since it was fastened at both hinges and unlatched (if indeed
there is a latch there) and so Simpson could easily maneuver it with his
right hand without gripping it.
On retreating, Simpson has a similarly easy time with the second gate,
and when he gets to the first gate he has an easier time than on the
inbound trip, since now his right hand is completely unencumbered, he
having lost the glove. He simply passes by the gate, gropes the gate in
the dark with his right hand until he finds the edge, applies a slight
upward force to keep it from dragging on the ground, and moves it to the
closed position. I would think that he might be subconsciously
motivated to do this because it figuratively seals off an area where he
would hope nobody would later go (and find the glove) -- even though a
rational analysis would show that because he had pounded on the wall,
somebody was very likely to go back there.
Now, when Kato comes through there a few minutes later and encounters
the first gate -- klutz that he is -- he does manhandle it (as you
mistakenly characterized Simpson doing) and he lifts it completely off
its hinges. (See the diagram I laboriously prepared to explain this to
you, John. Figure 22 in "The Gates at Rockingham" on our site at
http://wagnerandson.com .) Some people (especially those familiar with
the nature of that gate) would deal with it in a way that the bottom
hinge would stay attached, and other people (like Kato) would just
barge ahead, taking the gate down as they went.
So, if the gate was improperly installed (as the hinges on the gate at
the end of the garage show that gate is improperly installed, and which
may be the way all of the gates back there were installed) then there is
nothing inconsistent between Kato's declared experience and Simpson
having gone down that path, pounded on the wall, lost the glove in the
process, and come back, closing the gate as he went through.
I think that if you understand what I propose for the nature of "broken
off its hinges" you will see that your argument about it requiring an
act of will and finesse to close the first gate does not work.
Furthermore, the initial condition of the gate when somebody first
encountered it must be something like I propose. Think about it, John.
If the gate were truly completely "broken off the hinges" when a person
encountered it, the gate would not block the opening -- there is no
mechanism to make it stand up straight. A gate in that condition would
either have fallen on the ground or somebody would previously had "put
it against the tree." The very fact that Kato encountered the gate
blocking the opening and had to deal with it shows that it was connected
to the gate post by one hinge. The fact that he was able to manhandle
it and remove the connection strongly suggests that it was the bottom
hinge that made the connection. (Besides, that is the natural way to
incorrectly install a gate.)
Not only is my scenario consistent with the asserted facts, any other
story does not make sense (considering the nature of chain link gates).
As to making a notation on the diagram "John Junot disputes the
location of the first gate"... I'll think about it, John. I still
don't think it makes much difference -- even in your scenario.
--dick wagner
Bob August
MIss Marple, you say, "At the Grand Jury hearings, the Prelims, the
Criminal trial and the Civil trial the middle (or second) gate was
closed when Mr. Simpson left for the airport."
I see you are making things up again, or maybe it's that nasty reading
comprehension problem surfacing again right? Funny.
Post the testimony that you thinks says that, Miss Marple.
bobaugust
PinkPantherIIIII
closed.. blah blah.. what difference does any of this make to the fact that 2
murders happened that night, and OJ has no freaking alibi? Who cares what
degree his stupid ass gates were, I sure as hell don't! I know deep in my
heart OJ did these crimes, and whoever thinks differently, then I just pray for
you, because you're completely WRONG in your silly theories! People, please!!!
PS.. I have checked out both of these awesome websites... Bobaugust's &
Dickwagner's... okay, they are full of info.. totally like wow, right.. but I
must tell you guys, one of these guys is telling you the truth from factual
info, and the other is putting other kinds of what-if scenarios into your
brains.. go with your hearts.. come ON people.. 2 people died that night.. who
are you going to believe here? The LAPD or fukking OJ's defense team? Who
makes more money??? On that note, go with the poorer of the claims!!! The
police department kicks ass, whether Mark Fuhrman hates blacks or not,... do
you think he'd be into a frame of murder that time of night in the middle of
summer... He did his job, and yeah, he's prejudiced, he is at least a good
cop who does his job well.. what would give him reason to frame OJ for murder?
Did he not get seasons tickets back in the 70"s? Oh.. there you go.. poor
Fuhrman.. People.. get a fukking life. OJ did it.. Nobody else was as hurt as
OJ was at Nicole seeing other dudes.. OJ loved/hated her.. she loved him, hated
him, then had his children, dumped him.. then she dated other guys.. a true
sin, in the eyes of a stalking psychotic co-dependent piece of shit ex-football
player, B actor, jealous loser!!!! His fuse was burning, yeah it was.. he
couldn't take rejection, not then, not now.. who is he dating now? Some little
blonde model? He gets them with his charm & persona, then loses them with his
psychotic anger.. women are smart. They want his money or limelight, they
don't care whether or not he needs Viagara now.. they just don't care.. and I
do feel sorry for those chicks, man. They just don't have a clue.. but in my
mind, I doubt he would do the same thing to chick number 29.. it would cause
too much damage to his perfect record of being a ":once accused murderer" to a
"road rage freak" to a 2nd time "Homicidal asshole".. he needs to come clean
like he did in jail with Rosie Grier.. he needs to confess, do his time, before
he really dies.. then he'll just go to hell.. maybe he just doesn't care if he
lives with the devil forever.. he lives with him every day any way.. hmmm.. he
thinks he is immortal or something.. okay, the dude is hallucinating.. cool for
him.. other people live every day without the daughter, sister, son, mother, or
brother they loved so much.. I feel so bad for them.. OJ can kiss my ass.. he
is a killer, he KNOWS he is a killer, but he cares too much about his sorry ass
self to take the blame. That is what blows big time.. OJ killed Nicole and
Ron, why do some of us get it, and some of us don't? Reminds me of that Sesame
Street song.. "some of these people belong here, some of these people don't..
which one of these people don't belong here.. " if anyone knows the correct
lyrics.. I'll ask Bob.. he is the one with the most info.. lol.. sing me the
Sesame Street song song? You remember Guy Smiley? He was the coolest dude.
Another dude would bang his head on the piano if he couldn't think of the
correct lyrics.. well that's me.. I can't think of that damn song..like it
matters, but people PULEASE.. it's 2003 now, stop with the nonsense of debating
OJ is still innocent.. ok, it's old, it's untrue, and you're wasting you're
time and life away debating it .. dang, chill okay?