The Shift
Robert Miller
people changed their stories is how the shift affected the
trial. The most obvious is the Browns. Their first story
gives OJ Simpson an iron-clad alibi. It also casts suspicions
on Kaelin and the glove. Fung and Mazzola's flipflops
suggest internal pressures and manipulation of evidence
within the LA labs. The blood in the Bronco, after not
being even mentioned in the search warrant, suggests
more planting. The blood appearing on the back gate?
Between the LAPD and the labs there isn't much doubt
about the direction of their drift. Kaelin dutifully changed
his recollection of times in order to benefit Marcia's
shifting timeline. I wonder if the DA had to threaten
Crawford and her employers with money-laundering
or were they already prepared to change their stories
to Marcia's taste?
Prien
>From: Robert Miller mil...@slip.net
>Date: 4/15/2000 5:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <38F8DE75...@slip.net>
>
>
writes:
Robert,
And I guess that sort of describes the effect the prosecution's witness memory
enhancement program had on what the prosecution witnesses subsequently
remembered and told the jury when they testified.
John Griffin
>writes:
Crazybob has enough trouble without your help,
ignorant little wanker.
Duane
> What I was pointing out when I started asking how many
> people changed their stories is how the shift affected the
> trial.
Conjecture on your part.
> The most obvious is the Browns.
Conjecture of your part.
> Their first story
> gives OJ Simpson an iron-clad alibi.
Conjecture on your part.
> It also casts suspicions
> on Kaelin and the glove.
Conjecture on your part.
> Fung and Mazzola's flipflops
> suggest
..suggest...
> internal pressures and manipulation of evidence
> within the LA labs.
Conjecture.
> The blood in the Bronco, after not
> being even mentioned in the search warrant, suggests
>
...suggests....
> more planting.
Conjecture.
> The blood appearing on the back gate?
> Between the LAPD and the labs there isn't much doubt
>
...isn't much doubt...
> about the direction of their drift.
Conjecture.
> Kaelin dutifully
...dutifully...
> changed
> his recollection of times in order to benefit Marcia's
> shifting timeline.
Conjecture.
> I wonder
You should...
> if the DA had to threaten
> Crawford and her employers with money-laundering
> or were they already prepared to change their stories
> to Marcia's taste?
[Bob] please refine this imbecilic attempt at an argument.
Duane
Thomas P. Jabine
Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net> wrote:
>What I was pointing out when I started asking how many
>people changed their stories is how the shift affected the
>gives OJ Simpson an iron-clad alibi.
Gee, you'd think that Simpson's lawyers would have tried
to get the phone records to prove it. Oh wait, they
already had them.
Robert Miller
Thomas P. Jabine
Yes, and if Simpson went on TV and said, "You idiots, of course
I did it," I'd believe him too. You probably wouldn't, but I would.
Perhaps you could get one of the lawyers on the group to explain
the concept of "admissions against interest" to you.
Ron
wrote:
>Ron <r...@maui1.to> wrote:
>>According to such luminaries as [butthole bob] propagandist pat, and
>>professional Hungoliar preeen, here's how things work:
>
>>Jun94: Drunken old Bailey slobbers about the existence of an 11 PM phone
>>call that will instantly exonerate Butch to anybody who'll listen. "Wait'll
>>you shee them phone records!" gurgles the high-heel sporting ex-Marine.
>
>>30Jun94: Clark announces arrival of subpoenaed phone records from GTE
>>during prelim. Both judge and Shapiro acknowledge their existence, and
>>Shapiro agrees to deal with them off the record. (Universally known as The
>>Best Thing That Ever Happened in Simpsonlicker Fantasyland© since Butch
>>switched from pitching to slicing.)
>
>>8Jul94: Also during prelim, Shapiro refers to stuff like "The form no. 3,
>>prepared by investigator Ratcliffe, was prepared 6/13/94." and maunders
>>about "Would you consider a mother talking to her daughter as being an
>>eyewitness to when somebody was last alive?" "What if somebody recorded the
>>time of a telephone call? Would that be of any help to you?", leaving no
>>doubt whatsoever that he's not only aware of Rat's report, but will do his
>>damnedest to get as much mileage out of it as he can. (Note that he already
>>had access to the phone records for 9 days at the time. How the hell long
>>would it take him to run his finger down the list to see if there was an
>>11PM call, 30 seconds? He must KNOW it's there if he's talking about it,
>>right?)
>
>>Jul94 thru Jan95: Butch's small army of lawyers & investigators don't even
>>bother to check out this absolutely crucial phone call, but Mr Johnnie puts
>>Ratcliffe on his witness list just for the hell of it.
>
>>Jan94: Ito agrees to let Mr Johnnie mention Ratcliffe & her report in his
>>opening statement, even though Douglas says they haven't quite got around to
>>interviewing her yet.
>
>>Jan 94: Mr Johnnie gives lie-filled opening statement promising testimony
>>from several witnesses that'll "prove" this, that, or the other.
>>Conspicuous by her absence was one Claudine Ratcliffe and her crucial
>>report. As evidenced by the fact that several of those mentioned (such as
>>the redoubtable Mary Ann Gerchas) are never heard from at all, Mr Johnnie
>>DAMN sure wasn't bashful when it came to shamelessly deceiving the jury
>>about who he'd present to prove what, how come he left out Crucial Claudine
>>completely?
>
>>Jan94 thru Jul94: While picking every other imaginable nit in the
>>prosecutions case, Butch's paid liars use Rat's devastating report to muddy
>>the fact-water a grand total of zero times. Each and every time presented
>>on phone records is immediately stipulated to by the defense without them
>>bothering to take a look to see if they're accurate.
>
>>Aug thru Sep94: Defense presents its "case". Crucial Claudine takes the
>>stand......never. The phone records are mentioned......never.
>
>>Sep95: Mr Johnnie presents lie-filled closing argument. Once again,
>>neither Claudine Ratcliffe and her crucial report nor any 11PM phone call
>>are featured.
>
>>Oct95: Butch granted NFL Immunity by jury of cretins that thought lawyers'
>>theatrics were the only thing they were supposed to consider.
>
>>Immediately after: Butch and new (as well as some old) crew of paid liars &
>>investigators begin preparing for civil trial.
>
>>Oct96: Civil trial begins.
>
>>Feb97: Civil trial ends. Butch finally gets his comeuppance in form of
>>33.5 mil boot-in-ass. No mention of 11PM phone call, Ratcliffe, or her
>>report made during entire proceeding. Like their criminal trial brethren,
>>not a one of Butch's small army of lawyers & investigators sees fit to check
>>out the possible existence of an 11 PM phone call trough phone records, old
>>lady Brown, or Ratcliffe herself.
>
>>Conclusion: Even though they had the phone records sitting right there for
>>damn near 3 years, neither Butch nor a single one of his lawyers &
>>investigators ever bothered to look at them. (Stepping all the way through
>>the looking-glass and into Simpsonlicker Fantasyland© itself, they only had
>>'phone bills' instead of phone records, but just plain didn't feel like
>>subpoenaing the records themselves, even though they could have done so and
>>got them handed over with ease.) Even though they all knew about
>>Ratcliffe's report, not a single one of them saw fit to see if there was any
>>possible way they could verify the erroneous 11PM time. In fact, if they're
>>to be believed, they didn't even bother to ask Ratcliffe where she got the
>>information to begin with--in 3 fucking years!
>
>>How can anybody argue with logic like that?
>
>Here's another question: Why have crazybob, imbecile prien, etc. not
>tried to answer this article? They must have in mind some reason why
>Simpson wants to suppress the evidence that everyone would have to accept
>as proof of his innocence...don't they?
>
>
>
>
>
Thomas P. Jabine
You mean to tell me Miller still hasn't answered this? Oh, wait, this is
Miller we're talking about. Never mind. That's about as likely as ojo
facing up to the fact that his "historian" idol is a racist anti-Semitic
Holocaust denier.
NKC
Jabine) wrote:
So now, denying holocausts and not answering a post from Ron are
equally devious in the Book of Jabine? Thomas. Really.
If I may address the above post that I think was originally
written by Ron?
Excellent work. You've deconstructed the pro-j argument in
chronological form, obviously based on studious reading of the
transcripts. Do whatever you wish with my comments here; but I mean
what I say.
Still, you made a big mistake by not citing the sources of
your information in most cases. For example and just from the top:
where and when did Bailey talk about the call in June 1994? It's
impossible to respond without the reference. These omissions are all
over the place.
And you pretty much answer your own challenge during the
criminal trial crono because the defense strategy led to acquittal.
If the defense had focused on the telephone call , then the theme
related to the dirty DNA would have been subverted. As you pointed
out, in the Opening statement Mr. Johnnie's impressionist portrait was
of reasonable doubt. During the trial, the impressionism gives way
to a focus: in this case, it was attacking the integrity of the
physical evidence. That's okay, you see; it's a good strategy that
wins cases. In opening, you dismantle the state's case by suggesting
all the possible scenarios in which it could be dismantled, thereby
setting up a frame of reference. Then you go on in, and attack the
most vulnerable places. In this case, it was evidence chain of
custody, dirty labs, and character impeachment of testifying officers.
Maybe one reason they didn't deal with the call: If a phone
call places Nicole alive at around 11 pm, then the truthfulness of
Alan Parke is out the window; as it was, he was a defense witness.
And remember, OJ's only 'recorded' time post theoretical death of
victims --that is, a cell call to Kaelin at 11:24 -- could have him
still be the killer.
As far as civil trial, I will say that counsel was a civil
attorney and therefore not prepared to argue a massive re-trial of a
criminal case, and I think that must have to do with their not dealing
with guilt-related facts.
Prien
>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>Date: 4/19/2000 1:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <38fd39a2....@news.mindspring.com>
responds in part to the excrement Ron's post:
Prien
>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>Date: 4/19/2000 1:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <38fd39a2....@news.mindspring.com>
responded in part to excrement Ron's comments (incomplete post sent by
mistake):
> If I may address the above post that I think was originally
>written by Ron?
> Excellent work. You've deconstructed the pro-j argument in
>chronological form, obviously based on studious reading of the
>transcripts.
First, dipshits comments about why I haven't responded to his gibberish is that
I don't bother with his crap.
Secondly, he hasn't done squat. the issue of Shapiro's references to the
Ratcliffe report during the prelim and how Shapiro was scared off from it I
covered in detail months ago when I cited the very same prelim transcripts to
show how Hodgman moved heaven and earth to keep the report out of the record
when the same NoJ were trying to deny it and even claimed that Shapiro simply
ignored its import.
the fact is what blew Shapiro pout of the water was the dumb judges idiotic
ruling that the report as inadmissable as hearsay because Ratcliffe was not a
peace officer.
Shapiro obviously lacked the knowlege to contest it at that point and let the
issue drop seeing that Hodgman with the judge's help was not going to let the
report in.
Once that report was suppressed from the record, there was no good way for
shapiro to bring it in without calling Ratcliffe as a defense witness. From
talkijng to hear, I can well appreciate how she would have been a big problem
for the defense since she clearly took a very limited view of her role at the
murder scene with respect to interpreting or assessing what she saw. She
clearly identifies what evidence she saw, but it's interesting how she accounts
for what she saw.
I have now also repeated pointed out one of the critical reasons for keeping
Golden off the stand was precisely to prevent the defense from bringing in the
Ratciffe report during the trial, which nwould have been devastating for the
prosecution. Golden is the eprson who would ahve directly used the report in
preparing his autopsy fidings, so the report could have been rbought in through
him. Dr. Lak, on the otehr hand, was testifying from the record Golden created
rather than the primary sources Godlen would have used to reach his
conclusions. Therefore, the Ratcliffe report could not be introduced through
him. If it couldn't be introduced through him, how was the defense going to
bring it in? Not without putting Ratcliffe on the stand, and she would not
have helped them at all unless they had alrfeasdy laid the foundation for using
that iformation as a primary defense element of the case. Tthey could not have
afforded to base their strategy on that possibility without laying the
groundwork for it by how they questioned previosu witnesses about times. But
their attempt to do so could and almost certainly would have been easily
blocked with Ito's help.
Thenonly other way to bring it is would have been through Juditha. No way was
the defense going to rely on her for anything.
So while the defense may have know about the report, they had no easy way to
use the information and faced huge obstacles in basing their defense on the
information it contained.
And that's all assuming they even wanted to do it rather than participating in
a show trial.
John Griffin
> [ yap yap yap ]
>the fact is what blew Shapiro pout of the water was the dumb judges idiotic
>ruling that the report as inadmissable as hearsay because Ratcliffe was not a
>peace officer.
----------------------------------------------
>New Entry for the prien faq:
"If a judge doesn't agree with me, it's because he doesn't
understand the problem."
-- Cretin-jerkoff Prien
>
>"The bruise on the inside of Nicole's skull was a thumbprint."
> -- Cretin-jerkoff Prien
>"The probability that a muscle transected by a deep cut will be
>severed is proportional to its width."
> -- Cretin-jerkoff Prien
>"You can change data on magnetic tapes with a few keystrokes."
> -- Cretin-jerkoff Prien
>"Traffic speed is uniquely determined by volume."
> -- Cretin-jerkoff Prien
>"All throat-slashing victims have blood in their lungs."
> -- Cretin-jerkoff Prien
Old cretin prien faq entry inadvertently omitted:
"If NASA scientists and engineers disagree with me, it's
because they don't understand the problem."
-- Cretin-jerkoff Prien
>...and now:
>>You have to understand, it reflects their maximum level of intellectual
>>achievement.
>
>Tell us about intellectual acheivement, moron.
>
>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You forgot (possibly his best) one:
"Shapiro thought Butch was guilty, so ethics prevented him from offering any
proof of his innocence".
-- Cretin-jerkoff Prien
Thomas P. Jabine
Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>Date: 4/19/2000 1:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <38fd39a2....@news.mindspring.com>
>
>responded in part to excrement Ron's comments (incomplete post sent by
>mistake):
>>written by Ron?
>> Excellent work. You've deconstructed the pro-j argument in
>>chronological form, obviously based on studious reading of the
>>transcripts.
>
>I don't bother with his crap.
>
>Secondly, he hasn't done squat. the issue of Shapiro's references to the
>Ratcliffe report during the prelim and how Shapiro was scared off from it I
>covered in detail months ago when I cited the very same prelim transcripts to
>show how Hodgman moved heaven and earth to keep the report out of the record
If by "moved heaven and earth" you mean the judge ruled that the report
was hearsay, you're right. Now tell maguey.
NKC
<snips>
>
>Once that report was suppressed from the record, there was no good way for
>shapiro to bring it in without calling Ratcliffe as a defense witness.
This is absolutely the bottom line. The report would have become
evidence once Ratcliffe testified to its truthfulness. I have also
made note that this might be the primary reason why the prosecution
didn't use Golden -- because the issues related to this phone
convesation and other related distortions in the investigation [no
vaginal swabs or stomach contents] that covered up the time of death
-- which would eliminate Simpson as a suspect.
Thomas P. Jabine
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>On 19 Apr 2000 06:10:47 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>
><snips>
>>
>>Once that report was suppressed from the record, there was no good way for
>>shapiro to bring it in without calling Ratcliffe as a defense witness.
>
>This is absolutely the bottom line. The report would have become
>evidence once Ratcliffe testified to its truthfulness.
How could Ratcliffe, who had no personal knowledge of the call whatsoever,
testify to the truthfulness of what someone else said about it?
Ron
P. Jabine) wrote:
Nah, he's too busy exchanging congratulations with his butt-buddy preeen
about.......well, near as I can tell, it's about nothing. Have you seen
either of them spell out this clever "snare" they pulled on me? I sure
haven't and I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is. How about their
"big important news from ratcliffe"? Seen any sign of that yet? Not me.
Just a bunch of pseudo-cryptic nonsense. How about describing imaginary
Ratcliffe's voice? All I saw is preeen saying......nothing. Absolutely no
identifying characteristics at all. I wonder how that could be? Rats gave
the official statement on the death of Jimmy Witherspoon a couple years ago;
3 different people from LA have told me her voice is very distinctive; and
all 3 described it the same way. Why do you figure preeen's ratcliffe
sounds like anybody and/or nobody? Are the 3 people that gave me a story
that I could (and did, as could you or anybody else that felt like it)
verify all lying, or is preen just telling another one of his Hungarian folk
tales?
> Oh, wait, this is
>Miller we're talking about. Never mind. That's about as likely as ojo
>facing up to the fact that his "historian" idol is a racist anti-Semitic
>Holocaust denier.
Well........yeah. The chances of either happening are just about zero--max.
Ron
Preeen squealed:
>>Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>Date: 4/19/2000 1:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <38fd39a2....@news.mindspring.com>
>
>responded in part to excrement Ron's comments (incomplete post sent by
>mistake):
>> If I may address the above post that I think was originally
>>written by Ron?
>> Excellent work. You've deconstructed the pro-j argument in
>>chronological form, obviously based on studious reading of the
>>transcripts.
>
<pathetic backpeddalling and laughable excuses deleted>
You should have stuck with that blank-page "response" you originally
offered, preeeen. It not only made just as much sense as that hysterical
outburst did (none) but was much more readable.
Sad. I guess you'll just never get it through that concrete-like koponya
(skull) of yours that spewing hundreds of incomprehensible Hunglish words to
say the exact same nothing as the empty page did just makes you look that
much more stupid.
sok hűhó semmiért
(all talk and no cider)
Ron
Whiny little coward preeen produced:
>>Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>Date: 4/19/2000 1:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <38fd39a2....@news.mindspring.com>
>responds in part to the excrement Ron's post:
>
>> If I may address the above post that I think was originally
>>written by Ron?
>> Excellent work. You've deconstructed the pro-j argument in
>>chronological form, obviously based on studious reading of the
>>transcripts. Do whatever you wish with my comments here; but I
>
>[blank page]
Grrrrrreat post preeeen!
You've finally realized that saying nothing at all is your best (actually
only) recourse to.......everything.
ez több a soknál, bosszantó dolog
(that is more than enough, asshole)
Ron
mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
Sorry, this is only for who it's for, and if you'll look in the first
paragraph, you'll see it's for "[butthole bob] propagandist pat, and
professional Hungoliar preeen" and......oh, that's right, it's for Y-O-U!
Carry on.
> Excellent work. You've deconstructed the pro-j argument in
>chronological form, obviously based on studious reading of the
>transcripts.
Not really. Try "nearly 6 years of accumulated knowledge", and then ask
yourself why neither you, preeen, or [crazybob] have that knowledge
yourselves.
> Do whatever you wish with my comments here; but I mean
>what I say.
I'm sure that you don't but I'll pretend you do.
> Still, you made a big mistake by not citing the sources of
>your information in most cases.
Wrong. I specifically gave the dates that sink the SS Simpsonlicker while
it was still tied to the dock: 30Jun94 and 8Jul94. If you insist on my
listing all the dates that Butch's paid liars failed to say a single word
about Rat's crucial report after Shapiro first mentioned it, I'll be glad to
copy & past them in just for you. However, that would seem to be rather
pointless. "All of them" covers it nicely.
> For example and just from the top:
>where and when did Bailey talk about the call in June 1994?
I must say, Pat, I'm, very disappointed in you. Someone as "aware" as you
claim to be didn't catch his act yourself? Oh well, that's Ok. Since
you're unprepared to admit it (Surprise!) we'll just eliminate Bailey
completely. Shapiro's on-the-record reference to Rat's report is all that's
necessary to send the SS Simpsonlicker to the bottom.
> It's
>impossible to respond without the reference.
Once again, there is no reference to respond to. Claudine's Crucial Report
(or as [crazybob] calls it "evidence of a different timeline") was never
mentioned at all during the criminal trial...or the civil trial....or ever
after the prelim.
> These omissions are all
>over the place.
Wrong again. I gave you the date of the 1 (ONE) time they tried to pretend
Rat's report meant something. There are no others to omit.
> And you pretty much answer your own challenge during the
>criminal trial crono because the defense strategy led to acquittal.
Wrong again. They had no way of knowing the outcome until the verdict was
read. Your position that they'd never even bother to investigate (Yes THAT
is your position. You've repeated it dozens of times.) the possible
existence of an 11PM phone call after Shapiro acknowledged the time
guesstimate contained in Rat's report by quoting directly from it during the
prelim is preposterous.
>If the defense had focused on the telephone call , then the theme
>related to the dirty DNA would have been subverted.
No it would not. Your position is ludicrous.
> As you pointed
>out, in the Opening statement Mr. Johnnie's impressionist portrait was
>of reasonable doubt.
Your "impressionist portrait" is my pack of outright lies.
> During the trial, the impressionism gives way
>to a focus: in this case, it was attacking the integrity of the
>physical evidence.
No it did not. The "focus" was on water-muddying, and nothing but
water-muddying. It made no difference what it was, they contested
*everything*-- except the phone records. Why do you suppose that was, Pat?
> That's okay, you see; it's a good strategy that
>wins cases. In opening, you dismantle the state's case by suggesting
>all the possible scenarios in which it could be dismantled, thereby
>setting up a frame of reference.
Stop. He did not even mention Ratcliffe or her report in opening. Your
diversion is invalid.
> Then you go on in, and attack the
>most vulnerable places. In this case, it was evidence chain of
>custody, dirty labs, and character impeachment of testifying officers.
>
See above.
> Maybe one reason they didn't deal with the call: If a phone
>call places Nicole alive at around 11 pm, then the truthfulness of
>Alan Parke is out the window; as it was, he was a defense witness.
He was? Well, OK, if you say so.......
>And remember, OJ's only 'recorded' time post theoretical death of
>victims --that is, a cell call to Kaelin at 11:24 -- could have him
>still be the killer.
Wrong. "Defense witness" (don't you just hate it when you write something
dumb like that and it comes back and bites you in the ass 2 seconds later?)
Park's phone records "record" Butch being at Rockingham at 10:57. So much
for that excuse.
> As far as civil trial, I will say that counsel was a civil
>attorney and therefore not prepared to argue a massive re-trial of a
>criminal case, and I think that must have to do with their not dealing
>with guilt-related facts.
>
Hogwash. Baker wanted to do an instant replay of the criminal trial, but
Fujisaki wasn't as dumb as Ito. Once again, your claim that the civil
lawyers/investigators (How about Butch's insurance company that was footing
the bill Pat? Do you figure they're in the business of ignoring "crucial
evidence" that could have saved them millions?) wouldn't even bother to take
5 minutes to look at the phone records is preposterous.
>
The facts remain: According to you 3 buffoons, even though they had the
phone records sitting right there for damn near 3 years, neither Butch nor a
single one of his lawyers & investigators ever bothered to look at them.
(Stepping all the way through the looking-glass and into Simpsonlicker
Fantasyland© itself, they only had 'phone bills' instead of phone records,
but just plain didn't feel like subpoenaing the records themselves, even
though they could have done so and got them handed over with ease.) Even
though they all knew about Ratcliffe's report, not a single one of them saw
fit to see if there was any possible way they could verify the erroneous
11PM time. In fact, if they're to be believed, they didn't even bother to
ask Ratcliffe where she got the information to begin with--in 3 fucking
years!
I'll give you credit for having more courage than preen & [chicken bobbie]
combined and at least taking a shot at it, but you've failed miserably.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ron
mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
>On 19 Apr 2000 06:10:47 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>
><snips>
>>
>>Once that report was suppressed from the record, there was no good way for
>>shapiro to bring it in without calling Ratcliffe as a defense witness.
>
>This is absolutely the bottom line.
No it is not. A phone record proving such a call existed would have been
the bottom line. None did. End of story.
> The report would have become
>evidence once Ratcliffe testified to its truthfulness.
You're almost close on this one. If anybody could have got her on the stand
for any reason, she'd have just said she heard it 3rd hand through Lange,
and you wouldn't still be babbling about this non-issue 5 years later.
> I have also
>made note that this might be the primary reason why the prosecution
>didn't use Golden -- because the issues related to this phone
>convesation and other related distortions in the investigation [no
>vaginal swabs or stomach contents] that covered up the time of death
>-- which would eliminate Simpson as a suspect.
>
Pat, get serious. They didn't use Golden because he was a disastrous
laughingstock at the prelim, period.
(well, not quite "period". There was the small matter of his "get a gun and
shoot all the lawyers" statement too.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ron
wrote:
>Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> [ yap yap yap ]
>
>>the fact is what blew Shapiro pout of the water was the dumb judges idiotic
>>ruling that the report as inadmissable as hearsay because Ratcliffe was not a
>>peace officer.
>----------------------------------------------
Pat, do you see what preeen says here? I'm sure you remember that just last
week we had the following exchange:
I said: "Because team Butcher tried to get it admitted into evidence and
got turned down flat because it was inadmissible hearsay"
You said: "post the date, the motion, the objection, and the ruling"
>
I said: "No. Take your very first journey into non-fictional material and
find it yourself"
Miracle of miracles! You've actually got someone who--unless he's just
lying again--is fully prepared to comply with one of your imperious demands,
and it's a simpsonlicker to boot!
Get the show on the road and tell preeen to spell it out for you
immediately. I'm sure your boy won't refuse you, right Pat?
Ron
P. Jabine) wrote:
>In article <20000419021047...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
>Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
>>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>>Date: 4/19/2000 1:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <38fd39a2....@news.mindspring.com>
>>
>>responded in part to excrement Ron's comments (incomplete post sent by
>>mistake):
>>> If I may address the above post that I think was originally
>>>written by Ron?
>>> Excellent work. You've deconstructed the pro-j argument in
>>>chronological form, obviously based on studious reading of the
>>>transcripts.
>>
>>First, dipshits comments about why I haven't responded to his gibberish is that
>>I don't bother with his crap.
>>
>>Secondly, he hasn't done squat. the issue of Shapiro's references to the
>>Ratcliffe report during the prelim and how Shapiro was scared off from it I
>>covered in detail months ago when I cited the very same prelim transcripts to
>>show how Hodgman moved heaven and earth to keep the report out of the record
>
>If by "moved heaven and earth" you mean the judge ruled that the report
>was hearsay, you're right. Now tell maguey.
Preen's lying, as usual. Here's the entirety of Hodgman "moving heaven and
earth" on the non-issue:
Shapiro: balahbalblah
MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, now I will object on the grounds counsel is
attempting to elicit hearsay and hearsay of a potentially unreliable
nature.
There is an addendum to the report to which counsel is referring,
which states, in part, "the following information summary is based on
preliminary information and cannot be completely verified at the time of
this report."
In addition, what counsel is attempting to elicit does not fall
within an exception to the hearsay rule. Even though contained in what may
be characterized as an official record, you still have second level
hearsay. So on all those grounds, I object.
Shapiro: balahbalblah
MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, that's compound.
THE COURT: Among other things.
End.
Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
DAMN, that preeeen is waaaaaaaaayyyy stupid.
Thomas P. Jabine
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:56:54 -0500, Ron <R_E...@Ireland.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <8dkdg9$l...@polaris.umuc.edu>, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas
>>P. Jabine) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <20000419021047...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
>>>Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
>>>>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>>>>Date: 4/19/2000 1:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>>>Message-id: <38fd39a2....@news.mindspring.com>
>>>>
>>>>responded in part to excrement Ron's comments (incomplete post sent by
>>>>mistake):
>>>>>written by Ron?
>>>>> Excellent work. You've deconstructed the pro-j argument in
>>>>>chronological form, obviously based on studious reading of the
>>>>>transcripts.
>>>>
>what he says constitutes evidence. He's manipulating the evidence code
>-- which he has a right to do -- but only from an adversarial
>position. It is nothing but ARGUMENT. The defense interprets and
>manipulates it to suit their argument. Therefore your posting what
>Hodgeman's objection was and Ito's prosecution licking as if it meant
>'truth' is unbelievably disenfuckinggenuous.
> As I told you before, the defense didn't win a single motion
>from Ito.
You *said* that?
Ron
mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:56:54 -0500, Ron <R_E...@Ireland.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <8dkdg9$l...@polaris.umuc.edu>, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas
>>P. Jabine) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <20000419021047...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
>>>Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
>>>>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>>>>Date: 4/19/2000 1:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>>>Message-id: <38fd39a2....@news.mindspring.com>
>>>>
>>>>responded in part to excrement Ron's comments (incomplete post sent by
>>>>mistake):
>>>>> If I may address the above post that I think was originally
>>>>>written by Ron?
>>>>> Excellent work. You've deconstructed the pro-j argument in
>>>>>chronological form, obviously based on studious reading of the
>>>>>transcripts.
>>>>
Pat, you look totally ridiculous PRETENDING I presented Hodgeman's
objections as if what he says constitutes evidence.
Here's an idea for you: try reading the goddam post you're supposedly
responding to. You forgot to snip it this time, and it spells out exactly
what it is: Hungocretin preen's definition of "moving heaven and earth".
Idiot.
Now, kindly stop making an ass of yourself and apply your lackluster talents
to responding to the posts in this very thread that're addressed to you, OK?
NKC
>In article <8dkdg9$l...@polaris.umuc.edu>, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas
>P. Jabine) wrote:
>
>>In article <20000419021047...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
>>Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
>>>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>>>Date: 4/19/2000 1:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>>Message-id: <38fd39a2....@news.mindspring.com>
>>>
>>>responded in part to excrement Ron's comments (incomplete post sent by
>>>mistake):
>>>> If I may address the above post that I think was originally
>>>>written by Ron?
>>>> Excellent work. You've deconstructed the pro-j argument in
>>>>chronological form, obviously based on studious reading of the
>>>>transcripts.
>>>
Prien
>Message-id: <38fe704c....@news.mindspring.com>
cites some of Jabshit's comments about Hodgman's efforts to keep the Ratcliffe
report out of the record:
>>Shapiro: balahbalblah
>>
>>MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, now I will object on the grounds counsel is
>>attempting to elicit hearsay and hearsay of a potentially unreliable
>>nature.
>> There is an addendum to the report to which counsel is referring,
>>which states, in part, "the following information summary is based on
>>preliminary information and cannot be completely verified at the time of
>>this report."
>> In addition, what counsel is attempting to elicit does not fall
>>within an exception to the hearsay rule. Even though contained in what may
>>be characterized as an official record, you still have second level
>>hearsay. So on all those grounds, I object.
>>
>>Shapiro: balahbalblah
>>
>>MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, that's compound.
>>
>>THE COURT: Among other things.
>>
>>End.
>>
>>Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
>>
>>DAMN, that preeeen is waaaaaaaaayyyy stupid.
Now let's pin down who is both an idiot and a liar with one simple question:
Is that the only place during the July 8 cross examination that the issue of
Ratcliffe's report came up where Shapiro tried to introduce it into the record?
Are those the only objections Hodgman made to bring the report into the
record?
Now if the answer to either of these questions is "no," but definitely if the
answer to both is "no" as it most assuredly is, Jabshit is nothing but a
contemptible liar for even presenting this nonsense testimony.
>
>you look totally ridiculous presenting Hodgeman's objections as if
>what he says constitutes evidence. He's manipulating the evidence code
>-- which he has a right to do -- but only from an adversarial
>position. It is nothing but ARGUMENT. The defense interprets and
>manipulates it to suit their argument. Therefore your posting what
>Hodgeman's objection was and Ito's prosecution licking as if it meant
>'truth' is unbelievably disenfuckinggenuous.
> As I told you before, the defense didn't win a single motion
>from Ito.
>
>
That's a certainty. Only a minor correction. This sham hearing occurred
between Powell-Kennedy or what not rather than Ito.
>
>
>
Duane
> In article <38fd6fc4$1...@huge.aa.net>, John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net>
Ouch!!!
Patty?
Duane
Thomas P. Jabine
Prien, why was Ratcliffe's report not admitted as evidence?
Ron
wrote:
>Ron wrote:
>
>> In article <38fd6fc4$1...@huge.aa.net>, John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net>
Funny how Pat found the time to deliberately misconstrue another article of
mine on this very subject, but didn't see fit to ask her good friend preeen
to provide the exact information she was demanding from me just last week.
Pat's just SUCH a weasel she gets to be really nauseating at times, don't
she?
~Paige~
The Emperor of the Universe wrote:
You have no credibility 3P's
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Thomas P. Jabine
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>On 20 Apr 2000 09:21:39 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas P.
>Jabine) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Prien, why was Ratcliffe's report not admitted as evidence?
>
>of the 11 PM phone call on Ratcliffe's report was not allowed to be
>heard at the time of the PX on July 8 [thanks, Prien! I knew Ron was
>too chicken to give it up!], because the judge ruled that Shapiro
>hadn't established the foundation that Golden used that report in
>determining the time range of death.
> Here's some more: If you look at the transcripts, as soon as Shapiro
>approaches the subject of time of death in his cross of Golden,
>Hodgman objected immediately.
> Why? Why did Hodgman object, do you think, Mr. Jabine?
>In summary, Golden had said his job as coroner, among other things, is
>to determine the time of death. He relies on the coroner investigator
>to make these conclusions, like Ratcliffe; the investigator, whom he
>referred to as "our eyes and ears."
> Anticipating Shapiro's direction and well before he mentioned
>the investigator's report, Hodgman drove into him like a truck without
>brakes on Filbert Street in San Francisco. The prosecutor's
>"objection! hearsay!" interjections related to death time were
>sustained over and over by the judge. Very bad. Shapiro tried a
>little bit -- he argued he could make reference because Golden had
>relied on the reports to make conclusions -- so they were official
>records [and therefore the judge should know they are exceptions to
>hearsay]. He also argued that the standards at a preliminary hearing
>were different than at trial. To no avail were Shapiro's correct
>[though meekly conveyed] arguments.
> Shapiro said he would "take the time to establsih the
>foundation" that it was okay for Golden to refer to Ratcliffe report.
> The court denied him that request.
>` over and over and over AND OVER the prosecutor objected,
>preventing the time of death subject from being examined.
> Why, Mr. Jabine? If it's about truth and fairness, why prevent
>the coroner from making reference to his investigator's report?
>Hearsay IS allowable during preliminary hearings; coroner's
>investigator reports ARE 'business records' and fall under sections
>1720 and 1271 of California Evidence Code. Why was this so critical to
>the prosecution that this subject be submerged?
> [AND YOU WONDER WHY THEY DIDN'T USE GOLDEN IN TRIAL.]
> Finally, Shapiro got to sneak in a question related to what
>basis Golden used to guestimate the time of death! What was it? The
>GASTRIC CONTENTS!!! BUT THEY WERE THROWN OUT!!! not only that, of
>course, but that it was difficult to determine time of death because
>they weren't called in until 10.5 hours after the cops got there.
> The rest of the examination appears pretty sarcastically
>hostile and even though, on the record, Shapiro would look to be
>trying to sneak in reference to the 11 pm phone call, he shouldn't
>have to be doing this by subterfuge.
> Just when Shapiro asks whether some day-old gastric fluids
>would better help him estimate the time of death than a telephone
>conversation with the decedant's mother, he is objected and sustained
>and Shapiro drops it, altogether. "Thank you...we will go on to
>something else."
> Hey, who was this guy working for, anyway?
Wouldn't it have been easier and more informative if you had
posted the testimony?
NKC
NKC
>In article <38fdb25d....@news.mindspring.com>,
>mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
>
>>On 19 Apr 2000 06:10:47 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>>
>><snips>
>>>
>>>Once that report was suppressed from the record, there was no good way for
>>>shapiro to bring it in without calling Ratcliffe as a defense witness.
>>
>>This is absolutely the bottom line.
>
>No it is not. A phone record proving such a call existed would have been
>the bottom line. None did. End of story.
Not even the beginning of the story! A phone record proving contact
between the two telephone lines would corroborate an unimpeached
witness's testimony that she spoke with the decedant at 11 pm.
>
>> The report would have become
>>evidence once Ratcliffe testified to its truthfulness.
>
>You're almost close on this one. If anybody could have got her on the stand
>for any reason, she'd have just said she heard it 3rd hand through Lange,
>and you wouldn't still be babbling about this non-issue 5 years later.
Wrong. She heard it through Lou. Lou may have been a direct witness
to this conversation.
>
>> I have also
>>made note that this might be the primary reason why the prosecution
>>didn't use Golden -- because the issues related to this phone
>>convesation and other related distortions in the investigation [no
>>vaginal swabs or stomach contents] that covered up the time of death
>>-- which would eliminate Simpson as a suspect.
>>
>Pat, get serious. They didn't use Golden because he was a disastrous
>laughingstock at the prelim, period.
>
>(well, not quite "period". There was the small matter of his "get a gun and
>shoot all the lawyers" statement too.)
Bullshit. Nobody would have been more of a laughinstock than
Lakshmanan who didn't even look at the bodies@! They didn't call
Golden because it would have opened the door to Ratcliffe's reference,
to the time of death, to the disposal of stomach contents, and to the
allofasudden *no rape kit disposition of the female homicide body.
NKC
Jabine) wrote:
>In article <38fdb25d....@news.mindspring.com>,
>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>On 19 Apr 2000 06:10:47 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>>
>><snips>
>>>
>>>Once that report was suppressed from the record, there was no good way for
>>>shapiro to bring it in without calling Ratcliffe as a defense witness.
>>
>>This is absolutely the bottom line. The report would have become
>>evidence once Ratcliffe testified to its truthfulness.
>
>How could Ratcliffe, who had no personal knowledge of the call whatsoever,
>testify to the truthfulness of what someone else said about it?
>
She is the preparer of the report and hence a qualified witness to
testify to her reports authenticity, the method it was prepared, and I
would speculate if prosecution's objections didn't successfully
intervene -- she would have the opportunity to testify who told her
about the telephone call.
Prien
>Message-id: <38ffb1bb....@news.mindspring.com>
demolishes the NoJ's fraudulent claims regarding Shapiro's efforts tobring in
the Ratcliffe report at the prelims:
Well done, NKC. Crisp toast would look like unleavened and unbaked bread
compared tonhow you fried them.
Nothing could more clearly reveal the incredible judicial bias against simpson
that the judge's performance in this case. Worse than the junk coming out of
the Elian case.
The kindest that could be said about the judge was that she was a brain dead
moron.
Thomas P. Jabine
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>On 19 Apr 2000 10:17:55 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas P.
>Jabine) wrote:
>
>>In article <38fdb25d....@news.mindspring.com>,
>>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>On 19 Apr 2000 06:10:47 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>>>
>>><snips>
>>>>
>>>>Once that report was suppressed from the record, there was no good way for
>>>>shapiro to bring it in without calling Ratcliffe as a defense witness.
>>>
>>>This is absolutely the bottom line. The report would have become
>>>evidence once Ratcliffe testified to its truthfulness.
>>
>>How could Ratcliffe, who had no personal knowledge of the call whatsoever,
>>testify to the truthfulness of what someone else said about it?
>>
>She is the preparer of the report and hence a qualified witness to
>testify to her reports authenticity, the method it was prepared, and I
>would speculate if prosecution's objections didn't successfully
>intervene -- she would have the opportunity to testify who told her
>about the telephone call.
Why not just call Lou Brown to testify? I don't think he's ever denied
that he initially said his wife's last call to Nicole was somewhere
around 11 o'clock. For that matter, why not introduce the phone
records?
Marlalinde
>From: ThePuppetMaster ThePupp...@Mail.com
>Date: 04/20/2000 6:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <aqbvfsgree0qbfm0t...@4ax.com>
Piggie Montoya reveals:
"This babe is going nowhere." LyyynnKow 4-20-2000
Marla
NKC
Jabine) wrote:
The defense call the victim's parent?
Duane
Do I get a royalty?
Duane
Thomas P. Jabine
To ask the time of the last phone call, and then show the jury the phone
record? Absolutely! Do you really think the jury would have had a problem
with it? I don't.
John Griffin
>On 20 Apr 2000 23:49:41 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas P.
>Jabine) wrote:
>>In article <38ffb1bb....@news.mindspring.com>,
>>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>On 20 Apr 2000 09:21:39 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas P.
>>Wouldn't it have been easier and more informative if you had
>>posted the testimony?
>Certainly it would have been easier, but since the vast majority of
>No-j's are unable to analyze transcripts and identify evidence and
>summarize and connect dots, I thought I'd do that part for you.
> If I were to post the transcripts, would that help you to
>understand? Let me know.
Either the judge was right (the stuff Ratcliffe heard that Lange heard
that Lou heard from Juditha is hearsay), or Patty is right. If Patty's
right, I'll instruct Egan to kiss her ass at the next newsgroup meeting.
>>
>>
John Griffin
>On 21 Apr 2000 19:02:16 -0600, John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net>
>wrote:
>You miss the point [sahprize sahprize]. The executioner's objection
>that the topic of time of death should not even be discussed was
>sustained by a judge who said that the foundation for the questioning
>hadn't been established.
> This is enormously outrageous and should have been pursued at
>the time of the PX.
> That it was dropped by Shapiro is extremely suspicious.
> Does it sink in at all?
Such mindless drivel was sunk before you launched it.
Thomas P. Jabine
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>On 21 Apr 2000 10:42:19 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas P.
>were more intelligent that this.
Funnily enough, I was operating under the assumption that you had more
respect for the jury's intelligence than this.
Thomas P. Jabine
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>On 20 Apr 2000 23:49:41 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas P.
>Jabine) wrote:
>
>>In article <38ffb1bb....@news.mindspring.com>,
>>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>On 20 Apr 2000 09:21:39 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas P.
>>posted the testimony?
>
>Certainly it would have been easier, but since the vast majority of
>No-j's are unable to analyze transcripts and identify evidence and
>summarize and connect dots, I thought I'd do that part for you.
> If I were to post the transcripts, would that help you to
>understand? Let me know.
That the report was rejected as hearsay? That's what I was trying
to explain to you. But yeah, unless you've got a problem with people
thinking for themselves, post the transcript.
NKC
NKC
NKC
wrote:
>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>On 20 Apr 2000 23:49:41 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas P.
>>Jabine) wrote:
>>>
>>>Wouldn't it have been easier and more informative if you had
>>>posted the testimony?
>
>>Certainly it would have been easier, but since the vast majority of
>>No-j's are unable to analyze transcripts and identify evidence and
>>summarize and connect dots, I thought I'd do that part for you.
>> If I were to post the transcripts, would that help you to
>>understand? Let me know.
>
Prien
>Message-id: <3900fdb6....@news.mindspring.com>
>
notes:
>No-j's are unable to analyze transcripts and identify evidence and
>summarize and connect dots, I thought I'd do that part for you.
> If I were to post the transcripts, would that help you to
>understand? Let me know.
>
Only if you feel a great compulsion. I already did that several months ago in
a posting about how Hodgman moved heaven and earth to suppress Ratcliffe's
report. Cited the entire relevant testimony with commentary. They didn't get
it then. Can't believe they did anything to improve their IQ's to make it any
more comprehensible now.
But as I said, if you must and think it will help.
Prien
>Message-id: <39011073....@news.mindspring.com>
>
wrote:
>You miss the point [sahprize sahprize]. The executioner's objection
>that the topic of time of death should not even be discussed was
>sustained by a judge who said that the foundation for the questioning
>hadn't been established.
> This is enormously outrageous and should have been pursued at
>the time of the PX.
> That it was dropped by Shapiro is extremely suspicious.
Show trial? You suppose?
All around. Shapiro. Judge. Prosecution.
Everyone should now simply try to imagine, just try to comprehend, how the
judge could have blithely decided there was sufficient evidence to go forward
with a case when there is an official record admitted into prelim hearing that
Simpsin has an absolute alibi based on information obtained by a coroner's
investigator in the course of her investigation into establishing the
parameters of the time of death. That in fact is exactly what Ratcliffe was
doing when she obtained the last time she was known to be alive statement.
Told me so directly and specifically. Pinned it down for a fact. Was one of
the critical time parameters she was looking to establish.
Got it right, too.
Now with this in the record, it automatically produces a huge problem for the
prosecution. How do they refute it? Who does it for them? What witness do
they present? How can the witness that soon after th event claim he or she was
wrong? Forces defense to conduct merciless cross examination or reveal their
complete incompetence.
Production of the record at the prelim would have stopped the Simpson
prosecution in its tracks right then and there. Record had to be suppressed.
And it was.
> Does it sink in at all?
>
The eternity after this one when they have burned in hell for a while.
NKC
>>Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>Date: 4/21/2000 9:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3900fdb6....@news.mindspring.com>
>>
>
>notes:
>>No-j's are unable to analyze transcripts and identify evidence and
>>summarize and connect dots, I thought I'd do that part for you.
>> If I were to post the transcripts, would that help you to
>>understand? Let me know.
>>
>
>Only if you feel a great compulsion. I already did that several months ago in
>a posting about how Hodgman moved heaven and earth to suppress Ratcliffe's
>report. Cited the entire relevant testimony with commentary. They didn't get
>it then. Can't believe they did anything to improve their IQ's to make it any
>more comprehensible now.
>
>But as I said, if you must and think it will help.
Forever the optimist, I will try.
NKC
Jabine) wrote:
>
>That the report was rejected as hearsay? That's what I was trying
>to explain to you. But yeah, unless you've got a problem with people
>thinking for themselves, post the transcript.
now say thank you, Thomas.
0001
01 IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF LOS ANGELES JUDICIAL DISTRICT
02 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
03 HON. KATHLEEN KENNEDY-POWELL, JUDGE DEPARTMENT 105
04 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) NO. BA097211
04 )
05 PLAINTIFF, )
05 )
06 VS. ) VOLUME 13
06 )
07 )
07 ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
08 AKA O.J. SIMPSON, )
08 )
09 )
09 DEFENDANT. )
10 _______________________________________)
10
11
11
12 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
12
13 FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1994
13
14
14
15 APPEARANCES:
15
16 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MARCIA CLARK
16 WILLIAM HODGMAN
17 DEPUTIES DISTRICT ATTORNEY
17
18
18
19 FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT SHAPIRO
19 GERALD UELMEN
20 PRIVATELY RETAINED COUNSEL
20
21
21
22
22
23 SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
23
24
24
25
25
26
26 ARNELLA I. SIMS, CSR #2896
27 ROBERT GUNN, CSR #1539
27 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
28
0002
01 I N D E X
01 VOIR
02 PEOPLE'S WITNESS(ES): DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE
02
03 IRWIN L. GOLDEN 3 28
03
04
04
05 -O0O-
05
06
06 EXHIBITS
07
07 PEOPLE'S EXHIBITS: IN EVIDENCE
08
08 1 - BOARD OF FOUR PHOTOS 29
09
09 2 - PHOTO 29
10
10 3 - PHOTO 29
11
11 5 - PHOTO 29
12
12 6 - SERIES OF PHOTOS 29
13
13 7 - DIAGRAM 29
14
14 8 - SERIES OF PHOTOS 29
15
15 9 - SERIES OF PHOTOS 29
16
16 10 - PHOTO 29
17
17 11 - PHOTO 29
18
18 12 - PHOTO 29
19
19 13 - PHOTO 29
20
20 14 - PHOTO 29
21
21 15 - PHOTO 29
22
22 16 - PHOTO 29
23
23 17 - PHOTO 29
24
24 18 - PHOTO 29
25
25 19 - SERIES OF PHOTOS 29
26
26 20 - SERIES OF PHOTOS 29
27
27 21 - PHOTO 29
28
28
0003
01 I N D E X (CONTINUED)
01
02 22 - PHOTO 29
02
03 23 - SERIES OF PHOTOS 29
03
04 24 - CHART 29
04
05 25 - DIAGRAM 29
05
06 26 - DIAGRAM 29
06
07 27 - DIAGRAM 29
07
08 28 - DIAGRAM 29
08
09 29 - DIAGRAM 29
09
10 30 - DIAGRAM 29
10
11 31 - DIAGRAM 29
11
12 32 - PHOTO 29
12
13 33 - PHOTO 29
13
14
14
15 DEFENSE EXHIBITS:
15
16 A - ARCHITECT'S RENDERING 30
16
17 B - PHOTO 30
17
18 C - PHOTO 30
18
19 D - PHOTO 30
19
20 F - SERIES OF PHOTOS 30
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
01 Los Angeles, California; Friday, July 8, 1994
02 1:30 p.m.
03 -o0o-
04
05 IRWIN L. GOLDEN,
06 having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand, was
07 examined and testified further as follows:
08 THE COURT: We are once again on the record in the
09 case of people v. Simpson. The defendant is present
10 with counsel. The people are represented. Dr. Golden
11 is on the witness stand.
12 I remind you, sir, you remain under oath.
13 Mr. Shapiro.
14 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, your Honor.
15
16 CROSS-EXAMINATION
17
18 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
19 Q Good afternoon, doctor.
20 A Good afternoon.
21 Q Doctor, I was presented this morning with a
22 three-quarter page form that indicates "curriculum vitae";
23 and it's dated may of '94.
24 Is this your current resume?
25 A Yes.
26 Q And is it up to date?
27 A I believe so.
28 Q I notice in here that it indicates - there is a
0004
01 space for current academic appointments, and it is blank.
02 During your tenure, have you had any academic
03 appointments?
04 A No.
05 Q And it indicates in here "current medical staff
06 appointments," and it is blank.
07 During your tenure, have you had any medical
08 staff appointments?
09 A No.
10 Q Then the next thing that is listed is the
11 concise summary of your role in the forensic pathology
12 program; and it lists three things, that you perform
13 autopsies, courtroom testimony and lecturer.
14 Does that cover the gamut of the summary of
15 your role as a forensic pathologist?
16 A I am trying to think if there is anything I
17 have omitted.
18 Basically so, yes, unless there are some things I
19 haven't recollected.
20 Basically, I am a deputy medical examiner and
21 forensic pathologist.
22 Q You talked before about your being a physician.
23 Have you ever practiced medicine?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Now, you indicated you are a lecturer.
26 What types of lectures do you give and to whom?
27 A That would be intramural lectures at the
28 department of coroner.
0005
01 Q I'm sorry? I didn't hear you.
02 A That would be intramural, or interdepartment,
03 lectures at the department of coroner.
04 Q So you talk to your colleagues?
05 A That would be -- yes, yes.
06 Q And courtroom testimony, you have told us, I
07 believe, you have testified approximately 700 times?
08 A Approximately, yes.
09 Q And how many of those 700 times have you been
10 called as a witness for the prosecution?
11 A Many times. Hundreds of times.
12 Q How many of those times have you been called as a
13 witness for the defense?
14 A I don't have the tally.
15 In civil cases I could be called by either the
16 plaintiffs or the defendants. I wouldn't know -- i have
17 testified in civil cases; But in those instances, I am not
18 sure whether it has been the plaintiffs or the defendants.
19 In most of the criminal -- in most of the
20 criminal cases, the prosecution calls me as a witness but
21 not invariably because -- I won't say "frequently" but
22 occasionally the defense counsel wants -- wants us called
23 as a witness rather than accepting a stipulation.
24 Q Have you testified in any state as an expert
25 witness other than California?
26 A Not as a -- no, I have not.
27 Q Have you testified in any other city -- or any
28 county other than Los Angeles county as a forensic
0006
01 pathologist, as an expert?
02 A Well, as a medical examiner, some of my cases
03 have been in other counties. I am sure about
04 San Bernardino county. I have been in santa barbara
05 County -- i have been called as a witness in santa barbara
06 county. it pertained to a department of coroner case,
07 But -- it was a civil case, and I -- either the plaintiff
08 or the defendant called me. the reason I went there was
09 not as a consultant but because the decedent came under our
10 jurisdiction.
11 I did testify in an L.A. civil case in santa
12 barbara county, civil case in San Bernardino county; but I
13 would be available in a criminal case in any county in
14 California.
15 Q Also on your curriculum vitae, you have presented
16 a list of publications from the last five years; and you
17 have included yourself as a co-author, in 1989, of a
18 four-page magazine article dealing with pneumonia in
19 infants.
20 Is that the extent of your publications?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Have you reviewed the general texts in the
23 field for determining time of death?
24 A Excuse me? Did you say "text" or "texts"?
25 Q "Texts"; books.
26 A Yes.
27 Q And what books have you relied upon in forming
28 opinions as to the time of death?
0007
01 A I have read forensic pathology textbooks, and
02 these would be the standard texts: Gradwall's forensic
03 medicine -- comma -- Spitz and Fisher's medicolegal
04 investigation of death, latest edition; Adleson's pathology
05 of homicide; Demayo's text on forensic pathology; and
06 Knight's -- K-n-i-g-h-t -- textbook on forensic
07 pathology.
08 These are all standard references available to
09 me at the department of coroner.
10 Q And in reviewing those sources, would you
11 agree that the following factors are to be considered in
12 determining time of death: first, rigor mortis?
13 A Yes.
14 Q second, lividity?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Third, temperature change?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Fourth, digestion in the stomach?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And, fifth, eye fluids?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Anything else you would like to add to that list?
23 A Eyewitness.
24 Q Eyewitness.
25 Okay. That would be six.
26 Anything else?
27 A No. I think that covers it.
28 Q And would you say that one of the important roles
0008
01 of your job as a deputy medical examiner is to ascertain
02 the time of death in a homicide?
03 A I would say to give -- to help determine a
04 range of the time of death, yes.
05 Q And there are other people who you work with in
06 forming those conclusions that are part of the coroner's
07 office; is that correct?
08 A Yes, that is.
09 Q And that would be a medical investigator?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And a deputy coroner?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Would there be other members of the team you
14 would rely on for that type of information?
15 A No. The deputy coroner, the coroner investigator
16 would be our eyes and ears.
17 Q And those people have also filed reports that you
18 have included as part of what you call the autopsy report,
19 or autopsy protocol; is that correct?
20 A Yes, that's correct.
21 Q And you reviewed their findings prior to
22 testifying today?
23 A Yes.
24 Q In reviewing their findings regarding nicole
25 Simpson, were you informed that she was found and
26 pronounced dead by a member of the Los Angeles fire
27 department, engine 19 squad?
28 A Okay. I guess -- I can't find the relevant
0009
01 page in my protocol here.
02 Yes. I found it.
03 Q Take your time.
04 A Yes. LAFD, engine 19 -- pronounced by LAFD,
05 engine 19.
06 Q And what was the time that the decedent
07 Miss Brown was pronounced dead?
08 MR. HODGMAN: Objection, your Honor. Calls for
09 hearsay.
10 THE COURT: Sustained.
11 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, may I be heard on that?
12 THE COURT: All right.
13 MR. SHAPIRO: May I -- first, I believe these are
14 official records and part of the autopsy protocol which he
15 has indicated; And if he has relied on these records in
16 performing his opinion, he can testify to it.
17 Second, hearsay is admissible at these
18 proceedings.
19 MR. HODGMAN: If I may be heard, your Honor?
20 THE COURT: Yes.
21 MR. HODGMAN: First of all, the people have
22 elicited no opinion with regard to time of death, nor do
23 we intend to. We have an independent factual basis for
24 that. So there is no foundational aspect to this.
25 Second of all, it is complete hearsay. There is
26 information in a report. And counsel has the burden of
27 establishing this is an official record. And it is hearsay
28 upon hearsay and, hence, still inadmissible.
0010
01 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, if the people are going
02 to contend a case report from the county coroner as part
03 of an autopsy report is not an official record, we will
04 take the time to establish the foundation.
05 THE COURT: At this point it is hearsay; and the
06 witness not being a peace officer, there is no exception to
07 his being able to relate hearsay.
08 At this point the objection is sustained.
09 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
10 Q In forming any conclusions or opinions in this
11 case, did you at all consider the time the decedent nicole
12 Simpson brown was pronounced dead?
13 MR. HODGMAN: Objection, your Honor. No foundation in
14 evidence thus far and ambiguous as to which conclusions and
15 opinions that counsel is interested in.
16 THE COURT: Sustained.
17 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
18 Q You testified it was part of your job to
19 determine the time of death.
20 MR. HODGMAN: Objection, your Honor. Misstates the
21 evidence.
22 THE COURT: Is that part of your job to determine the
23 time of death?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes; Only I would use the term
25 "estimate" or "range of time of death."
26 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
27 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
28 Q And what factors did you use to estimate the
0011
01 time of death or range of time of death for the decedent
02 Miss Brown?
03 MR. HODGMAN: Objection. Misstates the evidence.
04 This witness has not made an estimate as to
05 time of death.
06 THE COURT: Well, we haven't heard of an estimate as
07 to time of death; so it assumes facts not in evidence.
08 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
09 Q Have you made an estimate in your official
10 reports, or has anyone from the coroner's office made an
11 estimate, as to the time of death of the decedent
12 Mrs. Brown?
13 MR. HODGMAN: Objection. Compound.
14 THE COURT: Sustained as to someone other than this
15 witness.
16 MR. SHAPIRO: I'm sorry?
17 THE COURT: It would be sustained as to whether
18 someone other than this particular witness made an
19 estimate.
20 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
21 Q Did you make an estimate of the time of death?
22 A There is no official estimate of the time of
23 death. There is nothing written down.
24 Q I am asking did you make an estimate.
25 Did anybody ask you as the head person
26 investigating this homicide to make an estimate as to the
27 time of death? Yes or no?
28 MR. HODGMAN: Objection. That misstates the
0012
01 evidence.
02 He is not the head person investigating this
03 homicide.
04 THE COURT: I think we know what he means.
05 Overruled.
06 Has that been asked of you?
07 THE WITNESS: Yes.
08 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
09 Q Who asked that of you?
10 A My boss, Dr. Lakshmanan.
11 Q Did you give him an answer?
12 A Yes.
13 Q What was your answer?
14 A My answer was --
15 Q Are you referring to something?
16 A No, no.
17 Q It looks like you are reading something to me.
18 Maybe it would be simpler if you need to refer to
19 Something -- if you could put that aside and if you need to
20 refer to it, just ask us. Would that work for you?
21 A Sure would.
22 Q OKAY. Would you kindly put that aside.
23 Now, would you tell us what you told your boss,
24 Dr. Lakshmanan, regarding your estimate of the time of
25 death of nicole brown.
26 A My estimate was based on the state of the gastric
27 contents and the character of the gastric contents. It was
28 somewhere three to four hours after her last meal.
0013
01 Q That was the only factor you relied upon out of
02 the five or six factors that you listed?
03 A I haven't finished yet.
04 Q OH. I'M sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
05 A Using that evidence along with the body
06 temperature determinations, which were taken
07 approximately 11 hours after the body was discovered, I
08 used a formula, graphs to reach a conclusion that the
09 range of the time of death was somewhere between 10 and
10 15 hours prior to the time the investigator took the liver
11 temperature determination.
12 Q You used two of the five criteria; is that
13 correct?
14 A And --
15 Q OH. You haven't finished yet.
16 A And I then considered the rigor mortis
17 determination, which, at the time the investigator -- the
18 time the investigator performed her determination, the body
19 was in full Rigor -- If now I may pick up and look at page
20 1 of the coroner's protocol -- The Rigor mortis was fixed
21 and was -- was fully fixed. So that also placed the time
22 of death somewhere beyond 9 to 12 hours. In other words,
23 it was fully fixed at the time, which was probably known at
24 the time of the pronouncement of death.
25 livor mortis was also fixed, and Rigor mortis was
26 fully established.
27 So four of the measurements, or examinations,
28 were performed.
0014
01 Q Let's go through each one of those, if we
02 might.
03 Regarding rigor mortis, what time does the
04 case report that you have just referred to indicate that
05 an observation for rigor mortis was first done by
06 somebody from your department?
07 A It was fully established -- you know, the
08 interesting thing is the air and liver temperature times
09 are given -- date and time. The Rigor -- the livor and
10 Rigor mortis statements do not have an exact date and time
11 listed, but it is taken at or about the time the liver
12 temperature is taken.
13 Q Which is what time?
14 A Well, on nicole brown Simpson, liver
15 temperature was taken at 1050 hours on 6/13/94.
16 Q Would you agree that the closer you take --
17 the closer that you make the observations of the four
18 indications -- well, the three -- Let's not talk about
19 stomach content -- the closer you make the three
20 observations to the time of death, the better chance you
21 will have of accurately establish parameters for time of
22 death?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And would you say that it is proper procedure if
25 a decedent was found at approximately ten minutes after
26 midnight to wait 10-1/2 hours to perform these temperature
27 evaluations?
28 MR. HODGMAN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to
0015
01 what is proper procedure.
02 THE COURT: Do you understand the question, doctor?
03 THE WITNESS: Yes.
04 THE COURT: Okay. Then I am going to go ahead and let
05 you answer.
06 THE WITNESS: The measurements are more accurate
07 the closer to the actual time of death.
08 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
09 Q And are there people available from the coroner's
10 office to make those measurements at the request of
11 homicide detectives?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Now, regarding the stomach contents, you say that
14 was something important, that you used as a criteria for
15 establishing the estimated time of death of the decedent
16 nicole brown; is that correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And I take it those stomach contents are
19 materials that can be preserved for later analysis. Is
20 that correct?
21 A Can be, yes.
22 Q And, in fact, on the forms that you use, there
23 is a check box for toxicological specimens collected;
24 isn't that correct?
25 A Yes.
26 Q Did you save the stomach contents?
27 A No.
28 Q Were you able to determine who died first, the
0016
01 decedent Goldman or the decedent brown?
02 A No.
03 Q Do you have an opinion as to the time of death of
04 nicole Simpson?
05 A I can give you a range.
06 Q And what is that range?
07 A Somewhere between 9 o'clock and midnight.
08 Q Now, is there something in the report that
09 indicates that one of your investigators had information
10 from the mother of the decedent that she was alive at 11
11 p.m.?
12 MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, I am going to object now
13 because counsel is attempting to elicit inadmissible and
14 unreliable hearsay evidence.
15 THE COURT: I think it would be admissible only if
16 the doctor relied upon it in formulating his opinion,
17 and it would not be offered then for the truth of the
18 matter but for the fact the doctor may have relied upon it.
19 And I don't know whether he did or did not; and, therefore,
20 until that foundation is established as to whether he
21 relied upon that in forming his opinion, the objection will
22 be sustained.
23 MR. HODGMAN: Yes. I understand the court's ruling.
24 And should it be permitted, it would be only for the
25 limited purpose articulated by the court?
26 THE COURT: Correct.
27 MR. HODGMAN: Thank you.
28
0017
01 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
02 Q Did you have any information from any
03 investigator that is filed under a county of Los Angeles
04 investigator's report for the department of the coroner
05 regarding the last time somebody saw or spoke to nicole
06 brown?
07 A Yes.
08 Q What information did you have?
09 A Am I allowed to testify on that or --
10 MR. HODGMAN: I am going to object for lack of
11 foundation because there is no indication yet that this
12 witness relied upon that information, whatever it may
13 be.
14 THE COURT: Yes.
15 Mr. Shapiro, I think you need to establish that
16 foundationally before I will allow that testimony to come
17 in.
18 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
19 Q You previously testified you read all these
20 reports; is that correct?
21 A Yes. Not in exact detail, but I did look at
22 them.
23 In fact, some of these reports were preliminary,
24 may not have been fully prepared, at the time I did the
25 autopsy.
26 Q When was the report that's -- we are referring
27 to, that has in the upper left-hand corner "no. 3,"
28 prepared?
0018
01 A Okay.
02 The form no. 3, prepared by investigator
03 Ratcliffe, was prepared 6/13/94.
04 Q Was that before or after your autopsy?
05 A 6/13/94 should have been -- prepared before the
06 autopsy.
07 Q Have you had enough time to prepare yourself to
08 testify in this case today?
09 A Yes.
10 Q Have you had enough time to review your reports?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Do you think you would need some more time to
13 prepare yourself adequately for testimony?
14 MR. HODGMAN: I object. That is argumentative.
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
16 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
17 Q Is it your testimony that you did or did not
18 consider the investigator's report before you have
19 testified here today for any -- in any area?
20 A I did consider those parts of the
21 investigator's report that I considered relevant to my
22 testimony, and I have already testified about her
23 measurements that she took. That's the ones I have been
24 asked about.
25 Q Is time of death relevant to your testimony?
26 A Yes.
27 Q Is -- didn't you just say that eyewitnesses are
28 very important in establishing time of death?
0019
01 A Yes.
02 Q Would you consider a mother talking to her
03 daughter as being an eyewitness to when somebody was
04 last alive?
05 A Well, I meant someone actually witnessing her
06 death, as often happens when death is pronounced in a
07 hospital. We know the exact time of death.
08 Q What if somebody recorded the time of a telephone
09 call? Would that be of any help to you?
10 MR. HODGMAN: Objection, your Honor. That calls
11 for speculation.
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 Can you answer that?
14 THE WITNESS: A telephone call to the decedent?
15 THE COURT: That is what you mean, isn't it,
16 mr. Shapiro?
17 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.
18 THE COURT: Yes.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes. That would be useful.
20 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
21 Q Is there anything that was done by anyone from
22 the coroner's office to try to ascertain that?
23 MR. HODGMAN: Objection. That calls for
24 speculation.
25 MR. SHAPIRO: He has the official reports. He can
26 look at them.
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
28 You may answer.
0020
01 THE WITNESS: Yes.
02 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
03 Q What is it?
04 MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, now I will object on the
05 grounds counsel is attempting to elicit hearsay and hearsay
06 of a potentially unreliable nature.
07 There is an addendum to the report to which
08 counsel is referring, which states, in part, "the following
09 information summary is based on preliminary information and
10 cannot be completely verified at the time of this report."
11 In addition, what counsel is attempting to
12 elicit does not fall within an exception to the hearsay
13 rule. Even though contained in what may be characterized
14 as an official record, you still have second level
15 hearsay.
16 So on all those grounds, I object.
17 THE COURT: I still don't think, Mr. Shapiro, you
18 have established the foundation the court needed to be
19 established before that information could come in for
20 the limited purpose for which the doctor considered it,
21 if he indeed considered it.
22 I don't know whether he did. That is the
23 foundation that has not been established.
24 MR. SHAPIRO: I believe, your Honor, he has testified
25 an eyewitness or somebody establishing the time the
26 decedent was last known alive would be one of six factors
27 he would consider in establishing time of death.
28 THE COURT: I understand that. But specifically in
0021
01 this case there has been no testimony he, in fact, did
02 rely on any statement from someone indicating they had had
03 a telephone conversation with the decedent; And that's what
04 you need to establish before I will allow that testimony in
05 for a limited purpose only, not for the truth of the
06 matter.
07 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
08 Q If you had some information as to the time the
09 decedent was last talking to her mother, would that be of
10 any benefit to you in coming to your estimate as to the
11 time of death?
12 A My estimates are based on the body measurements.
13 I do not use -- I did not use any information about a
14 telephone conversation.
15 Q Did you see any information about a telephone
16 conversation when you came to your conclusions?
17 A I heard about a telephone conversation and did
18 see it in the report.
19 Q Who did you hear about it from?
20 A The initial -- the initial report of the
21 telephone conversation?
22 Q Yes.
23 A I believe I heard it on the news or in the
24 paper.
25 Q Is that before you saw it in your report?
26 A Yes.
27 Q You mean the news had it on before it was in your
28 investigator's report on the 13th?
0022
01 A I believe the news used the investigator's
02 Report -- preliminary investigator's report.
03 Q Are you saying the news read the report before
04 you did?
05 A No, I am not saying that at all.
06 Q My question now is --
07 a All I am saying is I did not use any telephone
08 conversation to come to this time of death
09 determination. I am using body measurements and Rigor
10 mortis, livor mortis, cooling of the body and the
11 gastric contents. That has nothing to do with a
12 telephone conversation.
13 Q It is 10-1/2 hours after the fact, and you would
14 rather rely upon that than upon a mother's testimony that
15 she -- or mother's comment she had a telephone conversation
16 with her daughter?
17 Which one do you think is more accurate?
18 MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, that's compound.
19 THE COURT: Among other things.
20 Sustained.
21 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
22 We will go on to something else.
23 Q Do you have an opinion -- you observed the
24 stomach contents of the decedent Mr. Goldman; is that
25 correct?
26 A Yes.
27 Q Did you save those?
28 A Yes.
0023
01 Q Why did you save his and not save hers?
02 A Well, first of all, I did not think it was
03 indicated to save the contents on nicole brown Simpson.
04 It was important to measure it, characterize it and
05 describe it; and I did not think it was indicated to save it
06 for toxicological examination.
07 Of course, saving blood and other body fluids are
08 very important for toxicological examination, which is what
09 we did. The duty to characterize the gastric contents and
10 measure it and describe what was in it is important, which
11 is what I did.
12 On Mr. Goldman, again, blood and other body
13 fluids were preserved. On him I was asked to save the
14 gastric contents.
15 Q Who asked you to do that?
16 A My chief supervisor, Dr. lakshmanan.
17 Q Do you have an opinion as to, between nicole
18 brown and ronald Goldman, who was the last one to consume
19 food?
20 A I have no opinion on that, no.
21 Q Did you form any conclusion or opinion as to
22 whose food was more digested in the stomach?
23 A Mr. Goldman's food was more digested than
24 nicole brown Simpson's.
25
0024
01 Q If he ate after she did, would that mean that
02 he lived longer than she did?
03 A If he had a meal after she had a meal --
04 Q Yes.
05 A -- Does this indicate that he lived longer
06 than she did?
07 Q Yes.
08 A Well, I don't know for sure. His state of --
09 the food being more digested in his stomach could
10 indicate that he had the meal earlier or that he had a
11 lighter meal or that it -- digestion started sooner,
12 whereas her food being in the less digested state,
13 particularly what I observed, a lot of the food was --
14 appeared to be unchewed.
15 Particularly some of the particles of rigatoni
16 were unchewed, and that could indicate that the unchewed
17 food could remain in the stomach for a longer period of
18 time before digestion.
19 Q Regarding the knife wounds, is it your finding
20 that there were two types of knife wounds on both
21 victims?
22 A There are two morphologically different types
23 of stab wounds on the victims. Namely, some of the
24 stab wounds on the victims are indicative of a
25 single-edged blade for the reasons that I indicated.
26 They have both a round or blunt end and a pointed end.
27 And other -- some of the wounds have a
28 characteristically double pointed or forked end, which
0025
01 would indicate that they could be made by either a blunt
02 end instrument, or knife, or a double sharp end
03 instrument. In other words, a two-edged knife or a
04 single-edged knife.
05 And there's no way that my determinations can
06 tell the difference between those, so there are two
07 morphologically different types.
08 Q Could two knives have produced the injuries on
09 both of the victims?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Was there any evidence of any sexual attack on
12 the decedent, Nicole Brown?
13 A No, there wasn't.
14 Q Did you look for any semen, saliva, hairs,
15 Bloods, that might be left behind on the victim of a
16 sexual attack?
17 A Okay. That -- that would be a -- that would
18 be performed by a criminalist, to collect and preserve
19 that evidence, and I wouldn't do it, and it's my
20 understanding that it was not requested or performed.
21 Q Was there any attempt made to look for seman
22 in Nicole or Mr. Goldman at the scene or at the autopsy?
23 A Not to my knowledge.
24 Q Is it proper, in your opinion, to do a rape
25 kit analysis on young women murder victims as a general
26 rule?
27 A The circumstances would dictate whether that
28 procedure would be performed, and the investigators are
0026
01 the ones who would initiate that request.
02 Q Detective Vannatter brought you a knife to
03 examine.
04 A Yes, he did.
05 Q When was that?
06 A Wednesday. So that would be Wednesday,
07 June 15th.
08 Q Was he alone when he brought that to you?
09 A Yes.
10 Q Where were you when you received that knife?
11 A I was in my office at the coroner's office.
12 Q Did he give you a chance to examine the knife?
13 A Briefly.
14 Q Did you ask him -- did you tell him you might
15 have needed -- did you need more time than he gave you
16 to examine it?
17 A For an accurate scientific examination, yes.
18 Q Did you tell him that?
19 A No.
20 Q Why not?
21 A I didn't see -- think it was indicated.
22 Q The detective who is in charge of a homicide
23 comes in with a knife and he tells you, "this may be
24 similar to the murder weapon"; is that correct?
25 A Yes.
26 Q He asks you to check to see, and you're
27 telling us that you didn't think it was indicated for
28 you to perform a proper evaluation?
0027
01 A Well, I said it could be. It could be the
02 weapon that caused some of the wounds, including the
03 cutting wounds.
04 It was a single edged -- it had a single sharp
05 cutting edge, and it's obviously consistent with many of
06 the slashing wounds.
07 And it was a six-inch blade and at the time
08 we didn't think it indicated -- or I didn't think it
09 indicated to go through each wound, wound by wound, to
10 try to exclude that weapon. That can be done at some
11 other time.
12 Q You understand a man is sitting in jail faced
13 with charges of double homicide, do you not?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Well, when could that be done to protect his
16 rights?
17 MR. HODGMAN: Objection, Your Honor; argumentative.
18 THE COURT: Sustained.
19 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
20 Q When would you suggest doing that to protect
21 his rights?
22 MR. HODGMAN: Same objection.
23 THE COURT: Sustained as to the form of the
24 question.
25 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
26 Q When would you suggest doing these tests?
27 A Now?
28 MR. SHAPIRO: I have nothing further.
0028
01 THE COURT: Mr. Hodgeman.
02 MR. HODGMAN: If I may have just a moment,
03 Your Honor.
04 Thank you, Your Honor.
05
06 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
07
08 BY MR. HODGMAN:
09 Q Dr. Golden, with regard to your testimony
10 today regarding time of death, these are estimations,
11 are they not?
12 A Yes.
13 Q These are approximations, are they not?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And there is not a way, even based upon the
16 criteria articulated in court this afternoon, for you to
17 pinpoint a time of death; is that correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q The best you can do is give us a range of time
20 in which time of death might have occurred; is that
21 correct?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And that is an approximation at best, is it
24 not?
25 A Yes.
26 MR. HODGMAN: That's all I have, Your Honor.
27 THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro, anything further?
28 MR. SHAPIRO: This witness may be excused.
0029
01 THE COURT: Thank you, doctor. You may step down.
02 Please do not discuss your testimony with
03 anyone but the attorneys involved.
04 MS. CLARK: At this time, Your Honor, the people
05 would ask that all of the exhibits marked, with the
06 exception of the originally marked 4 and 5, be admitted
07 into evidence.
08 THE COURT: All right. That would be exhibits
09 number 1 through 33, with the exception of People's 4
10 and 5.
11 Mr. Shapiro, do you have any objection to the
12 receipt of those exhibits?
13 MR. UELMEN: No objections.
14 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Uelmen.
15 People's 1 through 33, with the exception of 4
16 and 5, are received in evidence at this time.
17 MS. CLARK: Thank you, Your Honor.
18 The people rest.
19 THE COURT: Will there be any affirmative defense
20 or other evidence offered by the defense?
21 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, we did proffer a
22 stipulation in chambers. I don't know if the people
23 are willing to accept that stipulation?
24 MS. CLARK: There is no evidence to support the
25 stipulation proffered. There will be no stipulation.
26 THE COURT: All right.
27 Did you wish to offer any of your exhibits
28 that had been offered in connection with the motion to
0030
01 suppress?
02 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, we do, Your Honor, all exhibits.
03 THE COURT: All right. That would be
04 Defense 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D'. The court did not allow
05 'E', 'G', or 'H'.
06 So are you seeking to offer only 'A', 'B',
07 'C', 'D' and 'F' at this time?
08 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, Your Honor.
09 THE COURT: Any objection?
10 MS. CLARK: No objection.
11 THE COURT: Those items are received from the
12 defense.
13 Do you have any motions at this time?
14 MR. SHAPIRO: Before we begin considering an
15 affirmative defense, there would be a motion to dismiss
16 the case, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: I'm sorry. You say before you begin
18 considering an affirmative defense?
19 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. I think at THIS point in time
20 we would like to make a motion to have this case
21 dismissed.
22 THE COURT: That motion is denied.
23 Did you wish to present an affirmative
24 defense?
25 MR. SHAPIRO: May I just have one moment,
26 Your Honor?
27 THE COURT: Yes.
28 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, perhaps we might suggest
0031
01 a five-minute recess so I can confer with counsel and my
02 client.
03 THE COURT: All right.
04 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
05
06 (At 2:15 p.m., a recess was taken until 2:20 p.m.)
07
08 THE COURT: All right. We're once again on the
09 record in the case of People versus Simpson.
10 The defendant is present with counsel, the
11 people are represented.
12 Mr. Shapiro.
13 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, Your Honor. I have decided not
14 to present any affirmative evidence at this time, and
15 the defense rests on the state of the evidence.
16 THE COURT: All right. Do you have any other
17 motions that you wish to make at this time or be heard
18 with regard to any motions?
19 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to be
20 heard on a motion to dismiss.
21 THE COURT: I'll hear you at this time.
22 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
23 Would you like me to go to the podium or stand
24 here?
25 THE COURT: I think the podium is probably better.
26 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I would ask the court to
27 consider the jury instruction that would be given in a
28 case like this regarding circumstantial evidence, and
0032
01 that is if the evidence presented relies solely on
02 circumstantial evidence, there can be no conviction
03 unless the circumstances point to guilt and are not
04 reconcilable with any other reasonable theory.
05 If, on the other hand, the circumstances may
06 point to guilt or may point to innocence, the jury or
07 finder of fact must adopt that theory which points to
08 innocence and reject that which points to guilt.
09 Now clearly this is not a trial, and clearly
10 this burden is not the same. But the legal principal
11 remains.
12 This is a case based entirely on
13 circumstantial evidence. And it is clear from the
14 presentation of the people and through our
15 cross-examination that the circumstances can point both
16 towards a suspicion of guilt and also towards a theory
17 of innocence.
18 The key piece of evidence that the people are
19 relying on is the serology of a 99 percent chance that
20 four blood drops found at the Bundy crime scene were of
21 the same type and chemical composition as that of
22 Mr. O.J. Simpson.
23 MS. CLARK: Objection. That's a misstatement of
24 the evidence.
25 THE COURT: This is argument, Ms. Clark. You can
26 be heard in response.
27 MR. SHAPIRO: The converse of that is this: if you
28 take the Coliseum on any given Sunday, 40,000, 80,000
0033
01 people will have that same blood type.
02 Number two, there was testimony elicited from
03 the People's witness that Mr. Simpson has joint custody
04 of these children with his ex-wife, the decedent,
05 Nicole.
06 That being the case, it is reasonable to
07 assume that he would visit the children or pick them up
08 at her condominium on a regular basis.
09 Since the criminalist cannot fix the age of
10 the blood spots, there is an equally reasonable theory
11 that those blood spots, if in fact they belonged to
12 Mr. Simpson, were placed there at some other time than
13 at the time of death.
14 And in fact, the criminalist testified that by
15 viewing the photographs, the blood appeared to be of
16 different ages. However, he blamed that on poor
17 photography.
18 But on cross-examination, he admitted that
19 proper crime scene photography requires using the same
20 type of equipment with the same lighting conditions from
21 the same angle.
22 Point number two that the prosecution relies
23 on: There is a matching glove found in the debris
24 behind the Simpson residence that matches a glove found
25 at the crime scene.
26 Another conclusion -- well, let's go by the
27 testimony.
28 I asked deputy Vannatter, "how did that glove
0034
01 get there?" He said, "someone brought it there."
02 Let's look at the other circumstantial
03 evidence involved. If in fact the killer lived at the
04 Simpson residence, the court would have to believe the
05 following:
06 That in a window period of less than an hour,
07 the killer was able to leave the crime scene that has
08 been described with a victim with two arteries in the
09 neck cut, two jugular veins cut, and massive blood from
10 both victims.
11 A clear inference would be that the murderer
12 was indeed covered with blood. The murderer would then
13 have to do the following:
14 Abandon the bloody clothing, because they have
15 not been found or presented; abandon the murder weapon,
16 because that has not been found or discovered; abandon
17 bloody shoes, because they have not been found or
18 discovered; and then go back to his house and leave a
19 bloody glove in his backyard.
20 That just doesn't stand up to logic.
21 We have no evidence whatsoever in this record
22 that whoever committed this horrendous act acted with
23 premeditation and deliberation, as is charged in the
24 complaint filed by the District Attorney.
25 This is a case that the police admit is still
26 under investigation, where other suspects are being
27 sought, where the medical examiner admits that two
28 weapons could have been used, a clear inference that
0035
01 there may be more than one killer.
02 I don't want to go through each and every area
03 of impeachment with the witnesses, but I think it is
04 very, very clear that everybody who has participated in
05 this investigation has not done so in a professional
06 manner.
07 From the time the Los Angeles Police
08 Department arrived on the crime scene, it was nearly
09 ten hours later until they started the scientific
10 investigation and even took the temperature of the body.
11 There was testimony that the Fire Department
12 obviously was there and left and didn't do anything, yet
13 the coroner's records clearly indicate that the Fire
14 Department chief was the person who pronounced the
15 bodies dead. I doubt if he did that from a distance.
16 This is a case that everybody has jumped to an
17 immediate and unrealistic conclusion as to the state of
18 this evidence.
19 This is a case that is not ready yet to come
20 to court. This is a case where the chief serologist
21 said, "we use serology as much to eliminate as to
22 implicate," and yet we have no D.N.A. testing back.
23 This is a case that is needless and groundless
24 and does not warrant any further consideration at this
25 point in time.
26 The court, on viewing all of the evidence that
27 has been presented from the witness stand, should have
28 little difficulty in deciding that this certainly is not
0036
01 a case of any premeditated murder by anyone, for there
02 is totally no evidence on that issue whatsoever; and
03 number two, that there is not and cannot be at this
04 point in time a strong suspicion that Mr. Simpson is
05 guilty of anything.
06 Therefore, Your Honor, it is incumbent upon
07 you to exercise your duties under the law and dismiss
08 this case.
09 THE COURT: Ms. Clark.
10 MS. CLARK: Thank you, Your Honor.
11 In order to find in this case, Your Honor,
12 that there is no strong suspicion to believe the
13 defendant has committed the crimes that he is charged
14 with, you would have to ignore all of the evidence.
15 And the evidence is consistent and very
16 powerful, even at this early stage of the case, that --
17 to indicate that the defendant has indeed committed
18 every crime that he is charged with.
19 As I'm sure this court is aware, there need be
20 no finding with respect to the degree of the murders
21 charged at this time.
22 I will address the issue of the sufficiency of
23 the evidence to prove premeditation, however, if the
24 court desires, but I will leave that for now unless and
25 until the court asks me to address that issue, because I
26 do think the evidence is clearly sufficient to show that
27 these crimes were premeditated murders.
28 With respect to the issue of circumstantial
0037
01 evidence, as usual, as is typical, counsel picks one
02 part away and says, "that's not enough," and takes
03 another part away and says, "that's not enough."
04 And of course, if you pick apart any case, any
05 one bit singly may not be enough to prove the entire
06 case, nor should it be, because circumstantial evidence
07 being one of the stronger ways to prove guilt requires a
08 number of pieces of evidence to amount to proof that the
09 defendant committed the crimes charged. This case is
10 no exception.
11 Rather than relying on the testimony of an eye
12 witness who may be mistaken, who may be under stress,
13 seeing a defendant flee from a scene, perhaps with poor
14 lighting, never having seen that person before, and
15 glimpsing them for a split second, that's direct
16 evidence.
17 But as the court knows, a fingerprint is
18 circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence in
19 that way is very, very reliable and is much stronger
20 because it does rely on many factors for its proof
21 rather than one single one.
22 This is a physical evidence case, and a
23 physical evidence case and the inferences to be drawn
24 therefrom are powerful.
25 First of all, the killer in this case was
26 clearly injured during the commission of these
27 murders. He left a trail of blood leading away from
28 the victims to the rear of the residence and out to the
0038
01 alley.
02 A trail of blood was found from the
03 defendant's Ford Bronco leading up the driveway to his
04 front door.
05 And I would remind the court that the distance
06 between the two locations is a mere two miles,
07 approximately.
08 Certainly, not enough time for whatever injury
09 was sustained at the time of the attack to have healed
10 sufficiently so that he would not bleed, unless he was
11 holding something in his hands that would stop the
12 blood.
13 Now the fact that we failed to find the bloody
14 shoes that clearly were worn from the scene -- although
15 we did find a bloody glove -- is hardly illogical at
16 all. The reason we found the bloody glove was simply
17 accident, the defendant's misfortune.
18 It was clearly his intent at the time the
19 thumps were heard by Kato, he was back there trying to
20 hide things or looking for a place to secrete them and
21 dropped the glove inadvertently.
22 If he knew he dropped the glove, obviously we
23 would never have found that either. But that was not
24 the case. He did drop the glove, not intentionally but
25 by accident.
26 Secondly, the bloody glove that was found at
27 the crime scene is left-handed. That's a very
28 important fact.
0039
01 The bloody shoe prints leaving that crime
02 scene with blood drops alongside them were to the left
03 of those shoe prints. That shows us that the killer
04 was injured somewhere on his left side.
05 The blood on the driver's door handle of the
06 Ford Bronco would logically be opened with the left
07 hand, and it's no coincidence that we just happen to
08 find the blood spot on the driver's door handle.
09 And now I know that the testimony to this
10 time, Your Honor, has indicated that it was positive as
11 an indication of blood, but not tested to be human or
12 animal.
13 But the last time I checked, dogs don't drive
14 cars, and at least not Ford Broncos, and I think we can
15 draw a reasonable inference that it was a human who left
16 the blood on the door handle of the car.
17 And those reasonable inferences are precisely
18 what the court is required to draw from all of the
19 evidence, the reasonable inferences.
20 Now on the day that the defendant returned
21 from Chicago, Detective Vannatter makes the observation
22 that after having seen the left-handed bloody glove left
23 at the crime scene that clearly came off during the
24 struggle, which is what allowed him to get the cut that
25 left the blood drops to the left of the footprints and
26 found the blood -- left the blood drops on the driver's
27 handle door, he sees the defendant with a bandage around
28 his middle left finger.
0040
01 And then he takes him down to Parker Center
02 where he sees, again, that he has -- and we've shown the
03 picture to the court -- a swollen finger on the left
04 hand with a cut that was dressed and treated at Parker
05 Center. No coincidence.
06 Third. The right-handed mate to that glove
07 is found on the defendant's property at, I think it was
08 mere hours after the crimes were committed, in a dark
09 narrow area, obviously where there was some clandestine
10 activity designed to hide evidence, during which time it
11 was inadvertently dropped.
12 And that discovery was made after Kato Kaelin
13 indicated he heard the three thumps against the wall.
14 Someone fell against that wall, and that someone was the
15 defendant, and in that process lost the right-handed
16 glove. And a presumptive test on that glove for blood
17 came up positive.
18 Fourth. The defendant clearly lied to the
19 limousine driver, Allan Park.
20 When Allan Park drove down to the Rockingham
21 gate at about 10:40, the Ford Bronco was not there.
22 Between 10:40 and 10:55, he rang the intercom repeatedly
23 and he received no answer.
24 It was only when 15 minutes later, after Park
25 had just seen a Black person six feet, 200 pounds, walk
26 quickly up the drive and into the front door, that the
27 intercom was finally answered by the defendant.
28 Before that person six feet, 200 pounds,
0041
01 entered the house -- through a front door that Kato said
02 was kept locked -- all downstairs lights were off.
03 Immediately after that person entered the house, all the
04 lights went on. And 30 seconds later, the defendant
05 answered the intercom, where previously he had failed to
06 do so.
07 Now it must be obvious to everyone at this
08 point that the person seen entering the house by Allan
09 Park was the defendant.
10 But he lied to the limousine driver, and it's
11 a very significant lie, because why would he need to do
12 that?
13 Why not just say, "I was out getting some last
14 minute things, I had to go shopping, I had to go to the
15 store, I had to go get something from the 7-Eleven."
16 He could have said anything.
17 But it's very significant that he chose to lie
18 to the limo driver at all, and the lie he chose to tell.
19 What lie did he tell? He said, "oh, I overslept. I
20 just got out of the shower." We know that's not
21 true. He was seen just going into the house 30 seconds
22 before.
23 The only reason to tell such a lie is that the
24 defendant is trying to set up an alibi for the time when
25 he knows that the murders occurred. A very
26 significant, significant piece of evidence.
27 Fifth. The blood drop on the trail leading
28 away from the victims at 875 south Bundy. Testing
0042
01 revealed that only 43 percent of the population could
02 have given -- could have been the source of that blood
03 drop.
04 THE COURT: Is that 43 percent or .43 percent?
05 MS. CLARK: .43. Thank you, Your Honor, .43.
06 Now what's interesting is on
07 cross-examination, counsel attempted to elicit the
08 possibility that that stain might reflect that two
09 people left that blood drop on the trail.
10 If that's true, we do know this: at least one
11 of them had all of the markers that can be attributed to
12 the defendant, who is within .43 percent of the
13 population that could have left that blood drop.
14 And of the 43 percent of the population that
15 could have been the source -- the .43 percent that could
16 have been the source of that blood drop, how many had a
17 bloody glove found on their property mere hours after
18 the murders occurred, a bloody glove that matched the
19 bloody glove found at the crime scene, at the feet of
20 one of the victims?
21 That must considerably narrow down that
22 figure, and so it's not just 99.57 percent of the
23 population that is excluded, but virtually everyone but
24 the defendant when all of the evidence is taken into
25 account, Your Honor.
26 And in light of all of the evidence that we
27 have presented, the people have more than established
28 and carried their burden with respect to this
0043
01 preliminary hearing, and I submit that the defendant
02 should be held to answer for all of the charges as
03 charged in the complaint.
04 Thank you.
05 THE COURT: All right.
06 At this time, the court will take a 15 minute
07 recess. I will announce my ruling at 3:00 o'clock.
08
09 (At 2:45 p.m., a recess was taken until 3:10 p.m.)
10
11 THE COURT: We're once again on the record in the
12 case of People versus Simpson. The defendant is
13 present with counsel, the people are represented.
14 The court has carefully considered the
15 evidence in this case and the arguments of counsel.
16 Keeping in mind that the proof in this matter
17 is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the court feels
18 that there is ample evidence to establish a strong
19 suspicion of the guilt of the accused, and therefore the
20 motion to dismiss is denied at this time.
21 I want to make one comment with regard to the
22 envelope, and that is this:
23 That that envelope at this time remains
24 sealed; that the contents of that envelope, whatever
25 they may be, in no way played a part in the proceeding
26 or the decision in this matter; that that envelope in a
27 sealed condition will be transferred, along with the
28 court file, to the Superior Court for such further
0044
01 rulings as are appropriate at a future point in time.
02 The defendant will please stand.
03 It appearing to me from the evidence presented
04 that the following offenses have been committed, and
05 there is sufficient cause to believe this defendant
06 guilty of Count 1, a violation of Penal Code section
07 187(a), with a special allegation pursuant to Penal Code
08 section 12022(b); and Count 2, a violation of Penal Code
09 section 187(a), with a special allegation pursuant to
10 Penal Code section 12022(b); and also that there is
11 sufficient evidence of a special allegation pursuant to
12 Penal Code section 190.2(a)(3), the court holds that the
13 defendant be held to answer therefor, that there be no
14 bail allowed in this case, and that the defendant be
15 committed to the custody of the Sheriff of Los Angeles
16 County.
17 Date of arraignment in Superior Court will be
18 July the 22nd at 8:30 in Department 100.
19 The defendant is remanded at this time, and
20 this court is adjourned.
21
22
23 (PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 3:15 P.M.)
24
25
26
27
28
0045
01 THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF LOS ANGELES JUDICIAL DISTRICT
02 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
03
03
04 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
04 ) no. BA097211
05 PLAINTIFF, )
05 )
06 VS. )
06 )
07 )
07 ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
08 AKA O.J. SIMPSON, )
08 )
09 )
09 )
10 DEFENDANT. )
10 _______________________________________)
11
11
12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
12 ) SS
13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
13
14
14
15
16 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM AN OFFICIAL C.A.T.
17 COURT REPORTER OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT; THAT I DID
18 CORRECTLY REPORT THE PROCEEDINGS CONTAINED HEREIN; AND
19 THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT STATEMENT OF
20 PROCEEDINGS AND TRANSCRIPTION OF MY SAID NOTES.
21
21
22 DATED THIS 8th DAY OF July, 1994.
22
23
23
24 _____________________________________
24 ARNELLA I. SIMS, CSR #2896
25 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
25
26
26
27 _____________________________________
27 ROBERT GUNN, CSR #1539
28 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
28
>
>
NKC
>>Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>Date: 4/21/2000 10:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <39011073....@news.mindspring.com>
>>
>
>wrote:
>>You miss the point [sahprize sahprize]. The executioner's objection
>>that the topic of time of death should not even be discussed was
>>sustained by a judge who said that the foundation for the questioning
>>hadn't been established.
>> This is enormously outrageous and should have been pursued at
>>the time of the PX.
>> That it was dropped by Shapiro is extremely suspicious.
>
>Show trial? You suppose?
>
>All around. Shapiro. Judge. Prosecution.
>
>Everyone should now simply try to imagine, just try to comprehend, how the
>judge could have blithely decided there was sufficient evidence to go forward
>with a case when there is an official record admitted into prelim hearing that
>Simpsin has an absolute alibi based on information obtained by a coroner's
>investigator in the course of her investigation into establishing the
>parameters of the time of death.
And this is why the Grand Jury couldn't and wouldn't indict. At the
same time, the standards are so low for both grand juries and prop 115
preliminary hearings...but still, there shouldn't have been enough to
hold Simpson to answer for these charges.
Clearly, pursuing the telephone conversation that puts
Nicole alive at 11 PM would have compelled them to dismiss all charges
against him.
John Griffin
>On 22 Apr 2000 03:25:43 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
>>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>>Date: 4/21/2000 9:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <3900fdb6....@news.mindspring.com>
>>>
>>
>>notes:
>>>No-j's are unable to analyze transcripts and identify evidence and
>>>summarize and connect dots, I thought I'd do that part for you.
>>> If I were to post the transcripts, would that help you to
>>>understand? Let me know.
>>>
>>
>>Only if you feel a great compulsion. I already did that several months ago in
>>a posting about how Hodgman moved heaven and earth to suppress Ratcliffe's
>>report. Cited the entire relevant testimony with commentary. They didn't get
>>it then. Can't believe they did anything to improve their IQ's to make it any
>>more comprehensible now.
>>
>>But as I said, if you must and think it will help.
>Forever the optimist, I will try.
You cretin get funnier every day.
Shapiro attempted to improperly introduce a wild guess about the time of a
phone call. Hodgman and Shapiro are both bound by a well established set
of rules. Hodgman merely followed them and forced Shapiro into grudging
compliance for the moment. And now that idiotic little cretin who believes
he proved that Nicole had a thumbprint on her skull says he "moved heaven
and earth."
This could have turned out to be a major defeat if the jury had been
interested in the case. If they had managed to fool the judge and the
prosecution, they would have been able to contrive another giant lie which
they'd find a way to tell the jurors.
Instead of trying to directly help the thumbprint cretin, you need to
continue to try to drive all the normal people out of their fucking minds.
Only then would any rational person be able to take that gabby little
moron seriously. The best you can do for now is to be there for him when
he screeches that he doesn't care what anyone thinks and then needs a
shoulder to blubber and snivel on. Just don't forget that the Earth
in his head isn't the one we live on.
John Griffin
>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>wrote:
>>You miss the point [sahprize sahprize]. The executioner's objection
>>that the topic of time of death should not even be discussed was
>>sustained by a judge who said that the foundation for the questioning
>>hadn't been established.
>> This is enormously outrageous and should have been pursued at
>>the time of the PX.
>> That it was dropped by Shapiro is extremely suspicious.
>Show trial? You suppose?
>All around. Shapiro. Judge. Prosecution.
>Everyone should now simply try to imagine, just try to comprehend, how the
>judge could have blithely decided there was sufficient evidence to go forward
>with a case when there is an official record admitted into prelim hearing that
>Simpsin has an absolute alibi based on information obtained by a coroner's
>investigator in the course of her investigation into establishing the
>parameters of the time of death. That in fact is exactly what Ratcliffe was
>doing when she obtained the last time she was known to be alive statement.
>Told me so directly and specifically. Pinned it down for a fact. Was one of
>the critical time parameters she was looking to establish.
>Got it right, too.
>Now with this in the record, it automatically produces a huge problem for the
>prosecution. How do they refute it? Who does it for them? What witness do
>they present? How can the witness that soon after th event claim he or she was
>wrong? Forces defense to conduct merciless cross examination or reveal their
>complete incompetence.
>Production of the record at the prelim would have stopped the Simpson
>prosecution in its tracks right then and there. Record had to be suppressed.
>And it was.
>
>> Does it sink in at all?
>>
>The eternity after this one when they have burned in hell for a while.
You are an incredibly stupid little asshole. Patty posted the transcript,
and you made the hilarious claim that you had read it and understood it.
HAHAHAHA!!! Shit, that's funny. Now the two of you are proceeding on
the premise that the judge didn't allow any discussion of the time of
death. You should each get someone to read it to you, and I mean read
it very, very slowly.
The witness said he did not consider anything about any phone call.
(You'll find that somewhere in the long segment of testimony that deals
with the time of death topic you claim the judge wouldn't allow.) Phone
call wild guesses were irrelevant after that. Shapiro wanted to sneak the
rumor past all the rules and then present it as a fact. He didn't push it
because he knew he was wrong before he tried it. It was worth a try, but
not worth annoying the judge.
Patty knows all this. I think she's just messing with
prien's weak little mind like everyone else.
Thomas P. Jabine
Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>Date: 4/21/2000 9:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3900fdb6....@news.mindspring.com>
>>
>
>notes:
>>No-j's are unable to analyze transcripts and identify evidence and
>>summarize and connect dots, I thought I'd do that part for you.
>> If I were to post the transcripts, would that help you to
>>understand? Let me know.
>>
>
>Only if you feel a great compulsion. I already did that several months ago in
>a posting about how Hodgman moved heaven and earth to suppress Ratcliffe's
>report.
Ratcliffe's report wasn't suppressed. Fact is, I can tell you where to
find it on the web. Certainly Simpson's attorneys had full access. It
just wasn't admitted into evidence because it was hearsay. If the defense
wanted to show an 11:00 call (had there been one), they should have
entered the phone records into evidence.
Thomas P. Jabine
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>On 21 Apr 2000 23:04:35 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas P.
>Jabine) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>That the report was rejected as hearsay? That's what I was trying
>>to explain to you. But yeah, unless you've got a problem with people
>>thinking for themselves, post the transcript.
>
>now say thank you, Thomas.
Thank you, Thomas. (And thank you maguey.) I see by the transcript that
(as I stated before) the report was rejected as hearsay and because there
was no foundation, and that had there been foundation, it would have been
admitted not as evidence as to the truth of the matter but to show the
coroner's state of mind.
So why didn't Shapiro just introduce the phone records, if there was
an 11:00 call?
Duane
> >Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
> >From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
> >Date: 4/21/2000 9:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3900fdb6....@news.mindspring.com>
> >
>
> notes:
> >No-j's are unable to analyze transcripts and identify evidence and
> >summarize and connect dots, I thought I'd do that part for you.
> > If I were to post the transcripts, would that help you to
> >understand? Let me know.
> >
>
> Only if you feel a great compulsion. I already did that several months ago in
> a posting about how Hodgman moved heaven and earth to suppress Ratcliffe's
> report. Cited the entire relevant testimony with commentary. They didn't get
> it then. Can't believe they did anything to improve their IQ's to make it any
> more comprehensible now.
>
> But as I said, if you must and think it will help.
Preen, you have no credibility.
Duane
Duane
> >Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
> >From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
> >Date: 4/21/2000 10:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <39011073....@news.mindspring.com>
You have no credibility.
Thomas P. Jabine
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>On 22 Apr 2000 03:35:35 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
>>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>>Date: 4/21/2000 10:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <39011073....@news.mindspring.com>
>>>
>>
>>wrote:
>>>You miss the point [sahprize sahprize]. The executioner's objection
>>>that the topic of time of death should not even be discussed was
>>>sustained by a judge who said that the foundation for the questioning
>>>hadn't been established.
>>> This is enormously outrageous and should have been pursued at
>>>the time of the PX.
>>> That it was dropped by Shapiro is extremely suspicious.
>>
>>Show trial? You suppose?
>>
>>All around. Shapiro. Judge. Prosecution.
>>
>>Everyone should now simply try to imagine, just try to comprehend, how the
>>judge could have blithely decided there was sufficient evidence to go forward
>>with a case when there is an official record admitted into prelim hearing that
>>Simpsin has an absolute alibi based on information obtained by a coroner's
>>investigator in the course of her investigation into establishing the
>>parameters of the time of death.
>
Gee, and here I thought it was because the defense requested they be
dismissed due to pretrial publicity.
So maguey, how come the defense didn't introduce the phone records at
the pretrial hearings?
Ron
P. Jabine) wrote:
>In article <20000421232543...@ng-bk1.aol.com>,
>Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: Once again, [crazy bob] relies on Avoidance
>>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>>Date: 4/21/2000 9:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <3900fdb6....@news.mindspring.com>
>>>
>>
>>notes:
>>>No-j's are unable to analyze transcripts and identify evidence and
>>>summarize and connect dots, I thought I'd do that part for you.
>>> If I were to post the transcripts, would that help you to
>>>understand? Let me know.
>>>
>>
>>Only if you feel a great compulsion. I already did that several months ago in
>>a posting about how Hodgman moved heaven and earth to suppress Ratcliffe's
>>report.
>
>Ratcliffe's report wasn't suppressed. Fact is, I can tell you where to
>find it on the web. Certainly Simpson's attorneys had full access. It
>just wasn't admitted into evidence because it was hearsay. If the defense
>wanted to show an 11:00 call (had there been one), they should have
>entered the phone records into evidence.
Needless to say, this is where the stupid little asshole's entire fantasy
crumbles into dust.
The only objection the judge actually sustained was no foundation. A phone
record of the imaginary call would have provided the necessary foundation.
Team Butcher had access to the phone records for more than a week before
greasy Shapiro tried to slip a reference to the imaginary phone call in. If
a record of the imaginary call existed, he DAMN sure would have whipped it
out on the spot.
The fact that neither Rat's report nor an imaginary 11PM phone call was EVER
mentioned again during 2 trails over a 30+ month period leaves absolutely no
doubt whatsoever: there was no 11PM phone call on the records, period.
It did not exist.
Ron
P. Jabine) wrote:
>In article <38ffea15....@news.mindspring.com>,
>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>On 21 Apr 2000 00:06:37 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas P.
>>Jabine) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <38ffc0b4....@news.mindspring.com>,
>>>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>>On 19 Apr 2000 10:17:55 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Thomas P.
>>>>Jabine) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <38fdb25d....@news.mindspring.com>,
>>>>>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 19 Apr 2000 06:10:47 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><snips>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Once that report was suppressed from the record, there was no good way for
>>>>>>>shapiro to bring it in without calling Ratcliffe as a defense witness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is absolutely the bottom line. The report would have become
>>>>>>evidence once Ratcliffe testified to its truthfulness.
>>>>>
>>>>>How could Ratcliffe, who had no personal knowledge of the call whatsoever,
>>>>>testify to the truthfulness of what someone else said about it?
>>>>>
>>>>She is the preparer of the report and hence a qualified witness to
>>>>testify to her reports authenticity, the method it was prepared, and I
>>>>would speculate if prosecution's objections didn't successfully
>>>>intervene -- she would have the opportunity to testify who told her
>>>>about the telephone call.
>>>
>>>Why not just call Lou Brown to testify? I don't think he's ever denied
>>>that he initially said his wife's last call to Nicole was somewhere
>>>around 11 o'clock. For that matter, why not introduce the phone
>>>records?
>>
>>The defense call the victim's parent?
>
>To ask the time of the last phone call, and then show the jury the phone
>record? Absolutely! Do you really think the jury would have had a problem
>with it? I don't.
<groan> Not that cryptic "call the victim's parent?" bullshit again.
This may well be Pat's most idiotic routine of all: In Pattyfantasyland
murder trials, the defense is precluded (for reasons Pat steadfastly refuses
to divulge) from calling the victim's parent for *any* reason--even when
his/her testimony would prove the defendant couldn't possibly have committed
the crime.
It don't get a whole lot dumber than that.