BRUNO MAGLI SHOES and SWEAT SUIT
Ketchall 1
I would guess that OJ wore sneakers and dress socks with his sweat suit when
he and Kato went to McDonalds. Why would he change into bruno magli shoes to
wear with his sweats when he hurried to Bundy???????????
Bob August
Ketchall 1 wrote:
There is no evidence to tell us what shoes Simpson wore when he went to
McDonalds. The last time Kaelin saw Simpson, Simpson was standing beside
the Bentley. Kaelin never saw Simpson go into his house. Maybe he did.
All we do know is that Simpson was wearing Bruno Magli shoes when he
went to Bundy. They were dark colored as well as all his clothing was
dark colored. For concealment. He dressed just like the character he was
playing at the time, in the movie he was making, "Frogman".
bobaugust
Ron
(Ketchall 1) wrote:
>A SIMPLE BUT IMPORTANT QUESTION:
>
>I would guess that OJ wore sneakers and dress socks with his sweat suit when
>he and Kato went to McDonalds.
Tell us exactly why you would guess that.
> Why would he change into bruno magli shoes to
>wear with his sweats when he hurried to Bundy???????????
Why do you keep asking for answers about things you just make up?
HedblomJr
part of my question is known, speculated or none of the above? Set us straight
dick wagner
You tell us, "All we do know is that Simpson was wearing Bruno
Magli shoes when he went to Bundy. They were dark colored as well as all
his clothing was dark colored. For concealment. He dressed just like the
character he was playing at the time, in the movie he was making,
'Frogman'."
Ah, the enlightenment I get from AFOJS. Now I learn that the
actual Frogmen wear Bruno Magli shoes. Very fancy those guys.
--dick wagner
s6...@webtv.net
oj dressed all in black so no one would see him when he parked his
bronco right in back of nicoles house. he was going to paint his white
bronco black so no one would see it parked in back of nicoles house
while he went in her house and killed her but he didn't have enough
time. he had to go to the airport.
blp740
of that inconspiciousness and then he decides to switch from his black Bentley
and drive his very conspicious BRONCO
that happened to be non other than WHITE.
>
>
>
>
"The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it's open!"
blp
*opinions mine*
Bob August
s6...@webtv.net wrote:
Simpson did not dress in dark colored clothing so that he would be
concealed in his car. He dressed in dark colored clothing so that he
would be concealed when he was not in his car. You have never been in
the military, have you? Neither was Simpson. But he was making a movie
at the time playing a character that was skilled in camouflage and
concealment, and how to kill with a knife. Simpson dressed just like his
character did in the movie.
Simpson had plenty of time to do what he did that night. He had to rush
like crazy because he never expected he would be killing Ron Goldman,
but he had the time. He got to Nicole's about 10:30. He was there about
15 minutes. He only lived a couple of miles away. He drove back to his
house as fast as he could, but he unfortunately did not beat his
limousine. He never knew that there was a substitute limousine driver
that night, who got there very early.
He was still able to get in his house before 11:00 and out again about
10 minutes later. Speed is what Simpson was always good at. He told how
he always waited to the last minute when leaving on a trip and then
would rush like crazy to make it. The limousine left for the airport
about 11:15. The driver had plenty of time to get Simpson to the airport
and make his flight. In fact Simpson was even able to call Kato from the
gate before he boarded his plane, to give him instructions on how to set
the house alarm.
Simpson did have the time to kill both victims and make his flight.
bobaugust
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
Gee Dick, I thought you could read better than that. Or didn't I make
myself clear when I said. "They were dark colored as well as his
clothing was dark colored. For concealment." They were Bruno Magli's,
Dick, because that is the kind of shoes that Simpson owned. He wasn't
really an actual Frogman, Dick. He was just playing the part in a movie.
Movies are fantasy. You know what fantasy is, don't you Dick?
bobaugust
Bob August
blp740 wrote:
BOB AUGUST:
You tell us, "All we do know is that Simpson was wearing Bruno
Magli shoes when he went to Bundy. They were dark colored as well as all
his clothing was dark colored. For concealment. He dressed just like the
character he was playing at the time, in the movie he was making,
'Frogman'."
Ah, the enlightenment I get from AFOJS. Now I learn that the
actual Frogmen wear Bruno Magli shoes. Very fancy those guys.
--dick wagner
Genius one minute and idiot the next, allof that inconspiciousness and then he decides to switch from his black Bentley
and drive his very conspicious BRONCO
that happened to be non other than WHITE.
bobaugust
missmarple8
So you are saying that he doesn't care who sees him in the big white
car, but he doesn't want Nicole to recognize him? He didn't expect
anybody else to see him out of the car, did he? That's what you're
saying, isn't it?
Miss Marple
>
>
> --
Ron
(HedblomJr) wrote:
>Most replies set the record straight for what is known or speculated. So which
>part of my question is known, speculated or none of the above? Set us straight
>
OK, both of your idiotic handles can go straight to the killfile.
>
>
>
>
dick wagner
You had written, "He [Simpson] dressed just like the character he was
playing at the time, in the movie he was making, 'Frogman'." Since
Simpson had on the Bruno Magli shoes, then your statement tells us that
Frogmen also are dressed in these.
Where did I go wrong, Bob? By reading what you wrote, I guess.
--dick wagner
Dan Mercer
:
:
: Ketchall 1 wrote:
:
: >A SIMPLE BUT IMPORTANT QUESTION:
: >
: >I would guess that OJ wore sneakers and dress socks with his sweat suit when
: >he and Kato went to McDonalds. Why would he change into bruno magli shoes to
: >wear with his sweats when he hurried to Bundy???????????
: >
: There is no evidence to tell us what shoes Simpson wore when he went to
: McDonalds. The last time Kaelin saw Simpson, Simpson was standing beside
: the Bentley. Kaelin never saw Simpson go into his house. Maybe he did.
:
: All we do know is that Simpson was wearing Bruno Magli shoes when he
Actually, all we know is that the bloody footprints at the scene were identified
by the expert as most likely belonging to Bruno Magli shoes, The FBI expert
admitted that their database of shoe soles was incomplete, lacking, for instance,
thousands of shoe soles used in Chinese brands. All the rest is inference.
--
__
dme...@mn.rr.com
: went to Bundy. They were dark colored as well as all his clothing was
:
dick wagner
You raise the issue of the apparent inconsistency of Simpson's wearing
a black sweatsuit with expensive Bruno Magli shoes for the trip to Bundy
where he presumably murdered the two victims. Of course, the Bruno
Maglis are a surprising choice for a murderous errand, especially when
Simpson had pairs of athletic shoes available that would be a better
choice.
However, I think the Bruno Maglis were an understandable choice as I
understand the situation that REALLY unfolded. I beleive the following
happened...
Simpson left Kato at 9:45, went in the house and packed and changed his
clothes for the trip to Chicago. And, by 10:03, he apparently had
finished that task, and turned to another thing -- calling Barbieri on
his cell phone. As far as anybody knows, getting ready for the trip was
the plan that existed at 9:45, and it is not unreasonable to project an
existing situation forward another 20 minutes. At that point (10:03),
he doubtless was not wearing the sweatsuit, but was dressed for the
plane trip, and was likely wearing something closer to the outfit that
Kato and Park saw him in at 11:00 o'clock; such an outfit could very
appropriately include the Bruno Magli shoes.
Now, I have previously conjectured that at 10:14 Simpson received a
phone call that lasted for three minutes, advised that Nicole had been
slain at her front gate, and Simpson's own glove had been left at the
scene to frame him; if he got there immediately he could remove the
glove and spare himself. I continue to speculate that thereupon he
rushed upstairs to check the validity of the story, found that his
gloves were, in fact, missing, and decided to make a quick trip to
Bundy. Because of the sinister nature of the phone call, its
allegation, and the trip to Bundy, he thought it would be better to go
dressed in dark clothes, and he put on the black sweatsuit.
Now a detail for your question that I had not considered before... In
order to change clothes, he first pushed off the shoes he was wearing --
the Bruno Maglis, I presume. After getting the sweatsuit on, he had to
put on shoes, but what shoes? He was in a great hurry, and he could
just slip back into the shoes that were beside his feet then, or get out
a pair of athletic shoes that would require lacing up -- the latter
could add two minutes to his frantic preparation. He chose to just push
back on the Bruno Maglis for a quick trip that he did not expect anybody
else would see.
In this scenario, the choice of shoes does not seem at all
unreasonable. (As I have previously said, he also grabbed a hand gun
and was in his Bronco by 10:22.)
I think the choice of the Bronco over the Bentley is likewise
reasonable (BLP), even though the Bronco was white and the Bentley was
black. He was headed for a neighborhood where a Bentley was more
conspicuous than a Bronco -- and particularly so in Nicole's alley. And
the Bronco was positioned on the street for an immediate getaway without
giving time for the gate to open.
All in all, I do not think there is anything mysterious or unexpected
in Simpson's choices of clothes, shoes, or car under the circumstances
of the scenario that I believe is true.
--dick wagner
Dan Mercer
:
:
: s6...@webtv.net wrote:
:
: >oj dressed all in black so no one would see him when he parked his
: >bronco right in back of nicoles house. he was going to paint his white
: >bronco black so no one would see it parked in back of nicoles house
: >while he went in her house and killed her but he didn't have enough
: >time. he had to go to the airport.
: >
: Simpson did not dress in dark colored clothing so that he would be
: concealed in his car. He dressed in dark colored clothing so that he
: would be concealed when he was not in his car. You have never been in
: the military, have you? Neither was Simpson. But he was making a movie
: at the time playing a character that was skilled in camouflage and
: concealment, and how to kill with a knife. Simpson dressed just like his
: character did in the movie.
Actually, he was shown how to correctly hold the knife if he was going
to use it to kill swiftly and silently. His instruction lasted an estimated
30 seconds. Just another exaggeration by the prosecution to inflame,
rather than inform the jury.
If the murders had been performed by someone who knew how to
kill with a knife, there would only have been a single wound to each
body - up through the renal artery and penetrating the diaphragm,
inducing immediate shock and paralyzing breathing and speech.
The murder weapon would have been a K-BAR. Death would have
been relatively instantaneous and bloodless, since most of the bleeding
would have been into the body cavity.
While some have asserted that the murder weapon was a 3-1/2 inch
Swiss Army knife, it certainly was not the longer, stilletto styled
knife trumpetted as "Simpson's knife!" in the tabloids, introduced in the
prelims but never followed up on in the trial. That knife was in the
mystery envelope, still with its original tag on and in pristine condition.
Which begs the question, if Simpson went to all the trouble to
camouflage his dress premeditatively to go to his wife's house to
commit murder, why wouldn't he bring a better knife? Why not bring
a stilletto or a K-BAR? According to the autopsy, the wounds were
consistent with a short bladed knife. While some of the wounds did
exceed 3 1/2 inches in depth, they were in areas where the body gives,
allowing a blade to penetrate deeper than its length. Premeditated murders by knife
are inherently sexual in nature. Bringing a short knife would be like
announcing you had a short dick.
However, the knife was perfectly appropriate for slashing tires or cutting
off the tire stems. So too would be the camouflage attire. If you believe
OJ took the time to dress in dark clothes and shoes and a knit cap,
don't you also have to believe he would take the time to bring an
appropriate tool to accomplish his task? And since the knife used
wasn't appropriate for murder but was appropriate for vandalism, doesn't
that infer he was more bent on mischief than mayhem? And that 1st
degree murder charges were inappropriate?
--
__
dme...@mn.rr.com
Bob August
You two are really dense and dumb about this? Funny.
bobaugust
blp740
>No Betty, Simpson was neither an idiot or a genius. Only idiots think
>that Simpson dressed in dark clothing so that he would be concealed
>inside his car. He dressed in dark colored clothing, Betty, so that he
>would be concealed when he wasn't in his car. You are getting funnier
>and funnier.
>
>bobaugust
>
>
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
><head>
></head>
>
>
>
>blp740 wrote:
><blockquote type="cite"
>cite="mid:20020215012714...@mb-mb.aol.com"> <blockquote
>type="cite"> BOB AUGUST:
>
> You tell us, "All we do know is that Simpson was wearing Bruno
>Magli shoes when he went to Bundy. They were dark colored as well as all
>his clothing was dark colored. For concealment. He dressed just like the
>character he was playing at the time, in the movie he was making,
>'Frogman'."
>
> Ah, the enlightenment I get from AFOJS. Now I learn that the
>actual Frogmen wear Bruno Magli shoes. Very fancy those guys.
>
> --dick wagner
>
>Genius one minute and idiot the next, all
>
> <!---->of that inconspiciousness and then he decides to switch from his
>black Bentley
>and drive his very conspicious BRONCO
>that happened to be non other than WHITE.
>No Betty, Simpson was neither an idiot or a genius. Only idiots think that
>Simpson dressed in dark clothing so that he would be concealed inside his
>car. He dressed in dark colored clothing, Betty, so that he would be
>concealed
>when he wasn't in his car. You are getting funnier and funnier.
>
>bobaugust
>
>
have made this observation.
The one noticable thing about your claims in this matter is, you seem to think
or know the only true version of what happened that night. Allowing no room for
argument or dialogue, the only way that is possible is, you had to have been
there.
A seriel killer or professional killer would dress for the occasion. Someone
who is outraged (IMHO) would simply go over and kill. Anyone who buys all of
the crap you put forth at your website probably believes in Santa and the tooth
fairy also. LOL
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
I guess you think that from my statement, Simpson even wore 'Frogman"
underwear, right Dick? You are starting to sound as dumb as Miss Marple
and Betty when they tell us they can't understand how Simpson could have
driven a white Bronco that night when he was dressed for concealment.
Hey wait a minute, are you confused about that too Dick?
Let me repeat what I wrote and lets see if it still confuses you.
Simpson dressed like the character he was playing in the movie he was
making, "Frogman". He dressed in all dark clothing for concealment. Does
that mean the very piece of clothing he had on was Navy issue? No. Does
that mean that every piece of clothing he had on came from the movie?
No. There does that help you understand a little better Dick?
It seems all of your arguments Dick, are deteriorating to the level of
Prien, Miss Marple, and Betty. You are becoming a true pro-j. No common
sense. No ability to reason. We already knew that about you before, but
now you actually flaunt it. Funny.
bobaugust
blp740
>Gee Dick, I thought you could read better than that. Or didn't I make
>myself clear when I said. "They were dark colored as well as his
>clothing was dark colored. For concealment." They were Bruno Magli's,
>Dick, because that is the kind of shoes that Simpson owned. He wasn't
>really an actual Frogman, Dick. He was just playing the part in a movie.
>Movies are fantasy. You know what fantasy is, don't you Dick?
>
>bobaugust
>
why weren't more pairs found in his closet? Being a man of substantial means as
was he, would you not expect that he would have more than onw pair of such
comfortable superior shoes?
Bob August
Dan Mercer wrote:
>"Bob August" <boba...@lvcm.com> wrote in message news:3C6C59A8...@lvcm.com...
>:
>:
>: Ketchall 1 wrote:
>:
>: >A SIMPLE BUT IMPORTANT QUESTION:
>: >
>: >I would guess that OJ wore sneakers and dress socks with his sweat suit when
>: >he and Kato went to McDonalds. Why would he change into bruno magli shoes to
>: >wear with his sweats when he hurried to Bundy???????????
>: >
>: There is no evidence to tell us what shoes Simpson wore when he went to
>: McDonalds. The last time Kaelin saw Simpson, Simpson was standing beside
>: the Bentley. Kaelin never saw Simpson go into his house. Maybe he did.
>:
>: All we do know is that Simpson was wearing Bruno Magli shoes when he
> ^^^^
>Actually, all we know is that the bloody footprints at the scene were identified
>by the expert as most likely belonging to Bruno Magli shoes, The FBI expert
>admitted that their database of shoe soles was incomplete, lacking, for instance,
>thousands of shoe soles used in Chinese brands. All the rest is inference.
>
The fact is that the expert found by comparison, that the bloody shoe
prints were made from Bruno Magli's Lorenzo style shoes with Silga soles.
Later, photographs surface that showed Simpson wearing the same size and
kind of shoes that made the bloody prints. Bruno Magli, Lorenzo style
with Silga soles. One photograph actually showed the Silga sole matching
the bloody prints. 30 other photographs taken by a different
photographer confirmed it.
bobaugust
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
What funny contortions you go through to make things fit your fantasy
world, Dick. You just invent things as you go along. You think that what
you invent makes sense to you, but unfortunately only to you.
The fact is that the last time anyone saw Simpson before his trip to
Bundy, he was wearing a dark colored sweat suit. That was about 9:40.
But even though Simpson told us that he would wait to the last minute to
get ready for his trips, Dick Wagner thinks that Simpson changed his
clothes over an hour earlier, and then changed them again, and then
changed them again.
Wow, you get weirder and weirder as time goes on Dick. Funny. But why am
I not surprised. It seems nothing you write anymore makes any sense.
bobaugust
Bob August
Dan Mercer wrote:
Dan Mercer, I have always said that we do not know the reason that
Simpson went to Bundy that night. Maybe he went to just scare Nicole, or
teach her a lesson. Or maybe to cut the tires on her car. What we do
know is that he encountered Nicole first. He hit her. She fell, hit her
head, and was knocked unconscious. We know that Goldman arrived and
surprised Simpson. Simpson attacked and killed Goldman.
Simpson held Goldman from behind as he stabbed and cut him, like he had
been shown in the movie he was making. Only Simpson found out that real
people do not die like they do in the movies. Simpson was no expert at
killing, only an actor trying to look like an expert. He stabbed and cut
Goldman over 30 times. The killing wound happened early. A stab to
Goldman's left flank that cut his aorta. Goldman immediately weakened.
Simpson continued to stab and cut him, eventually dropping him to the
ground where he bled to death. Simpson then returned to his ex wife, put
one foot on her back, pulled her head up by her hair, and sliced her throat.
Simpson could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Goldman.
He had to kill Nicole too. He left Bundy leaving his two small children
sleeping in their beds to awaken and find their slaughtered dead mom.
What would Simpson have done if his two kids happened to come downstairs
and also witness his killings? Fortunately for them, they didn't.
Where did you get your information about what Simpson was taught about
killing with a knife while making the movie?
bobaugust
Bob August
You, like other pro-j's, only believe what you make up. You can not and will not accept the reality and the truth of this crime. I would not expect anything different from you.
And just to set the record straight, I have never said that Simpson went to Bundy to kill his ex wife. We do not know what his reasons were that evening. Maybe he only wanted to scare her, Maybe he wanted to teach her a lesson for humiliating him earlier that day. Maybe he intended on cutting the tires of her car.
What we do know though, is when Simpson left Bundy, both Nicole and Ron were dead. Those are the true facts Betty. No matter how much you want to avoid them or make up your own stories and excuses, it does not change the facts or the truth.
Instead of upsetting yourself with what I have written about the Simpson case on my web site, why don't you try what I suggested to you. Check out the "The best card trick you will ever see" or "A really quick intelligent test" Get your mind off of your distorted ideas about this case for a little while. You can't handle reality or the truth anyway.
bobaugust
Bob August
blp740 wrote:
Gee Dick, I thought you could read better than that. Or didn't I make
myself clear when I said. "They were dark colored as well as his
clothing was dark colored. For concealment." They were Bruno Magli's,
Dick, because that is the kind of shoes that Simpson owned. He wasn't
really an actual Frogman, Dick. He was just playing the part in a movie.
Movies are fantasy. You know what fantasy is, don't you Dick?
bobaugust
bob, question? if as you say that was the kind of shoes that Simpson owned,why weren't more pairs found in his closet? Being a man of substantial means as
was he, would you not expect that he would have more than onw pair of such
comfortable superior shoes?
Why weren't they in his his closet? Who knows, maybe he previously gave then away like he claimed. Simpson disposed of the Lorenzo style Bruno Magli's with Silga soles that he wore the night of the murders, so that the police would not find them. I guess that doesn't make very much sense to you, right?
bobaugust
blp740
>Simpson had previously owned different styles of Bruno Magli's. Other
>photographs
>surfaced from a black shoe shine man who had cleaned Simpson's shoes. Another
>
>style of Bruno Magli shoes, not the Lorenzo style. The photographs showed
>Simpson and the black shoe shine man posing together after Simpson's shoes
>were cleaned.
>
> Why weren't they in his his closet? Who knows, maybe he previously gave
>then away like he claimed. Simpson disposed of the Lorenzo style Bruno
>Magli's with Silga soles that he wore the night of the murders, so that the
>police would not find them. I guess that doesn't make very much sense to you,
>right?
>
> bobaugust
>
>
>
>Question? When do you think he planned to murder Nicole, months or weeks
before the 12th or the day of the murders?
blp740
>
> And just to set the record straight, I have never said that Simpson went to
>Bundy to kill his ex wife. We do not know what his reasons were that evening.
>Maybe he only wanted to scare her, Maybe he wanted to teach her a lesson
>ofher car.
>
> What we do know though, is when Simpson left Bundy, both Nicole and Ronwere
>dead. Those are the true facts Betty. No matter how much you want toavoid
>the truth.
>
> Instead of upsetting yourself with what I have written about the Simpson
>case on my web site, why don't you try what I suggested to you. Check out the
>"The best card trick you will ever see" or "A really quick intelligent test"
>Get your mind off of your distorted ideas about this case for a little while.
>You can't handle reality or the truth anyway.
>
> bobaugust
>
>
>
>
>
>This is somewhat like a hobby for me, I would be upset if OJ were serving time
for a murder that I do not believe he comitted.
Since early "97" I have been in and out of this group, nothing said here upsets
me, personal attacks sometimes pisses me off
depending on who is making the attacks.
I think I handle those in my best way.
Bob August
We do know he first confronted Nicole, and she wound up lying unconscious on the stairs. We know that Goldman surprised Simpson and Simpson attacked and killed Goldman. Simpson then returned to Nicole and sliced her throat, killing her. He could not leave a living witness to his murder of Goldman.
bobaugust
blp740
>OK, both of your idiotic handles can go straight to the killfile.
>>
Washington. LOL
Bob August
blp740 wrote:
And just to set the record straight, I have never said that Simpson went to
Bundy to kill his ex wife. We do not know what his reasons were that evening.
Maybe he only wanted to scare her, Maybe he wanted to teach her a lesson
forhumiliating him earlier that day. Maybe he intended on cutting the tires
ofher car.
What we do know though, is when Simpson left Bundy, both Nicole and Ronwere
dead. Those are the true facts Betty. No matter how much you want toavoid
them or make up your own stories and excuses, it does not change thefacts or
the truth.
Instead of upsetting yourself with what I have written about the Simpson
case on my web site, why don't you try what I suggested to you. Check out the
"The best card trick you will ever see" or "A really quick intelligent test"
Get your mind off of your distorted ideas about this case for a little while.
You can't handle reality or the truth anyway.< br>
bobaugust
--------------030209040706050502050408--
This is somewhat like a hobby for me, I would be upset if OJ were serving time
for a murder that I do not believe he comitted.
Since early "97" I have been in and out of this group, nothing said here upsets
me, personal attacks sometimes pisses me off
depending on who is making the attacks.
I think I handle those in my best way.
bobaugust
missmarple8
You say he drove the big white Bronco because it was less conspicuos
than the Bentley, and that he was not concerned about who saw him in
the Bronco. So what was the concealment for? The quick walk in the
alley from the Bronco to the garage (or where ever you think he
entered Bundy? Doesn't make much sense, bobaugust.
Miss Marple
>
>
>
>
> --
Ketchall 1
son was in the emergency room as a result of an auto accident I grabbed only my
car keys. The actions you describe seem only to fit your scenerio.
Bob August
Dressing for concealment at night is what his character did. Simpson, the actor, was not an expert in concealment or killing, he was only an actor coping how a real Frogman would dress for a night operation. Simpson entered the garage? What are you talking about?
Give it up already Miss Marple. The more you argue these arguments, the more dense and stupid you sound. Nothing real makes any sense to you. Since Simpson drove a white Bronco, you seem to think maybe he should have also worn white clothing that night, right? The point is that it does not matter what you think Simpson should have done. We know what he actually did.
bobaugust
Bob August
Ketchall 1 wrote:
Of course they do, because Wagner makes them up as he goes along to fit
his failed funny scenario.
blp740
>--------------010400030708000600070100
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>blp740 wrote:
>
>>>
>>> And just to set the record straight, I have never said that Simpson went
>to
>>>Bundy to kill his ex wife. We do not know what his reasons were that
>evening.
>>>Maybe he only wanted to scare her, Maybe he wanted to teach her a lesson
>>>forhumiliating him earlier that day. Maybe he intended on cutting the tires
>>>ofher car.
>>>
>>>
>>> What we do know though, is when Simpson left Bundy, both Nicole and
>Ronwere
>>>dead. Those are the true facts Betty. No matter how much you want toavoid
>>>them or make up your own stories and excuses, it does not change thefacts
>or
>>>the truth.
>>>
>>> Instead of upsetting yourself with what I have written about the Simpson
>>>case on my web site, why don't you try what I suggested to you. Check out
>the
>>>"The best card trick you will ever see" or "A really quick intelligent
>test"
>>>Get your mind off of your distorted ideas about this case for a little
>while.
>>>You can't handle reality or the truth anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--------------030209040706050502050408--
>>>
>>>This is somewhat like a hobby for me, I would be upset if OJ were serving
>time
>>>
>>for a murder that I do not believe he comitted.
>>
>>Since early "97" I have been in and out of this group, nothing said here
>upsets
>>me, personal attacks sometimes pisses me off
>>depending on who is making the attacks.
>>I think I handle those in my best way.
>>
>Yes, I believe you actually do believe that Simpson was not the killer.
>There is no good reason to believe that in light of the fact that there
>is no doubt that he was the killer, but if that is what you want to
>believe, go right ahead. That is why some posters make personal attacks
>on you. You do not listen to or understand reason. You do not listen to
>or understand the reality or the truth of this crime. You just have your
>opinion and no matter how many times you are shown to be wrong about the
>facts in this case, you will not or can not change. So some posters call
>you names. Get used to it. When someone like you is not able to change
>your incorrect opinion or admit to when you are wrong, then you are
>going to have to handle a lot of name calling. That's life as a pariah.
>
>bobaugust
>
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
><head>
></head>
>
>
>
>blp740 wrote:
><blockquote type="cite"
>type="cite">
>Bundy to kill his ex wife. We do not know what his reasons were that evening.
>Maybe he only wanted to scare her, Maybe he wanted to teach her a lesson
>forhumiliating him earlier that day. Maybe he intended on cutting the tires
>ofher car.
>
>
> What we do know though, is when Simpson left Bundy, both Nicole and Ronwere
>dead. Those are the true facts Betty. No matter how much you want toavoid
>them or make up your own stories and excuses, it does not change thefacts or
>the truth.
>
> Instead of upsetting yourself with what I have written about the Simpson
>case on my web site, why don't you try what I suggested to you. Check out the
>"The best card trick you will ever see" or "A really quick intelligent test"
>Get your mind off of your distorted ideas about this case for a little while.
>You can't handle reality or the truth anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
>--------------030209040706050502050408--
>
>This is somewhat like a hobby for me, I would be upset if OJ were serving
>time
>
> <!---->for a murder that I do not believe he comitted.
>
>Since early "97" I have been in and out of this group, nothing said here
>upsets
>me, personal attacks sometimes pisses me off
>depending on who is making the attacks.
>I think I handle those in my best way.
>Yes, I believe you actually do believe that Simpson was not the killer. There
>is no good reason to believe that in light of the fact that there is no doubt
>that he was the killer, but if that is what you want to believe, go right
>ahead. That is why some posters make personal attacks on you. You do not
>listen to or understand reason. You do not listen to or understand the
>reality
>or the truth of this crime. You just have your opinion and no matter how
>many times you are shown to be wrong about the facts in this case, you will
>not or can not change. So some posters call you names. Get used to it. When
>someone like you is not able to change your incorrect opinion or admit to
>when you are wrong, then you are going to have to handle a lot of name
>calling.
>That's life as a pariah.
>
>bobaugust
>
say or think?
You are not the brightest bulb on the strand.
>
>--------------010400030708000600070100--
Bob August
bobaugust
blp740
>No Betty, I don't think you give a "rats ass" what I say or think. Your
>personal
>handicaps limit your thinking to only what you say. I may not be the
>brightest
>bulb on the strand, but at least I am a bulb. You Betty, never even made
>it to the strand. Your light went out a long time ago, at least as far back
>as 1994. But you do say funny things.
>
>bobaugust
>
>
>
>
>
>NOT GUILTY, THEN NOW AND FOREVER.
>
>
>
>
>
Janis72
Your thoughts, yes, poor Betty. But, what about reality?
dick wagner
You complain that in my understanding of events, "...Simpson changed
his clothes over an hour earlier, and then changed them again, and then
changed them again." This, I infer, sounds unreasonable to you.
Ah, Bob, the fact is that Simpson made his decisions according to what
he believed the situation to be at the moment. When he got back from
McDonalds with Kato, he did not expect that Nicole would be murdered
within the next hour, or that he would be going to Bundy. He thought
the next event was getting into the limo and going to LAX. Therefore,
it was reasonable for him to get ready for that. And, since he did not
want to travel in his sweatsuit, he changed to his traveling clothes.
But, you seem to think that is an unreasonable choice for him to make.
Then, after he is dressed for the trip, he gets a call telling him
about the murder/frame, and he believes that it would be better to go
investigate the situation dressed in the black sweatsuit he had just
taken off, and he changes back into that. Do you think that such a
decision is unreasonable if he got such a call?
Finally, he goes to Bundy and comes back home. He does not think that
the black sweatsuit, now with traces of blood, is a good choice to wear
on the airplane, and he changes back into the clothes he had on at 10:00
o'clock. I suppose you think that is an unreasonable choice.
Well, what can I say, Bob? If you think that a man confronted with
these situations would make any other choice, then I think you think
funny.
And, my version gives a simple and reasonable explanation for the
sweatsuit/Bruno Magli combination which is otherwise rather bizarre.
--dick wagner
s6...@webtv.net
did you notice how august twisted my words around? no-js are pathetic.
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
The reason that you do not make any sense Dick is that Simpson was not
confronted with the fantasy you dreamed up. Simpson spoke with his
housekeeper Gigi at 8:00 that evening. That is when he decided to go to
Bundy. That is why he was wearing the sweat suit when he went to
McDonalds with Kaelin. That was what Simpson never expected to happen.
He was only having conversation with Kaelin. He never expected Kaelin to
invite himself along to dinner with him. Simpson probably wasn't even
going to dinner at all. It was just conversation trying to set up Kaelin
as an alibi for himself. When they returned from McDonalds the last
thing Kaelin saw was Simpson standing beside his Bentley looking at him.
We do not know if Simpson went back into his house or directly to his
Bronco. Only Simpson knows that.
You are so confuse between the reality of the facts and your fantasy
dreams that you invented, that it seems you can no longer distinguish
between reality and fantasy. You distort everything you write trying to
fit your failed scenario into the real facts. It doesn't work Dick. It
just makes your writing even more confusing and unrealistic, and stupid.
bobaugust
Bob August
s6...@webtv.net wrote:
>did you notice how august twisted my words around? no-js are pathetic.
>
No one has to twist your words around, s67c. You do a real good job of
that all by yourself. Maybe you meant your comments to be humorous or
facetious, but based on the uninformed opinions you have written
previously, these comments were as lame as your other comments.
bobaugust
Robert Hickey
>
> >From: blp...@aol.com4444 (blp740)
> >>
> >>NOT GUILTY, THEN NOW AND FOREVER.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> Your thoughts, yes, poor Betty. But, what about reality?
Ah, reality is a fleeting and mystical entity in "BLP World." It is hard
to find and when it *is* found it is unrecognizable and bizarre. Most
times fantasy and conjecture make up what little "reality" exists (or at
least can be found) in BLP World.
It is scary because it might say something to prove that all of the
things BLP holds so dear might be out of whack. And her world would end
as she knows it. Not a bright propect for an old person so completely
set in her ways and unable to change.
It's very similar to "Wag's World" where fantasy IS reality...
missmarple8
And you say I have no common sense. Come on, bobaugust, even you are
smarter than coming up with something like that. Is this "trick or
treat scenario" going to be your next mantra? Dressed up as Frogman,
my goodness.
And you din't answer my question. Who was the concielment for, who
did you think he didn't want to recognize him?
Miss Marple
>
> Give it up already Miss Marple. The more you argue these arguments, the
> more dense and stupid you sound. Nothing real makes any sense to you.
> Since Simpson drove a white Bronco, you seem to think maybe he should
> have also worn white clothing that night, right? The point is that it
> does not matter what you think Simpson should have done. We know what he
> actually did.
>
> bobaugust
>
> --
blp740
away clean. I do not think OJ did but just in case, he wasn't the first and
won't be the last. "Don't worry, be happy".
As far as we know the world as we know could end soon, pray for P-E-A-C-E.
John Junot
> Ketchall 1 wrote:
>
> >A SIMPLE BUT IMPORTANT QUESTION:
> >
> >I would guess that OJ wore sneakers and dress socks with his sweat suit when
> >he and Kato went to McDonalds. Why would he change into bruno magli shoes to
> >wear with his sweats when he hurried to Bundy???????????
> >
> There is no evidence to tell us what shoes Simpson wore when he went to
> McDonalds. The last time Kaelin saw Simpson, Simpson was standing beside
> the Bentley. Kaelin never saw Simpson go into his house. Maybe he did.
>
> went to Bundy. They were dark colored as well as all his clothing was
Since the shoes used by the real killer were never found, how in the
hell do YOU know color they were?
John Junot
> oj dressed all in black so no one would see him when he parked his
> bronco right in back of nicoles house. he was going to paint his white
> bronco black so no one would see it parked in back of nicoles house
> while he went in her house and killed her but he didn't have enough
> time. he had to go to the airport.
Damn, I never even thought of that point! Good question: Why didn't
he take a dark colored car he had available if he wanted to be
inconspicuous. The Bently would not have stood out that much in
Brentwood.
John Junot
> dick wagner wrote:
>
> >BOB AUGUST:
> >
> >Magli shoes when he went to Bundy. They were dark colored as well as all
> >character he was playing at the time, in the movie he was making,
> >'Frogman'."
> >
> > Ah, the enlightenment I get from AFOJS. Now I learn that the
> >actual Frogmen wear Bruno Magli shoes. Very fancy those guys.
> >
> > --dick wagner
> >
> myself clear when I said. "They were dark colored as well as his
> clothing was dark colored. For concealment." They were Bruno Magli's,
> Dick, because that is the kind of shoes that Simpson owned. He wasn't
> really an actual Frogman, Dick. He was just playing the part in a movie.
> Movies are fantasy. You know what fantasy is, don't you Dick?
>
> bobaugust
BA:
Are you a human being, or do you just play one on the internet?
Janis72
>>Bob I am sure you either fail to mention or know of someone in America who
>got
>away clean. I do not think OJ did but just in case, he wasn't the first and
>won't be the last. "Don't worry, be happy".
The fact that the physical evidence (not any hearsay mind you, only the
physical evidence) was SO strong, and should have convicted Simpson is what (to
me) makes his acquittal such an abomination. Sure, people in America get away
with crimes all the time and that is very sad; but they usually don't walk from
murder charges where the physical evidence is a huge amount and points to them
and only them.
>As far as we know the world as we know could end soon, pray for P-E-A-C-E.
>>
That's the truest statement and best advise you've ever posted here, thank you
for that Betty:)
Bob August
Just the facts Miss Marple. Simpson dressed like the character he was playing in the movie "Frogman". Dark colored sweats, dark colored socks, dark colored shoes, dark colored hat, dark colored gloves, and a knife. Who was he trying not to be seen by? Any one. As he was sneaking around in the dark, trying to fulfill whatever intention he went to Bundy for. Is there a point to this question?
bobaugust
John Junot
[snip]
>
> It seems all of your arguments Dick, are deteriorating to the level of
> Prien, Miss Marple, and Betty....
YOU LEFT ME OUT! I RESENT THAT!
JUNOT
Bob August
dick wagner
You assert that the Bruno Magli shoes that left the trail at Bundy were
black. When Junot challenges you to tell how you know this you say,
"From the photograph of Simpson wearing them."
So, Simpson was wearing a pair of black Bruno Magli shoes on September
26, 1993, and a Bruno Magli trail was laid down at Nicole's condo on
June 12, 1994. Therefore (you claim) the Bundy shoes must have been
black (because they must have been the same one's Simpson was wearing
eight months earlier). Simpson could not have had a black pair of Bruno
Maglis and a brown pair, disposed of the black pair in more than half a
year and worn the brown pair that night... Nor could half a dozen other
possiblities have occured. You KNOW that the shoes you didn't see in
June 1994 were the very same ones that you did see in September 1993.
Very good, Bob. This ranks right up there with the logic of your "He
was there, he musta done it."
--dick wagner
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
Dick, I never said the Bruno Magli's Simpson wore were black, where did
you dream that one up? I never said there were brown. I said they were
dark colored. And yes, the photograph of Simpson wearing dark colored
Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes with Silga soles were most likely the
same shoes he wore the night of the murders. Why? Because of the Silga
sole that matched the same kind of sole on the shoes that the killer wore.
As far as the logic, He was there, he must have done it. At least you
got part of that right, Dick. He was there, nobody else was there except
him and the two victims. He must of done it.
Makes sense to me. Especially when every other piece of relevant
physical evidence including all of the trace evidence points to Simpson
and only Simpson as the killer. It's too bad your brain doesn't work
like everyone else's. Maybe then you might be able to understand the
significance of those facts.
bobaugust
BKSDALEBILLY 55
Bently in the driveway, correct. So then we have Bruno's in a Bag by the
Bentley. Since the defense hired a Sherlock Holm's to examine the dress socks
under a microscope we know OJ didn't walk into the house wearing only his dress
socks because surely the report would have shown driveway dirt, loose grass,
etc, etc.
If he wore ANOTHER PAIR OF SHOES into the house then it appears he had actually
changed his shoes outside of the house by the Bentley when he left for Bundy
and then back into those shoes or another pair of shoes when he went into the
house for his trip to Chicago.
So you see I'm not taking sides to prove you wrong but only showing that maybe
the sequence of events don't add up every time.
dick wagner
You say, "So you see I'm not taking sides to prove you wrong but only
showing that maybe the sequence of events don't add up every time."
Yes, I do notice that you're not taking sides, and I appreciate the
fact. And I am also glad to hear honest objections to the ideas that I
propose. Usually, I have not found objections to be a serious barrier
to my concept, but occasionally they are. (Way back, before Egan lost
his mind, he had some good ideas, and he reformed my idea of the basic
motive for the crime; more recently Griffin persuaded me that Simpson
did not wound his hand by scuffing it with the sole of his shoe as he
clambored over the back gate; etc.) So, I keep presenting my ideas, and
looking for what others think. I do this in the spirit of the Japanese
aphorism, "None of us is as smart as all of us."
Now you come with an objection to my idea that Simpson removed his
shoes in the shadows by the Bentley and proceeded thereafter in sock
feet -- including his entry into the front door of his house. You say
that the socks were carefully inspected by a defense expert after they
were in police custody, and no indication of grass, leaves, or other
outdoor debris was found. I do not know that for a fact, BKS, but for
the purpose of this discussion I will accept it.
Before we go farther, you should understand the rest of what I think
Simpson did. He got back to his property at 10:44, immediately took off
his shoes and put them in the bookbag he got from the Bentley. Then he
went down the shadows at the end of the driveway, to the leav-strewn and
dirty walk behind the garage, and down that to Kato's wall where he
banged three times (and incidentally, lost the glove he had brought back
from Bundy). He then returned to the area by the Bentley, though I
don't know whether he was on the grass or on the asphalt. He stayed
there until 10:55 when he crossed the asphalt driveway, went upon the
steps and porch to the house, went into the foyer (glazed tile or
terrazzo, I presume, and then to the laundry room (probably vinyl
tile). After a brief stay in that room, he crossed the foyer again,
went up the carped stairs, down a carpeted hall, and into his carpeted
bedroom. There he removed his socks and cast them on the floor.
The next day they were recovered by crime lab tecnicians, put in a
container and taken across the city and stored downtown, eventually to
be withdrawn and examined. It was at that time that no indication of
exposure to plant debris would have been judged, I believe.
The question is whether socks with that history would show an
indication of loitering on the grass and walking down the leaf-strewn
back walk behind Kato's wall. Of course, socks are of many kinds --
cotton, wool, several types of synthetic fabrics, and blends of these.
They are woven in several different ways, and some are bulky, some are
thin. Probably a bulky style of a natural fabric would better hold
plant debris than a thin style of synthetic material.
In any event, intuition -- yours or mine -- is not a good guide on this
question. I would not feel confident that Simpson's socks should be
expected to retain an indication of exposure to plant debris unless a
simulation were performed. We would need to determine, if we could,
just what kind of socks Simpson had, and then travel over a similar
terrain in sock feet, finally to examine the socks after they were taken
off. I'm not sure what we would find.
And, having done all of that, we don't know but what your conjecture
might not be right. Maybe when he took the book bag from the Bentley he
also took from there a pair of golf shoes, or some shoes he kept in the
trunk for some other occasional purpose. I guess I have dismissed that
possibility as an unnecessary complication. But, if you would like to
undertake the simulation and report back, I will be glad to modify the
scenario for a change of shoes rather than proceeding in sock feet, if
your first hand observation leads to that necessity.
--dick wagner
missmarple8
Let's see if I can figure this out. Mr. Simpson is in a foul mood
after the recital. He changes his dark Bugle Boys pants and shirt for
a sweat suit with white around the front zipper. Gigi calls from
Knott's Berry Farm to ask for the evening off. That call triggers the
killing spree. He would have no witness to say he was not home!! But
he decides that he needs some food first and goes to McDonalds for a
burger with Kato, who was at home. Back home again he gets into a
rage, "I'm Frogman", goes upstairs and changes into another sweatsuit,
a grey/black sweeatsuit this time (with some odd blue fibers in it)
expensive BM shoes, one of the kid's ski caps and an old pair of
winter gloves. (He doesn't change the dress socks, he is getting so
used to them since he wore them to benefit the night before.) The
Frogman, in full rage now after all that clothes changing, is going to
kill Nicole cause Frogman killed woman in movie, and Nicole is woman
and she didn't ask him to come to dinner.
Am I getting close?
Miss Marple
dick wagner
You still got that Simpson tape, "I Want to Spin You"? I may put the
video capture facility back together in a month or so, and ask to borrow
it, if you do. (BTW: I understand you have found a confirming opinion
for my understanding of the point of greatest contention between you and
me. <G>)
--dick wagner
dick wagner
After giving a near perfect recital of August's scenario, you ask, "Am
I getting close?" Getting close? That's a wrap! Print it and put in
the can!
--dick wagner
dick wagner
From your post I infer that Ron has threatened (promised?) to killfile
somebody again. (Reminds me of the Red Queen rushing about: "Off with
his head!")
It has always seemed to me to be a sign of a distinctively weak willed
person to use a killfile (whatever the technological excuse). I have
not the slightest problem to simply skip over the names I know will not
contribute any reason to the discussion. My screen is forever littered
with the bold faced names I did not click on of the adolescents, the
feeble minded, and the psychopaths that pass through here.
--dick wagner
Bob August
Gigi's call did not trigger anything. It only gave Simpson opportunity. The opportunity to come and go without anyone witnessing his movements. If Gigi had returned like she had planned, Simpson would have had no opportunity to do what he did. Gigi would have known his movements that night.
One of his kids ski caps? Where did you dream that one up? What makes you think Simpson wore the same socks that he wore the night before? You make things up Miss Marple and then ridicule them. I guess you even think your ideas are pretty stupid.
Simpson did go to Kaelin's room, possibly to try and set up Kaelin as an alibi. Simpson may have never intended to go to McDonalds in the first place, only using it in conversation with Kaelin. Kaelin told how he invited himself along, and Simpson's reaction to that. So they did go to McDonalds. Kaelin assumed that they would take out food and return to Rockingham to eat it in Simpson's house. Simpson had other ideas. He hurriedly ate his in the car and then made no move to let Kaelin into his house. So Kaelin went back to his room to eat.
The last time Kaelin saw Simpson, he was standing beside his Bentley. We do not know what he did after that. We do not know what Simpson's intentions were when he went to Bundy. You say he went there to kill Nicole. No one knows that. Maybe he went there to scare Nicole. Maybe he went there to teach her a lesson for humiliating him earlier that day. Maybe he went there to cut her tires. We do not know.
What we do know is that Simpson did go to Bundy. And when he left Bundy, Ron and Nicole were dead.
bobaugust
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
A near perfect recital of my scenario? Wow. I guess you can't read
either. That figures. I guess brain dead people do think alike. Miss
Marple and Wagner. Quite a pair. Funny.
bobaugust
missmarple8
Dick,
Bobaugust's scenario is almost as bad as Fuhrman's "Hypothesis of a
murder". But Fuhrman doesn't have to answer questions about his.
Poor august does.
Miss Marple
Bob August
bobaugust
BKSDALEBILLY 55
change his shoes or any of his attire when he received a phone call telling him
his ex-wife had just been murdered and that personal items belonging to him
were placed on the body and if he would (hurry) he could retrieve them before
someone else found them.On one side you present a picture of someone saying
your going to be blamed for a murder and on the other side you go into great
detail of how he took the time to change clothes and shoes before jumping in
his vehicle. That's still seems odd to me and regardless of walking in his
socks I would think Mr. Kato would surely have noticed no shoes. Maybe he did.
>
>
>
>
>
uscs...@mn.rr.com
Bob August <boba...@lvcm.com> writes:
>
>
> Dan Mercer wrote:
>
>>
> Dan Mercer, I have always said that we do not know the reason that
> Simpson went to Bundy that night.
Then you must agree he should not have been charged with
1st degree murder, which requires premeditation. You must also
agree that with the Death penalty off the table, and with
the penalties for 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder
with special circumstances being identical, the prosecution
was foolhardy for taking on the extra burden of proving
premeditation.
Maybe he went to just scare Nicole, or
> teach her a lesson. Or maybe to cut the tires on her car. What we do
> know is that he encountered Nicole first. He hit her. She fell, hit her
> head, and was knocked unconscious. We know that Goldman arrived and
> surprised Simpson. Simpson attacked and killed Goldman.
>
> Simpson held Goldman from behind as he stabbed and cut him, like he had
> been shown in the movie he was making.
What do you base this on? What about the defensive wounds to Ron's
hands.
Only Simpson found out that real
> people do not die like they do in the movies. Simpson was no expert at
> killing, only an actor trying to look like an expert. He stabbed and cut
> Goldman over 30 times. The killing wound happened early. A stab to
> Goldman's left flank that cut his aorta. Goldman immediately weakened.
> Simpson continued to stab and cut him, eventually dropping him to the
> ground where he bled to death. Simpson then returned to his ex wife, put
> one foot on her back, pulled her head up by her hair, and sliced her throat.
>
> Simpson could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Goldman.
> He had to kill Nicole too. He left Bundy leaving his two small children
> sleeping in their beds to awaken and find their slaughtered dead mom.
> What would Simpson have done if his two kids happened to come downstairs
> and also witness his killings? Fortunately for them, they didn't.
>
> Where did you get your information about what Simpson was taught about
> killing with a knife while making the movie?
I don't remember the publication. The source was the
military advisor who showed him how to hold the knife.
According to him, they don't like to overburden the actors
by giving them to much information - there's always the
danger they'll try to think for themselves.
>
> bobaugust
>
The point is, and I would like you to address this, if you
presume the Swiss Army Knife, as I believe you do, how can
you possibly believe this was a premeditated act?
Dan Mercer
dme...@mn.rr.com
uscs...@mn.rr.com
>>:
>>:
>>: Ketchall 1 wrote:
>>:
>>: >A SIMPLE BUT IMPORTANT QUESTION:
>>: >
>>: >I would guess that OJ wore sneakers and dress socks with his sweat suit when
>>: >he and Kato went to McDonalds. Why would he change into bruno magli shoes to
>>: >wear with his sweats when he hurried to Bundy???????????
>>: >
>>: There is no evidence to tell us what shoes Simpson wore when he went to
>>: the Bentley. Kaelin never saw Simpson go into his house. Maybe he did.
>>:
>> ^^^^
>>Actually, all we know is that the bloody footprints at the scene were identified
>>by the expert as most likely belonging to Bruno Magli shoes, The FBI expert
>>admitted that their database of shoe soles was incomplete, lacking, for instance,
>>thousands of shoe soles used in Chinese brands. All the rest is inference.
>>
>
> The fact is that the expert found by comparison, that the bloody shoe
> prints were made from Bruno Magli's Lorenzo style shoes with Silga soles.
>
> Later, photographs surface that showed Simpson wearing the same size and
> kind of shoes that made the bloody prints. Bruno Magli, Lorenzo style
> with Silga soles. One photograph actually showed the Silga sole matching
> the bloody prints. 30 other photographs taken by a different
> photographer confirmed it.
>
> bobaugust
>
Unfortunately, the footprints were in blood, not impressions made in
dirt. As such, they had a certain Rorsach(sp?) quality to them.
They were consistent with the Bruno Magli's, but because the database
was incomplete, the expert could not absolutely rule out that they had
been made by another brand not in the database.
What puzzles me to this day is why none of those pictures were
discovered before the trial comcluded. Somebody was apparently
sitting on a proverbial gold mine and couldn't get off his ass to
find it. All I hope is that they were married - that will be
punsihment enough!
--
Dan Mercer
dme...@mn.rr.com
dick wagner
At the end you say, "I would think Mr. Kato would surely have noticed
no shoes. Maybe he did." Amen to that, BKS. Although I don't think
that Kato told a literal lie in court, I think there were several
important things he did not talk about (because he was never asked).
But, the substance of your post is that you don't think that under the
circumstances of the luring phone call Simpson would have changed his
clothes before going to Bundy to check out the story (which could have
had catestrophic implications for him if it were true.) Ah, the change
of clothes is only the least of the problems with the "luring phone
call" idea, BKS. The basic issue is whether he would go for the bait at
all. Well, I don't come to the "luring phone call" idea because I am
particluarly fond of it, but because I get backed into it by the
circumstances of the evidence.
Without going through it chapter and verse, suffice it to say that I
arrive at a point where I am sure that the victims were dead by 10:10,
and Simpson was at Bundy at about 10:30 to 10:35, and he carried the
right hand glove home with him when he left. AND, he does not admit to
that innocent visit, even though it has cost him dearly to deny it. Now
what in the world made him go to Bundy? I can not accept that it was a
random visit, considering that the limo was coming in a few minutes to
take him to the airport, and there was a spirit of hostility in the air
between him and Nicole at the moment. Some external event must have
promted the trip, and a phone call is the simplest such that I can
imagine. Because of time line constraints, it would have to have been a
brief call -- I estimate three minutes.
So, the "luring phone call" is conjectural. But, we believe that
Simpson took away from the crime scene the right hand glove, so it is
reasonable to think that the phone call might have mentioned this. If
so, this provides a motivation for Simpson to go to Bundy -- to get this
piece of incriminating evidence before the police find it. Furthermore,
by telling Simpson about the glove, the conspirator can get him to check
that the glove is missing, and thus be all the more motivated to go to
Bundy. If he does that, he probably goes to his wardrobe, and if he is
there when he finally decides to go to Bundy, it is convenient to change
his clothes, if that seems like a good idea. Seen in this way, the
change of clothes does not seem unreasonable to me.
Now, you attribute to me something like, "[Simpson] received a phone
call telling him his ex-wife had just been murdered and that personal
items belonging to him were placed on the body and if he would (hurry)
he could retrieve them before someone else found them." Well, that's
true as a sterile fact, but I expect there was more to it. I don't
think that if you or I had called Simpson, even if we had stolen his
glove, that we could cause him to go to Bundy. I think there was
something about WHO the caller was, and the prior relationship Simpson
(and Nicole) had with this person (or group) that caused Simpson to
believe that Nicole really might have been murdered. And it was that
person's (or group's) reputation that both 1) caused Simpson to later
deny the trip to Bundy, and 2) caused him to be frightened and wary
about going. It was that state of wariness that caused him to
impulsively change out of his travelling clothes and into the black
sweatsuit while he was standing there in his wardrobe at the moment he
decided he did have make a quick run to the Bundy condo.
--dick wagner
Bob August
As to what Simpson was taught in the movie he was making. Quote from "Another City, Not my own" by Dominic Dunne
"Have you heard anything about this television pilot OJ made just before the murders?"
"The Frogman pilot. I've heard about it, but I don't know anybody who's seen it. Isn't that where they taught OJ how to use a knife.?" "It's called the silent kill." said Faye. "The guy I know trained OJ to do the silent kill."
"I saw Arnie Kopelson last Sunday night at a screening at Len and Wendy Goldberg's house. We were talking about the Frogman pilot at dinner. Arnie helped finance get a print of it over to at the Chateau, but a couple of days later he said that there were no prints available."
"I think they've been destroyed myself." said Faye. "This friend of mine can tell you everything. Mark Lonsdale. The pilot was his idea. It was really a stuntman's show. NBC said, we'll take the project, but you have to use OJ in the lead."
"That would have been the request of Don Ohlmeyer, the president of NBC West Coast for OJ to get the lead. They're bosom friends. He visits OJ in jail several nights a week. He's a total advocate, very outspoken that OJ didn't do it. Seems strange for the president of a network."
"Mark didn't mind having to use OJ in the part," said Faye. "He said he had name recognition, and if the murders hadn't come along it would probably be on the air now."
"What did Mark think of OJ?"
"He said he was a real prick with a sense of public image. He'd be difficult on the set and then, if he spotted a fan, he'd be charm itself."
"Does it really show him slitting a woman's throat in the pilot?"
"He grabs a girl by the throat and puts a knife up to her throat," said Faye. "Mark said that there were a lot of spooky similarities in the pilot to what later happened in real life, that didn't seem spooky when the pilot was being made."
"There's a scene where he goes to his ex-wife's grave," said Faye. "And listen to this. There's a character in the pilot that OJ's character threatens to kill. The character's name is Goldman. OJ says the line 'I'm going to kill you, Goldman."
You ask me if I think the murder weapon was a Swiss Army Knife, how can I believe this was a premeditated act? What does the Swiss Army Knife have to do with premeditation? What difference does it make what kind of knife he used?
As to "defensive cuts on Goldman's hands,
"Lange examines Goldman's hands, which show defense wounds such as fresh abrasions, cuts, and scrapes. However, these minor injuries do not appear over the knuckles as they would have if Goldman had doubled his fist and struck someone. Instead, they are over the fingers and on the back of his hand, indicating that he might have been flailing around and accidentally hit his hands on something. Objects around him included a large tree with very coarse bark, a smaller tree, a metal rung fence, and a metal pole, as well as the tree stump that had been under his body. There is no blood under his fingernails."
bobaugust
Ketchall 1
concerned that he was going to be seen there in that alley. Therefore, I
think that if he was neatly dressed for his trip he would want to be seen in
that attire which would then match his reason for being there. Anybody would
have that 'what if I'm seen excuse' embedded in his head under those
circumstances. So it's a toss up. Also, why wouldn't he want to go there and
then just call the police or get help from a neighbor. At that point he was
clean, dressed and ready for his trip. Remember, he could have accounted for
his time up until he and Kato parted company.
luvone...@spamless.com
<<My basic curiosity was simply a question of why someone would take any time to
change his shoes or any of his attire when he received a phone call telling him
his ex-wife had just been murdered and that personal items belonging to him
were placed on the body and if he would (hurry) he could retrieve them before
someone else found them.On one side you present a picture of someone saying
your going to be blamed for a murder and on the other side you go into great
detail of how he took the time to change clothes and shoes before jumping in
his vehicle. That's still seems odd to me and regardless of walking in his
socks I would think Mr. Kato would surely have noticed no shoes. Maybe he did.
I don't understand why he would bother to change into dark, inconspicous clothing. If he were going to Bundy to find "planted" evidence, he would have had to take a flashlight! Have you ever seen the "scene" of the crime? It's small, cramped, DARK, with thick vegetation. At that hour of the night, don't you think it might have called attention to OJ peeking through the foliage with a flashlight?
And, BTW, why did he take off his stocking knit cap and leave it there? And where did the people who "planted" the evidence get OJ's blood to smear on the gloves? And do you think that OJ was so sloppy while he was looking around for the "planted" evidence that he injured his finger and managed to get enough of Nicole's and Ron's blood on him to transfer to the interior of the Bronco?
Just curious, Otter
Ketchall 1
You came in the middle of the discussion with the somewhat of same questions.
So you need to ask Mr. Wagner. Thanks
dick wagner
In contemplating what Simpson would have done if there were a luring
phone call, you say, "Also, why wouldn't [Simipson] want to go [to
Nicole's condo] and then just call the police or get help from a
neighbor."
Of course, Ketchall, this is the first question that hit me when I
first considered the "luring phone call" concept. If everything is on
the up and up, if there is no more to the situation than you and I know,
then the obvious thing to do when you get that call is to call 911 and
tell them about it. Tell them to go check out this rumor that my
ex-wife has been murdered. That's what I would do, that's what you
would do.
But follow this chess game forward a couple of moves. You call the
police, they do go to Bundy, they do find your ex-wife (and somebody
else) murdered, and they do find your glove. No problem; you told them
that the glove would be there; it was part of a frame. And, your time
is accounted for. Great. Now the police will say, "Mr. Simpson, you
seem to know a lot about this. You knew your wife was murdered, you
knew about the glove... How come you knew?"
If there is somthing about the circumstances of the call, or the person
who told you, that you feel you can not reveal, what do you do now?
Remember, Ketchall, I did not say that Simpson was a good guy, I just
said he did not do the murders. In fact, I think that Simpson had been
involved in something shameful and/or illegal before the murders, and
the luring phone call came from somebody with whom he (and Nicole) had
been involved in that.
Now the No-Js are HORRIFIED at the idea that Simpson could have been
involved in something shaddy, and they will recoil at the possibility.
But, I am more worldly than they, and I think it is quite possible. <G>
--dick wagner
dick wagner
You say of the crime evidence, "And where did the people who 'planted'
the evidence get OJ's blood to smear on the gloves?" I think if you
will check the record you will find that Simpson's blood was only found
on the glove that the police discovered at his estate, not on the glove
they found at Bundy. Now, if Simpson was the one who transported the
glove from Bundy to Rockingham, if he carried it in his left hand as he
traversed Nicole's back walk, and if his left hand was bleeding at that
time, then nobody "planted" his blood on that glove, it dripped there
while he was carrying it.
--dick wagner
Gloria Polis
Thanks for the reply. I was just tacking those questions on to the end of my observation that it seems silly to think of OJ going to the scene of the murders and trying to find planted evidence in the pitch black dark. And why bother changing into dark clothing when you'd have to have a flashlight to find the planted evidence?
And it makes sense to me that Simpson's blood wouldn't be on the glove at Bundy because his finger was probably cut after the glove was removed during the "scuffle", if you will, with the decedent/s.
Just MHO, Otter
dick wagner
You say, "...it seems silly to think of OJ going to the scene of the
murders and trying to find planted evidence in the pitch black dark.
And why bother changing into dark clothing when you'd have to have a
flashlight to find the planted evidence?"
The "planted evidence" was not necessarily in the "pitch black dark."
Some places around the bodies were extremely dark, and some were
illuminated by the porch light about 18 feet away. See Figure 1 of "One
Man, One Trip" on our site at http://wagnerandson.com for the specifics
of the illumination around Nicole's body. The highest parts of her body
-- her right shoulder and right hip, and maybe a little of her head were
illuminated, as was the walk from about a foot in front of her to the
gate and more. If the right hand glove had been left for Simpson on
Nicole's shoulder he would have had no problem in finding it. However,
the cap and the left hand glove would have been in speckled darkness,
and would not have been obvious. (See "Agapanthus Illumination" on our
site for an analysis of this.) If Simpson did not know those objects
were at the scene, he probably wouldn't have found them.
Then there is the question of whether Simpson would have THOUGHT he
would be able to find it before he left Rockingham. Since the caller
was trying to motivate Simpson to make the trip, he (she?) could have
anticipated Simpson's worry about this and slipped into the conversation
words like, "The cops can't miss finding your glove. We left it in
plain sight."
As to whether Simpson would have taken a flashlight... We saw from the
criminal trial testimony that Simpson tried to find a flashlight to help
Kato with a search of the back walk at Rockingham, but he couldn't come
up with it. It is my expectation that the trip to Bundy was so
compelling that Simpson would have felt he had to go whether he could
find a flashlight or not. (Or, whether the housekeeper was home or
not.)
The purpose of wearing dark clothing on this trip is to avoid being
seen. Simpson had to traverse other areas (the walk and the alley area)
than just the place where the bodies were. That purpose of concealment
does not seem to have much to do with whether the glove was easy or hard
to find. Furthermore, I am not sure that he was so much interested in
not being seen by witnesses that would come to testify against him; I
think his main concern at that moment was not being seen by the killers,
and being killed himself. The luring phone call would have set up a
very bizarre and frightening situation for Simpson, and I don't think he
knew exactly what reality he would find -- anything from a practical
joke, and Nicole was not really dead, to a plot to lure him to his own
assassination. So, it is compelling to at least go in dark clothing,
whether you can find a flashlight or not in the rush. And, to go armed,
which I am sure he was.
--dick wagner
luvone...@spamless.com
I will visit your website soon and then reply to your post.
Thanks.
John Griffin
> GLORIA:
>
> You say, "...it seems silly to think of OJ going to the scene of the
> murders and trying to find planted evidence in the pitch black dark.
> And why bother changing into dark clothing when you'd have to have a
> flashlight to find the planted evidence?"
>
> The "planted evidence" was not necessarily in the "pitch black dark."
> Some places around the bodies were extremely dark, and some were
> illuminated by the porch light about 18 feet away. See Figure 1 of "One
> Man, One Trip" on our site at http://wagnerandson.com for the specifics
> of the illumination around Nicole's body. The highest parts of her body
> -- her right shoulder and right hip, and maybe a little of her head were
> illuminated, as was the walk from about a foot in front of her to the
> gate and more. If the right hand glove had been left for Simpson on
> Nicole's shoulder he would have had no problem in finding it. However,
> the cap and the left hand glove would have been in speckled darkness,
> and would not have been obvious. (See "Agapanthus Illumination" on our
> site for an analysis of this.) If Simpson did not know those objects
> were at the scene, he probably wouldn't have found them.
>
> Then there is the question of whether Simpson would have THOUGHT he
> would be able to find it before he left Rockingham. Since the caller
> was trying to motivate Simpson to make the trip, he (she?) could have
> anticipated Simpson's worry about this and slipped into the conversation
> words like, "The cops can't miss finding your glove. We left it in
> plain sight."
rotfl
Why not "We wrote your name on it"?
> As to whether Simpson would have taken a flashlight... We saw from the
> criminal trial testimony that Simpson tried to find a flashlight to help
> Kato with a search of the back walk at Rockingham, but he couldn't come
> up with it. It is my expectation that the trip to Bundy was so
> compelling that Simpson would have felt he had to go whether he could
> find a flashlight or not. (Or, whether the housekeeper was home or
> not.)
>
> The purpose of wearing dark clothing on this trip is to avoid being
> seen. Simpson had to traverse other areas (the walk and the alley area)
> than just the place where the bodies were. That purpose of concealment
> does not seem to have much to do with whether the glove was easy or hard
> to find. Furthermore, I am not sure that he was so much interested in
> not being seen by witnesses that would come to testify against him; I
> think his main concern at that moment was not being seen by the killers,
> and being killed himself. The luring phone call would have set up a
> very bizarre and frightening situation for Simpson, and I don't think he
> knew exactly what reality he would find -- anything from a practical
> joke, and Nicole was not really dead, to a plot to lure him to his own
> assassination. So, it is compelling to at least go in dark clothing,
> whether you can find a flashlight or not in the rush. And, to go armed,
> which I am sure he was.
>
> --dick wagner
The only thing that's anywhere near certain here is that he would have
either called the police after the fairy-tale "luring phone call" or
just ignored it. We have no way to know for sure how he'd react, so
I'm just basing that on the fact that it's near certain that a
randomly selected person would react that way. I seem to remember you
trying to plug that hole with something about a threat to his kids or
something like that. (What kind of dad wouldn't dash up the stairs at
Bundy?!) Your story sounds like the plot from a 1930's cops and
robbers movie. You have supposedly brilliant assassins/framers
cooking up this silly, overdone plan, but having no way of assuring
the most critical part of it. I've heard the thing about them
commandeering his phones all night, so I can say that with complete
confidence. There is no way they could be certain that he would
answer that phone call. Even if he did, they couldn't know whether he
had been talking on the phone every minute since he finished setting
Kato up. They had no reason to believe he wouldn't leave his house.
Their plan was lame and had virtually no chance of success. They're
lucky they're fictitious.
By the way, I suppose you know that the cops, and specifically
Fuhrman, were well aware of the fact that Simpson could have an alibi
and a few thousand witnesses to support it. That rules out the dumb
idea that they adjusted the evidence to point his way. Your
alternative is ruled out because it has more holes than the Mustang
Ranch, so that leaves only Simpson as an evildoer here.
The only "luring phone call" call that night was from Nicole to
Goldman at the restaurant. She just used the standard lure to get him
to do her a favor.
We know he was armed with a knife when he got there.
Melissa Park
"We put the glove on your dead wife's shoulder. Be sure to hold it in
your bleeding hand so that your blood gets on it. Also be sure to DROP
the thing after you race across town to pick it up. After all, it IS
the reason that you are coming to Bundy.... what could be natural than
to lose it? After all, you won't have anything else on your mind...
like, say, the fact that you just killed your wife and you can see
that your alibi is worth shit because the goddam limo driver is at the
gate early!"
"We also placed the other glove under a bush where you can't see it.
We did this for the sole reason that a snot sniveling D-Fens clone
(ref:"Falling Down") could get his rocks off repeating the word
"Agapanthus" ad infinitum."
> > As to whether Simpson would have taken a flashlight... We saw from the
> > criminal trial testimony that Simpson tried to find a flashlight to help
> > Kato with a search of the back walk at Rockingham, but he couldn't come
> > up with it. It is my expectation that the trip to Bundy was so
> > compelling that Simpson would have felt he had to go whether he could
> > find a flashlight or not. (Or, whether the housekeeper was home or
> > not.)
> >
> > The purpose of wearing dark clothing on this trip is to avoid being
> > seen. Simpson had to traverse other areas (the walk and the alley area)
> > than just the place where the bodies were. That purpose of concealment
> > does not seem to have much to do with whether the glove was easy or hard
> > to find. Furthermore, I am not sure that he was so much interested in
> > not being seen by witnesses that would come to testify against him; I
> > think his main concern at that moment was not being seen by the killers,
> > and being killed himself. The luring phone call would have set up a
> > very bizarre and frightening situation for Simpson, and I don't think he
> > knew exactly what reality he would find -- anything from a practical
> > joke, and Nicole was not really dead, to a plot to lure him to his own
> > assassination. So, it is compelling to at least go in dark clothing,
..or maybe call the GODDAM COPS like a normal real person would do?
> > whether you can find a flashlight or not in the rush. And, to go armed,
> > which I am sure he was.
> >
> > --dick wagner
>
> The only thing that's anywhere near certain here is that he would have
> either called the police after the fairy-tale "luring phone call" or
> just ignored it. We have no way to know for sure how he'd react, so
> I'm just basing that on the fact that it's near certain that a
> randomly selected person would react that way. I seem to remember you
> trying to plug that hole with something about a threat to his kids or
> something like that. (What kind of dad wouldn't dash up the stairs at
> Bundy?!)
Exactly - what sort of Dad would rush off to take a plane ride with
his dead wife lying there and his kids upstairs? He did not even enter
the house... He apparently told his daughter to wash his clothes, but
he didn't send anyone to check on his kids.
>Your story sounds like the plot from a 1930's cops and
> robbers movie. You have supposedly brilliant assassins/framers
> cooking up this silly, overdone plan, but having no way of assuring
> the most critical part of it.
Precisely. There was no way that such superhuman meticulous planners
required by such an overblown plan would
a) expend such an effort for so little result and
b) expend such an effort WITHOUT GURANTEEING that Orenthal didn't have
an alibi.
>I've heard the thing about them
> commandeering his phones all night, so I can say that with complete
> confidence. There is no way they could be certain that he would
> answer that phone call. Even if he did, they couldn't know whether he
> had been talking on the phone every minute since he finished setting
> Kato up. They had no reason to believe he wouldn't leave his house.
Precisely. These plotters would have to rely on totally uncertain
choices by an emotionally overwrought person. It does not fit.
> Their plan was lame and had virtually no chance of success. They're
> lucky they're fictitious.
Some guys get all the breaks...
>
> By the way, I suppose you know that the cops, and specifically
> Fuhrman, were well aware of the fact that Simpson could have an alibi
> and a few thousand witnesses to support it. That rules out the dumb
> idea that they adjusted the evidence to point his way. Your
> alternative is ruled out because it has more holes than the Mustang
> Ranch, so that leaves only Simpson as an evildoer here.
Your argument might succeed in convincing DICK, but it has one fatal
flaw. It is reasonable and covers all the evidence with the simplest
workable explanationand without needless complication. Ooops - that's
two fatal flaws!
Let me get back to you.
DFooK
dick wagner
You object to the idea of the luring phone call because the killers
could not be certain that Simpson would respond to it as they hoped (by
his going to Bundy to recover the incriminating glove).
WHY NOT TRY? Simpson was already framed before the call was made.
Both gloves and the cap were left at the murder scene, and Simpson's
history with Nicole was uneven enough that a creative prosecutor could
portray him as just itching for the chance to kill her. Simpson was on
the spot whether he went to Bundy and further framed himself or not.
That being the case, why would the killers not further try to frame him
by inducing him to go to Bundy? Do you think they would say, "Gee, he
might not go; we better not even try". I don't think so, John.
And, if all else fails, they have killed Nicole -- which I think was
half of the objective at the outset.
ALIBI: You say that the killers did not know but what Simpson would be
in the company of unimpeachable witnesses -- the same argument that was
(correctly) used to deflect suspicions that Fuhrman had tried to frame
Simpson. Well, the killers and Fuhrman were in somewhat different
circumstances. The killers, I am sure, knew that Simpson was taking a
plane out of LAX at 11:45 and so would be leaving Rockingham by limo at
10:45. Furthermore, I expect that they knew that the prospects of
having dinner with Nicole's family was not finally decided (as far as
Simpson knew) until the recital, so Simpson would not have made other
dinner plans, and could be expected to be home alone from the recital to
the limo. And, they would have expected that the housekeeper was in
residence. The best bet from the killers' standpoint would have been
that Simpson had a sort-of witness in the housekeeper (she may have been
in the same house, but was not joined at the hip to Simpson), and could
possibly have had phone witnesses. Neither of these is so unequivocal
as Simpson addressing a crowd of a thousand.
GUILTY KNOWLEDGE: Most important, there was almost certainly some
pre-existing relationship and information between the killers and
Simpson. One does not go to the extraordinary trouble that this killing
would have taken professionals on a whim. There is some indication that
Simpson was a (tangential) party to a plot to kill Nicole in January
(the failed Wasz plot). There could have been left over evidence from
that (e.g., cancelled checks, witness statements, gun regristration,
travel records, photographs, "stalking diary," etc.) that would have
implicated Simpson (and friends) in that plot, and then when the reality
of Nicole's murder burst on the scene six months later, Simpson had
guilty knowledge of his earlier willingness to at least tolerate -- if
not cooperate -- in her murder six months earlier.
With this as a predicate, Simpson could easily have felt that he was
more responsible for the June murder than he actually was, and would be
more succeptible than you imagine to efforts to deny his hostility
toward Nicole. One expression of that denial would be to run and get
the incriminating glove. So, it is my belief that Simpson was already
primed to be hyper-defensive about responsibility for Nicole's murder
before the luring phone call came.
"A RANDOM PERSON" You say, "We have no way to know for sure how he'd
[Simpson would] react, so I'm just basing that on the fact that it's
near certain that a randomly selected person would react that way [he
would have called the cops or ignored the luring call]." Of course,
Simpson was not a random person. If we are discussing the possibility
that this was a professional hit, then there was a lot of care and
preparation that went into the murder, and part of that preparation was
to put Simpson in a postition to not talk about his relationship with
the real killers, and to make him succeptible to the luring phone call.
(Incidentally, I think that the generating dispute that culminated in
Nicole's murder goes back to September or November of '93 -- nine months
earlier.)
AN EVOLVING UNDERSTANDING: You say, "I seem to remember you
trying to plug that hole with something about a threat to his kids or
something like that. (What kind of dad wouldn't dash up the stairs at
Bundy?!) Your story sounds like the plot from a 1930's cops and
robbers movie." (I'm sorry that the killers have not updated their
methods to satisfy your tastes, but I guess if it ain't broke, don't fix
it, eh?)
True enough, John. My understanding has been evolving as I listen to
what thoughtful other people say. In the beginning I thought that an
unpaid drug debt was the motive, and now I do not -- I think that Nicole
caused Simipson to back out of an arrangement he had made with an
illegal sports betting ring. In the beginning I thought that Simpson
did not admit to being at Bundy because he had amnesia from the trauma
of seeing Nicole in that lake of blood -- now I think he has been
intimidated into lying. But these issues can be no more than guesses --
there is practically no evidence about this aspect.
In the area where there is evidence -- the timeline, the details of how
the killings were accomplished, and the factors that tie Simpson to the
scene -- it is inescapable that Simpson was at the scene, but got there
about 20 minutes after the victims were dead. The speculative part is
in simply trying to explain a circumstance that could have led to that.
And, insofar as you don't know what pre-existing shady arrangements
Simpson might have been involved in, you can not rule that possiblity
out.
AN INFERENCE: You say, "We know he was armed with a knife when he got
there." I don't know that, and neither to you, John. You just infer
that because you believe he committed the murder.
PLAYING THE ODDS: You also say, "I've heard the thing about them [the
killers] commandeering his [Simpson's] phones all night." You didn't
hear it from me, John. I think the killer's representative simply
dialed Simpson's number and he answered the phone. If he hadn't
answered, most of the objective would still be accomplished: Nicole
would be dead, and Simpson would be buried under an avanche of bad
publicity. (The tabloids would find the record of the 1989 beating, the
October '93 tape to 911 would surface, the cap and gloves would be
traced to him, NOW would get on his case... His career as a public good
guy would be finished.)
The luring phone call was a long shot, John, to turn a good crime into
a perfect crime. Sometimes long shots pay off, and these professional
killers had sporting blood.
--dick wagner
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
The luring phone call turned a good crime into a perfect crime? These
professional killers had sporting blood? You are a riot Dick. You will
go to any length to embarrass yourself spewing this complete and total
bull crap. Funny, And you still haven't explained why your Simpson
didn't rush upstairs to check on his kids. Come on, we are waiting with
baited breath..
bobaugust
Melissa Park
> dick wagner wrote:
>
> >JOHN GRIFFIN:
> >
> > You object to the idea of the luring phone call because the killers
> >could not be certain that Simpson would respond to it as they hoped (by
> >his going to Bundy to recover the incriminating glove).
> >
> > WHY NOT TRY? Simpson was already framed before the call was made.
No, your putative (totally lacking in positive evidence),
phantasmagorical and insubstantial (leaving no trace at the murder
scene, superhumanly meticulous "professional" killers would have
ATTEMPTED to plant evidence at the scene.
No established frame could have existed.
They would do so in full knowledge that:
a) Their supposed framing target might well have an airtight alibi or
b) he might reasonably be expected to act in the most common sense
manner and either dismiss their call as a crank or
c) call the cops or
d) he might recruit an ALIBI witness to come along with him to
investigate or
d) their might be witnesses to THEIR involvement or
e) they might have left forensic evidence they did not count on or
f) Orenthal might not have even answered the phone.
You are not only asking us to go against the most elegant and simple
solution which fits all the evidence, you are asking us to believe in
characters who operate in full opposition to their own best interests
and expected behaviour.
Your construct not only fails to match the rational, it can't even
support its own weight.
> >Both gloves and the cap were left at the murder scene, and Simpson's
> >history with Nicole was uneven enough that a creative prosecutor could
> >portray him as just itching for the chance to kill her. Simpson was on
> >the spot whether he went to Bundy and further framed himself or not.
> >That being the case, why would the killers not further try to frame him
> >by inducing him to go to Bundy? Do you think they would say, "Gee, he
> >might not go; we better not even try". I don't think so, John.
> >
> > And, if all else fails, they have killed Nicole -- which I think was
> >half of the objective at the outset.
> >
> > ALIBI: You say that the killers did not know but what Simpson would be
> >in the company of unimpeachable witnesses -- the same argument that was
> >(correctly) used to deflect suspicions that Fuhrman had tried to frame
> >Simpson. Well, the killers and Fuhrman were in somewhat different
> >circumstances. The killers, I am sure, knew that Simpson was taking a
> >plane out of LAX at 11:45 and so would be leaving Rockingham by limo at
> >10:45.
And this precludes an alibi, how?
Furthermore, I expect that they knew that the prospects of
> >having dinner with Nicole's family was not finally decided (as far as
> >Simpson knew) until the recital, so Simpson would not have made other
> >dinner plans, and could be expected to be home alone from the recital to
> >the limo. And, they would have expected that the housekeeper was in
> >residence. The best bet from the killers' standpoint would have been
> >that Simpson had a sort-of witness in the housekeeper (she may have been
> >in the same house, but was not joined at the hip to Simpson), and could
> >possibly have had phone witnesses. Neither of these is so unequivocal
> >as Simpson addressing a crowd of a thousand.
So you're ridiculous illogical professional criminal constructs were
willing to stake all against the possibility that there very well
could be phone witnesses/phone records, an eyewitness, and possible
other third party corraboration. This would be more than "a best bet".
This would practically be iron clad alibi.
> >
> > GUILTY KNOWLEDGE: Most important, there was almost certainly some
> >pre-existing relationship and information between the killers and
> >Simpson. One does not go to the extraordinary trouble that this killing
> >would have taken professionals on a whim.
Do you listen to yourself? These will o wisps that you have
manufactured, at one moment "go to the extraordinary trouble", and at
the next blithely dismiss any risk and hang all their hopes on a phone
call.
There is some indication that
> >Simpson was a (tangential) party to a plot to kill Nicole in January
> >(the failed Wasz plot). There could have been left over evidence from
> >that (e.g., cancelled checks, witness statements, gun regristration,
> >travel records, photographs, "stalking diary," etc.) that would have
> >implicated Simpson (and friends) in that plot, and then when the reality
> >of Nicole's murder burst on the scene six months later, Simpson had
> >guilty knowledge of his earlier willingness to at least tolerate -- if
> >not cooperate -- in her murder six months earlier.
So, in your universe, possible evidence that Simpson was involved in
an earlier alledged plot to kill his wife is not probitive of anything
but his innocence.
What colour is the sky in your world, DICK?
> >
> > With this as a predicate, Simpson could easily have felt that he was
> >more responsible for the June murder than he actually was, and would be
> >more succeptible than you imagine to efforts to deny his hostility
> >toward Nicole. One expression of that denial would be to run and get
> >the incriminating glove. So, it is my belief that Simpson was already
> >primed to be hyper-defensive about responsibility for Nicole's murder
> >before the luring phone call came.
> >
> > "A RANDOM PERSON" You say, "We have no way to know for sure how he'd
> >[Simpson would] react, so I'm just basing that on the fact that it's
> >near certain that a randomly selected person would react that way [he
> >would have called the cops or ignored the luring call]." Of course,
> >Simpson was not a random person. If we are discussing the possibility
> >that this was a professional hit, then there was a lot of care and
> >preparation that went into the murder, and part of that preparation was
> >to put Simpson in a postition to not talk about his relationship with
> >the real killers, and to make him succeptible to the luring phone call.
> >(Incidentally, I think that the generating dispute that culminated in
> >Nicole's murder goes back to September or November of '93 -- nine months
> >earlier.)
So ow these killers work on the killing for nine months... and they
are willing to stake all on a phone call.
You are truly weird.
> >
> > AN EVOLVING UNDERSTANDING: You say, "I seem to remember you
> >trying to plug that hole with something about a threat to his kids or
> >something like that. (What kind of dad wouldn't dash up the stairs at
> >Bundy?!) Your story sounds like the plot from a 1930's cops and
> >robbers movie." (I'm sorry that the killers have not updated their
> >methods to satisfy your tastes, but I guess if it ain't broke, don't fix
> >it, eh?)
> >
> > True enough, John. My understanding has been evolving as I listen to
> >what thoughtful other people say. In the beginning I thought that an
> >unpaid drug debt was the motive, and now I do not -- I think that Nicole
> >caused Simipson to back out of an arrangement he had made with an
> >illegal sports betting ring. In the beginning I thought that Simpson
> >did not admit to being at Bundy because he had amnesia from the trauma
> >of seeing Nicole in that lake of blood -- now I think he has been
> >intimidated into lying. But these issues can be no more than guesses --
> >there is practically no evidence about this aspect.
Talk about the kids DICK. Wassamatter - a newfound aversion to talking
about KIDS? Wherefore this newfound delicacy, Kiddie Pimp TOUT?
All of this was over a gambling site? Do you know how much these
gambling sites make? Even if Simpson was touting for them 24/7 and got
all his golf buddies to bet, he would not approach even a small
percentage of the take for a worthwhile operation.
Yet you are saying that these pro killers would take the chance on a
murder and conspiracy rap for this?
> >
> > In the area where there is evidence -- the timeline, the details of how
> >the killings were accomplished, and the factors that tie Simpson to the
> >scene -- it is inescapable that Simpson was at the scene, but got there
> >about 20 minutes after the victims were dead. The speculative part is
> >in simply trying to explain a circumstance that could have led to that.
Answer about the kids, Dick.
> >
> > And, insofar as you don't know what pre-existing shady arrangements
> >Simpson might have been involved in, you can not rule that possiblity
> >out.
Yes, he can. Apply Occam's Razor, DICK.
> >
> > AN INFERENCE: You say, "We know he was armed with a knife when he got
> >there." I don't know that, and neither to you, John. You just infer
> >that because you believe he committed the murder.
> >
> > PLAYING THE ODDS: You also say, "I've heard the thing about them [the
> >killers] commandeering his [Simpson's] phones all night." You didn't
> >hear it from me, John. I think the killer's representative simply
> >dialed Simpson's number and he answered the phone. If he hadn't
> >answered, most of the objective would still be accomplished: Nicole
> >would be dead, and Simpson would be buried under an avanche of bad
> >publicity. (The tabloids would find the record of the 1989 beating, the
> >October '93 tape to 911 would surface, the cap and gloves would be
> >traced to him, NOW would get on his case... His career as a public good
> >guy would be finished.)
...and at best they would have no evidence besides a glove (quite
common) at the site. At worst they would have a blown cover from a
failed frame up.
Where is the payoff for all this work?
And here is where you go off the deep end and surge through the
undertow to fall down down down to the abyssal plain...
> >
> > The luring phone call was a long shot, John, to turn a good crime into
> >a perfect crime. Sometimes long shots pay off, and these professional
> >killers had sporting blood.
> >
> > --dick wagner
> >
> The luring phone call turned a good crime into a perfect crime? These
> professional killers had sporting blood? You are a riot Dick. You will
> go to any length to embarrass yourself spewing this complete and total
> bull crap. Funny, And you still haven't explained why your Simpson
> didn't rush upstairs to check on his kids. Come on, we are waiting with
> baited breath..
>
He won't. He's averse to discussing kids. Causes needless excitement
(his own, of a certain kind, and then the excited opprobrium of
others).
Anyone who posits meticulous professional killers who set up a frame
up but still leave a hole big enough to drive a Bronco through because
they want to gamble, is not worth any abatement or "baiting" of my
breath.
Let him fetch his own worms.
DFooK
missmarple8
> >and she didn't ask him to come to dinner.
> >
> >Am I getting close?
> >
> >Miss Marple
> >
> That ridiculous scenario does sound like something you would think makes
> sense. It's pretty stupid, but funny, as all your remarks are. The sweat
> suit that Kaelin saw Simpson wearing is most likely the same sweat suit
> he wore to Bundy. Kaelin did describe it with white around the zipper.
> That has never been confirmed one way or the other. It seems you still
> haven't grasped the fact that even thought the fibers were blue black,
> the sweat suit would appear to be black, not blue.
I still haven't seen the photograph of "the sweats in the washer",
from Furman's revised edition of his book. But could you tell me,
is there anything white in there, in the washer, like the white around
the zipper that Kaelin saw?
>
> Gigi's call did not trigger anything. It only gave Simpson opportunity.
> The opportunity to come and go without anyone witnessing his movements.
> If Gigi had returned like she had planned, Simpson would have had no
> opportunity to do what he did. Gigi would have known his movements that
> night.
>
> One of his kids ski caps? Where did you dream that one up? What makes
> you think Simpson wore the same socks that he wore the night before? You
> make things up Miss Marple and then ridicule them. I guess you even
> think your ideas are pretty stupid.
The ski cap; it is in the transcripts that the defence were trying to
get the cops to collect a similar ski cap found in the children's
room. They didn't.
The dress socks; were the socks that mr. Simpson wore to the tuxedo
event on Saturday night in the hamper or were they on the rug on that
Monday morning.
>
> Simpson did go to Kaelin's room, possibly to try and set up Kaelin as an
> alibi. Simpson may have never intended to go to McDonalds in the first
> place, only using it in conversation with Kaelin. Kaelin told how he
> invited himself along, and Simpson's reaction to that. So they did go to
> McDonalds. Kaelin assumed that they would take out food and return to
> Rockingham to eat it in Simpson's house. Simpson had other ideas. He
> hurriedly ate his in the car and then made no move to let Kaelin into
> his house. So Kaelin went back to his room to eat.
>
> The last time Kaelin saw Simpson, he was standing beside his Bentley. We
> do not know what he did after that. We do not know what Simpson's
> intentions were when he went to Bundy. You say he went there to kill
> Nicole. No one knows that. Maybe he went there to scare Nicole. Maybe he
> went there to teach her a lesson for humiliating him earlier that day.
> Maybe he went there to cut her tires. We do not know.
>
> What we do know is that Simpson did go to Bundy. And when he left Bundy,
> Ron and Nicole were dead.
>
> bobaugust
>
> --
John Junot
YOU KEEP LEAVING ***ME***OUT, YOU LOUSY BASTARD!
Bob August
The dress socks; were the socks that mr. Simpson wore to the tuxedo
event on Saturday night in the hamper or were they on the rug on that
Monday morning.
bobaugust
blp740
>>
>> By the way, I suppose you know that the cops, and specifically
>> Fuhrman, were well aware of the fact that Simpson could have an alibi
>> and a few thousand witnesses to support it.
No!, After going over four strong and pretending that they thought someone
might be hurt ir dead nside, yet never looking for the possible victims they
created their scenario.
Remember the Ross Cutlery Store and the knife? They had to revise the theory
once the defense produced the envelope at the preliminary hearing.
Once they charged him there was no turning back. Has anyone ever given thought
to who within LAPD kept leaking information to the press? The 911 tape and
allegations of a ski mask and disguise.
Someone on the inside had a vested interest in the outcome of the case. The
people who are so sure of Simpson's guilt dismissed any and all defense
witnesses. Those like myself dismissed most of what the prosecution's witnesses
had to say.
The NO-J's never allowed OJ to be human, it is impossible to do all of what
supposedly happened in one hour or less and maintain one's emotions to the
point of
behaving rational in the presence of others, period.
That rules out the dumb
>> idea that they adjusted the evidence to point his way. Your
>> alternative is ruled out because it has more holes than the Mustang
>> Ranch, so that leaves only Simpson as an evildoer here.
The testimony shows that adjustments were made, Dr. Weir admitted it in his
findings. According to the books of Clark and Fuhrman it appears that they were
at different scenes. You can't have it both ways.
The Civil Trial was a farce, kind of like 20/20 hindsight, they re-arranged and
twisted things their way. I think at that point OJ didn't take it serious
knowing that he had been vindicated in the trial that really mattered. The new
judge was certainly not on his side and his legal team was a big joke.
People who had previously sworn that they were giving truthful testimony in the
criminal trial suddenly had light bulb moments. Like Judge Lance Ito said " you
can't unring the bell".
>
>Your argument might succeed in convincing DICK, but it has one fatal
>flaw. It is reasonable and covers all the evidence with the simplest
>workable explanationand without needless complication. Ooops - that's
>two fatal flaws!
>
>Let me get back to you.
>
> DFooK
>
>
>
>
>
>
"The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it's open!"
blp
*opinions mine*
Bob August
blp740 wrote:
By the way, I suppose you know that the cops, and specifically
Fuhrman, were well aware of the fact that Simpson could have an alibi
and a few thousand witnesses to support it.
No!, After going over four strong and pretending that they thought someone
might be hurt ir dead nside, yet never looking for the possible victims they
created their scenario.
Remember the Ross Cutlery Store and the knife? They had to revise the theory
once the defense produced the envelope at the preliminary hearing.
Once they charged him there was no turning back. Has anyone ever given thought
to who within LAPD kept leaking information to the press? The 911 tape and
allegations of a ski mask and disguise.
Someone on the inside had a vested interest in the outcome of the case. The
people who are so sure of Simpson's guilt dismissed any and all defense
witnesses. Those like myself dismissed most of what the prosecution's witnesses
had to say.
The NO-J's never allowed OJ to be human, it is impossible to do all of what
supposedly happened in one hour or less and maintain one's emotions to the
point of
behaving rational in the presence of others, period.
That rules out the dumbidea that they adjusted the evidence to point his way. Your
alternative is ruled out because it has more holes than the Mustang
Ranch, so that leaves only Simpson as an evildoer here.
The testimony shows that adjustments were made, Dr. Weir admitted it in his
findings. According to the books of Clark and Fuhrman it appears that they were
at different scenes. You can't have it both ways.
The Civil Trial was a farce, kind of like 20/20 hindsight, they re-arranged and
twisted things their way. I think at that point OJ didn't take it serious
knowing that he had been vindicated in the trial that really mattered. The new
judge was certainly not on his side and his legal team was a big joke.
People who had previously sworn that they were giving truthful testimony in the
criminal trial suddenly had light bulb moments. Like Judge Lance Ito said " you
can't unring the bell".
What stupid remarks you make. Simpson didn't take it seriously, the judge was not on his side, and his legal team was a joke? That's funny Betty. Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer, to a certainty. That was no joke. And you bet, the plaintiff attorneys did use hind site to not make the same mistakes the prosecution made. There is absolutely no doubt our hero was the killer. And there is absolutely no doubt you are not capable of understanding that reality and truth.
bobaugust
John Griffin
> Bob August <boba...@lvcm.com> wrote
> > dick wagner wrote:
> >
> > >MISS MARPLE:
> > >
> > > After giving a near perfect recital of August's scenario, you ask, "Am
> > >I getting close?" Getting close? That's a wrap! Print it and put in
> > >the can!
> > >
> > > --dick wagner
> > >
> > A near perfect recital of my scenario? Wow. I guess you can't read
> > either. That figures. I guess brain dead people do think alike. Miss
> > Marple and Wagner. Quite a pair. Funny.
> >
> > bobaugust
>
> YOU KEEP LEAVING ***ME***OUT, YOU LOUSY BASTARD!
Okay, now you're in. As long as you're here, I'll tell you a couple
of the reasons why your name doesn't come up in this context. First,
compare your fantasy to Wagner's fantasy. His advantage over you is
that he can make Gus any way he wants or needs to fit his story.
You're stuck with the harmless doofus. Second, compare your story with
airhead marple's. You do halfassed experiments and write boring
misinterpretations of them, while she just runs on and on...babble
babble, etc. She wins with a perfect score in the Obsessively
Credulous category, partly because she wants to believe your goofy
rehydration story. Besides that, she's funnier than you are, but
mostly because she posts more. Can you do something funnier than her
attempt to understand what August told her? She knows she can't. She
was just pulling Wagner's leg.
I'll try to remember to mention you in the same sentence as those two.
Anyone else who wants to join in can just repeat the following to save
time:
Wagner: Gus did it
Junot: Kato Kaelin did it <pause>
Miss Marple: "They" did it.
(If you prefer a different sequence,
you can move the dumbest idea up or down.)
John Griffin
> >
> >>
> >> By the way, I suppose you know that the cops, and specifically
> >> Fuhrman, were well aware of the fact that Simpson could have an alibi
> >> and a few thousand witnesses to support it.
>
>
> No!, After going over four strong and pretending that they thought someone
> might be hurt ir dead nside, yet never looking for the possible victims they
> created their scenario.
Imagine the outcry if they hadn't gone in, and Simpson was in there
bleeding to death! They did need to check that out. No one answered
the door. The lights in the house indicated someone was there. Given
the proximity of the murders,i.e., the resident's ex-wife, and
considering the fact that her and his children needed to be taken care
of, they had to go in.
> Remember the Ross Cutlery Store and the knife? They had to revise the theory
> once the defense produced the envelope at the preliminary hearing.
I hate to remind you, but those things didn't happen that night.
> Once they charged him there was no turning back. Has anyone ever given thought
> to who within LAPD kept leaking information to the press? The 911 tape and
> allegations of a ski mask and disguise.
I hate to remind you, but if any of those things happened, it wasn't
that night.
> Someone on the inside had a vested interest in the outcome of the case. The
> people who are so sure of Simpson's guilt dismissed any and all defense
> witnesses. Those like myself dismissed most of what the prosecution's
> witnesses had to say.
rotmfflmmfao
Those like you have absolutely no idea of what they said.
> The NO-J's never allowed OJ to be human, it is impossible to do all of what
> supposedly happened in one hour or less and maintain one's emotions to the
> point of behaving rational in the presence of others, period.
That's one of the most idiotic of all the Simpson cult's contrivances.
In fact, I doubt that anyone has made up a more idiotic bit of
nonsense about any crime in the last eight years.
> That rules out the dumb
> >> idea that they adjusted the evidence to point his way. Your
> >> alternative is ruled out because it has more holes than the Mustang
> >> Ranch, so that leaves only Simpson as an evildoer here.
>
> The testimony shows that adjustments were made, Dr. Weir admitted it in his
> findings. According to the books of Clark and Fuhrman it appears that they
> were at different scenes. You can't have it both ways.
You're babbling. The above is incoherent, irrelevant horseshit.
> The Civil Trial was a farce, kind of like 20/20 hindsight, they re-arranged
> and twisted things their way. I think at that point OJ didn't take it serious
> knowing that he had been vindicated in the trial that really mattered. The new
> judge was certainly not on his side and his legal team was a big joke.
Can you actually feel yourself getting more stupid?
I know what you mean when you say the trial was a farce. Fujisaki's
"evidence only, no fucking wildassed, unsupported conjectures allowed"
rule, right? The evidence presented in the civil trial proved beyond
imaginary doubt that Simpson did the deed.
> People who had previously sworn that they were giving truthful
> testimony in the the criminal trial suddenly had light bulb moments. Like >Judge Lance Ito said " you can't unring the bell".
If you'll give some specifics of whatever the hell you're nattering
about, I'm sure someone will try to explain it to you. I'm alerting
the Dumbing Down Department to stand by and try to reduce it to your
level.
> >
> >Your argument might succeed in convincing DICK, but it has one fatal
> >flaw. It is reasonable and covers all the evidence with the simplest
> >workable explanationand without needless complication. Ooops - that's
> >two fatal flaws!
> >
> >Let me get back to you.
> >
> > DFooK
Hey, it aroused the harpy! That's some measure of success, isn't it?
< "There's a little man floating on a parachute in my head!"
> blp
> *opinions mine*
missmarple8
I guess not then. You you must think he changed sweatsuits again
after going to McDonalds?
> >
> >>Gigi's call did not trigger anything. It only gave Simpson opportunity.
> >>The opportunity to come and go without anyone witnessing his movements.
> >>If Gigi had returned like she had planned, Simpson would have had no
> >>opportunity to do what he did. Gigi would have known his movements that
> >>night.
> >>
> >>One of his kids ski caps? Where did you dream that one up? What makes
> >>you think Simpson wore the same socks that he wore the night before? You
> >>make things up Miss Marple and then ridicule them. I guess you even
> >>think your ideas are pretty stupid.
> >>
> >
> >The ski cap; it is in the transcripts that the defence were trying to
> >get the cops to collect a similar ski cap found in the children's
> >room. They didn't.
> >
> So what if there was a kids knit hat at Bundy. That doesn't change the
> fact that Simpson's adult hat, possibly from the movie "Frogman," had
> Simpson's hair in it.
It had lots of hairs in it and on it. There were even two reddish
brown caucacian hairs.
>
> >
> >
> >The dress socks; were the socks that mr. Simpson wore to the tuxedo
> >event on Saturday night in the hamper or were they on the rug on that
> >Monday morning.
> >
> So you think these were the same socks Simpson wore Saturday night?.
> Normal people usually wear socks only once before they wash them. I am
> sure Simpson had no shortage of dark colored socks to wear. He didn't
> have to wear dirty socks. But that is funny. Where were you born?
That's exactly my point, and the reason why I was wondering if the
socks he wore to the gala dinner Saturday night were in the hamper.
Or if they somehow ended up on the rug.
>
> bobaugust
>
> >
> >>Simpson did go to Kaelin's room, possibly to try and set up Kaelin as an
> >>alibi. Simpson may have never intended to go to McDonalds in the first
> >>place, only using it in conversation with Kaelin. Kaelin told how he
> >>invited himself along, and Simpson's reaction to that. So they did go to
> >>McDonalds. Kaelin assumed that they would take out food and return to
> >>Rockingham to eat it in Simpson's house. Simpson had other ideas. He
> >>hurriedly ate his in the car and then made no move to let Kaelin into
> >>his house. So Kaelin went back to his room to eat.
> >>
> >>The last time Kaelin saw Simpson, he was standing beside his Bentley. We
> >>do not know what he did after that. We do not know what Simpson's
> >>intentions were when he went to Bundy. You say he went there to kill
> >>Nicole. No one knows that. Maybe he went there to scare Nicole. Maybe he
> >>went there to teach her a lesson for humiliating him earlier that day.
> >>Maybe he went there to cut her tires. We do not know.
> >>
> >>What we do know is that Simpson did go to Bundy. And when he left Bundy,
> >>Ron and Nicole were dead.
> >>
> >>bobaugust
> >>
> >>--
> >>
>
>
> --
Ragnar
> A SIMPLE BUT IMPORTANT QUESTION:
>
> I would guess that OJ wore sneakers and dress socks with his sweat suit when
> he and Kato went to McDonalds. Why would he change into bruno magli shoes to
> wear with his sweats when he hurried to Bundy???????????
OJ most likely wore the Bruno Maglis and dress socks to the recital
and then to McDonald's, and then to Bundy. There is no corroboration
for his claim that he wore the Reeboks.
Ragnar
Bob August
The dress socks; were the socks that mr. Simpson wore to the tuxedo
event on Saturday night in the hamper or were they on the rug on that
Monday morning.So you think these were the same socks Simpson wore Saturday night?.
Normal people usually wear socks only once before they wash them. I am
sure Simpson had no shortage of dark colored socks to wear. He didn't
have to wear dirty socks. But that is funny. Where were you born?
That's exactly my point, and the reason why I was wondering if the
socks he wore to the gala dinner Saturday night were in the hamper.
Or if they somehow ended up on the rug.
bobaugust
missmarple8
Were the black dress socks that Mr. Simpson wore to the gala on
Saturday night in the hamper?
Miss Marple
>
> --
Bob August
bobaugust
missmarple8
Would it bother you if they weren't?
Miss Marple
>
> --
Bob August
bobaugust
John Junot
[snip]
> I'll try to remember to mention you in the same sentence as those two.
> Anyone else who wants to join in can just repeat the following to save
> time:
>
> Wagner: Gus did it
> Junot: Kato Kaelin did it <pause>
> Miss Marple: "They" did it.
>
> (If you prefer a different sequence,
> you can move the dumbest idea up or down.)
that's easy, Griffie:
1. OJ did it. Right after the murders, he stopped five times and
leaned over and bled drops, moving his hand from his left, to his
middle, then the right side of his body. he also conducted a magic
spell to remove most of the DNA from the blood as he did so. He used
this magic again to make the cut on his left hand stop and start in
such a priecise way that it looked like he bled at a steady rate from
Rockingham to his front door, but stopped when he went down the south
path and back. Then he went next door to the Salingers and waded
through a patch of ivy without leaving any sign of going through it,
ran past Rosa Lopez's bedroom windown, and finally pushed his 6foot+,
250 pound + body into space three or four inches wide and covered with
thick foliage, and over a chain link fence topped with sharp edges,
without leaving a single sign in terms of torn flesh, blood, fiber, or
torn, broken or bent vegetation.
Then, in spite of all this remarkable acrobatic skill, he nevertheless
loses his balance and falls against Kaelin's wall. Assuming that
Kaelin may not have heard him coming back from committing two murders,
OJ then rams his body twice more in Kaelin's wall, just to make damn
sure Kaelin heard him.
Not being able to see in the dark, apparently from being dazed by his
crashes into kaelin's wall, he then drops a bloody glove without
seeing it.
However, he quickly regains his ability to see in the dark while
running to the front of the path, for he bothers to take the time to
stop, turn around, and close a gate at the west end of the guest house
-- in the pitch dark.
Doing that apparently made OJ feel so good that he rushes past two
doors that will get him back into his house, so that he can close
ANOTHER gate in the pitch dark; this one feeling even better to close
because it reuires lifting and carrying and balancing it on broken
hinges.
he then showers and changes clothes in less than five minutes,
interacts with Kalein and Park, looking compeltely normal, and goes to
the aqirport.
At the airport, just before leaving, he forgets that he's committed
murders, lzeft evidence in his house, and rammed against Kaelin's
wall, and figures that maybe he should have his burglar alarm turned
on in case Kaelin heard a prowler, so he phones K. and gives him his
alarm code and asks him to turn on the alarm. Knowing how
intellignet, trustworthy, predicatable and honest Kaelin is, OJ just
knows he won't go in the house for any other reason and accidentally
stumble the bloody sweats, shoes, and knife.
OOPS! Small mistake there! After all this, OJ suddenly regains his
memory that HE was the cause of thumps and that he has to call someone
to be an accomplice and this acccomplice must also know the alarm
code, because Kaelin just turned it on! Either at LAX or O'Hare, from
a pay phone (otherwise there would have been a phone record of the
call), OJ calls Arnelle and says, "Dear, sweet, loyal daughter, I need
you to drop what you're doing in the middle of the night with friends
on a date and go back home and clean up some bloody items I left
there. There's a pair of funky Italian shoes, some sweats, and a
knife. Go put them where the police can never find them, will you,
sweetheart? And, oh yes, just a few other thinggs. Be sure to
launder the seatsuit before you get rid of it; after all, we wouldn't
want people to think we're lazy and shiftless, and be careful to turn
off the burglar alarm; I just gave Kaelin the code and told him to
turn it on."
And Arnelle says, "Sure, Pops! Anything for my good old Dad!" then
she turns to her friend(s) at about midnight or later on a sunday
night date and says, "Sorry guys, I gotta go!"
And, finally, Kaelin, who has a lot of trouble sleeping that night,
and who hears the phones ringing in the main house, and Arnelle's
footsteps when she finally goes back to her room, nevertheless manages
to sleep through the noise of the washing machine.
2. All the other theories. The no-j theory of
Clark/Petrocelli/August is so far ahead of the pack in terms of
dumbness that all the rest aren't even in sight!
Bob August
Thank you for putting me along with Petrocelli and Clark. Even though Clark got some of the details wrong, she got most of it right. You John, on the other hand, are on par with the likes of Prien and Jean, The dumb club who can not even understand that the facts you all rely on are incorrect. Even after you have been corrected. Dumb. But funny.
bobaugust
John Griffin
> theonetru...@hotmail.com (John Griffin) wrote
>
>
> > I'll try to remember to mention you in the same sentence as those two.
> > Anyone else who wants to join in can just repeat the following to save
> > time:
> >
> > Wagner: Gus did it
> > Junot: Kato Kaelin did it <pause>
> > Miss Marple: "They" did it.
> >
> > (If you prefer a different sequence,
> > you can move the dumbest idea up or down.)
>
>
> that's easy, Griffie:
>
> 1. OJ did it. Right after the murders, he stopped five times and
> leaned over and bled drops, moving his hand from his left, to his
> middle, then the right side of his body.
You should have saved that for last. Anyone who reads this will say
"Holy SHIT! This fucking idiot swallowed that amazingly stupid idea
that the blood was 'planted' after the first cops on the scene
observed it!" Having displayed such colossal ignorance and
manipulability, you can't expect people to read further for any reason
other than comic relief.
> he also conducted a magic
> spell to remove most of the DNA from the blood as he did so.
Bacteria and other little critters that live on concrete walkways
aren't magic. I can understand why they'd seem that way to you.
Maybe you should have saved that one for last. It's seriously stupid.
> He used
> this magic again to make the cut on his left hand stop and start in
> such a priecise way that it looked like he bled at a steady rate from
> Rockingham to his front door, but stopped when he went down the south
> path and back. Then he went next door to the Salingers and waded
> through a patch of ivy without leaving any sign of going through it,
> ran past Rosa Lopez's bedroom windown, and finally pushed his 6foot+,
> 250 pound + body into space three or four inches wide and covered with
> thick foliage, and over a chain link fence topped with sharp edges,
> without leaving a single sign in terms of torn flesh, blood, fiber, or
> torn, broken or bent vegetation.
Again, I can see why commonplace things seem like magic to you. Lots
of things looked that way to me when I was three years old.
> Then, in spite of all this remarkable acrobatic skill, he nevertheless
> loses his balance and falls against Kaelin's wall. Assuming that
> Kaelin may not have heard him coming back from committing two murders,
> OJ then rams his body twice more in Kaelin's wall, just to make damn
> sure Kaelin heard him.
Fool. That was funny. First, his shoulder hit, disturbing the
picture inside. (He didn't weigh 250 pounds, but the 215 or whatever
was enough to do that.) Second, his knee hit the wall, making a loud,
dull thump. Third, the bag he was carrying with the shoes in it hit,
making a sharper sounding impact. (Since I'm replying to John Junot,
I don't have to dwell on the "shoes in the bag" conjecture. He
wouldn't understand it anyway, and without any basis, it's still way
ahead of anything he has ever said.)
From your chair in front of your computer, it might be hard to imagine
going through the vegetation and over the fence. If you had just
killed someone, you'd find it easy, if that was the path you felt you
needed to take. The idea that he would have trouble getting through
there is food for cretins' thoughts only.
> Not being able to see in the dark, apparently from being dazed by his
> crashes into kaelin's wall, he then drops a bloody glove without
> seeing it.
News flash: He never could see in the dark. He still can't. The
dark obscures his vision just as light, dark, hot, cold, wet, dry,
etc. obscure your thoughts.
> However, he quickly regains his ability to see in the dark while
> running to the front of the path, for he bothers to take the time to
> stop, turn around, and close a gate at the west end of the guest house
> -- in the pitch dark.
I could do that. Anyone could do that, except maybe you and prien,
especially if they knew exactly where the gate was located.
> Doing that apparently made OJ feel so good that he rushes past two
> doors that will get him back into his house, so that he can close
> ANOTHER gate in the pitch dark; this one feeling even better to close
> because it reuires lifting and carrying and balancing it on broken
> hinges.
rotfl. Where did you get those dumb ideas?
> he then showers and changes clothes in less than five minutes,
> interacts with Kalein and Park, looking compeltely normal, and goes to
> the aqirport.
True.
> At the airport, just before leaving, he forgets that he's committed
> murders, lzeft evidence in his house, and rammed against Kaelin's
> wall, and figures that maybe he should have his burglar alarm turned
> on in case Kaelin heard a prowler, so he phones K. and gives him his
> alarm code and asks him to turn on the alarm. Knowing how
> intellignet, trustworthy, predicatable and honest Kaelin is, OJ just
> knows he won't go in the house for any other reason and accidentally
> stumble the bloody sweats, shoes, and knife.
Is that supposed to be some kind of "analysis" of the murderer's
thoughts and actions?!
> OOPS! Small mistake there! After all this, OJ suddenly regains his
> memory that HE was the cause of thumps and that he has to call someone
> to be an accomplice and this acccomplice must also know the alarm
> code, because Kaelin just turned it on! Either at LAX or O'Hare, from
> a pay phone (otherwise there would have been a phone record of the
> call), OJ calls Arnelle and says, "Dear, sweet, loyal daughter, I need
> you to drop what you're doing in the middle of the night with friends
> on a date and go back home and clean up some bloody items I left
> there. There's a pair of funky Italian shoes, some sweats, and a
> knife. Go put them where the police can never find them, will you,
> sweetheart? And, oh yes, just a few other thinggs. Be sure to
> launder the seatsuit before you get rid of it; after all, we wouldn't
> want people to think we're lazy and shiftless, and be careful to turn
> off the burglar alarm; I just gave Kaelin the code and told him to
> turn it on."
>
> And Arnelle says, "Sure, Pops! Anything for my good old Dad!" then
> she turns to her friend(s) at about midnight or later on a sunday
> night date and says, "Sorry guys, I gotta go!"
Damn, something lodged in your babble switch there and you had a hell
of a time turning off.
> And, finally, Kaelin, who has a lot of trouble sleeping that night,
> and who hears the phones ringing in the main house, and Arnelle's
> footsteps when she finally goes back to her room, nevertheless manages
> to sleep through the noise of the washing machine.
I would too, when I finally got to sleep after all that commotion.
Anyway, describe the noise of the washing machine. I haven't heard
anything to indicate that it would be loud enough to disturb even
meek, mild-mannered Kato.
> 2. All the other theories. The no-j theory of
> Clark/Petrocelli/August is so far ahead of the pack in terms of
> dumbness that all the rest aren't even in sight!
"Kato did it" is not merely unsurpassed on that scale, it's
unsurpassable. Even "Ron Goldman did it" wouldn't be that dumb. Can
anyone think of a dumber idea?
"Kato, the Criminal Mastermind."
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<choke>
My sides hurt.
John Junot
[snip]
The only dumb person here, John, is you. You have showed us all how
you
> not only like to use incorrect facts and misinformation, but even when
> all of you mistakes are pointed out to you, you simply ignore the real
> facts and proceed with your idiotic misunderstanding of what happened.
>
> Thank you for putting me along with Petrocelli and Clark. Even though
> Clark got some of the details wrong, she got most of it right. You John,
> on the other hand, are on par with the likes of Prien and Jean, The
> dumb club who can not even understand that the facts you all rely on are
> incorrect. Even after you have been corrected. Dumb. But funny.
>
> bobaugust
Readers:
Please note that Mr. Bob "I am God" August did not bother to refute a
single one of my criticisms or observations about his theory, but
simply said "You are dumb" and then made all kinds of totally
unspported (one of his favorite words) allegations about me.
Just where are my "incorrect facts and misinformation", BA?
>
> --