It's still the impossible trip home
Prien
trip home. Rather than separately addressing each of their various objections,
here is my response to what those objections add up to.
First, since Risch obviously has some unspecified problems with the points made
in my posting about the impossible trip home by the Browns, perhaps he can make
some real contribution to clarifying some issues involving this case by showing
how the NoJ's can plant their evidence mountain on the solid foundation of his
hallucinations about the evidence in this case. Such as, for example, his
illusion of the window to be found above the door on Simpson's garage. Or the
obvious illusions he must harbor about how the victims were murdered since he
recently had to plead for someone to explain the medical findings in the
autopsy report. Or perhaps...oh, what's the use. That's about all his
objections amounted to, and they merit no further response.
The NoJ's and their indestructible, unassailable, and incontestable evidence
heap always turn into formless, quivering blubber the instant any of it is
subjected to an honest and thorough analysis that takes into account all the
relevant and available evidence rather than only the individual bits and pieces
they want to look at in complete isolation and then raise to the level of the
whole truth and only truth that matters.
Yes folks, its possible to assert that Juditha made a phone call at 9:37 p.m.
on some night. It's also possible to produce a piece of paper allegedly
generated by a computer that purportedly reflected the making of that call.
There is, however, a context to this call. It begins when the Browns left that
afternoon to drive up to LA for the recital, continues through the time they
spent at the recital, the earliest they could have left the recital to get to
the restaurant, the earliest they could then have arrived at the restaurant to
have dinner, the time it took them to finish, and the earliest they could then
have started on their 74 mile trip home. And it was an about 74 mile trip
(According to Toobin, Arnelle told Lange the Browns lived about 75 miles away;
according to map readings, the distance from the Mezzaluna to Dana Point is
68.5 miles counting the mileage shown on the map pllus 5.5 miles scaled from
the map for a total distance of 74 miles). Once all these elements are taken
into account, it is not possible for the Browns to complete the trip in time
for Juditha to be making her 9:37 p.m. call to the Mezzaluna, even assuming
they left as early as alleged by the Mezzaluna employees. It is absurd even to
imagine they could have made the trip if they left at the later times that
Mezzaluna employees also gave as their possible departure time.
Second, along comes Wagner with his list of witnesses to show how much
testimonial evidence was generated to establish the Browns left at 8:30 p.m. to
substantiate a time frame for the Mezzaluna portion of the Brown itinerary that
purportedly made it seem plausible for the Browns to have made the trip in time
to enable Juditha to make her 9:37 p.m. call to the Mezzaluna. The most
interesting thing about his witnesses list is not those who are on it to
establish the Mezzaluna time frame, but the two glaring omissions of persons
who provided testimony at the criminal trial and directly participated in all
the relevant activities involving the Browns that afternoon and evening up to
the time of Juditha's calls about the glasses. These two witnesses would have
been in the best position to have had first had knowledge and experience of the
events that would have enabled them to provide complete and accurate testimony
about the time of all the activities involving the Browns during the relevant
time frame and to confirm the authenticity of the time line the prosecution
needed to make its case.
Anyone who carefully examines Wagner's list should instantly spot the critical
omissions. The missing witnesses are none other than Denise and Juditha Brown.
Is it possible that Wagner simply messed up and inadvertently left two such
critical witnesses off his list? Actually, Wagner did not mess up. You see,
Juditha and Denise were simply never asked about when they left the restaurant
or when they arrived home. Imagine that. The two witnesses in a position to
provide the best evidence on the issue of when they did certain things are not
even asked about them.
The Brown departure from the restaurant is only one of the most critical time
points in the entire time line for the events of that night to enable the
prosecution to establish authoritatively that, as they claimed, Juditha's call
triggered the events about the lost glasses at 9:37 p.m. What, however, does
the prosecution do to establish when that critical departure time was? They
rely on the Mezzaluna employees who could not possibly have kept close track of
the Brown movements at the restaurant that evening, and who could have only
roughly approximated, at best, when the Browns left. Those employees could
not, after all, have known that it was important to note the relevant times
because Nicole and Ron were going to be murdered, could they? The prosecution,
however, completely ignores having the two members of the dinner party tell
when they departed, the two witnesses who were most likely to have kept track
of the time when various events happened which would enable them to provide the
most accurate information about the times involved.
Here instead is all Darden was interested in when he questioned Denise about
the events at the Mezzaluna:
Q[by Darden]. "Did you have dinner?
A. "Yes, we did.
Q. "What did you do after dinner was over?
A. "We got up and -- We got up and we walked out, and Nicole was going to get
some ice cream with the kids. And we kissed each other good bye. The last
thing I told her was that I loved her.
"I'm sorry." [This is when Denise began bawling.]
That's all she had to say about the event that became the explanation for the
prosecution's claim that Goldman went to Bundy on an unplanned trip? Denise
participated in the event that purportedly became the prelude for at least one
of the murders, and she talks about it as though nothing had happened that fit
those events into the murders that flowed from it?
During her deposition on May 2, 1996 in the civil case, Denise Brown finally
was asked by Simpson's lawyer when the Browns had left the Mezzaluna to start
their return trip to their Monarch Bay home. Denise responded, "I think it was
around 9:00 o'clock, 8:30 -- 8:30." When asked a follow-up question if she
could be more specific about the time, she replied, "You know what, it was
closer to 8:30, because I told the kids to lay down and go to sleep in the
back. They had school the next day."
While she quickly backtracked, Denise initially blurted out a most revealing
answer - 9:00 o'clock. Only after momentarily considering it does she come up
with what was supposed to be the "right" answer - 8:30 p.m., which gives the
family the maximum available time to drive home, an answer she then reinforces
after a pause for emphasis. What makes her initial answer so revealing was
that their departure from the restaurant that night was directly linked to the
traumatic event that was to follow shortly thereafter. The last time Denise
saw Nicole was when they departed from the restaurant that night. The drama
surrounding that parting must have burned the time into her memory. It was the
event that even started one of her bawling spells at the trial. That departure
time could not possibly have been anything she would have to think about, and
the question about it wasn't raised unexpectedly since it was brought up amid
two questions related to their activities at the dinner.
The truthful answer must be the one she gave reflexively, which was her initial
answer of 9:00 p.m. That was, of course, before she quickly realized the
"correct" answer she was supposed to give. She promptly amends herself, and
repeated the correction as if to convince herself and her listeners. She is,
however, unable to fix the time more precisely when asked a follow-up question,
except to give an amusingly revealing explanation of why the amended time
should be considered correct. Naturally enough, she realized it must have been
the earlier departure time because it prompted her to tell the kids to go to
sleep in the back due to the apparent lateness of the hour. She may well have
done that, but it is something she would have been far more likely to have done
because of the later, rather than the earlier departure time.
During her civil trial deposition, Denise was also finally asked when the
family arrived home that night. She then gave the following answer: "8:30,
9:30, figure around 10:00 o'clock. No. 9:30, quarter to 10:00."
Now does anyone really imagine that their arrival time at home that night,
which plays such a pivotal role in the story, could, at the time of the
deposition on May 2, 1996, still have been like guessing the answer to a
multiple choice quiz? Is it really possible to imagine that she had never
before thought of it, or been asked by the police to fix the time of Juditha's
calls, especially when she and Darden must have laboriously gone over those
events to prepare for her testimony, replete with touching details like having
on the ear rings that Nicole wore on the night of the murders so Darden could
ask her about them? That having been asked about when they got home, she never
had concluded and then remembered when that was? That she would not have known
exactly how long the trip must have taken after the family had driven the same
route in the other direction about six hours before? When she had, in fact,
made that same trip to Brentwood and back numerous times to visit Nicole with
their parents and sister Dominique?
Denise actually comes up with four distinctly different times for when they
arrived home, one that she mentions twice. None of her guesses can possibly be
correct, however. It cannot be 8:30 since they had not even left the Mezzaluna
by then! How could she have even guessed that time? If it is 9:30, it means
they made the 74 mile trip in one hour, or drove it at an average speed of 74
miles per hour. While that feat might be easily accomplished on the open road
in Montana or Wyoming, it's hardly likely through the center of Los Angeles
during the early evening hours on a Sunday. If at 10:00, then the call to the
Mezzaluna must have been made after Goldman's 9:50 p.m. departure from the
restaurant, which would be before the glasses he took to Bundy had been found
(at least according to the prosecution's story). If at a quarter to ten, it is
after Juditha had made all her calls.
Denise's multiple answers and hesitations are undoubtedly the product of
uncertainty about what the "right" answer is because she is unsure about when
the calls were made, and she must, therefore, quickly calculate the correct
arrival time based on what she recalls to be the relevant time frame for the
events.
Yet all her answers are still wrong and make it impossible for Juditha to be
making her call at the stipulated time.
Juditha also remains deadly silent in her criminal trial stipulated testimony
about their departure or arrival times.
During the civil trial, Juditha was finally "kind of" asked about their
Mezzaluna departure by Kelly, "their" lawyer, during the following exchange:
Q. [By Kelly]Now, did you get in the car, then, and head down towards your
house?
A. Yes. I -- we looked for my glasses, still, I know, because I didn't have the
glasses in the restaurant. So we looked in the jeep and we didn't see them. And
it was 8:30 by that time and the children had to go to bed, so we said, well,
let's go; I'll call.
Q. And did you get in the car and head down to Orange County?
A. We drove home.
As touching and illuminating as her answers are about how she lost and looked
for the glasses, they are actually unresponsive to the questions. Note,
therefore, that without having been directly asked about when any of various
departure time activities she describes happened, she simply blurts out that
she noted it was 8:30 at some unspecified point during the events she
describes (except to relate it to their having looked for the glasses in the
jeep). How is that for firmly pinning down when anything happened. Cleverly,
however, Kelly did not ask, nor did Juditha bring up, when they eventually
arrived at home, which would have pinned her down to a specific time interval
for making the trip. She therefore gives a time for the drive home that
relates to only one of the two end points of the trip, leaving the time frame
for the entire trip completely open-ended.
This is another shop worn trick for lying with the truth. Omit half the answer
when the truthfulness of any part of the answer can be tested only by knowing
the whole answer. It should, of course, be obvious that since a trip involves
a closed-end time frame, the truthfulness about whether the Browns could
complete the trip within any alleged time related to the trip can be tested
only if they specify the time at each end of the trip. By testifying only
about their approximate departure time, Juditha avoids pinning herself down to
a fixed time interval for the entire trip home that would instantly have shown
whether the alleged time frame that made it possible for her to call was, in
fact, plausible based on her experiences of having made that trip numerous
times. By studiously avoiding having their key witness on this point pin down
a fixed time frame for making the trip, the plaintiff attorneys confess they
are incapable of providing a time frame that makes the Brown trip possible in
time for Juditha to be calling the Mezzaluna at 9:37 p.m.
Third, Marla chipped in with her comments purportedly proving how easily the
Browns could have made the drive in time for Juditha to make the call by
claiming she has made the drip from Brentwood to Dana point in 1 hour and ten
minutes.
Marla may thereby have imagined she proved the impossible happened. She, of
course, proved the exact opposite.
For starters, she strikes out with her 70 minute time frame for making the
trip. The Browns, at most, had 67 minutes. Next, were her claim true, she has
declared and branded the two lead detectives, Lange and Vannatter, as liars for
claiming that the Browns lived a minimum of 90 minutes from Brentwood. Now the
lead detectives had to have based their estimates on personal experience from
making the trip themselves on June 22, 1994 (L and V, p. 208) and with Clark on
December 18, 1994 (Clark, p. 236). Since Marla has bested what they claim is a
minimum time by 20 minutes, she has definitely succeeded in shattering their
credibility about anything else they could have said about this case. Thank
you Marla for thereby flushing almost all of the prosecution's evidence and
their entire case down the toilet.
But of course, the Browns did not have 70 minutes to make the trip. They did
not even have 67 minutes to make the trip. They actually had less than one
hour, if any of the Mezzaluna employee testimony is to be given the slightest
credence. The reason is obvious and simple. The Mezzaluna employees all
testified to when they saw the Browns leave. Since the employees were all
working inside the restaurant when they witnessed that departure, but the
Browns left from somewhere outside the restaurant, the employees could not
possibly have seen when the Browns actually started on their way home. Whatever
they saw and when had to be events occurring inside the restaurant. The Brown
departure from the restaurant at 8:30 p.m. cannot, therefore be the time when
they started their return journey, which must have happened some time after
that.
By the same token, the time of Juditha's call is not the time the Browns ended
their trip home, but when Juditha's line was connected to the Mezzaluna
telephone after she initiated the call. This event would have occurred
sometime after they had gotten home from the trip.
The 67 minute time span between their restaurant departure time and the time of
the call does not represent the two end points of the time interval available
for the Browns to make the trip. Several minutes must, instead be subtracted
from the time at each end of the trip for activities that had to occur before
they actually started out and after they actually arrived home. How much would
have to be chopped from the 67 minute absolute time interval within which the
Browns have to fit their trip home?
At the departure end, they have to walk out of the restaurant, the dinner party
splits apart and says its good byes as the party of six (4 adults, 2 children)
head for Dana point, and the party of 4 (1 adult -- Nicole -- and her party of
three children) first head for Ben and Jerry's and then to Bundy; the Browns
then have to walk to, or a valet brings them, their car; they have to load up
(and first look for the glasses if Juditha is to be believed); and then start
out. Elapsed time for these activities is not one New York microsecond less
than 5 minutes, but most likely 10 minutes.
At the other end, the Browns have to unload the Jeep; say their good byes to
Dominique and her son who apparently were going on to her place; get into the
house; Juditha has run to the phone, look up the number for the restaurant,
which would involve a long distance information call (unless she had the number
written on her wrist or otherwise had the number handy for which there is not
a shred of evidence), and then dial the number. Elapsed time for all this is
again not one New York microsecond less than 5 minutes, but 10 is again more
likely.
That means at least 10, but most likely 20 minutes have to be chopped from the
67 time interval that has as its end points the longer time span from their
departure from the restaurant to then making of the call, leaving the Browns
not a New York microsecond longer than 57 minutes to make their trip. In
reality, however, 47 minutes is the more likely actual time they have for
making the drive based on the state of the prosecution's evidence and
testimony..
So even if it took Marla only 70 minutes to make the trip from "Brentwood to
Dana Point," she thereby proves the Browns could not possibly have done it in
the 57 minutes they actually had for driving time. That absolutely maximum 57
minutes available for making the trip must have been the foundation for Denise
guessing they arrived home at 9:30 p.m., which allowed them one hour for the
drive. But she promptly corrected that to the later, quarter to ten, arrival
time, knowing full well from long experience that it's impossible to complete
the trip within an hour.
The fact that the criminal trial testimony established time points for the
Brown movements that gave the Browns an absurdly short time to make the drive
points to why the the plaintiff lawyers tried in the civil trial to fudge the
time frame by having Juditha blurt out that at 8:30 they were already outside,
rather than still INSIDE the restaurant and about to start their trip home
rather than the time they left the restaurant. The plaintiffs thereby tried to
create evidence that made the trip scenario slightly more plausible that the
criminal trial testimony allowed.
That one hour is the time Petrocelli claims in his book was the time they had
established at the trial as the time it took the Browns to make the drive from
the Mezzaluna to Dana Point. The claim is nonsense because they established
nothing to fix the closed-end interval within which the Browns made the drive
home.
Finally, we reach the credibility killing revelation about Juditha's call that
totally demolishes any shred of authenticity that the story of the glasses ever
had.
That revelation came during her deposition when by her description of the
events she indicated that although the loss of the glasses must have been
uppermost in Juditha's mind if she rushed into the house immediately upon their
arrival even to have a chance to make her call to the Mezzaluna by 9:37 p.m.,
according to Denise, the family did not discuss the loss of the glasses during
the trip home nor what Juditha would do to locate them after they had come
home.
That the loss of the glasses was allegedly uppermost in Juditha's mind after
they left the restaurant is established by Juditha's assertion when she
testified on December 6, 1996 at the civil trial that: "And on the way home, a
terrible depression came over me, something I have never experienced. My whole
body got really heavy. And I haven't had it before and I haven't had it
afterwards. It was -- it was a whole feeling.
And as we arrived at home, I shook myself, and I thought, "God, I have to buy a
pair of new glasses again." And I went on the phone and I called Mezzaluna.
Pretty upsetting stuff, this loss of the glasses. But luckily for Juditha, of
course, the lost glasses were promptly found. The huge burden she had felt,
this horrible feeling that overcame her, must then have been completely
dissipated by the wonderful news she learned after talking to Crawford. And
what does Juditha do next?
According to Denise, she apparently did nothing at all. Kept the wonderful
news a total secret as Denise also affirmed she was not aware of, and her
mother did not tell her on the evening of June 12, that she had called Nicole
or the restaurant about the glasses, or that the glasses had been found.
Denise, instead, claims she just put her son to bed and went to sleep. Denise,
therefore, claims she does not even have a direct present recollection of the
calls having been made, much less the time of the calls, that the glasses were
found or whatever arrangements had been made for their return.
Denise's revelations about her present knowledge of the critical times relating
to the story of the glasses establishes as a certainty that:
Denise's lack of direct, present knowledge of the calls explains her
uncertainty about picking the Monarch Bay arrival time that would be "right"
for when the calls were made. Without direct knowledge of the events, she
obviously would have a hard time fitting them into the real time for events
that she was aware of and that also had to be fitted into the prosecution's
time line. How easy it is to be tripped up by details when the truth not be
told.
Denise's lack of present knowledge that the glasses had been found means
Juditha could not possibly have discussed that subject that night with anyone.
Keep in mind that Juditha claims the loss had upset her for the entire return
drive and that she went straight to the phone to make her call; that within
two, at most three minutes of calling, she learns the lost glasses are found;
and she makes a quick call to Nicole to arrange for their return. AND SHE
TELLS NOBODY THE GOOD NEWS THAT THE PROBLEM THAT HAD BEEN GENERATING THIS
TERRIBLE DEPRESSION DURING THE ENTIRE DRIVE HOME HAD BEEN MIRACULOUSLY SOLVED!
If the tale of the lost glasses had the tiniest foothold in reality, the VERY
FIRST thing that Juditha, or anyone else, would have done on learning that her
precious LOST glasses HAD BEEN FOUND is immediately to tell everyone the good
news that suddenly liberated her from her terrible depression.
If this story were real, there is simply no way that Juditha would have kept it
a secret that her glasses had been found. Since Juditha must have learned the
news that the glasses had been found while everyone was still up and around
after just getting home, it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR DENISE NOT TO HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT
WHEN IT HAPPENED IF THIS EVENT EVER ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
That Denise claims she did not know the glasses had been found IMMEDIATELY
AFTER Juditha first learned of it within minutes after getting into the house
upon the family's return home is absolutely certain proof the event NEVER
HAPPENED as it HAS BEEN CLAIMED to account for Goldman's innocent and
accidental appearance at the Bundy murder scene.
Is there anyone with any active brain cells who now still has the slightest
trouble figuring out why the prosecution failed to produce any physical
evidence that linked the envelope to the people who purportedly handled it? Or
that the two lenses had been removed from the frame? That one of the lenses
had been missing? That the lens that was left and apparently never been tested
to confirm that its prescription matched one that had been prescribed for
Juditha?
This is just one example of how quickly the proverbial mountain of evidence
against Simpson simply melts away as soon as the spotlight of truth is shined
upon it.
confused
>A number of NoJs sought strenuously to refute my posting about the impossible
>trip home. Rather than separately addressing each of their various objections,
>here is my response to what those objections add up to.
Yawn! <plonk>
Marlalinde
>From: pr...@aol.com (Prien)
>Date: Sun, 22 August 1999 08:11 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990822201136...@ng-cm1.aol.com>
Prien writes: (forever..............)
blahblahblahblahblah......................................................
......
blahblahblahblahblah............................
more blahblahblah..............
No this is an example of how Dick Wagner can write.. and you my
friend....well....don't give up your day job!!
As far as my discrediting the Brown's testimony......Bwahahahahahahhaahha!!!
Marla
"One day OJ will kill me. And he'll get away with it..."
Nicole Brown Simpson
NKC
>pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>
>>A number of NoJs sought strenuously to refute my posting about the impossible
>>trip home. Rather than separately addressing each of their various objections,
>>here is my response to what those objections add up to.
>
>Yawn! <plonk>
Yes, No-J's: Shut down Prien's report. Delete it immediately. Yawn.
Stretch.
Better just hit the sack. This kind of shit is way too disturbing.
And besides, you have no challenges. There is not a single time line
that works: not the killing time, not Ron Goldman's time. It's all
falling apart for you guys.
Sooo ... sleep, deeply, and for as long as you can...
It's when you wake up that you'll have the horrible nightmare: your
5-year campaign to convict an innocent and acquitted Black man
crumbles before your eyes.
5 years of manipulating information, of propagandizing, of
racializing, of character assassinating, of aligning yourselves with
the lowest forms of humanity. All because you wanted OJSimpson to be
guilty!
Good night.
>
>
confused
>On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 00:31:09 GMT, mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:
>
>>pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>>
>>>A number of NoJs sought strenuously to refute my posting about the impossible
>>>trip home. Rather than separately addressing each of their various objections,
>>>here is my response to what those objections add up to.
>>
>>Yawn! <plonk>
>
>Yes, No-J's: Shut down Prien's report. Delete it immediately.
Nope. Just ignore it. Give it the value it deserves.
>Yawn. Stretch. Better just hit the sack.
>This kind of shit is way too disturbing.
Gee, I wonder if I should reverse this on you. I would if I knew
you'd have to read it. If I or anyone here played the same game on
what simpson claimed, you'd be screaming "burden". Every claim Prein
makes has evidence to show that his "take" is wrong. But since he
chooses to ignore it, you do also. If you cared about the evidence,
you'd be critical of priens' approach. Since you aren't critical,
then you don't care about the evidence, just his conclusion. How
shallow!
>And besides, you have no challenges.
To what? His picking and choosing how he chooses to understand the
data. I got tired of this crap when schreck used to do it. Why
should I play with a babblative amateur?
>There is not a single time line
>that works: not the killing time, not Ron Goldman's time.
So that means that they didn't die?
Yet it took five years for one fool to find it? 124 books, 34
lawyers, dozens of investigators, thousands of pro-js posting here
all missed this evidence. You may believe what he spews is honey.
But if you'd consider how he gets where he wishes, rather than where
he arrives, you'd see that it comes from the other end.
>It's all falling apart for you guys.
The fact the you are reduced to this nitpicking shows the opposite.
>It's when you wake up that you'll have the horrible nightmare: your
>5-year campaign to convict an innocent and acquitted Black man
>crumbles before your eyes.
There is that race thing again. May I understand it to mean that if
simpson weren't black, you wouldn't be here?
> 5 years of manipulating information, of propagandizing, of
>racializing, of character assassinating, of aligning yourselves with
>the lowest forms of humanity.
Only those that support murderers qualify for that.
>All because you wanted OJSimpson to be guilty!
Nope, It is because I want the murderer of NBS and RLG to be
punished.
Robert H. Risch
>First, since Risch obviously has some unspecified problems with the points made
>in my posting about the impossible trip home by the Browns, perhaps he can make
>some real contribution to clarifying some issues involving this case by showing
>how the NoJ's can plant their evidence mountain on the solid foundation of his
>hallucinations about the evidence in this case. Such as, for example, his
>illusion of the window to be found above the door on Simpson's garage. Or the
>obvious illusions he must harbor about how the victims were murdered since he
>recently had to plead for someone to explain the medical findings in the
>autopsy report. Or perhaps...oh, what's the use. That's about all his
>objections amounted to, and they merit no further response.
What doesn't hold up to analysis is the logic of the above paragraph. It
is:
1. Risch doesn't seem to think much of Prien's posting about the Brown's
trip home.
2. Risch has made some mistakes and confessed ignorance of some of the
facts and evidence in the Simpson case like a gable window on the front of
the Rockingham garage and some confusing parts of the autopsy report.
3. The mountain of evidence against OJ is claimed to be based on the stuff
in 2. that Risch was shaky on.
4. Thus Risch's skepticism about the correctness of Priens's conclusions
can't be justified.
I'll leave it to those who have taken Logic 101 to find the flaws in the
above reasoning.
Robert R.
Libraryboy
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
> 5 years of manipulating information, of propagandizing, of
>racializing, of character assassinating, of aligning yourselves with
>the lowest forms of humanity.
Certainly I would think that someone who posts on the Internet that
"THERE'S NO SUCH ANIMAL AS A GOOD JEW" would fall into *that* category.
Are you "aligned" with anyone like that?
Jon Beaver
Prien wrote in message <19990822201136...@ng-cm1.aol.com>...
>The NoJ's and their indestructible, unassailable, and incontestable evidence
>heap always turn into formless, quivering blubber the instant any of it is
>subjected to an honest and thorough analysis that takes into account all the
>relevant and available evidence rather than only the individual bits and pieces
>they want to look at in complete isolation and then raise to the level of the
>whole truth and only truth that matters.
>
There's the story about George Washington and the cherry tree.
It's not true, but who cares? It's part of our mythology about honesty.
Santa Clause is just a symbol for charity. Then there's that story
about O. J. Simpson and how he killed his wife and got away with
it and that shows what's wrong with the law and police and lawyers
and courts and juries and some kinds of people, you know. OJ'll
get you if you don't watch out! These are still important lessons
even if he didn't do it. So knock off all this antisocial Pro-J nonsense!
Walter Bennett
>confused wrote:
>>All because you wanted OJSimpson to be
>>guilty!
>Nope, It is because I want the murderer of
>NBS and RLG to be punished.
And you know Simpson, to the exclusion of all others, is the murder,
because ....
I love a mystery!
It is not necessarily true that averaging the averages of
brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence gives the average of the
combined brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence.
-Simpson's Paradox as understood by Walt Bennett
Walter Bennett
>confused wrote:
>>Yes, No-J's: Shut down Prien's report.
>>Delete it immediately.
>Nope. Just ignore it. Give it the value it
>deserves.
Some members of the criminal trial jury probably gave it a lot of weight
since they had driven the route many times before the trial and knew it
would be impossible to leave at the time given by the prosecution
andmake the call by 9:37 PM.
al walker
Dear herr jabine,
Since you have aligned yourself with posters who
have a lynch mob mentality, and some who are trying
hard to be true fascists, and some who aspire to be
bullies, and others who are simply less than human,
why would you think you have the right to ask that
question of anyone?
confused
>>confused wrote:
>>Nope, It is because I want the murderer of
>>NBS and RLG to be punished.
>
>And you know Simpson, to the exclusion of all others, is the murder,
>because ....
I don't know that he is the murderer to the exclusion of all others.
But I do know that there was no evidence presented that would allow
one to reach a different conclusion.
confused
>>confused wrote:
>Some members of the criminal trial jury probably gave it a lot of weight
>since they had driven the route many times before the trial and knew it
>would be impossible to leave at the time given by the prosecution
>andmake the call by 9:37 PM.
Well, last time I was on the 405 at 8:30 at night, the posted limit
was 55. The average speed of traffic was 70. I believe the limit was
raised to 65. What would you guess is the average speed of traffic?
confused
>There's the story about George Washington and the cherry tree.
>It's not true, but who cares? It's part of our mythology about honesty.
>Santa Clause is just a symbol for charity.
There is this ditty that children sing about Lizzy Borden and an
axe. She was acquitted, but society didn't believe it. So now, 100
years later, people still believe she did it.
>Then there's that story about O. J. Simpson and how he killed his wife
>and got away with it and that shows what's wrong with the law and
>police and lawyers and courts and juries and some kinds of people,
>you know. OJ'll get you if you don't watch out!
"my husband says he'll OJ me!"
Kristin VanAllen
last time I checked, it was around 70 for the "slow lane" because at
65 EVERYONE passes me, and 75-85 for the meduim lanes, and around 85-90
for the zippy lanes.
One hour from Brentwood to Dana Point is slow......
Jon Beaver
confused wrote in message <37c9bde7...@207.14.113.10>...
>"Jon Beaver" <jbe...@imagecomp.com> wrote:
>
>>There's the story about George Washington and the cherry tree.
>>It's not true, but who cares? It's part of our mythology about honesty.
>>Santa Clause is just a symbol for charity.
>
>There is this ditty that children sing about Lizzy Borden and an
>axe. She was acquitted, but society didn't believe it. So now, 100
>years later, people still believe she did it.
>
>>Then there's that story about O. J. Simpson and how he killed his wife
>>and got away with it and that shows what's wrong with the law and
>>police and lawyers and courts and juries and some kinds of people,
>>you know. OJ'll get you if you don't watch out!
>
>"my husband says he'll OJ me!"
Was it Robert Burns who said that if he could write the
peoples' songs he wouldn't care who writes their laws?
al walker
>
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 08:15:37 GMT, mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:
>
> >mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
> >
> <snips>
> >
> >>And besides, you have no challenges.
>
> >To what? His picking and choosing how he chooses to understand the
> >data. I got tired of this crap when schreck used to do it. Why
> >should I play with a babblative amateur?
>
> ferociously assert that the reality supports a scenario in which OJS
> is the killer. What is your problem with responding? You've been
> responding for 5 years. You have challenges to Prien? Let's see
> them.
> >
> >>There is not a single time line
> >>that works: not the killing time, not Ron Goldman's time.
> >
> >So that means that they didn't die?
>
> that the killers of these two victims are unidentified and free.
> >
> >Yet it took five years for one fool to find it? 124 books, 34
> >lawyers, dozens of investigators, thousands of pro-js posting here
> >all missed this evidence.
>
> before, as recently as a few months ago, with Originalman, who raised
> this timeline issue, and I think Dick Wagner jumped in. Freed
> referred to it in his book. Of course, I've argued the phone records
> ad nauseum. And Miller pushed the envelope edges.
> With Prien here, the data of the impossibility of the timeline
> with regard to triggering Goldman's appearance at Bundy is more
> specific than I've ever seen before. He took the time to lay it out in
> precise detail. This is done in a traditional investigative format,
> worthy of a criminal case document.
> That you want to <plonk> it, or do some other infantile
> gesture with it, is a sad reflection of your anal-retentiveness.
>
> >>It's when you wake up that you'll have the horrible nightmare: your
> >>5-year campaign to convict an innocent and acquitted Black man
> >>crumbles before your eyes.
>
> >There is that race thing again. May I understand it to mean that if
> >simpson weren't black, you wouldn't be here?
>
So confused, how were the browns able to drive
home to dana point in 47 minutes? These are middle
aged adults not kids who just push the pedal to the
metal. Explain it to us if you think you are able.
Libraryboy
The same thing that gives you the right to ask that question of me.
Now I have a question for you, Al. Why would a self-proclaimed jew such as
yourself want to deny me the right to denounce a rabid anti-Semite and his
fellow travellers? After all, when sodapop was bounced after his infamous
"joke" ("What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza? The pizza
doesn't scream when you put it in the oven."), you wrote to his ISP (in
Canada) and complained that his rights were being violated. But when I
denounce an anti-Semite, you suggest that I have no right to do so! What
kind of a Jew are you, anyway? I suggest you take this post and show it to
your rabbi so he can get you straightened out about exactly who you are.
Let me know what he tells you, OK, "Al?"
Maguey, the ball is still in your court. Do you "align" (in the sense that
you use the term above) yourself with M.A.?
thez...@my-deja.com
> On 23 Aug 1999 10:58:05 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <37c0e6b3....@supernews.sirius.com>,
> >NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 5 years of manipulating information, of propagandizing, of
> >>racializing, of character assassinating, of aligning yourselves with
> >>the lowest forms of humanity.
> >
> >Certainly I would think that someone who posts on the Internet that
> >"THERE'S NO SUCH ANIMAL AS A GOOD JEW" would fall into *that* category.
> >Are you "aligned" with anyone like that?
>
<snip>
TRANSLATION:
"Only *I* am allowed to make accusations of racism. If anyone else does this,
whether truth or not, then I will accuse them of "deflecting" or "running" since
they're not talking about what *I* want to talk about. And if these people insist
on trying to talk about stuff that I don't want to talk about, such as issues I can't
address, then I will simply abandon the discussion. However, this is *not*
"deflecting" or "running," on my part, but merely disregarding matters I don't have
to deal with if *I* so decide."
You seem to think you're above your own rules, amusingly enough. Say, Patty?
When was the election that made you queen? ;-)
Robert Miller
NKC wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 00:31:09 GMT, mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:
>
> >pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
> >
> >>A number of NoJs sought strenuously to refute my posting about the impossible
> >>trip home. Rather than separately addressing each of their various objections,
> >>here is my response to what those objections add up to.
> >
> >Yawn! <plonk>
>
> Yes, No-J's: Shut down Prien's report. Delete it immediately. Yawn.
> Stretch.
> Better just hit the sack. This kind of shit is way too disturbing.
> And besides, you have no challenges. There is not a single time line
> that works: not the killing time, not Ron Goldman's time. It's all
> falling apart for you guys.
> Sooo ... sleep, deeply, and for as long as you can...
> It's when you wake up that you'll have the horrible nightmare: your
> 5-year campaign to convict an innocent and acquitted Black man
> crumbles before your eyes.
> 5 years of manipulating information, of propagandizing, of
> racializing, of character assassinating, of aligning yourselves with
> the lowest forms of humanity. All because you wanted OJSimpson to be
> guilty!
> Good night.
>
[When all else fails, act bored. You're right, Nixie. It's all overbut the white
flag. Or is that a sheet?]
Robert Miller
confused wrote:
> mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 00:31:09 GMT, mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:
> >
> >>pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
> >>
> >>>A number of NoJs sought strenuously to refute my posting about the impossible
> >>>trip home. Rather than separately addressing each of their various objections,
> >>>here is my response to what those objections add up to.
> >>
> >>Yawn! <plonk>
> >
> >Yes, No-J's: Shut down Prien's report. Delete it immediately.
> Nope. Just ignore it. Give it the value it deserves.
>
> >Yawn. Stretch. Better just hit the sack.
> >This kind of shit is way too disturbing.
>
> Gee, I wonder if I should reverse this on you. I would if I knew
> you'd have to read it. If I or anyone here played the same game on
> what simpson claimed, you'd be screaming "burden". Every claim Prein
> makes has evidence to show that his "take" is wrong. But since he
> chooses to ignore it, you do also. If you cared about the evidence,
> you'd be critical of priens' approach. Since you aren't critical,
> then you don't care about the evidence, just his conclusion. How
> shallow!
>
> >And besides, you have no challenges.
> To what? His picking and choosing how he chooses to understand the
> data. I got tired of this crap when schreck used to do it. Why
> should I play with a babblative amateur?
>
[Prien doesn't get paid to post here. Is that what you mean by amateur?]
> >There is not a single time line
> >that works: not the killing time, not Ron Goldman's time.
>
> So that means that they didn't die?
>
> Yet it took five years for one fool to find it? 124 books, 34
> lawyers, dozens of investigators, thousands of pro-js posting here
> all missed this evidence. You may believe what he spews is honey.
> But if you'd consider how he gets where he wishes, rather than where
> he arrives, you'd see that it comes from the other end.
>
> >It's all falling apart for you guys.
> The fact the you are reduced to this nitpicking shows the opposite.
>
> >It's when you wake up that you'll have the horrible nightmare: your
> >5-year campaign to convict an innocent and acquitted Black man
> >crumbles before your eyes.
> There is that race thing again. May I understand it to mean that if
> simpson weren't black, you wouldn't be here?
>
> > 5 years of manipulating information, of propagandizing, of
> >racializing, of character assassinating, of aligning yourselves with
> >the lowest forms of humanity.
> Only those that support murderers qualify for that.
>
> >All because you wanted OJSimpson to be guilty!
> Nope, It is because I want the murderer of NBS and RLG to be
> punished.
[When facts become nitpicking, your case is exposed.]
Robert Miller
confused wrote:
> ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett) wrote:
>
> >>confused wrote:
>
> >>Nope, It is because I want the murderer of
> >>NBS and RLG to be punished.
> >
> >And you know Simpson, to the exclusion of all others, is the murder,
> >because ....
>
> I don't know that he is the murderer to the exclusion of all others.
> But I do know that there was no evidence presented that would allow
> one to reach a different conclusion.
[BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
Robert Miller
confused wrote:
> ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett) wrote:
>
> >>confused wrote:
>
> >Some members of the criminal trial jury probably gave it a lot of weight
> >since they had driven the route many times before the trial and knew it
> >would be impossible to leave at the time given by the prosecution
> >andmake the call by 9:37 PM.
>
> Well, last time I was on the 405 at 8:30 at night, the posted limit
> was 55. The average speed of traffic was 70. I believe the limit was
> raised to 65. What would you guess is the average speed of traffic?
[Let's see. 74 miles. Sixty-seven minutes, minus five minutes on each
side. Fifty-seven minutes for the trip, considering the time getting on
the freeway, so we're talking about the Browns going how fast on
the freeway? 80mph? 85mph? 90mph? At those speeds Juditha's
depression would be have been replaced by panic and fear and
the sudden realization that Mr. Brown shouldn't have had wine with
his dinner. However, if we take the 9 o'clock answer, Denise's
first answer, what would 74 miles in 27 minutes be? 160 mph?
Now, close your eyes, kids, you've got school tomorrow.]
Robert Miller
NKC wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:38:09 -0700, Kristin VanAllen
> <kvan...@mail.cccd.edu> wrote:
>
> >confused wrote:
> >
> >> ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>confused wrote:
> >>
> >> >Some members of the criminal trial jury probably gave it a lot of
> >> weight
> >> >since they had driven the route many times before the trial and knew
> >> it
> >> >would be impossible to leave at the time given by the prosecution
> >> >andmake the call by 9:37 PM.
> >>
> >> Well, last time I was on the 405 at 8:30 at night, the posted limit
> >> was 55. The average speed of traffic was 70. I believe the limit was
> >> raised to 65. What would you guess is the average speed of traffic?
> >
> > last time I checked, it was around 70 for the "slow lane" because at
> >65 EVERYONE passes me, and 75-85 for the meduim lanes, and around 85-90
> >for the zippy lanes.
> >One hour from Brentwood to Dana Point is slow......
>
> But Kris, pay attention. Read Prien. As he pointed out so explicitly,
> there were several minutes that must be accounted for on the departure
> end from the Mezzaluna and to the arrival end at home.
>
> 8:30 - witnesses see the Browns exit the restaurant.
>
> 8:30 - 8:40 - Browns saying their goodbyes to everyone, get
> their car, then leave - [which would probably be more than 10 minutes]
>
> 9:37 - alleged phone call. Work backwards and figure all the
> activities required of Juditha before the telephone call. At least 10
> minutes; that means, that at
>
> 9:27 they had to arrive in Dana Point.
>
> so then do the math: 8:40 - 9:27 = 47 minutes.
>
> Even in the suburbs, this couldn't make sense.
>
> >
[Hey, a 110 mph in the fast lane is not so uncommon going to
Dana Point. Maybe the Browns knew that all the cops in
LA were out in the desert at La Quinta at that Sunday night
barbeque with Fuhrman.]
Robert Miller
NKC wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 08:15:37 GMT, mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:
>
> >mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
> >
> <snips>
> >
> >>And besides, you have no challenges.
>
> >To what? His picking and choosing how he chooses to understand the
> >data. I got tired of this crap when schreck used to do it. Why
> >should I play with a babblative amateur?
>
> Maybe I think you have a responsibility to "play" because you so
> ferociously assert that the reality supports a scenario in which OJS
> is the killer. What is your problem with responding? You've been
> responding for 5 years. You have challenges to Prien? Let's see
> them.
> >
> >>There is not a single time line
> >>that works: not the killing time, not Ron Goldman's time.
> >
> >So that means that they didn't die?
>
> That's a juvenile response. If the timeline doesn't work, it means
> that the killers of these two victims are unidentified and free.
> >
> >Yet it took five years for one fool to find it? 124 books, 34
> >lawyers, dozens of investigators, thousands of pro-js posting here
> >all missed this evidence.
>
> That's untrue. This is not a new argument. Pro-j's have argued this
> before, as recently as a few months ago, with Originalman, who raised
> this timeline issue, and I think Dick Wagner jumped in. Freed
> referred to it in his book. Of course, I've argued the phone records
> ad nauseum. And Miller pushed the envelope edges.
> With Prien here, the data of the impossibility of the timeline
> with regard to triggering Goldman's appearance at Bundy is more
> specific than I've ever seen before. He took the time to lay it out in
> precise detail. This is done in a traditional investigative format,
> worthy of a criminal case document.
> That you want to <plonk> it, or do some other infantile
> gesture with it, is a sad reflection of your anal-retentiveness.
>
> >>It's when you wake up that you'll have the horrible nightmare: your
> >>5-year campaign to convict an innocent and acquitted Black man
> >>crumbles before your eyes.
>
> >There is that race thing again. May I understand it to mean that if
> >simpson weren't black, you wouldn't be here?
>
> If Simpson weren't black, you wouldn't be here.
[Hey, I bet he spends equal time in the "Dupont the wrestler-
killer" newsgroup.]
Robert Miller
Libraryboy wrote:
> In article <37c0e6b3....@supernews.sirius.com>,
> NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>
> > 5 years of manipulating information, of propagandizing, of
> >racializing, of character assassinating, of aligning yourselves with
> >the lowest forms of humanity.
>
> Certainly I would think that someone who posts on the Internet that
> "THERE'S NO SUCH ANIMAL AS A GOOD JEW" would fall into *that* category.
> Are you "aligned" with anyone like that?
[I guess we can take this as another statement of defeat from
Jabine? He certainly can't address the case. He might as well
go sit on the bench with carrot.]
Robert Miller
NKC wrote:
> On 23 Aug 1999 10:58:05 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <37c0e6b3....@supernews.sirius.com>,
> >NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 5 years of manipulating information, of propagandizing, of
> >>racializing, of character assassinating, of aligning yourselves with
> >>the lowest forms of humanity.
> >
> >Certainly I would think that someone who posts on the Internet that
> >"THERE'S NO SUCH ANIMAL AS A GOOD JEW" would fall into *that* category.
> >Are you "aligned" with anyone like that?
>
> No-j Shuffle: deflect and run.
>
> Oh, btw, did you have any challenges to the timeline problems
> presented by Prien? I'd *love* to hear them.
[No, Nixie, Jabber says that he has no answers to Prien. He,
like the other Nojjjes are stumped. They are seeing the object
of their hatred slipping from their grasp. They see that their
beliefs were built on lies. Jabber says that maybe you are the
bad person. And so, if Jabber cannot answer the question,
it's more important to say that you are the bad person. Bad
Nixie. Bad Nixie.
[By the way, there is going to be a demonstration against the
race-hate murderer in San Francisco on the 31st. Letter carriers,
Filipino Americans. I'm sure that carrot will be there, too.]
Robert Miller
Kristin VanAllen wrote:
> confused wrote:
>
> > ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett) wrote:
> >
> > >>confused wrote:
> >
> > >Some members of the criminal trial jury probably gave it a lot of
> > weight
> > >since they had driven the route many times before the trial and knew
> > it
> > >would be impossible to leave at the time given by the prosecution
> > >andmake the call by 9:37 PM.
> >
> > Well, last time I was on the 405 at 8:30 at night, the posted limit
> > was 55. The average speed of traffic was 70. I believe the limit was
> > raised to 65. What would you guess is the average speed of traffic?
>
> last time I checked, it was around 70 for the "slow lane" because at
> 65 EVERYONE passes me, and 75-85 for the meduim lanes, and around 85-90
> for the zippy lanes.
> One hour from Brentwood to Dana Point is slow......
[How about forty-seven minutes? Because 65 is not much more than 55, and
80 isn't all that much less than 90, and because the speedometer goes all
the
way to 120...]
Libraryboy
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>On 23 Aug 1999 10:58:05 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <37c0e6b3....@supernews.sirius.com>,
>>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 5 years of manipulating information, of propagandizing, of
>>>racializing, of character assassinating, of aligning yourselves with
>>>the lowest forms of humanity.
>>
>>Certainly I would think that someone who posts on the Internet that
>>"THERE'S NO SUCH ANIMAL AS A GOOD JEW" would fall into *that* category.
>>Are you "aligned" with anyone like that?
>
>No-j Shuffle: deflect and run.
And yet you do it so well.
NKC
NKC
>confused wrote:
>
>> ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett) wrote:
>>
>> >>confused wrote:
>>
>> >Some members of the criminal trial jury probably gave it a lot of
>> weight
>> >since they had driven the route many times before the trial and knew
>> it
>> >would be impossible to leave at the time given by the prosecution
>> >andmake the call by 9:37 PM.
>>
>> Well, last time I was on the 405 at 8:30 at night, the posted limit
>> was 55. The average speed of traffic was 70. I believe the limit was
>> raised to 65. What would you guess is the average speed of traffic?
>
> last time I checked, it was around 70 for the "slow lane" because at
>65 EVERYONE passes me, and 75-85 for the meduim lanes, and around 85-90
>for the zippy lanes.
>One hour from Brentwood to Dana Point is slow......
But Kris, pay attention. Read Prien. As he pointed out so explicitly,
NKC
wrote:
>In article <37c0e6b3....@supernews.sirius.com>,
>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>
>> 5 years of manipulating information, of propagandizing, of
>>racializing, of character assassinating, of aligning yourselves with
>>the lowest forms of humanity.
>
>Certainly I would think that someone who posts on the Internet that
>"THERE'S NO SUCH ANIMAL AS A GOOD JEW" would fall into *that* category.
>Are you "aligned" with anyone like that?
No-j Shuffle: deflect and run.
Oh, btw, did you have any challenges to the timeline problems
confused
>Was it Robert Burns who said that if he could write the
>peoples' songs he wouldn't care who writes their laws?
Sorry I not a fan.
confused
>On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 08:15:37 GMT, mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:
>Maybe I think you have a responsibility to "play" because you so
>ferociously assert that the reality supports a scenario in which OJS
>is the killer. What is your problem with responding? You've been
>responding for 5 years. You have challenges to Prien? Let's see
>them.
Your funeral...
Prien states-
While she quickly backtracked, Denise initially blurted out a most
revealing answer - 9:00 o'clock. Only after momentarily
considering it does she come up with what was supposed to be the
"right" answer - 8:30 p.m., which gives the family the maximum
available time to drive home, an answer she then reinforces
after a pause for emphasis.
But he leaves out this little bit-
Q. You have no knowledge as to whether you left Mezzaluna at 8:30 or
9:00? You can't be any more specific than that?
A. You know what, it was closer to 8:30, because I told the kids to
lay down and go to sleep in the back. They had school the
next day.
She didn't know, but that didn't slow him down claiming which guess
was valid.
Prien then postures-
Now does anyone really imagine that their arrival time at home
that night, which plays such a pivotal role in the story, could,
at the time of the deposition on May 2, 1996, still have been
like guessing the answer to a multiple choice quiz?
Just him claiming this is a "pivotal" time, doesn't make it so.
The "pivotal point" would be "did judith call before Ron left his
shift?" The answer is yes. Outside of that, the only question he
actually raises is "Did judith call before they got home, or did
they 'speed' going home?" Since he introduced nothing to suggest the
call wasn't made from anywhere other than their home. Prien has
managed to show that Lou Brown exceeded the post speed limit. But
you pro-s aren't willing to see what he has actually shown, just
what he claims to have shown.
Just as his claim-
That means at least 10, but most likely 20 minutes have to
be chopped from the 67 time interval that has as its end points
the longer time span from their departure from the restaurant to
then making of the call, leaving the Browns not a New York
microsecond longer than 57 minutes to make their trip. In
reality, however, 47 minutes is the more likely actual time they
have for making the drive based on the state of the prosecution's
evidence and testimony..
Suddenly becomes reality. And in this reality, it takes 1/3 the time
for 4 adults and 2 children to get walk twenty feet and get into the
car and again the twenty feet out of the car to transfer two
children to another car as is does to travel 67 miles, "leaving the
Browns not a New York microsecond longer"
Today being the first day of school, I timed the bus loading 16
children: 3 minutes. But according to prien it takes 4 adults 7 time
longer.
I'll stop here. I believe I have shown that Prien distorts the truth
to the point that he can't be trusted. Makes claims that cannot be
verified, and with a bit of thought are shown to be silly.
>That's untrue. This is not a new argument.
Correct, just a new twist. Now someone claims the browns timeline
doesn't pass muster and rather than consider the arguments you just
suck them up. No matter how often it is shown to be silly.
>>There is that race thing again. May I understand it to mean that if
>>simpson weren't black, you wouldn't be here?
I asked a question. You ignore it. May I answer for you as you claim
to be able to answer for me?
>If Simpson weren't black, you wouldn't be here.
You didn't ask any question. Why do you claim to be qualified to
answer for me?
confused
> [When facts become nitpicking, your case is exposed.]
Claiming Denise stated a time when she actually didn't know is
lying. But you suck it up.
NKC
>mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
<snips>
>Your funeral...
>
>Prien states-
> While she quickly backtracked, Denise initially blurted out a most
> revealing answer - 9:00 o'clock. Only after momentarily
> considering it does she come up with what was supposed to be the
> "right" answer - 8:30 p.m., which gives the family the maximum
> available time to drive home, an answer she then reinforces
> after a pause for emphasis.
>
>But he leaves out this little bit-
>
>Q. You have no knowledge as to whether you left Mezzaluna at 8:30 or
>9:00? You can't be any more specific than that?
>A. You know what, it was closer to 8:30, because I told the kids to
>lay down and go to sleep in the back. They had school the
>next day.
>
>She didn't know, but that didn't slow him down claiming which guess
>was valid.
confused, Prien addressed this extensively in his article. And look
at the testimony yourself: Why would she re-assess DOWNWARDS the time
she left from 9 PM to 8:30 PM, if what jogged her memory to the more
accurate time was getting the kids to bed early because of a school
day? It makes no sense! It would normally be the reverse: if she had
said, "Oh, about 8 -- no I remember it was about 8:30 because the kids
had school the next day and I was concerned about the time." That
woulda made more sense.
The bitch was lying.
[Time to check which school the kids attended and if there was
school on June 13.]
>
>Prien then postures-
> Now does anyone really imagine that their arrival time at home
> that night, which plays such a pivotal role in the story, could,
> at the time of the deposition on May 2, 1996, still have been
> like guessing the answer to a multiple choice quiz?
>
>Just him claiming this is a "pivotal" time, doesn't make it so.
>
>The "pivotal point" would be "did judith call before Ron left his
>shift?" The answer is yes. Outside of that, the only question he
>actually raises is "Did judith call before they got home, or did
>they 'speed' going home?" Since he introduced nothing to suggest the
>call wasn't made from anywhere other than their home. Prien has
>managed to show that Lou Brown exceeded the post speed limit. But
>you pro-s aren't willing to see what he has actually shown, just
>what he claims to have shown.
No, dear. This is crucial and pivotal for many reasons. The most
glaring, is because the prosecution said Ron had to leave by 9:50 in
order to get to Bundy in time for OJS to have killed him and Nicole.
So if Juditha had called Mezzaluna at say, 9:57, instead of 9:37,
we're dealing with Ron leaving significantly later than 10:00 Pm --
going home, dressing, borrowing car, getting to Bundy, getting himself
killed when it couldn't have been OJS to do it and get back in the
time frame to meet the limo. Even if Juditha had called at 9:47 --
it would still screw up the prosecution window of opportunity for OJS
to have committed the double slaying. Ron would have left at earliest
10PM, get home, get dressed, borrow the car, get to Bundy, and clearly
he wouldn't have gotten there before 10:25 - 10:35, at the earliest!
It takes time to kill someone. It takes time to fight with someone,
inflict that many stab wounds, get rid of murderwear and weapons and
get home undetected.
Remember, OJS had to be home by 10:42 for Kato to have him
bang against air conditioner and drop the glove in the bushes.
Doesn't work. No matter how you cut it it up.
>
>Suddenly becomes reality. And in this reality, it takes 1/3 the time
>for 4 adults and 2 children to get walk twenty feet and get into the
>car and again the twenty feet out of the car to transfer two
>children to another car as is does to travel 67 miles, "leaving the
>Browns not a New York microsecond longer"
Did they walk to their car? Was the car waiting for them? Did they
have to pay a valet? Did they say good bye outside to their group of
people? Did they negotiate their seating in the car? Did they have to
buckle up the kids before they buckled up themselves?
>I'll stop here.
smart boy.
>>>There is that race thing again. May I understand it to mean that if
>>>simpson weren't black, you wouldn't be here?
>
>I asked a question. You ignore it. May I answer for you as you claim
>to be able to answer for me?
>
>>If Simpson weren't black, you wouldn't be here.
>
>You didn't ask any question. Why do you claim to be qualified to
>answer for me?
I think it's clear what motivates 99% of us. That is why I believe I
can answer for you. This is one of the most intriguing murder
mysteries of all time. Why do we know about it?
celebrities. Why is it so contentious? race.
>
confused
>On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 04:43:08 GMT, mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:
>>She didn't know, but that didn't slow him down claiming which guess
>>was valid.
>
>confused, Prien addressed this extensively in his article. And look
>at the testimony yourself: Why would she re-assess DOWNWARDS the time
>she left from 9 PM to 8:30 PM, if what jogged her memory to the more
>accurate time was getting the kids to bed early because of a school
>day? It makes no sense! It would normally be the reverse:
According to whom? Please support that claim with something more
than "common sense". You are applying your beliefs here, but you do
not know if that is what she would do. Until you can show that what
you claim is more likely than what happened you have nothing but her
claim. By your reasoning, the "burden" is on you to show that she is
wrong. Please do so!
>if she had said, "Oh, about 8 -- no I remember it was about 8:30
>because the kids had school the next day and I was concerned
>about the time." That woulda made more sense.
Unless that was what she said then the reverse would have been true.
> The bitch was lying.
No, you are. You don't know why she answered that way. But you are
providing meanings based on your beliefs rather than facts.
> [Time to check which school the kids attended and if there was
>school on June 13.]
>Prien has
>>managed to show that Lou Brown exceeded the post speed limit. But
>>you pro-s aren't willing to see what he has actually shown, just
>>what he claims to have shown.
>No, dear. This is crucial and pivotal for many reasons. The most
>glaring, is because the prosecution said Ron had to leave by 9:50 in
>order to get to Bundy in time for OJS to have killed him and Nicole.
Since he was there, then that must be the time he left.
>So if Juditha had called Mezzaluna at say, 9:57, instead of 9:37,
Then Ron wouldn't have gone. He did so your theory is wrong.
>we're dealing with Ron leaving significantly later than 10:00 Pm --
>going home, dressing, borrowing car, getting to Bundy, getting himself
>killed when it couldn't have been OJS to do it and get back in the
>time frame to meet the limo.
But all that happened. maybe not the way that the prosecution
claimed, but those events happened.
>Even if Juditha had called at 9:47 -- it would still screw up the
>prosecution window of opportunity for OJS to have committed the double
>slaying.
How?
> Remember, OJS had to be home by 10:42 for Kato to have him
10:42?
Q AND AT 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS IN THE EVENING, SIR, DID YOU SPEAK
TO YOUR BOSS IN THE -- ON THE CAR PHONE IN THE STRETCH LIMO?
A YES, I DID.
>bang against air conditioner and drop the glove in the bushes.
> Doesn't work. No matter how you cut it it up.
that would be 10:48. It doesn't work because you don't wish to
consider the evidence.
>>Suddenly becomes reality. And in this reality, it takes 1/3 the time
>>for 4 adults and 2 children to get walk twenty feet and get into the
>>car and again the twenty feet out of the car to transfer two
>>children to another car as is does to travel 67 miles, "leaving the
>>Browns not a New York microsecond longer"
>
>Did they walk to their car?
Did they?
>Was the car waiting for them?
Was it?
>Did they have to pay a valet?
Did they?
>Did they say good bye outside to their group of people?
What do you think?
>Did they negotiate their seating in the car? Did they have to
>buckle up the kids before they buckled up themselves?
No, the children were laying down, remember?
The answer to these question is that whatever they did, they were
able to get home and call the Mezzaluna before Ron left.
If Prien was just a bit wrong, let's say they did leave at 8:27.
Were on the freeway at 8:34. Got home at 9:39. 3 of the four adults
moved the children, the other placed her call 9:40.
That places the freeway speed at just over 60 mph. Five minutes on
either side, six mph faster still works. Do you ever drive on the
freeway at 66-7 mph?
So what is more likely. Times being a bit off, or the Browns being
involved in murders?
>>I'll stop here.
>
>smart boy.
Any more would overload you.
>I think it's clear what motivates 99% of us. That is why I believe I
>can answer for you.
And yet I don't believe I can answer for you. Any chance you are
projecting?<g>
>This is one of the most intriguing murder mysteries of all time.
Yes, and at every turn you inject race. I have a similar interest in
lizzy borden, All white. Do you have any interest in murders other
than this one?
Jon Beaver
Mark wrote in message <37C22709...@halcyon.com>...
>Jon Beaver wrote:
>
>>
>> There's the story about George Washington and the cherry tree.
>> It's not true, but who cares? It's part of our mythology about honesty.
>> about O. J. Simpson and how he killed his wife and got away with
>> it and that shows what's wrong with the law and police and lawyers
>> and courts and juries and some kinds of people, you know. OJ'll
>> even if he didn't do it. So knock off all this antisocial Pro-J nonsense!
>
"Numbnuts?" Oh, man! Please don't say that! Okay, okay,
he did it! Whatever you say! Just -- please -- like me.
Libraryboy
Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net> wrote:
>
>
>Libraryboy wrote:
>
>> In article <37c0e6b3....@supernews.sirius.com>,
>> NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 5 years of manipulating information, of propagandizing, of
>> >racializing, of character assassinating, of aligning yourselves with
>> >the lowest forms of humanity.
>>
>> Certainly I would think that someone who posts on the Internet that
>> "THERE'S NO SUCH ANIMAL AS A GOOD JEW" would fall into *that* category.
>> Are you "aligned" with anyone like that?
>
>Jabine? He certainly can't address the case. He might as well
>go sit on the bench with carrot.]
How about you, Miller? Do you align yourself with people who say things
like "THERE'S NO SUCH ANIMAL AS A GOOD JEW?" Let's try one of maguey's
little thought experiments: What would your comment be if Fuhrman had been
the one to say it?
Libraryboy
Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <37c0e6b3....@supernews.sirius.com>,
>> >NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 5 years of manipulating information, of propagandizing, of
>> >>racializing, of character assassinating, of aligning yourselves with
>> >>the lowest forms of humanity.
>> >
>> >Certainly I would think that someone who posts on the Internet that
>> >"THERE'S NO SUCH ANIMAL AS A GOOD JEW" would fall into *that* category.
>> >Are you "aligned" with anyone like that?
>>
>>
>> Oh, btw, did you have any challenges to the timeline problems
>> presented by Prien? I'd *love* to hear them.
>
Really? Cite the post. You wouldn't lie to the people here, would you?
BL Parker
I envy you, this is the best and first really
new evidence I have read here in a while.
Expect to be victimized by a few of the nuts here. Their last stand ties
directly to
OJ killed N & R.. If you disprove that argument you will have been
thrust to
the #1 spot in this ng. Keep up the good work.
cordially
b.l.p.
"Treat people as if they were what you think they ought to be, so they
can become what they should be".
Libraryboy
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>
>confused, Prien addressed this extensively in his article. And look
>at the testimony yourself: Why would she re-assess DOWNWARDS the time
>she left from 9 PM to 8:30 PM, if what jogged her memory to the more
>accurate time was getting the kids to bed early because of a school
>said, "Oh, about 8 -- no I remember it was about 8:30 because the kids
>had school the next day and I was concerned about the time." That
>woulda made more sense.
Two questions:
a) What would be her motive to lie about this?
b) Why are you calling Juditha Brown a bitch?
PuppetMaster
wrote:
What Prien and the rest of the mindless cretins seem to forget is that
their mileage figures they're quoting between 70 and 74 miles is based
on figures standardly used by map makers, city hall to city hall. Now
considering that wasn't the to and from points traveled, and since the
Browns live in the southern area of Dana Point, the distance traveled
was more like 60 miles. On a Sunday evening at 8:30, a vehicle in the
car pool lane can easily average 75mph or roughly a 40-45 drive time
from WLA to Dana Point.
Isn't it amazing how EVERYONE was lying in this case except OJ?
Marlalinde
>From: mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused)
>Date: Tue, 24 August 1999 05:06 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37c45897...@207.14.113.10>
Magpie...
To *clear up* some of your troubling thoughts and put your little mind at ease:
1. Ron lived on 1 1/2 blocks from Mezzaluna and had borrowed a car that
evening. You make it sound like he had to *arrange* to borrow the car...
2. Mezzaluna HAD valet parking.
3. The Brown children were old enough to fasten their own seat belts..(or not)
4. The Brown's said their goodbye's..and watched Nicole and the kids walk to
B&J..no long conversations went on curbside.
5. It IS possible to drive to Dana Point in an hour on a Sunday evening with
relatively little traffic...which probably would have been the case...(everyone
was home watching the sequel of Dynasty...Dallas whatever...that's a joke..by
the way..)
You may want to re-think your ridiculous
Prien-driven-thinking....
Marla
"One day OJ will kill me. And he'll get away with it..."
Nicole Brown Simpson
Kristin VanAllen
Ummm.....aren't these all ASSUMPTIONS on the time? Here you are
assuming that they spent 10 minutes or more saying good bye. The freeway
is no more than 2 minutes away from Mezzaluna right there off of san
Vicente, left on Wilshire and there is the on ramp. Then you assume she
spent 10 minutes at home before calling. So you assume out 20 minutes,
then claim it could not have been done.
I can assume those 20 minutes right back in, and there you have it as
possible.
This is a good example of how you guys talk yourself out of reality -
'gee, we assumed all these times and they just don't work...' therefore
they could not have driven home in that time. This in spite of the fact
that apparently they did.
(bees can't fly either)
Kristin VanAllen
> [Hey, a 110 mph in the fast lane is not so uncommon going to
> Dana Point. Maybe the Browns knew that all the cops in
> LA were out in the desert at La Quinta at that Sunday night
> barbeque with Fuhrman.]
he assumed out 20 minutes. Assume them right back in and you get the
southern cal "normal" speeding.
Kristin VanAllen
> Kristin VanAllen wrote:
>
> > confused wrote:
> >
> > > ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett) wrote:
> > >
> > > >>confused wrote:
> > >
> > > >Some members of the criminal trial jury probably gave it a lot of
>
> > > weight
> > > >since they had driven the route many times before the trial and
> knew
> > > it
> > > >would be impossible to leave at the time given by the prosecution
>
> > > >andmake the call by 9:37 PM.
> > >
> > > Well, last time I was on the 405 at 8:30 at night, the posted
> limit
> > > was 55. The average speed of traffic was 70. I believe the limit
> was
> > > raised to 65. What would you guess is the average speed of
> traffic?
> >
> > last time I checked, it was around 70 for the "slow lane" because
> at
> > 65 EVERYONE passes me, and 75-85 for the meduim lanes, and around
> 85-90
> > for the zippy lanes.
> > One hour from Brentwood to Dana Point is slow......
>
> [How about forty-seven minutes?
You mean 47 ASSUMED minutes because you ASSUMED out about 20 minutes and
the rest was from time ESTIMATES in the first place..........
Kristin VanAllen
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 04:43:08 GMT, mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:
>
> >mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
>
> <snips>
>
> >Your funeral...
> >
> >Prien states-
> > While she quickly backtracked, Denise initially blurted out a most
> > revealing answer - 9:00 o'clock. Only after momentarily
> > considering it does she come up with what was supposed to be the
> > "right" answer - 8:30 p.m., which gives the family the maximum
> > available time to drive home, an answer she then reinforces
> > after a pause for emphasis.
> >
> >But he leaves out this little bit-
> >
> >Q. You have no knowledge as to whether you left Mezzaluna at 8:30 or
> >9:00? You can't be any more specific than that?
> >A. You know what, it was closer to 8:30, because I told the kids to
> >lay down and go to sleep in the back. They had school the
> >next day.
> >
> >She didn't know, but that didn't slow him down claiming which guess
> >was valid.
>
> confused, Prien addressed this extensively in his article. And look
> at the testimony yourself: Why would she re-assess DOWNWARDS the time
>
> she left from 9 PM to 8:30 PM, if what jogged her memory to the more
> accurate time was getting the kids to bed early because of a school
> day? It makes no sense! It would normally be the reverse: if she had
>
> said, "Oh, about 8 -- no I remember it was about 8:30 because the kids
>
> had school the next day and I was concerned about the time." That
> woulda made more sense.
You have got to be kidding! If she was off earlier - she would have been
telling the truth but if it was later she had to be lying. The lengths
you guys will go through to justify your far-fetched theories
Try she was estimating and realy did not know.
What was the Mezzaluna receipt timestamp????
> The bitch
sexist
> was lying.
> [Time to check which school the kids attended and if there was
>
> school on June 13.]
> >
> >Prien then postures-
> > Now does anyone really imagine that their arrival time at home
> > that night, which plays such a pivotal role in the story, could,
> > at the time of the deposition on May 2, 1996, still have been
> > like guessing the answer to a multiple choice quiz?
> >
> >Just him claiming this is a "pivotal" time, doesn't make it so.
> >
> >The "pivotal point" would be "did judith call before Ron left his
> >shift?" The answer is yes. Outside of that, the only question he
> >actually raises is "Did judith call before they got home, or did
> >they 'speed' going home?" Since he introduced nothing to suggest the
> >call wasn't made from anywhere other than their home. Prien has
> >managed to show that Lou Brown exceeded the post speed limit. But
> >you pro-s aren't willing to see what he has actually shown, just
> >what he claims to have shown.
>
> No, dear. This is crucial and pivotal for many reasons. The most
> glaring, is because the prosecution said Ron had to leave by 9:50 in
> order to get to Bundy in time for OJS to have killed him and Nicole.
> So if Juditha had called Mezzaluna at say, 9:57, instead of 9:37,
her call to Mezzaluna would have been long distance and therefore been
on the phone bill so why is there a question about the time of the phone
call?
> we're dealing with Ron leaving significantly later than 10:00 Pm --
> going home, dressing, borrowing car, getting to Bundy, getting himself
>
> killed when it couldn't have been OJS to do it and get back in the
> time frame to meet the limo.
Between 10 pm and 10:54 isn't enough time?
> Even if Juditha had called at 9:47 --
> it would still screw up the prosecution window of opportunity for OJS
> to have committed the double slaying. Ron would have left at earliest
>
> 10PM, get home, get dressed, borrow the car, get to Bundy, and clearly
>
> he wouldn't have gotten there before 10:25 - 10:35, at the earliest!
There you go again, assuming. "We assume everyone takes as long as us to
get ready, so it was impossible for someone else to do it faster,
therefore OJ couldn't have had time to kill 2 people and leave all of
that evidence behind...." Right
> It takes time to kill someone. It takes time to fight with someone,
> inflict that many stab wounds, get rid of murderwear and weapons and
> get home undetected.
How long? I watched a video of a guy who stabbed a person around 15-20
times in the same amount of seconds.
> Remember, OJS had to be home by 10:42 for Kato to have him
> bang against air conditioner and drop the glove in the bushes.
Gee, I didn't realize Kato gave an EXACT time - you suppose it was an
estimate?
> Doesn't work. No matter how you cut it it up.
It only doesn't work because you make assumptions so it will not work.
Your assumptions are not fact.
> >
> >Suddenly becomes reality. And in this reality, it takes 1/3 the time
> >for 4 adults and 2 children to get walk twenty feet and get into the
> >car and again the twenty feet out of the car to transfer two
> >children to another car as is does to travel 67 miles, "leaving the
> >Browns not a New York microsecond longer"
>
> Did they walk to their car? Was the car waiting for them? Did they
> have to pay a valet? Did they say good bye outside to their group of
>
> people? Did they negotiate their seating in the car? Did they have to
>
> buckle up the kids before they buckled up themselves?
Well, did they? You are the one assuming it took them so long, as well
as assuming the 8:30 time in the first place....
Did someone pay the bill while everyone else got in the car, therefore
saving a bit of time?
>
>
> >I'll stop here.
>
snipped
Kristin VanAllen
> NKC wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 08:15:37 GMT, mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:
>
> >
> > >mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
> > >
> > <snips>
> > >
> > >>And besides, you have no challenges.
> >
> > >To what? His picking and choosing how he chooses to understand the
> > >data. I got tired of this crap when schreck used to do it. Why
> > >should I play with a babblative amateur?
> >
> > Maybe I think you have a responsibility to "play" because you so
> > ferociously assert that the reality supports a scenario in which OJS
>
> > is the killer. What is your problem with responding? You've been
> > responding for 5 years. You have challenges to Prien? Let's see
> > them.
> > >
> > >>There is not a single time line
> > >>that works: not the killing time, not Ron Goldman's time.
> > >
> > >So that means that they didn't die?
> >
> > That's a juvenile response. If the timeline doesn't work, it means
> > that the killers of these two victims are unidentified and free.
> > >
> > >Yet it took five years for one fool to find it? 124 books, 34
> > >lawyers, dozens of investigators, thousands of pro-js posting here
> > >all missed this evidence.
> >
> > That's untrue. This is not a new argument. Pro-j's have argued
> this
> > before, as recently as a few months ago, with Originalman, who
> raised
> > this timeline issue, and I think Dick Wagner jumped in. Freed
> > referred to it in his book. Of course, I've argued the phone records
>
> > ad nauseum. And Miller pushed the envelope edges.
> > With Prien here, the data of the impossibility of the
> timeline
> > with regard to triggering Goldman's appearance at Bundy is more
> > specific than I've ever seen before. He took the time to lay it out
> in
> > precise detail.
You mean precise assumptions......
> This is done in a traditional investigative format,
> > worthy of a criminal case document.
> > That you want to <plonk> it, or do some other infantile
> > gesture with it, is a sad reflection of your anal-retentiveness.
> >
> > >>It's when you wake up that you'll have the horrible nightmare:
> your
> > >>5-year campaign to convict an innocent and acquitted Black man
> > >>crumbles before your eyes.
> >
> > >There is that race thing again. May I understand it to mean that if
>
> > >simpson weren't black, you wouldn't be here?
> >
> > If Simpson weren't black, you wouldn't be here.
>
> So confused, how were the browns able to drive
> home to dana point in 47 minutes?
who says 47? Oh, the guys who assumed 20 minutes out of the timeline
while starting the timeline from an assumed time?
> These are middle
> aged adults not kids who just push the pedal to the
> metal. Explain it to us if you think you are able.
Nooooo.....you mean to tell me there is an upper age limit for
possessing the ability to speed?????
The pile of assumptions is getting higher and deeper.......
Walter Bennett
>>wrote:
>confused wrote:
>>Some members of the criminal trial jury
>>probably gave it a lot of weight since they
>>had driven the route many times before
>>the trial and knew it would be impossible
>>to leave at the time given by the
>>prosecution andmake the call by 9:37 PM.
>Well, last time I was on the 405 at 8:30 at
>night, the posted limit was 55. The
>average speed of traffic was 70. I believe
>the limit was raised to 65. What would you
>guess is the average speed of traffic?
I was on the 405 just recently. I had to take my granddaughter down to
Chapman University for her placement exams. The average speed is still
70 - 75 mph. Sure, there is the occasional nut that does 90 mph,
employs bulldog lane changes, ends up behind a 18-wheeler, and is last
seen in the rear view mirror by the 70 mph traffic as he faded into the
distance.
I love a mystery!
It is not necessarily true that averaging the averages of
brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence gives the average of the
combined brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence.
-Simpson's Paradox as understood by Walt Bennett
Robert H. Risch
<kvan...@mail.cccd.edu> wrote:
> What was the Mezzaluna receipt timestamp????
Neither the cash register receipt not the American Express receipts had an
accurate time. From Karen Crawford's testimony in the criminal trial:
Q NOW, YOU CAN SEE ON THAT PIECE OF PAPER THAT IT SAYS, "JUNE 13 AT 7:04
A.M."?
A YES.
Q IS THAT ACCURATE?
A NO, THAT IS INCORRECT.
Q IS THAT TIME OF DAY STAMP ALWAYS INCORRECT?
A AS FAR AS I KNOW AS LONG AS I HAVE WORKED THERE, YES.
..............
Q NOW, THIS SHOWS A DATE OF JUNE 12?
A YEAH.
Q AND A TIME OF 7:00 P.M.?
A YEAH.
THE COURT: 7:12.
Q BY MS. CLARK: 7:12 P.M.?
A YES.
Q IS THAT ACCURATE?
A NO, THAT IS NOT ACCURATE EITHER.
Q OKAY. SO NEITHER YOUR CREDIT CARD MACHINE NOR THE NCR THAT YOU PUNCH THE
ORDERS
INTO HAS CORRECT TIMES IN IT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q IS THE DATE CORRECT ON YOUR CREDIT CARD MACHINE?
A THE DATE IS CORRECT, YES.
Q THE TIME IS WRONG?
A THE TIME IS WRONG.
If we can't believe the time stamps, we can't believe any of the evidence
in this case. It is all garbage, fit for the Mezzaluna's trash bin!!!!!!
Yeah!!!!!!! Clearly then, OJ must be innocent.
RHR
Kristin VanAllen
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:19:52 -0700, Kristin VanAllen
> <kvan...@mail.cccd.edu> wrote:
>
> > What was the Mezzaluna receipt timestamp????
>
Thankyou for posting that. It is clear then that all times are indeed
estimates, and as we all know, estimates do not rule out or
exonerate....
Walter Bennett
>>ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett)
>>wrote:
>confused wrote:
>>>Nope, It is because I want the murderer of
>>>NBS and RLG to be punished.
>>And you know Simpson, to the exclusion
>>of all others, is the murder, because ....
>I don't know that he is the murderer to the
>exclusion of all others. But I do know that
>there was no evidence presented that
>would allow one to reach a different
>conclusion.
Whether you know,
>that there was no evidence presented that
>would allow one to reach a different
>conclusion,
or not, the jurors, in the criminal trial, felt that there was
insufficient burden established by that evidence to convict Simpson.
But don't rely solely on the verdict in the criminal trial to prove the
point; by pretrial motions that took the heart out of the defense's
ability to safeguard the rights of its client, the civil trial was
conducted. As a result, the defendant was held to prove that he was not
responsible while denied the evidence and testimony from key witnesses.
Proving a negative is just as difficult in a courtroom as it is anywhere
else in life. Verdict to the Plaintiffs, and a shallow victory it was
and is.
Walter Bennett
Some members of the criminal trial jury probably gave it a lot of weight
since they had driven the route many times before the trial and knew it
would be impossible to leave at the time given by the prosecution
andmake the call by 9:37 PM.
Well, last time I was on the 405 at 8:30 at night, the posted limit was
55. The average speed of traffic was 70. I believe the limit was raised
to 65. What would you guess is the average speed of traffic?
Kristin VanAllen wrote:
last time I checked, it was around 70 for the "slow
lane" because at 65 EVERYONE passes me, and 75-85 for the meduim lanes,
and around 85-90 for the zippy lanes. One hour from Brentwood to Dana
Point is slow......
NKC wrote:
But Kris, pay attention. Read Prien. As he pointed out so explicitly,
there were several minutes that must be accounted for on the departure
end from the Mezzaluna and to the arrival end at home.
8:30 - witnesses see
the Browns exit the restaurant.
8:30 - 8:40 - Browns
saying their goodbyes to everyone, get their car, then leave - [which
would probably be more than 10 minutes]
9:37 - alleged phone
call. Work backwards and figure all the activities required of Juditha
before the telephone call. At least 10 minutes; that means, that at
9:27 they had to arrive
in Dana Point.
so then do the math: 8:40 - 9:27 = 47 minutes.
Even in the suburbs, this couldn't make sense.
Walter Bennett writes:
This timing also assumes that the Browns live on the 405. Once arriving
in Dana Point the streets of the city have to be negotiated. I assume
that there are red lights, stop signs, etc., in Dana Point between the
exit the Browns took and their house.
There was also another set of goodbyes at the house. Grandma just
walked away from her grandkids to go make the call. In a pig's eye.
PuppetMaster
<kvan...@mail.cccd.edu> wrote:
>Robert H. Risch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:19:52 -0700, Kristin VanAllen
>> <kvan...@mail.cccd.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > What was the Mezzaluna receipt timestamp????
>>
Nor do that change the fact the killers blood was left at the crime
scene, as well as both victims blood being found inside of the killers
SUV, and home. And who might that be, why OJ Simpson of course.
Walter Bennett
a credit card? Based on the time variation of the credit card machine
used by the prosecution to prove that Danny Mandel who paid for the
dinner with Ellen Aaronson, we would be in a much better position to
know when the family left the restaurant.
Moreover, assuming that the restaurant was busy when the Brown party
arrive, where did the driver part the vehicle? How much time was used
to go and get it and drive it back.
To hear Crawford explain that she found the glasses at the curb outside
the front door of the restaurant implies that the car was parked at the
front door while the party was inside. In truth, the vehicle could have
been parked elsewhere and driven to that point to pick up its
passengers. If so, more time would have been required to load up and
leave.
Nicole's trip to the ice cream parlor has become a bit hazy. Was it
known or seen? Did she tell someone that going for ice cream is what
she planned to do, or did members of the group see her go across the
street?
Walter Bennett
>Ummm.....aren't these all ASSUMPTIONS
>on the time? Here you are assuming that
>they spent 10 minutes or more saying
>good bye. The freeway is no more than 2
>minutes away from Mezzaluna right there
>off of san Vicente, left on Wilshire and
>there is the on ramp. Then you assume
>she spent 10 minutes at home before
>calling. So you assume out 20 minutes,
>then claim it could not have been done.
Thank you, Kris. Please post the time from the exit of the 405 to the
Brown's house, if you know.
Walter Bennett
>confused wrote:
>>we're dealing with Ron leaving
>>significantly later than 10:00 Pm -- going
>>home, dressing, borrowing car, getting to
>>Bundy, getting himself killed when it
>>couldn't have been OJS to do it and get
>>back in the time frame to meet the limo.
>But all that happened. maybe not the way
>that the prosecution claimed, but those
>events happened.
How right you are. "Maybe not the way that the prosecution claimed" has
got to be the best line a No'jr ever wrote. ROTFLLLLMAO. confused, you
are a jewel.
Kristin VanAllen
> >Kris wrote:
>
> >Ummm.....aren't these all ASSUMPTIONS
> >on the time? Here you are assuming that
> >they spent 10 minutes or more saying
> >good bye. The freeway is no more than 2
> >minutes away from Mezzaluna right there
> >off of san Vicente, left on Wilshire and
> >there is the on ramp. Then you assume
> >she spent 10 minutes at home before
> >calling. So you assume out 20 minutes,
> >then claim it could not have been done.
>
> Thank you, Kris. Please post the time from the exit of the 405 to the
>
> Brown's house, if you know.
In order for any of this to matter, it would have to be shown it was
established to a certainty that the browns did not leave until after
8:30.
That cannot be done with the information available and with the
timestamps acquired.
For Dana Point, if I recall correctly, there is no where that is not far
from the freeway - everything is fairly accessible from the coast
highway. Also, was the 73 freeway open then? That way is much
faster......people also speed more and at a higher speed there too.
Walter Bennett
What was the Mezzaluna receipt timestamp????
Robert H. Risch wrote:
Neither the cash register receipt not the American Express receipts had
an accurate time. From Karen Crawford's testimony in the criminal trial:
Q NOW, YOU CAN SEE ON THAT PIECE OF PAPER THAT IT SAYS, "JUNE 13 AT 7:04
A.M."?
A YES.
Q IS THAT ACCURATE?
A NO, THAT IS INCORRECT.
Q IS THAT TIME OF DAY STAMP ALWAYS INCORRECT? A AS FAR AS I KNOW AS LONG
AS I HAVE WORKED THERE, YES.
.............
Q NOW, THIS SHOWS A DATE OF JUNE 12?
A YEAH.
Q AND A TIME OF 7:00 P.M.?
A YEAH.
THE COURT: 7:12.
Q BY MS. CLARK: 7:12 P.M.?
A YES.
Q IS THAT ACCURATE?
A NO, THAT IS NOT ACCURATE EITHER.
Q OKAY. SO NEITHER YOUR CREDIT CARD MACHINE NOR THE NCR THAT YOU PUNCH
THE ORDERS
INTO HAS CORRECT TIMES IN IT?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q IS THE DATE CORRECT ON YOUR CREDIT CARD MACHINE? A THE DATE IS
CORRECT, YES.
Q THE TIME IS WRONG?
A THE TIME IS WRONG.
If we can't believe the time stamps, we can't believe any of the
evidence in this case. It is all garbage, fit for the Mezzaluna's trash
bin!!!!!! Yeah!!!!!!! Clearly then, OJ must be innocent.
RHR
Walter Bennett writes:
Unless the time on the machines are picked randomly - 7AM, 4:30PM, 9PM,
5AM, 8AM, etc., the Mendel and Brown receipts would have established a
relationship to each other that would have produced a true time for the
events surrounding the Browns and Mendel.
confused
>>>>confused wrote:
>Whether you know,
>
>>that there was no evidence presented that
>>would allow one to reach a different
>>conclusion,
>
>or not, the jurors, in the criminal trial, felt that there was
>insufficient burden established by that evidence to convict Simpson.
They followed the law. I have no problem with that.
>But don't rely solely on the verdict in the criminal trial to prove the
>point; by pretrial motions that took the heart out of the defense's
>ability to safeguard the rights of its client, the civil trial was
>conducted.
It wouldn't have anything to do with the lower burden required in
civil court.
>As a result, the defendant was held to prove that he was not
>responsible while denied the evidence and testimony from key witnesses.
And he was unable to do it.
>Proving a negative is just as difficult in a courtroom as it is anywhere
>else in life.
Negatives such as "the police didn't plant evidence", or "my actions
weren't racially motivated"? Are those the negatives that are
difficult to prove in court?
Kristin VanAllen
> Kristin VanAllen wrote:
> What was the Mezzaluna receipt timestamp????
>
> Robert H. Risch wrote:
> Neither the cash register receipt not the American Express receipts
> had
> an accurate time. From Karen Crawford's testimony in the criminal
> trial:
>
> snipped testimony that shows there was no accurate time.
> RHR
>
> Walter Bennett writes:
> Unless the time on the machines are picked randomly - 7AM, 4:30PM,
> 9PM,
> 5AM, 8AM, etc., the Mendel and Brown receipts would have established a
>
> relationship to each other that would have produced a true time for
> the
> events surrounding the Browns and Mendel.
>
>
Just because you can prove one party left x minutes after another does
not establish the time the first party left - from the above information
all you can establish is that if the timestamp is 7:04 am then the other
is 8:04 am for example, all you can establish is that they left an hour
after the first - it does not establish when the first party left.
dick wagner
I can comment with authority on part of this; I left Brentwood at the
same time (8:30pm) last Friday that the Browns left on that Sunday
night. I am sure that on Sunday night the traffic is easier than on
Friday. Nonetheless, traffic on Wilshire between Bundy and the 405 was
completely free flowing. It was probably 30 mph to San Vicente (there
are signals on Wilshire, but not after Gorham on San Vicente) and
traffic moved at 45 mph trough the federal reservation between San
Vicente and the freeway. The Browns had a faster trip. After leaving
the Mezzaluna, the only signal for them was at San Vicente and Wilshire,
and there is not much of a delay there.
According to the map it is a few yard more than a mile from the
Mezzaluna to the freeway, and at 45 mph that is 1:20 minutes. Allowing
for an adverse signal at Wilshire (some of the time there is no wait),
and you would be on the 405 in two minutes.
As to your statement, "There is no assumption that each one of these
activities takes a certain amount of time." The issue is not that they
take time, the issue is how much time. You may imagine that they took a
particular amount of time, but your imagining is hardly proof. In fact,
it is not even a good indication of what really happened. As far as I
know, there is no good indication of how, or with what speed, these
activities were accomplished.
--dick wagner
thez...@my-deja.com
> On 23 Aug 1999 16:03:25 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <37C1C3FA...@mindspring.com>,
> >al walker <dropNOSPAMforEMAILtoGETthrough> wrote:
> >>Libraryboy wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In article <37c0e6b3....@supernews.sirius.com>,
> >>> NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > 5 years of manipulating information, of propagandizing, of
> >>> >racializing, of character assassinating, of aligning yourselves with
> >>> >the lowest forms of humanity.
> >>>
> >>> Certainly I would think that someone who posts on the Internet that
> >>> "THERE'S NO SUCH ANIMAL AS A GOOD JEW" would fall into *that* category.
> >>> Are you "aligned" with anyone like that?
> >>
> >>
> >> Since you have aligned yourself with posters who
> >>have a lynch mob mentality, and some who are trying
> >>hard to be true fascists, and some who aspire to be
> >>bullies, and others who are simply less than human,
> >>why would you think you have the right to ask that
> >>question of anyone?
> >
> >The same thing that gives you the right to ask that question of me.
> >
> >Now I have a question for you, Al. Why would a self-proclaimed jew such as
> >yourself want to deny me the right to denounce a rabid anti-Semite and his
> >fellow travellers? After all, when sodapop was bounced after his infamous
> >"joke" ("What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza? The pizza
> >doesn't scream when you put it in the oven."), you wrote to his ISP (in
> >Canada) and complained that his rights were being violated. But when I
> >denounce an anti-Semite, you suggest that I have no right to do so! What
> >kind of a Jew are you, anyway? I suggest you take this post and show it to
> >your rabbi so he can get you straightened out about exactly who you are.
> >Let me know what he tells you, OK, "Al?"
> >
> >Maguey, the ball is still in your court. Do you "align" (in the sense that
> >you use the term above) yourself with M.A.?
>
> Jesus! Thomas, why don't you just lease out a few billboards and
> emblazon them with,
>
> "THERE'S NO SUCH ANIMAL AS A GOOD JEW"
>
>
> You can also get bumper stickers and pretty soon everyone will be
> saying it.
Nobody is agreeing with M.A.'s sentiments, Patty. We are merely
pointing them out to compare to all of his lectures about racism,
as well as your own. If you were truly as socially concerned as you
claim to be, you'd agree that making a statement such as this was
at the very least a negative thing. You won't do that. You won't
even acknowledge that this is the very sort of remark Buford Furrow
might have uttered before he opened fire.
> What do you think would be the result? That everyone would be
> mad at MA, or that the concept of how beneath animals are Jews?
> Don't you know about manufacturing consent?
Is this going to be your new angle? Insisting that if we bring this
statement up then that means we want people to believe it? Nice
try, Patty, but that one won't work. It's beneath you, so I suggest
you find something a bit more palatable.
> Aren't you aware that the more you say something, the more it
> becomes "gospel"?
Like repeating fantasies surrounding a proven murderer?
> Haven't ever heard, "No such thing as bad publicity"?
> This is exactly how the media got all you guys riled up
> against the "obviously guilty" black man, OJ Simpson.
> This is exactly how the media has demonized and gotten even
> the white *left* to blash Mayor Willie Brown.
I believe we were discussing M.A.'s anti-semitic comments, not
your desire to change the subject back to your favorite topics.
> Be careful, you keep saying that thing about animals and Jews
> and pretty soon Scott will be ripping off his Star of David.
No fear.
> I am not going to interpret for MA.
Congratulations. You're no longer deflecting or running. But you
are refusing to address a prominent issue, simply because you
don't wish it to be an issue.
>But I will try and nudge you, Thomas, into social responsibility.
Feel free to demonstrate your own responsibility by condemning
a racist remark, rather than protecting the person who made it
because he agrees with you that O.J. Simpson is innocent, or
trying to steer the subject into more comfortable waters.
Libraryboy
>mad at MA, or that the concept of how beneath animals are Jews?
> Don't you know about manufacturing consent?
>becomes "gospel"?
> This is exactly how the media got all you guys riled up
>against the "obviously guilty" black man, OJ Simpson.
> This is exactly how the media has demonized and gotten even
>the white *left* to blash Mayor Willie Brown.
>and pretty soon Scott will be ripping off his Star of David.
>you, Thomas, into social responsibility.
That's odd. You never tried to nudge MA into social responsibility, and
he's the one who said it. But maybe that's too big a job even for you.
BTW, do you align yourself with M.A.?
al walker
Hey how come you call other people fatty and you
are big as a house?
Check under "who is this lardass" and you will
see who it is!
There should be one with your ugly mug coming up
soon!
Jon Beaver
Walter Bennett wrote in message <13369-37...@newsd-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>>NKC wrote:
>confused wrote:
>>we're dealing with Ron leaving
>>significantly later than 10:00 Pm -- going
>>home, dressing, borrowing car, getting to
>>Bundy, getting himself killed when it
>>couldn't have been OJS to do it and get
>>back in the time frame to meet the limo.
>But all that happened. maybe not the way
>that the prosecution claimed, but those
>events happened.
How right you are. "Maybe not the way that the prosecution claimed" has
got to be the best line a No'jr ever wrote. ROTFLLLLMAO. confused, you
are a jewel.
********************
They're not sure whether OJ must be guilty because they
happened or they must have happened because OJ is guilty.
Jon Beaver
Robert H. Risch wrote in message <37c4d659....@news3.ibm.net>...
>If we can't believe the time stamps, we can't believe any of the evidence
>in this case. It is all garbage, fit for the Mezzaluna's trash bin!!!!!!
>Yeah!!!!!!! Clearly then, OJ must be innocent.
>
Jesus H. Chr....., Risch! It's PRESUMED innocent. Presumed!!!!
AAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
dick wagner
I think you are being argumentative for its own sake. You say, "[Dick]
referred to the flow of traffic on Wilshire from Bundy to the 405 as
though this had anything to do with how the Browns went to the 405." I
did not claim, and do not believe that the Browns backtracked to
Nicole's place. I think that they proceded directly from Gorham and San
Vicente to Wilshire and San Vicente, turned left there, and went through
the federal reservation (formerly "Old Soldier's Home") to the freeway.
I mentioned the traffic on Wilshire because that was a matter of my
actual observation. Often this traffic is stop and go, and is always
slower than traffic on San Vicente. I would extrapolate my direct
observation of 30 mph on Wilshire at that time as an indication that the
traffic on San Vicente then was 45. (I think you got confused as to
where the 30 mph applied.
It is almost a semantic issue as to the signal at San Vicente and
Gorham. Ordinarily, in measuring the time to traverse a course, we do
not count the time waiting for the starter to fire the gun, but if it is
important to you, then do so. However, San Vicente is by far the
predominant flow, and the signal very much favors travel on that
street. So the delay on account of this signal is questionable anyway.
--dick wagner
NKC
<kvan...@mail.cccd.edu> wrote:
> Ummm.....aren't these all ASSUMPTIONS on the time? Here you are
>assuming that they spent 10 minutes or more saying good bye. The freeway
>is no more than 2 minutes away from Mezzaluna right there off of san
>Vicente, left on Wilshire and there is the on ramp. Then you assume she
>spent 10 minutes at home before calling. So you assume out 20 minutes,
>then claim it could not have been done.
>
>I can assume those 20 minutes right back in, and there you have it as
>possible.
>
>This is a good example of how you guys talk yourself out of reality -
Kris, I don't believe that physical distance is an "assumption" or the
time it takes to get from point A to point B is speculative. We are
not dealing with "assumptions", so I don't know why you have pushed
this concept in every one of your numerous posts trying to challenge
Grand Master Prien.
Of course, there will be variables, depending on the
circumstances. But the margin of variation diminishes when you're
talking about the number and quality of players: elderly folks, little
kids, families saying their goodbyes; the location: exiting a
neighborhood with a relatively dense and popular nightlife [relative
to the extreme suburbs, at least]; the long leg of the journey:
traveling a specific number of miles, hovering somewhere over [or
under!] the speed limit; the arrival: at home, parking, saying ciao
bellas there, entering house; the telephone call: telephoning the
restaurant.
There are no assumptions that each one of these activities had
to take place, and there is no assumption that each one of these
NKC
>mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
>>confused, Prien addressed this extensively in his article. And look
>>at the testimony yourself: Why would she re-assess DOWNWARDS the time
>>she left from 9 PM to 8:30 PM, if what jogged her memory to the more
>>accurate time was getting the kids to bed early because of a school
>>day? It makes no sense! It would normally be the reverse:
>
>According to whom? Please support that claim with something more
>than "common sense". You are applying your beliefs here, but you do
>not know if that is what she would do. Until you can show that what
>you claim is more likely than what happened you have nothing but her
>claim. By your reasoning, the "burden" is on you to show that she is
>wrong. Please do so!
[quoting Prien] - Her pre civil trial depo on 05/02/96 she said "I
think it was around 9:00 o'clock, 8:30 ... 8:30...you know what, it
was closer to 8:30 because I told the kids to lay down and go to sleep
in the back. They had school the next day."
>
>>if she had said, "Oh, about 8 -- no I remember it was about 8:30
>>because the kids had school the next day and I was concerned
>>about the time." That woulda made more sense.
>Unless that was what she said then the reverse would have been true.
>
>> The bitch was lying.
>No, you are. You don't know why she answered that way. But you are
>providing meanings based on your beliefs rather than facts.
Denise Brown was lying. If I was in charge of breaking down her
credibility, in charge of exploring issues related to truth and
veracity of her statements, I'd have a lot of fun.
>
>> [Time to check which school the kids attended and if there was
>>school on June 13.]
Again, does anyone have the time to check if the kids had school on
June 13, 1994? That's pretty late in the year. And they were real
youngin's, right?
>
>>Even if Juditha had called at 9:47 -- it would still screw up the
>>prosecution window of opportunity for OJS to have committed the double
>>slaying.
>How?
>
>> Remember, OJS had to be home by 10:42 for Kato to have him
>10:42?
>
>Q AND AT 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS IN THE EVENING, SIR, DID YOU SPEAK
>TO YOUR BOSS IN THE -- ON THE CAR PHONE IN THE STRETCH LIMO?
>A YES, I DID.
I'm sure you inserted that transcript excerpt for a reason.
>
>>bang against air conditioner and drop the glove in the bushes.
>> Doesn't work. No matter how you cut it it up.
>
>that would be 10:48. It doesn't work because you don't wish to
>consider the evidence.
Kato, another probable liar, was on the phone at different intervals
between 9:37 and 10:45. The time he heard the thumps was supposed to
be around 10:41 - 10:43, and after recovering from his fear,
supposedly went outside to check to see the damage the earthquake did
at 10:49.
>
>>
>>Did they walk to their car?
>Did they?
either that or, did they take public transportation? (point is dearie
that it takes time to get to a car)
>
>>Was the car waiting for them?
>Was it?
>>Did they have to pay a valet?
>Did they?
>>Did they say good bye outside to their group of people?
>What do you think?
POint is Dear, there are activities that take time between the exit of
a location and an entry into a vehicle and a departure. The more
people there are to accomodate, the more time it takes. The relative
age extremes of the players involved add to the amount of time it
takes.
>
>>Did they negotiate their seating in the car? Did they have to
>>buckle up the kids before they buckled up themselves?
>No, the children were laying down, remember?
Seat belt laws still apply. Any normal parent and grandparent would
have made some accomodations for their safety.
>That places the freeway speed at just over 60 mph. Five minutes on
>either side, six mph faster still works. Do you ever drive on the
>freeway at 66-7 mph?
>
In the first place, the 8:30 time of departure from the restaurant was
the *earliest* according to the eyewitnesses. Other witnesses said
they left later! So this is what we're working with, since neither
Denise or Juditha were asked during the criminal trial what time they
left.
Then, we have to travel a distance of 70-75 miles from
Mezzaluna to their house.
I am unable to justify that distance in a 60-63 minute time
frame, much less, factoring in other activities, in a 47-53 minute
time frame.
>So what is more likely. Times being a bit off, or the Browns being
>involved in murders?
The parent Browns were overcome by grief and were likely manipulated
by the police and maybe even their offspring into saying certain
things to support OJS as the killer.
NKC
>>Subject: Re: It's still the impossible trip home
>>From: mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused)
>>Date: Tue, 24 August 1999 05:06 AM EDT
>>Message-id: <37c45897...@207.14.113.10>
>
>Magpie...
>
>To *clear up* some of your troubling thoughts and put your little mind at ease:
>
>1. Ron lived on 1 1/2 blocks from Mezzaluna and had borrowed a car that
>evening. You make it sound like he had to *arrange* to borrow the car...
>
>2. Mezzaluna HAD valet parking.
>
>3. The Brown children were old enough to fasten their own seat belts..(or not)
>
>4. The Brown's said their goodbye's..and watched Nicole and the kids walk to
>B&J..no long conversations went on curbside.
>
>5. It IS possible to drive to Dana Point in an hour on a Sunday evening with
>relatively little traffic...which probably would have been the case...(everyone
>was home watching the sequel of Dynasty...Dallas whatever...that's a joke..by
>the way..)
>
>You may want to re-think your ridiculous
>Prien-driven-thinking....
>
>
>Marla
>
>"One day OJ will kill me. And he'll get away with it..."
>Nicole Brown Simpson
Marla, turn off your vibrator and think reality for a moment.
It is unlikely that any one person would have made it from Brentwood
on a 75 mile journey through the LA basin in an hour.
It is HIGHLY unlikely that adults and kids could have
performed all their necessary activities and an elderly would have
conducted the journey in that time period. In fact, it is so HIGHLY
UNLIKELY that it is impossible.
Now get back to your stalking of that horrible big huge black
man.
Look! I think he's staring at you!!!
NKC
wrote:
>In article <37c22a46....@supernews.sirius.com>,
>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>
>>confused, Prien addressed this extensively in his article. And look
>>at the testimony yourself: Why would she re-assess DOWNWARDS the time
>>she left from 9 PM to 8:30 PM, if what jogged her memory to the more
>>accurate time was getting the kids to bed early because of a school
>>day? It makes no sense! It would normally be the reverse: if she had
>>said, "Oh, about 8 -- no I remember it was about 8:30 because the kids
>>had school the next day and I was concerned about the time." That
>>woulda made more sense.
>> The bitch was lying.
>
>Two questions:
>
>a) What would be her motive to lie about this?
>b) Why are you calling Juditha Brown a bitch?
b) by now I'm sure you know I referred to Denise.
a) to lock in OJS as the killer
NKC
wrote:
>In article <37C1C3FA...@mindspring.com>,
NKC
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:19:52 -0700, Kristin VanAllen
><kvan...@mail.cccd.edu> wrote:
>
>> What was the Mezzaluna receipt timestamp????
>
>Neither the cash register receipt not the American Express receipts had an
>accurate time. From Karen Crawford's testimony in the criminal trial:
>
>Q NOW, YOU CAN SEE ON THAT PIECE OF PAPER THAT IT SAYS, "JUNE 13 AT 7:04
>A.M."?
>A YES.
>Q IS THAT ACCURATE?
>A NO, THAT IS INCORRECT.
>Q IS THAT TIME OF DAY STAMP ALWAYS INCORRECT?
>A AS FAR AS I KNOW AS LONG AS I HAVE WORKED THERE, YES.
>
>..............
>
>Q NOW, THIS SHOWS A DATE OF JUNE 12?
>A YEAH.
>Q AND A TIME OF 7:00 P.M.?
>A YEAH.
>THE COURT: 7:12.
>Q BY MS. CLARK: 7:12 P.M.?
>A YES.
>Q IS THAT ACCURATE?
>A NO, THAT IS NOT ACCURATE EITHER.
>Q OKAY. SO NEITHER YOUR CREDIT CARD MACHINE NOR THE NCR THAT YOU PUNCH THE
>ORDERS
>INTO HAS CORRECT TIMES IN IT?
>A THAT'S RIGHT.
>Q IS THE DATE CORRECT ON YOUR CREDIT CARD MACHINE?
>A THE DATE IS CORRECT, YES.
>Q THE TIME IS WRONG?
>A THE TIME IS WRONG.
>
Perhaps RHR can come up with the phone records evidence.
Or maybe the phone company computers were haywire that night,
too? Kinda weird how all these time and date stamps are
off...Bloomingdale's glove sales were off, too. Weird weird weird.
There seems to be a problem related to whether the phone
records were evidenced or whether they were stipulted or WHATever. I
think we need to know some simple but precise details:
1.) WHAT PHONE RECORDS WERE RETRIEVED AND WHICH ONES WERE
ENTERED AS EVIDENCE
2.) WHAT DID THEY SAY
I've been worried about the phone records for a long time. Everyone
talks about these phone calls which lock in the scenario. I know we
have OJS' cell phone records from Brentwood, and the record of him
calling Paula's number at 10:03. That is supposed to be the turning
point which compelled him to murder Nicole.
- We don't have the cell records from Chicago.
- I believe we have honest Alan Park's cell phone records.
- I *believe* we have Kato's phone bill which show the call to
the prosecutor in San Diego; we don't have a "number search"
investigation to show when he was talking to his girlfriend and heard
the thumps.
- I believe Marcia Clark put Nicole's phone bill on a court
display showing the time of Juditha's phone call. It was the July 4
phone bill, featuring calls from the month of June. Is this true?
What were the other numbers on that bill?
-I believe we don't have the "number search" records of
Nicole's...which might have shown contact with other individuals who
might be suspects in her murder, certainly, who was her "good friend"
that she was having the horrible argument with on the night of her
slaying.
Anyone can help me out here?
confused
>On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:06:21 GMT, mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:
>[quoting Prien] - Her pre civil trial depo on 05/02/96 she said "I
>think it was around 9:00 o'clock, 8:30 ... 8:30...you know what, it
>was closer to 8:30 because I told the kids to lay down and go to sleep
>in the back. They had school the next day."
But that wasn't what was said. This is-
Q. Do you recall what time you left Mezzaluna on June 12th,
A. I think it was around 9:00 o'clock, 8:30 -- 8:30.
Q. Did you talk with any members of your family about O.J. Simpson
after you left Mezzaluna?
A. No.
Q. You have no knowledge as to whether you left Mezzaluna at 8:30 or
9:00? You can't be any more specific than that?
A. You know what, it was closer to 8:30, because I told the kids to
lay down and go to sleep in the back. They had school the
next day.
So tell us why is this a lie?
>Denise Brown was lying.
And again I ask what do base that on? If you fail to respond to it
again I will be forced to believe you are lying.
>If I was in charge of breaking down her
>credibility, in charge of exploring issues related to truth and
>veracity of her statements, I'd have a lot of fun.
Not nearly as much fun as I am, breaking down your credibility.
>>> [Time to check which school the kids attended and if there was
>>>school on June 13.]
>
>Again, does anyone have the time to check if the kids had school on
>June 13, 1994? That's pretty late in the year. And they were real
>youngin's, right?
Chase you own fantasies.
>>> Remember, OJS had to be home by 10:42 for Kato to have him
>>10:42?
>>
>>Q AND AT 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS IN THE EVENING, SIR, DID YOU SPEAK
>>TO YOUR BOSS IN THE -- ON THE CAR PHONE IN THE STRETCH LIMO?
>>A YES, I DID.
>
>I'm sure you inserted that transcript excerpt for a reason.
Kato was seen about three minutes after the thumps. We know what
time he was seen, and 10:42 isn't that time.
>>that would be 10:48. It doesn't work because you don't wish to
>>consider the evidence.
>
>Kato, another probable liar, was on the phone at different intervals
>between 9:37 and 10:45. The time he heard the thumps was supposed to
>be around 10:41 - 10:43, and after recovering from his fear,
>supposedly went outside to check to see the damage the earthquake did
>at 10:49.
Not according to the limo's cell phone records. You remember those
records you are always whining about. 10:52 was when he was seen. so
10:49 would have been the time of the noise.
>either that or, did they take public transportation? (point is dearie
>that it takes time to get to a car)
Of course. Care to give a number? Care to support it?
>>>Did they say good bye outside to their group of people?
>>What do you think?
>
>POint is Dear, there are activities that take time between the exit of
>a location and an entry into a vehicle and a departure.
Yes they do. But to streach them to "prove" that they couldn't make
the call is silly. They made the call.
>The more
>people there are to accomodate, the more time it takes. The relative
>age extremes of the players involved add to the amount of time it
>takes.
But you don't have a reference point. My family, grandparents,
included wouldn't have taken more than three minutes. But I
understand that that varies. I have an ex-girlfriend that takes 20
minutes to get out of the car no matter where she goes. If she
drives someplace five minutes away, it will be 50 minutes from the
time she leaves the house until she enters it. I can walk the same
distance and beat her home by 10 mins. So I understand a there is a
range.
>>>Did they negotiate their seating in the car? Did they have to
>>>buckle up the kids before they buckled up themselves?
>>No, the children were laying down, remember?
>Seat belt laws still apply. Any normal parent and grandparent would
>have made some accomodations for their safety.
Gee, I'm only quoting the transcripts, I guess you have shown that
they aren't good parents.
>
>>That places the freeway speed at just over 60 mph. Five minutes on
>>either side, six mph faster still works. Do you ever drive on the
>>freeway at 66-7 mph?
>In the first place, the 8:30 time of departure from the restaurant was
>the *earliest* according to the eyewitnesses.
And if at 8:27 I were to ask most people in a restaurant "what time
is it?" would they say 8:27 or 8:30? Before answering, try it.
>Other witnesses said they left later!
And other fact show that to be wrong. Mainly the fact that the call
came to ron before he left. We know who made the call, we know when
he left.
>So this is what we're working with, since neither Denise or Juditha
>were asked during the criminal trial what time they left.
Darn.
> Then, we have to travel a distance of 70-75 miles from
>Mezzaluna to their house.
> I am unable to justify that distance in a 60-63 minute time
>frame, much less, factoring in other activities, in a 47-53 minute
>time frame.
8:30-8:37 is 67 minutes. A three minutes error on either/both sides
gives you 61 to 73 minutes. At 70 miles per hour, you have 1 to 13
minutes, for coming and going. Even Prien accepts 10 minutes is
possible.
>>So what is more likely. Times being a bit off, or the Browns being
>>involved in murders?
>
>The parent Browns were overcome by grief and were likely manipulated
>by the police and maybe even their offspring into saying certain
>things to support OJS as the killer.
What in this timeline prevents Simpson from being the killer? Judith
called Nicole from her home. Phone records support this. Ron took
nicole's call and left. They were killed after that. How does any of
this suggest simpson's innocence?
PuppetMaster
wrote:
And there is no assumption that telephone records clearly show that a
call was made from the Brown residence in Dana Point to Nicoles home
at or about 9:35 that evening. So I don't care if they walked home and
along the way stopped for a hot fudge sundae, that doesn't change the
time of that phone call, and it doesn't change the fact that at or
about 10 pm that night Ron Goldman left Mezzaluna with a pair of
glasses, went home, then drove to Nicoles house where she and he were
brutally murdered by Simpson.
confused
>It is unlikely that any one person would have made it from Brentwood
>on a 75 mile journey through the LA basin in an hour.
Why? Just what are you baseing that conclusion on?
> It is HIGHLY unlikely that adults and kids could have
>performed all their necessary activities and an elderly would have
>conducted the journey in that time period.
Again, why not support it? You claim it, show us why you are
correct.
PuppetMaster
wrote:
>On 23 Aug 1999 16:03:25 -0400, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
Social responsibility? Oh yeah, that means calling anyone that
believes Simpson murdered two people, a racist.
PuppetMaster
wrote:
I wonder if it'll look as good as the Pennsylvania drivers license I
have being abstracted out to me. I'll let you know.
Prien
Dick Wagner thoughtfully gave a detailed description of the portion of the
Brown trip from the Mezzaluna to the 405 that was only slightly puzzling.
He referred to the flow of traffic on Wilshire from Bundy to the 405 as though
this had anything to do with how the Browns went to the 405. No one has
testified that the Brown first drove to Nicole's place before starting out for
Dana Point. If they didn't, then why on earth would they drive any portion of
their trip hom on Wilshire between Bundy and the 405 if they left directly from
the Mezzaluna that was at the corner of San Vicente and Montana.
He also notes that the only signal the Browns had to contend with was at the
corner of Wilshire and San Vicente. But then he wrote that
>(there
>are signals on Wilshire, but not after Gorham on San Vicente).
As I read that, there is a signal at Gorham and San Vicente. If there is also
a signal at Wilshire and San Vicente, I count that as two signals not one if
they left the Mezzaluna and went by way of San Vicente to Wilshire to the 405,
which appears to be the most direct route.
Since it is only a bit more than one mile from the Mezzaluna to the 405 on the
San Vicente-Wilshire route, and traffic, according to Dick, was moving at 30
mph on San Vicente (I was going to give the Browns a chance to drive San
Vicente at 45 mph for the whole portion to the 405, but that's obviously too
fast), which makes up about 75% of the drive, its close to two minutes just to
make the trip to there without taking into account hitting any red lights. If
they hit both red lights, we are now talking close to three minutes, and they
have travelled just one mile. That's a hefty portion of the 60 minutes they
have for the rest of their 73 miles.
Thanks for the update Dick.
By the way, I have just talked to the office of the doctor who has preapred a
viedo about the medical evidence titled, "Suppression of Evidence," and was
told the time for making the trip was absurd given the traffic conditions
prevailing on the 405 on Sunday.
Just a thought from some local folks whose feet are apparently on the ground.
As for all those NoJ's seeking to assure the world that traffic in the fast
lane on the 405 regularly moves at even over 90 mph, making it easy to make the
trip in the time available to the Browns. People there are obviously able to
drive so fast they can where are going before they depart. And naturally
enough, claims about such driving prowess can take their hallowed place right
next to all those fish stories about the really big one that got away.
Such assertions unssupported by any substantiating evidence are nothing better
than spectral evidence - those invisible manifestations of the devil that were
used to convict the Salem witches. If you want to challenge this point, bring
some real evidence. Since the real question is whether Dominque, who drove,
could actually accomplish the feat of piloting her Cherokee at 90 mph on the
405, the only possible way she could even dare to attempt it is if she was
highly experienced at doing so. There should, of course, be definite evidence
of her having acquired the necessary experience to accomplish the feat that
night. A slew of speeding tickets, for example, along with her having to pay
huge surcharge for her car insurance, or having to purchase it through the
California version of an assigned risk pool for bad risk drivers.
Until the NoJ's produce such evidence, their claims the Browns made it home in
time by driving far faster than the normal traffic flow are just a few more
tidbits on the pile of lies, deception and fraud that make up the prosecution's
case against Simpson.
Prien
NKC noted that Marla wrote
>2. Mezzaluna HAD valet parking.
Thank you so much Marla, for confirming the Mezzaluna had valet parking. Now
I'll fill you in why the glasses story is totally, completely, without a doubt
absurdly ridiculous.
According to DeBello's testimony at the preliminary hearing, he saw Crawford
pick up the glasses by the restaurant's valet stand.
Since according to Juditha's civil trial testimony she lost the glasses on
arrival, and Crawford also decided to look for the glasses where she had seen
the Browns get out of the car (by the valet stand), there is only one possible
inference to be drawn from this. Juditha dropped her glasses on arrival in a
puddle by the Mezzaluna valet stand.
And there it sat for at least a full ninety minutes why they were eating inside
the restaurant, and there it was lying in the street as they either picked up
their vehicle and got into it at the valet stand, or practically walked past
the valet stand on their way to the car. Even the glasses still being intact
after having sat in the street where cars were coming and going for 90 minutes
is a greater miracle than the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.
Anyone who can believe this is suffering from such congenital prejudices that
any further attempt to engage them in reasoned discussion is totally beyond
hope and pointless.
John Griffin
>confused wrote:
>> ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett) wrote:
>>
>> >>confused wrote:
>>
>> >>Nope, It is because I want the murderer of
>> >>NBS and RLG to be punished.
>> >And you know Simpson, to the exclusion of all others, is the murder,
>> >because ....
>> I don't know that he is the murderer to the exclusion of all others.
>> But I do know that there was no evidence presented that would allow
>> one to reach a different conclusion.
> [BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
Look again, Crazy. He didn't say "..that would allow one dumbshit..."
Anyway, since you reached your strange "conclusion" the instant you heard
about the murders, the concept doesn't apply to you.
John Griffin
>>confused wrote:
>>> ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett) wrote:
>>> >>confused wrote:
>>> >Some members of the criminal trial jury probably gave it a lot of
>>> weight
>>> >since they had driven the route many times before the trial and knew
>>> it
>>> >would be impossible to leave at the time given by the prosecution
>>> >andmake the call by 9:37 PM.
>>> Well, last time I was on the 405 at 8:30 at night, the posted limit
>>> was 55. The average speed of traffic was 70. I believe the limit was
>>> raised to 65. What would you guess is the average speed of traffic?
>> last time I checked, it was around 70 for the "slow lane" because at
>>65 EVERYONE passes me, and 75-85 for the meduim lanes, and around 85-90
>>for the zippy lanes.
>>One hour from Brentwood to Dana Point is slow......
>But Kris, pay attention. Read Prien.
I'm glad you're finally developing a sense of humor.
> As he pointed out so explicitly,
>there were several minutes that must be accounted for on the departure
>end from the Mezzaluna and to the arrival end at home.
Damn, it's developing at a hell of a rate. The little jerkoff
"pointed out so explicitly"!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 8:30 - witnesses see the Browns exit the restaurant.
> 8:30 - 8:40 - Browns saying their goodbyes to everyone, get
>their car, then leave - [which would probably be more than 10 minutes]
It would probably be less than ten minutes, after which they walked
outside, got in the car and drove home at 8:30. The above 8:30-8:40
is pretty fucking stupid even for your new little kid. It's there
because it needs to be there to allow him to publicly stroke himself.
> 9:37 - alleged phone call. Work backwards and figure all the
>activities required of Juditha before the telephone call. At least 10
>minutes; that means, that at
What the fuck was that babbling little weenie talking about here, Patty?
Tell me about all those activities he requires of Juditha.
> 9:27 they had to arrive in Dana Point.
>so then do the math: 8:40 - 9:27 = 47 minutes.
That's arithmetic. You got it right.
Now remove the cretin's slack variables and try again.
Your best bet is to go after ol' man Brown. Try to get him
into some deep shit for speeding. Fifty-seven minutes is
probably the average time for that trip on a Sunday evening,
but most people don't make an issue of it.
>Even in the suburbs, this couldn't make sense.
True statement, wrong "this."
You need to stop endorsing fops and such lower forms, Patty.
Prien
Gorham and San Vicente rather than Montana and San Vicente. However, it was on
the San Vicente block face between Gorham and Montana, so that whether the
Browns began their return trip from the Mezzaluna on Gorham or San Vicente,
they would still have to go through the light at the intersection of San
Vicente and Gorham.
PuppetMaster
But they are sure of one thing, Judita's call to Mezzaluna was
received at 9:37 P.M. So maybe one of you brainiacs can explain why it
would mean that Ron left "significantly later than 10:00 pm."
Marlalinde
>Date: Tue, 24 August 1999 09:28 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37c34556...@supernews.sirius.com>
Magpie rambles...(snipped and ignored)
>It is unlikely that any one person would have made it from Brentwood
>on a 75 mile journey through the LA basin in an hour.
Why is that?
>It is HIGHLY unlikely that adults and kids could have
>performed all their necessary activities and an elderly would have
>conducted the journey in that time period.
Elderly? How do you know who drove? And do you assume all "old folks" drive
slow? Werethe Brown's elderly? Do all white people drive fast? Or only one's
who drive Cherokees...??? Oh..wait they drive slow, right??
>In fact, it is so HIGHLY
>UNLIKELY that it is impossible.
Your reasoning is amazing...at least you're consistent!!!
>Now get back to your stalking of that horrible big huge black man.
Careful...you're stereotyping again...Wouldn't want to be *considered* racist!
Bwahahahahhahahahahahahha!!!!
Marlalinde
>From: pr...@aol.com (Prien)
>Date: Wed, 25 August 1999 12:16 AM EDT
>Message-id: <19990825001637...@ng-fa1.aol.com>
Prien tries again to play rocket scientist (yet fails badly)...
Ever consider the fact they were in the gutter?
confused
>Ever consider the fact they were in the gutter?
of course he didn't, nor did he consider that they were likely in
the shadows. In his mind, they had a neon arrow pointing to them,
but no one picked them up.
>
confused
>How right you are. "Maybe not the way that the prosecution claimed" has
>got to be the best line a No'jr ever wrote. ROTFLLLLMAO. confused, you
>are a jewel.
>********************
Why do you think (dumb question) that I agree with the criminal
trial verdict? It still doesn't make simpson innocent.
Libraryboy
Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>In >Message-id: <37c34556.35620052@su
>
>NKC noted that Marla wrote
>>2. Mezzaluna HAD valet parking.
>
>I'll fill you in why the glasses story is totally, completely, without a doubt
>absurdly ridiculous.
>
>According to DeBello's testimony at the preliminary hearing, he saw Crawford
>pick up the glasses by the restaurant's valet stand.
>
>Since according to Juditha's civil trial testimony she lost the glasses on
>arrival, and Crawford also decided to look for the glasses where she had seen
>the Browns get out of the car (by the valet stand), there is only one possible
>inference to be drawn from this. Juditha dropped her glasses on arrival in a
>puddle by the Mezzaluna valet stand.
>
>And there it sat for at least a full ninety minutes why they were eating inside
>the restaurant, and there it was lying in the street as they either picked up
>their vehicle and got into it at the valet stand, or practically walked past
>the valet stand on their way to the car. Even the glasses still being intact
>after having sat in the street where cars were coming and going for 90 minutes
>is a greater miracle than the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.
>
>Anyone who can believe this is suffering from such congenital prejudices that
>any further attempt to engage them in reasoned discussion is totally beyond
>hope and pointless.
So what do you think "really" happened?
Libraryboy
That might be your argument, Jon (although I doubt you'd be dumb enough to
buy it yourself), but I don't think it's Prien's.
Robert Miller
John Griffin wrote:
> Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net> wrote:
>
> >confused wrote:
>
> >> ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>confused wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Nope, It is because I want the murderer of
> >> >>NBS and RLG to be punished.
>
> >> >And you know Simpson, to the exclusion of all others, is the murder,
> >> >because ....
>
> >> I don't know that he is the murderer to the exclusion of all others.
> >> But I do know that there was no evidence presented that would allow
> >> one to reach a different conclusion.
>
> > [BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
>
> Look again, Crazy. He didn't say "..that would allow one dumbshit..."
>
> Anyway, since you reached your strange "conclusion" the instant you heard
> about the murders, the concept doesn't apply to you.
[Since you keep repeating this lie, I will once again correct you. When I
first heard reports of the Bundy murders I presumed Simpson's guilt. Yes,
if you're not on a jury pool, you can do that. However, by the end of the
week it was clear from the emerging evidence that something was very
wrong about the case against Simpson. I didn't reach that conclusion (of
Simpson's innocence) for quite some time after the murders. You either need
to repeat this lie to reassure yourself, or because you need another lie
to keep your ship of fools afloat.
[Your keen insight into the details of the crime scene have been
remarkable in their simplicity.]
Robert Miller
Kristin VanAllen wrote:
> Robert Miller wrote:
>
> > NKC wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:38:09 -0700, Kristin VanAllen
> > > <kvan...@mail.cccd.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >confused wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett) wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >>confused wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Some members of the criminal trial jury probably gave it a lot
> > of
> > > >> weight
> > > >> >since they had driven the route many times before the trial and
> > knew
> > > >> it
> > > >> >would be impossible to leave at the time given by the
> > prosecution
> > > >> >andmake the call by 9:37 PM.
> > > >>
> > > >> Well, last time I was on the 405 at 8:30 at night, the posted
> > limit
> > > >> was 55. The average speed of traffic was 70. I believe the limit
> > was
> > > >> raised to 65. What would you guess is the average speed of
> > traffic?
> > > >
> > > > last time I checked, it was around 70 for the "slow lane"
> > because at
> > > >65 EVERYONE passes me, and 75-85 for the meduim lanes, and around
> > 85-90
> > > >for the zippy lanes.
> > > >One hour from Brentwood to Dana Point is slow......
> > >
> > > But Kris, pay attention. Read Prien. As he pointed out so
> > explicitly,
> > > there were several minutes that must be accounted for on the
> > departure
> > > end from the Mezzaluna and to the arrival end at home.
> > >
> > > 8:30 - witnesses see the Browns exit the restaurant.
> > >
> > > 8:30 - 8:40 - Browns saying their goodbyes to everyone, get
> > > their car, then leave - [which would probably be more than 10
> > minutes]
> > >
> > > 9:37 - alleged phone call. Work backwards and figure all the
> >
> > > activities required of Juditha before the telephone call. At least
> > 10
> > > minutes; that means, that at
> > >
> > > 9:27 they had to arrive in Dana Point.
> > >
> > > so then do the math: 8:40 - 9:27 = 47 minutes.
> > >
> > > Even in the suburbs, this couldn't make sense.
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > [Hey, a 110 mph in the fast lane is not so uncommon going to
> > Dana Point. Maybe the Browns knew that all the cops in
> > LA were out in the desert at La Quinta at that Sunday night
> > barbeque with Fuhrman.]
>
> he assumed out 20 minutes. Assume them right back in and you get the
> southern cal "normal" speeding.
[How many minutes between leaving the Mezzaluna and getting
on the freeway? Zero? How many minutes from freeway to home
phone? Zero? We are verging on fantasy here, Kristen. You should
ask yourself why the preservation of Simpson's guilt in your mind
is so important to you.]
Robert Miller
Kristin VanAllen wrote:
> Ummm.....aren't these all ASSUMPTIONS on the time? Here you are
> assuming that they spent 10 minutes or more saying good bye. The freeway
> is no more than 2 minutes away from Mezzaluna right there off of san
> Vicente, left on Wilshire and there is the on ramp. Then you assume she
> spent 10 minutes at home before calling. So you assume out 20 minutes,
> then claim it could not have been done.
[When you say that the freeway is only two minutes away from theMezzaluna,
are you saying that it is two minutes away from the
front door? How fast did they sprint to their car, fifteen seconds,
thirty seconds? Even your two minutes is excluded by you. Your
math betrays you, Kristen.]
>
>
> I can assume those 20 minutes right back in, and there you have it as
> possible.
>
> This is a good example of how you guys talk yourself out of reality -
> 'gee, we assumed all these times and they just don't work...' therefore
> they could not have driven home in that time. This in spite of the fact
> that apparently they did.
>
> (bees can't fly either)
Robert Miller
Kristin VanAllen wrote:
> Walter Bennett wrote:
>
> > >Kris wrote:
> >
> > >Ummm.....aren't these all ASSUMPTIONS
> > >on the time? Here you are assuming that
> > >they spent 10 minutes or more saying
> > >good bye. The freeway is no more than 2
> > >minutes away from Mezzaluna right there
> > >off of san Vicente, left on Wilshire and
> > >there is the on ramp. Then you assume
> > >she spent 10 minutes at home before
> > >calling. So you assume out 20 minutes,
> > >then claim it could not have been done.
> >
> > Thank you, Kris. Please post the time from the exit of the 405 to the
> >
> > Brown's house, if you know.
>
> In order for any of this to matter, it would have to be shown it was
> established to a certainty that the browns did not leave until after
> 8:30.
>
> That cannot be done with the information available and with the
> timestamps acquired.
>
> For Dana Point, if I recall correctly, there is no where that is not far
> from the freeway - everything is fairly accessible from the coast
> highway. Also, was the 73 freeway open then? That way is much
> faster......people also speed more and at a higher speed there too.
[But not at the speed of light, Kristen. Fifteen seconds from freeway
to telephone, forty-five seconds?]
Robert Miller
NKC wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 08:52:56 -0700, Kristin VanAllen
> <kvan...@mail.cccd.edu> wrote:
>
> > Ummm.....aren't these all ASSUMPTIONS on the time? Here you are
> >assuming that they spent 10 minutes or more saying good bye. The freeway
> >is no more than 2 minutes away from Mezzaluna right there off of san
> >Vicente, left on Wilshire and there is the on ramp. Then you assume she
> >spent 10 minutes at home before calling. So you assume out 20 minutes,
> >then claim it could not have been done.
> >
> >I can assume those 20 minutes right back in, and there you have it as
> >possible.
> >
> >This is a good example of how you guys talk yourself out of reality -
>
> Kris, I don't believe that physical distance is an "assumption" or the
> time it takes to get from point A to point B is speculative. We are
> not dealing with "assumptions", so I don't know why you have pushed
> this concept in every one of your numerous posts trying to challenge
> Grand Master Prien.
> Of course, there will be variables, depending on the
> circumstances. But the margin of variation diminishes when you're
> talking about the number and quality of players: elderly folks, little
> kids, families saying their goodbyes; the location: exiting a
> neighborhood with a relatively dense and popular nightlife [relative
> to the extreme suburbs, at least]; the long leg of the journey:
> traveling a specific number of miles, hovering somewhere over [or
> under!] the speed limit; the arrival: at home, parking, saying ciao
> bellas there, entering house; the telephone call: telephoning the
> restaurant.
> There are no assumptions that each one of these activities had
> to take place, and there is no assumption that each one of these
> activities takes a certain amount of time.
[And we haven't even started asking questions about the absence
of LAPD cell phone records.]
Robert Miller
Prien wrote:
[What is more likely, making that trip from the door at the Mezzaluna
to the telephone at Dana Point in sixty-seven minutes, or the LAPD
having a picnic two hours east of LA at 8 pm on Sunday night, nine
hours after everyone checked out of their rooms at the La Quinta?]
Robert Miller
Kristin VanAllen wrote:
> Robert Miller wrote:
>
> > Kristin VanAllen wrote:
> >
> > > confused wrote:
> > >
> > > > ste...@webtv.net (Walter Bennett) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>confused wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Some members of the criminal trial jury probably gave it a lot of
> >
> > > > weight
> > > > >since they had driven the route many times before the trial and
> > knew
> > > > it
> > > > >would be impossible to leave at the time given by the prosecution
> >
> > > > >andmake the call by 9:37 PM.
> > > >
> > > > Well, last time I was on the 405 at 8:30 at night, the posted
> > limit
> > > > was 55. The average speed of traffic was 70. I believe the limit
> > was
> > > > raised to 65. What would you guess is the average speed of
> > traffic?
> > >
> > > last time I checked, it was around 70 for the "slow lane" because
> > at
> > > 65 EVERYONE passes me, and 75-85 for the meduim lanes, and around
> > 85-90
> > > for the zippy lanes.
> > > One hour from Brentwood to Dana Point is slow......
> >
> > [How about forty-seven minutes?
>
> You mean 47 ASSUMED minutes because you ASSUMED out about 20 minutes and
> the rest was from time ESTIMATES in the first place..........
>
> > Because 65 is not much more than 55, and
> > 80 isn't all that much less than 90, and because the speedometer goes
> > all
> > the
> > way to 120...]
[You assumed that the transporters were working that night.]
PuppetMaster
wrote:
Considering that the phone records prove that Prien's theory is as
full of shit as he is, suppose you tell us why it's so hard to believe
that someone would be attending a bbq after checking out of their room
at 11 am? I go to Vegas quite often, and will check out of the room on
Sunday at 11 and not drive back home until 11 that same night. Why pay
for a room that you're not going to use? I'll bet you fucking Pro-J's
see conspiracies everywhere you look. I think they might have
medication for that problem, you might want to check with Kari or Kow.