The elusive Brad Roberts
missmarple1986
Brentwood):
1. Brad was with me at the Bundy scene, where he saw one glove and a
knit cap.
2. Brad saw the additional drops of blood on the walkway gate at Bundy.
3. Brad saw a bloody fingerprint on the turnstile knob of the Bundy
walkway gate. Brad believed it to be identifiable.
4. Brad had a discussion with me on the street outside the Bundy crime
scene as we waited for Robbery/Homicide. We made plans to go to
breakfast. No conspiracy here.
5. Brad joined me at the Rockingham estate and observed the blood
inside the Bronco. Brad and I called Vanatter over to the Bronco to
see it. Considering his excitement, I'd say this was the first time
Vanatter saw the evidence. Brad thought so too.
6.Brad observed droops of blood on the driveway leading from Rockingham
and began numbering them for evidence collection. Vanatter might have
also seen these drops, but Brad certainly did.
7. Brad saw the large drop of blood outside the front door of the
Rockingham estate and the three drops inside the foyer. Again,
Vanatter might have made these observations, but Brad could have
corroborated them.
8. Brad helped me evacuate the house of whomever arrived there before
the Rockingham estate became an official crime scene, and in doing so
we both observed the two dress socks in Simpson's master bedroom.
9.Brad was the detective to take Simpson from the officer who had
handcuffed him around noon on June 13. Simpson made statements that
appeared very incriminating, accompanied by bodily reactions that were
definitely incriminating. I had Brad put these statements to paper
within hours. These statements were never told to the jury, yet
appeared in the homicide book, a total history of the investigation.
10. During the period of the first search warrant, Brad found dark
clothes in the washing machine and blood on the bathroom light switch
in the service area.
I'm with Fuhrman on this one. I'd love to hear Roberts testify.
(No mention of the Swiss Army Knife box in this list, Bobaugust, did
Fuhrman forget this important evidence?)
Miss Marple
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
boba...@my-deja.com
Miss Marple,
I do not know why the empty Swiss Army Knife box was not on his list.
Didn't you tell me that in Fuhrman's hard cover book, there were no
pictures of Simpson's bathroom showing the box? Did Fuhrman talk about
the empty box on the edge of the bathtub?
bobaugust
missmarple1986
He talks about the box in the chapter about the murder weapon, and says
about the search that he showed it to the detectives (plural) then.
Miss Marple
Golden Pleschel
I think the reason Marcia didn't call Brad Roberts to the
stand, or even interview him before the trial, is that his
testimony would have shown Lange and Vannatter to be
incompetant. Vannatter called Marcia and got her
involved before a prosecutor was assigned to the case.
The reason was that Lange and Vannatter had to somehow
get around the fact that they had violated Simpson's
Fourth Amendment rights in going over the wall. The
most important evidence, the bloody glove that Fuhrman
found, was in danger of being thrown out because
Simpson's rights were violated. Marcia had helped Lange
and Vannatter out in the past, so that's why they called
her to get them out of a jam again.
Then Lange and Vannatter goofed again when they didn't
read Fuhrman's notes and the blood spots and fingerprint
were not collected from the gate. The failure to get the
fingerprint was a serious error which Marcia had to gloss
over in the trial. She practically suborned perjury when
she interviewed Fuhrman and prepared him for how she
was going to show that the fingerprint was unimportant.
In fact, after the trial, when Fuhrman was interviewed on
TV, Greta Van Sustern DID characterize Marcia's actions
as suborning perjury. Fuhrman was in a very vulnerable
position because Chris Darden showed his obvious hatred
of him in the pre-trial interviews. According to Darden, he
passed Fuhrman off to Marcia, although Fuhrman says that
he requested another prosecutor to handle his testimony.
I think that Marcia didn't use Brad Roberts as a witness
because she didn't have as much conrol over him. He was
not accused of planting or of being a racist. He had more
credibility than Fuhrman and his testimony would have
shown Vannatter to be a total dummy. Marcia saw her
job as being the protector of her friends Lange and
Vannatter.
Kristin VanAllen
Golden Pleschel wrote:
no they did not - they had reason to believe someone could be hurt there too.
I found a blood trail outside my house that went around the corner to a
fenced off house - couldn't get to the front door. The blood was also all
over the driveway behind the fence. There were no footprints or animal prints
to substantiate who left the blood. I called the police fearing that someone
in the fenced off house was seriously hurt. They agreed, and climbed the
fence to find out if anyone was home. It turned out a dog was hurt squeezing
into the fenced off property thru a tiny hole in the fence where there was a
razor sharp wire that badly cut the dog. In over 800 feet of massive blood
trail, there was not ONE doggie print left on the sidewalk.
Therfore according to miss marple, the police must have planted the blood in
order to go over the fence since it would be impossible for the dog not to
have left bloody paw prints or to not have stepped in the blood. :-)
missmarple1986
So far I have never had an opinion about any paw prints whatsoever.
What triggered that?? Lack oh anything, anything?
Miss Marple
boba...@my-deja.com
missmarple1986 <missmar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <9033pn$t9j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> boba...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <9031va$rpl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > I do not know why the empty Swiss Army Knife box was not on his
list.
> > Didn't you tell me that in Fuhrman's hard cover book, there were no
> > pictures of Simpson's bathroom showing the box? Did Fuhrman talk
about
> > the empty box on the edge of the bathtub?
> >
> > bobaugust
>
> He talks about the box in the chapter about the murder weapon, and
says
> about the search that he showed it to the detectives (plural) then.
Miss Marple,
Now I remember, we talked about this before, haven't we? I believe I
told you Fuhrman mentions the empty Swiss Army knife box four times in
his later book, as well as the pictures. Fuhrman said he "pointed it
out", and "brought to the attention of" Robbery Homicide detectives
(plural)
It seems that Fuhrman's belief of the importance of the empty knife
box increased from the time of his first book to the later releases.
The point is Miss Marple your arguments are getting weaker and weaker.
You are now even revisiting failed past arguments. Does this tell you
anything? But go ahead, keep digging. It isn't every day I get to talk
to a real masochist.
bobaugust
Kristin VanAllen
evidence, a blood trail liek what the doggie left, and blood around
someones gated off house, especially under the circumstances of the murder
scene at Bundy of Oj's ex, that police will hop the wall to check if anyone
on the property is hurt And THAT is perfectly legal.
I can imagine the outcry if they did not and it turned out to be another
attacker and Oj was hurt..
Of course, we now know that not to be true, but at the time, with the murder
scene and blood also on and in OJ's car, it was a possibility the police had
to check out, legally.
missmarple1986
So I'll keep digging: Isn't it intriguing how Fuhrman's partner
Roberts is hidden here. The elusive Brad Roberts. Doesn't it seem
even to the most naive like Phillips is trying to keep Roberts out of
it all. Poor kid, Roberts, doesn't exist.
Detective Phillips, Crim.
Q FOR A MOMENT -- YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FUHRMAN. YOU AND DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN ARE VERY, VERY CLOSE, AREN'T YOU?
A WE HAVE BEEN PARTNERS FOR FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AND I'VE GOTTEN TO
CONSIDER MYSELF A FRIEND OF HIS, YES.
They weren't partners, were they?
A I THINK MARK CAME TO THE ROBBERY UNIT IN -- I WANT TO SAY
PROBABLY '91. HE WORKED UP IN DETECTIVES, BUT I DID NOT HAVE HIM AS A
PARTNER AT THAT TIME. HE WORKED ANOTHER TABLE, COMPLETELY SEPARATE
TABLE, SO I REALLY DIDN'T GET TO KNOW HIM UNTIL WE WORKED THE ROBBERY
TABLE TOGETHER. I THINK THAT WAS '91.
Q SO THAT WAS '91, SO A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS BEFORE THIS HAPPENED?
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
snip
Q SO THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE YOU AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WERE
PARTNERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH SOME OTHER DETECTIVES WHO WORKED THERE
ALSO; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
snip
WHO WAS CONSTANT? WHO STAYED THERE FROM '91 TO '94? ANY DETECTIVE WHO
HAS BEEN THERE IN ADDITION TO YOU AND FUHRMAN?
A JUST THE COORDINATOR IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IS STILL THERE THAT WAS
THERE WHEN I WAS THERE WITH MARK FUHRMAN AND THAT IS THE COORDINATOR OF
THE ROBBERY UNIT.
Q WHO IS THAT?
A ROBERT TAPIA.
Where was Brad Roberts?
Miss Marple
boba...@my-deja.com
Miss Marple,
The reality in this case was that the prosecutors only needed so many
police officers to testify about the facts in this case. The prosecutors
had to choose which police officers to use. This case had so much to
cover and as you must know from reading Marcia Clark's book, the
pressure on the prosecutors was enormous because of Simpson's choice for
a speedy trial. There was a huge witness list. Choices had to be made.
Brad Roberts could not have told the jury anything that any of the
police officers who did testify told them. It would have been a
duplication.
It is only your extremely prejudice, suspicious mind that makes you
wonder about Brad Roberts. But you are funny.
bobaugust
missmarple1986
Yes of course choices had to be made, and some were not so good. Do
you think Roberts would have made a better choice than Fuhrman,
considering Fuhrman's heavy baggage? According to Fuhrman, Roberts was
with him through most of the discoveries and according to Fuhrman could
have testified to that. But even after Fuhrman took the fifth, Marcia
didn't call Roberts.
Maybe he had some heavy baggage too?
Miss Marple
Maybe Roberts has some heavy baggage too?
boba...@my-deja.com
Miss Marple,
Maybe. So what? Baggage or no baggage does not change the evidence.
Brad Roberts did not find the killer's right hand glove, Fuhrman did.
The prosecution called Fuhrman to testify about the glove he found.
bobaugust
missmarple1986
Why do you think it is that Clark didn't call Fuhrman before the Grand
Jury to tell about the glove discovery, which was their most
incriminating evidence at that point? Was she aware of his heavy
baggage then?
Miss Marple
je
you.
boba...@my-deja.com
Miss Marple,
You read Marcia Clark's book. You know what she said or did not say
about this. The Grand Jury ended very suddenly and unexpectantly, Marcia
Clark had not had a chance to present everything she had planned to.
According to her book it was during the preliminary hearing that Clark
first found out about some of Fuhrman's past problems, before he
testified.
bobaugust
Kristin VanAllen
single bit of evidence collected, every photograph, and every single witness
and every single person who was involved, even remotely, in the case?
missmarple1986
From Without a Doubt:
"On Thursday, June 23, we were wrapping up the testimony and I had
alredy started drafting my closing statement. I'd give it on Friday
and we'd be done. I think the jurors would have had more than enough
evidence to give us an indictment."
12 THE GRAND JURORS ARE ASKED TO RETURN TO THE
13 HEARING ROOM TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK REGARDING
14 CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND FOLLOWED BY DELIBERATIONS WITH
REGARD
15 TO THE CASE BEFORE US.
Only closing arguments and deliberations ramained, no more witnesses,
no plans to call Fuhrman.
Miss Marple
boba...@my-deja.com
Miss Marple,
So why did you ask me? Marcia Clark presented only a minimum of evidence
to the Grand Jury. She believe it was enough to get an indictment. With
all of your reading haven't you ever read about the strategies of
presenting only the bear minimum of evidence in these pre trial
situations? What is your point?
bobaugust
missmarple1986
> > > > > > > > > > > missmarple1986 <missmar...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
Grand Jury? Could you explain to me why she wouldn't do that. Was it
not important to get an indictment? You say that the hearings ended
suddenly before all witnesses were heard. You said the same about
why Clark didn't call Schwab. The truth is that she had called the
last witness she was going to call and was getting ready to present her
closing argument the next morning, when the LAPD released the 911 tapes
and Garcetti urged the judge to dismiss the Grand Jury. The Truth.
Miss Marple
John Griffin
>Miss M. excellent research again. Would you get in touch. Have idea for
>you.
Hey, no fair!
If you two airheads work together to come up with some new
empty contrivance, please do it in public. The public has
a right to laugh.
boba...@my-deja.com
Miss Marple,
You are right, I did suggest to you that the Grand Jury Protocols ended
before all the witnesses were heard. I was wrong. After re reading it I
I agreed with you about that. However I do not recall ever saying the
same thing about why Clark didn't call Schwab for a witness for the
Grand Jury.
As to why Clark never called other witnesses, I have already explained
to you why only a bear minimum amount of evidence is presented prior to
trial. It isn't really to hard to understand. Compare the amount of
transcripts from the Grand Jury Protocols, to the Preliminary Hearing,
and to the Criminal Trial. You should be able to understand that right?
That is what prosecutors do.
You end your post with "The Truth". That's good Miss Marple, usually you
are calling everyone liars.
bobaugust
missmarple1986
kvan...@mail.cccd.edu wrote:
> Are you under the mistaken belief that a prosecutor must introduce
every
> single bit of evidence collected, every photograph, and every single
witness
> and every single person who was involved, even remotely, in the case?
In seeking an indictment in front of a Grand Jury I tend to think that
a prosecutor should do just that. Or should get fired.
Miss Marple
missmarple1986
I could go find i't, but I won't bother, you'll only say "so what", the
Bobaugust mantra.
>
> As to why Clark never called other witnesses, I have already explained
> to you why only a bear minimum amount of evidence is presented prior
to trial.
Did they have Fuhrman? They had the glove, right.
It isn't really to hard to understand. Compare the amount of
> transcripts from the Grand Jury Protocols, to the Preliminary Hearing,
> and to the Criminal Trial. You should be able to understand that
right?
That is what I love about this case, the way you get to follow the
subtle changes (from Grand Jury, through Prelim, Crim and into the
Civil trial) so that they eventually manage to create a suitable
picture of what "must" have happened. But you have to be as creative
as they are, Bobaugust, to understand that, not stuck on believing in
everything they want you to believe.
Miss Marple
boba...@my-deja.com
Miss Marple,
You are funny again Miss Marple. You look at the evolution of a criminal
case over time and through different trials, as new testing and the
developing of new evidence continued, and you see something sinister in
that. You do not view that as learning at all. It seems Miss Marple has
read about how the defense asking for a speedy trial affected the
prosecutors planning and preparing yet Miss Marple still can not
understand why the entire case that was presented at the criminal trial
was not presented earlier to the Grand Jury, right?
Miss Marple also thinks that the prosecutors actually "manage to create
a suitable picture of what "must" have happened." Of course they did
Miss Marple, that was part of their job. They used the physical evidence
and witness testimony to re create what most likely happened.
You wrote, "But you have to be as creative as they are, Bobaugust, to
understand that, not stuck on believing in everything they want you to
believe."
You have things backwards again. It does not take any creativity to
believe the physical evidence and the witnesses that incriminate
Simpson. It takes creativity to think differently. Beliefs with no
supporting physical evidence or witnesses. Now that's creative.
You can not dispute the physical evidence. You can not dispute any of
the arguments that incriminate Simpson. Are you learning something from
that yet? It seems you still have not learned the obvious or you will
not let yourself concede. All you do is nit pick little bits of
meaningless information. That's fine with me, your arguments are getting
weaker and weaker. I'm patient. But what happens when you run out of
even meaningless arguments?
Diane
missmarple1986 <missmar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:90hfm6$hq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A2BD5B3...@mail.cccd.edu>,
> kvan...@mail.cccd.edu wrote:
> > Are you under the mistaken belief that a prosecutor must introduce
> every
> > single bit of evidence collected, every photograph, and every single
> witness
> > and every single person who was involved, even remotely, in the case?
>
>
> In seeking an indictment in front of a Grand Jury I tend to think that
> a prosecutor should do just that. Or should get fired.
> Miss Marple
Not at all. There is a difference between getting an indictment and getting
a conviction. The amount of evidence needed is therefore also different.
Most times there is no grand jury at all.
There is no point in presenting more information than one needs to for an
indictment.
..diane
Kristin VanAllen
for an indictment.
Kristin VanAllen
missmarple1986 wrote:
no kidding
> Could you explain to me why she wouldn't do that.
because that is not what you do to gain an iundictment - you only present
enough to gain one. It is not a trial - it is a hearing.
Kristin VanAllen
it is the mere presentation of the minimal amount of evidence that shows
there is reason to indict.
missmarple1986
Could you give me a reason (except for "that they don't have to") why
the prosecution would not present whatever evidence they have to the
Grand Jury to get an indictment. The proceedings are secret, the
defence has no access to hearings nor to the transcripts. It is also
an exellent opportunity for the prosecutors to go digging and see if
their evidence "holds water".
Apparently it didn't in this case, so they released the 911 tapes. An
indictment could now have been thrown out and Garcetti then requested
to recuse the jury. Which is one of the reasons why I find the Grand
Jury hearings so interesting.
Miss Marple
boba...@my-deja.com
missmarple1986 <missmar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <90ohfi$n03$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> boba...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <90lrtb$gl5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > You say "they released the 911 tapes" You write as if you believe
that
> > this was a deliberate move by the prosecutors, Is that what you
> think?
> >
> > bobaugust
>
> Yes.
Miss Marple,
I guess you missed that part in Marcia Clark's book, as usual. She
writes,
"I knew that there had been police reports on the New Year's Eve of 1989
and the door kicking incident of 1993. Both had been triggered by
Nicole's calls to 911. But I was under the impression that the audio
tapes of those calls had been destroyed in a routine recycling
procedure.
My impression was wrong. It turns out that the city attorney's office,
which prosecuted that '93 case, had kept its own copies of the tapes.
The press had tracked them down and petitioned under the state Public
Records Act to get them. And somehow, they had gotten those tapes
released - before I had even heard that they existed.
Suzanne's reporter buddy handed me copies of the police reports on the
tapes. I hadn't seen these either.
"Oh, great," I fumed. "Now I'm getting discovery from the press!"
Within the space of an hour it seemed that tape was everywhere. You
couldn't step within earshot of a radio without hearing Nicole's
pitiful, quavering pleas for help. It was on all the television news
shows, and they didn't play it just once, but kept repeating it, in a
sick parody of MTV's heavy rotation.
What a joke. Believe me, there wasn't enough solidarity among these
camps to coordinate a beer run, let alone an offensive like that. For
days afterward, we would all point fingers at one another. Gil lit into
the city attorney. James Hahn, for releasing the tape. Hahn insisted
that he had acted in the belief that the LAPD had gotten approval from
the D.A.'s office for his office to release the tape. The LAPD would say
it was against releasing the tape, but felt it hadn't gotten support for
the position from the D.A. In our office, it was David who took the
fall. The cops had called, asking him if they should authorize release
of the tape under the Public Records Act, And he had told them, "Do what
you normally do." It was the right instruction - but the result was
disastrous."
bobaugust
missmarple1986
boba...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <90old5$ql5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> missmarple1986 <missmar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <90ohfi$n03$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > boba...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <90lrtb$gl5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > missmarple1986 <missmar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
You are a little naive here, Bobaugust, to take everything Clark says
in her self serving book at face value (I thought you didn't think too
highly of her). That little dance about who said, who did is quite
cute. You have kids? That's how kids try to get out of trouble too.
You know that 911 tapes are recycled routinely, right, there is no
reason to keep tapes after case has been processed. The press does
know too. So somebody must have told somebody in the press that the
tapes still existed. Who did that, but more interestingly, why was
this tape not recycled? Nicole didn't press charges in this case.
Who ordered the tape to be saved?
boba...@my-deja.com
Miss Marple.
You say "they released the 911 tapes" You write as if you believe that
this was a deliberate move by the prosecutors, Is that what you think?
bobaugust
> > > > > > > > > >
missmarple1986
boba...@my-deja.com
Miss Marple,
Did you not actually read my previous post to you where I quoted from
Marcia Clark's book? Or did you not understand what she wrote? Marcia
Clark answered your question about how and where the tapes came from.
Read it again Miss Marple.
"I knew that there had been police reports on the New Year's Eve of 1989
and the door kicking incident of 1993. Both had bee triggered by
Nicole's calls to 911. But I was under the impression that the audio
tapes of those calls had been destroyed in a routine recycling
procedure.
My impression was wrong. It turns out that the city attorney's office,
which prosecuted that '93 case, had kept its own copies of the tapes.
The press had tracked them down and petitioned under the state Public
Records Act to get them. And somehow, they had gotten those tapes
released - before I had even heard that they existed."
bobaugust
missmarple1986
I read it. You kept out the funny part with the whole LA law
enforcement running around pointing fingers at each other. Self
serving!
Miss Marple
boba...@my-deja.com
Yes I did. That part did not answer your question. Maybe you missed
Marcia Clark's comment at the end of it. "It was the right instruction -
but the result was disastrous."
Kristin VanAllen
understand?
missmarple1986
> > In article <5W1X5.19061$0r2.526905@bgtnsc07-
>
> > The proceedings are secret, the
> > defence has no access to hearings nor to the transcripts. It is
also
> > an exellent opportunity for the prosecutors to go digging and see
if
> > their evidence "holds water".
> > Apparently it didn't in this case, so they released the 911 tapes.
>
> Nah. The blood was plenty of evidence. They had more evidence than
they
> could handle.
>
> > An
> > indictment could now have been thrown out and Garcetti then
requested
> > to recuse the jury. Which is one of the reasons why I find the
Grand
> > Jury hearings so interesting.
>
> IIRC the defense wanted and pushed for the prelim hearing right away
so
> there was no point in continuing with the grand jury.
>
> ..diane
Wasn't that sweet of the prosecution to grant the defence their wish.
(But you don't really believe that, do you, I mean...come on!!!)
Diane
You believe it was a matter of the prosecution "granting" the defense their
"wish"?
Come on, you don't really believe that do you?
The defendent was exercising his RIGHT.
The prosecution didn't "grant" the defense's "wish".
Just another example of your blind prejudice. You see ulterior motives where
there can't be any.
..diane
missmarple1986
kvan...@mail.cccd.edu wrote:
> Is there something about the freedom of information act you do not
> understand?
The DA's office and the LAPD apologized profusely for releasing the
tapes to the press, everybody blaming each other for the blunder.
Maybe they don't understand the freedom of information act either. Or
they know something you don't. Maybe they know about "the right to a
fair trial".
Miss Marple
>
> missmarple1986 wrote:
>
> > In article <90p94k$bvj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > boba...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <90p64g$9jm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > missmarple1986 <missmar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <90oujq$327$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > boba...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > In article <90old5$ql5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > > missmarple1986 <missmar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <90ohfi$n03$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > > > boba...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > > > In article <90lrtb$gl5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > > > > missmarple1986 <missmar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <5W1X5.19061$0r2.526905@bgtnsc07-
missmarple1986
So why did David have to take the fall?
And what were the copies of the tapes doing at the city attorney's
office? Marcia says they prosecuted the 93 incidence. They didn't.
There were no charges and no legal procedure in 93.
Miss Marple
boba...@my-deja.com
Miss Marple,
Don't ask me Miss Marple, find out for yourself since you seem to think
something is sinister in the city attorney's office. Maybe there was a
plan back in 1993 to kill Simpson's ex wife and frame him for it, so
they held all of these tapes to use to support their frame. How's that
one for you. I gave you the ball now you and Prien run with it. With
both of your imaginations and hatred for the police you should be able
to create the answer to your meaningless question.
bobaugust
missmarple1986
> > In article <QD3Y5.1389$d62.101913@bgtnsc04-
I was responding to your post and sort of making fun of
your "explanation" as to why the prosecution thought there was no point
in continuing the Grand Jury. Obviously missed the target.
Diane
I understood your attempt.
What you fail to understand it that it failed because there was no point in
continuing the grand jury when a prelim was going to be held. And the prelim
was not a choice by the prosecution, but a right exercised by the defendent.
..diane
missmarple1986
> > In article <ODJY5.23519$0r2.873238@bgtnsc07-
Not quite so. Had the Grand Jury returned an indictment there would
have been no Preliminary Hearings.
missmarple1986
Why don't you offer me the simple straight forward explanation why the
city attorney's office had a copy of the 93 tape and why Marcia Clark
was of the impression that they prosecuted the case.
Miss Marple
boba...@my-deja.com
Miss Marple,
I do not know nor care about the answer. It is a meaningless argument
that has nothing to do with the fact that Simpson was the killer. Why
don't you find out for yourself and tell us if you thing it contributes
any valid information to this case.
bobaugust
missmarple1986
Just another strange coincidence, that's all. You have to admit there
are lots of them.
Miss Marple
Diane
No. The defendent exercised his right, so the prelim had to start. Since the
prelim was starting, there was no point in continuing/finishing with the
grand jury as he could be bound over to trial at the end of the prelim.
The key point is that the defendent exercised his right which caused the
prelim to start and the grand jury to stop.
It would have been easier on the prosecution for the indictment to be
reached thru the grand jury. The defense move to start the prelim was
beneficial to the defense and not the prosecution, and Shapiro was credited
with this defense tactic.
..diane
Diane
Not at all. The police/DA often hold evidence of cases for awhile so that
the evidence can be revisited if a case is reviewed or is trying to be
prosecuted.
It is just that you see something sinister in everything.
..diane
boba...@my-deja.com
missmarple1986
So you think all 911 tapes go to the city attorney's office? And stay
there for years after, whether they are evidence of anything or not?
Clark didn't think so?
Miss Marple
>
> It is just that you see something sinister in everything.
>
> ..diane
>
>
boba...@my-deja.com
Miss Marple,
No. This is just another case of you showing us you do not read
everything people write or you do not understand what you read. Marcia
Clark wrote,
"But I was under the impression that the audio tapes of those calls had
been destroyed in a routine recycling procedure.
My impression was wrong."
Clark admitted that her impression was wrong. Not like Miss Marple who
is wrong most of the time, but never admits it.
bobaugust
missmarple1986
You missed the last line of my post where I said just that. How about
answering the Question? Do you think the city attorney's office keeps
copies of all 911 tapes? Sort of in case someone decides somewhere in
the future to press charges?
Miss Marple
boba...@my-deja.com
> Miss Marple
No. I did not miss the last line. I was responding to the last line of
your last posting when you wrote, "Clark didn't think so" True Clark
originally did not think that those tapes were available, but she then
said that she was wrong. Just keeping the record straight.
Do I know if the city attorney's office keeps copies of all 911 tapes?
Sorry, no. I do not know anything about the city attorney's office. I
suggest you call the city attorney's office and ask them.
bobaugust
Kittens Magazine
> Why Fuhrman thinks Brad Roberts should have testified (From Murder in
> Brentwood):
> 1. Brad was with me at the Bundy scene, where he saw one glove and a
> knit cap.
> 2. Brad saw the additional drops of blood on the walkway gate at Bundy.
> 3. Brad saw a bloody fingerprint on the turnstile knob of the Bundy
> walkway gate. Brad believed it to be identifiable.
> 4. Brad had a discussion with me on the street outside the Bundy crime
> scene as we waited for Robbery/Homicide. We made plans to go to
> breakfast. No conspiracy here.
> 5. Brad joined me at the Rockingham estate and observed the blood
> inside the Bronco. Brad and I called Vanatter over to the Bronco to
> see it. Considering his excitement, I'd say this was the first time
> Vanatter saw the evidence. Brad thought so too.
> 6.Brad observed droops of blood on the driveway leading from Rockingham
> and began numbering them for evidence collection. Vanatter might have
> also seen these drops, but Brad certainly did.
> 7. Brad saw the large drop of blood outside the front door of the
> Rockingham estate and the three drops inside the foyer. Again,
> Vanatter might have made these observations, but Brad could have
> corroborated them.
> 8. Brad helped me evacuate the house of whomever arrived there before
> the Rockingham estate became an official crime scene, and in doing so
> we both observed the two dress socks in Simpson's master bedroom.
> 9.Brad was the detective to take Simpson from the officer who had
> handcuffed him around noon on June 13. Simpson made statements that
> appeared very incriminating, accompanied by bodily reactions that were
> definitely incriminating. I had Brad put these statements to paper
> within hours. These statements were never told to the jury, yet
> appeared in the homicide book, a total history of the investigation.
> 10. During the period of the first search warrant, Brad found dark
> clothes in the washing machine and blood on the bathroom light switch
> in the service area.
> I'm with Fuhrman on this one. I'd love to hear Roberts testify.
> (No mention of the Swiss Army Knife box in this list, Bobaugust, did
> Fuhrman forget this important evidence?)
> Miss Marple
> Before you buy.
There's a reason why the prosecution did not want Brad to testify. He's hiding something.
Kittens Magazine
> In article <9094rc$ss1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> missmarple1986 <missmar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <907a39$dfg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > boba...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <907370$860$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > missmarple1986 <missmar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <904l7c$839$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > boba...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > In article <903bet$4ae$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > > missmarple1986 <missmar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <9033pn$t9j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > > > boba...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > > > In article <9031va$rpl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > > > > I do not know why the empty Swiss Army Knife box was not on
> > his
> > > > > list.
> > > > > > > Didn't you tell me that in Fuhrman's hard cover book, there
> > were
> > > > no
> > > > > > > pictures of Simpson's bathroom showing the box? Did Fuhrman
> > talk
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > the empty box on the edge of the bathtub?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > bobaugust
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He talks about the box in the chapter about the murder weapon,
> > and
> > > > > says
> > > > > > about the search that he showed it to the detectives (plural)
> > > then.
> > > > >
> > > > > Miss Marple,
> > > > > Now I remember, we talked about this before, haven't we? I
> > believe I
> > > > > told you Fuhrman mentions the empty Swiss Army knife box four
> > times
> > > in
> > > > > his later book, as well as the pictures. Fuhrman said he
> "pointed
> > it
> > > > > out", and "brought to the attention of" Robbery Homicide
> > detectives
> > > > > (plural)
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems that Fuhrman's belief of the importance of the empty
> > knife
> > > > > box increased from the time of his first book to the later
> > releases.
> > > > > The point is Miss Marple your arguments are getting weaker and
> > > weaker.
> > > > > You are now even revisiting failed past arguments. Does this
> tell
> > > you
> > > > > anything? But go ahead, keep digging. It isn't every day I get
> to
> > > talk
> > > > > to a real masochist.