How did the glove get behind the guesthouse?
Jennifer
While I think OJ is guilty, I have a great deal of trouble understanding
how the glove got behind the guesthouse (without assistance from the police).
Presumably OJ saw the limo driver outside the gate and tried to sneak
back into the property by going through the back gate. He either climbed
the fence or went through a gate making the loud thumping noise Kato
heard and in the process was careless enough to drop the glove. This is
a fine scenario and makes sense EXCEPT ... there is a trail of blood
leading directly from the Bronco up the driveway and into the house. So,
OJ was still bleeding when he returned to Rockingham. Now, for the glove
to get behind the house OJ would have had to park the Bronco, go through
the neigbor's yard, climb the fence, drop the glove, for some reason
change his mind, go back over the fence and return to the Bronco (Note he
could not have been bleeding this entire time or there would have been a
trail of blood from the Bronco to the fence and back again), suddenly
resume bleeding leaving a trail of blood from the Bronco to the house.
Can anyone offer an explanation for this?
Ken Koch
This is not explanation but another question. Why would he drop the glove
there? Why wouldn't he leave the glove where he left his other clothes,
if he did it? Also, I can't believe that once he dropped the glove at
Bundy he would return to his own house with one glove on and the other
off. If I was wearing one glove after a murder, and I realized I had
dropped the other at the murder scene, I wouldn't want to return home
with the other glove still in my posession.
|/en | |
|\och | kk...@sashimi.wwa.com |
Mark George Hughes
all this planting of evidence, HHMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OJ IS GUILTY damb you I say guilty, FRY HIM NOW!!!
Woooooooohoooooooooooooo!!!
Ann M. Williams
Maybe it wasn't OJ who left the glove there...if he's guilty someone
must have helped dispose of the clothes (or wet suit). Unless he
wore plastic over his clothes and just tossed it in someone's trash.
--
Ann M. Williams
Systems Librarian/Cataloger
Pope Pius XII Library
Saint Joseph College, West Hartford, Connecticut, USA
Richard Halavais
>From: Scott D Siegler <ss...@andrew.cmu.edu>
>Subject: Re: How did the glove get behind the guesthouse?
>Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 11:41:01 -0500
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.fan.oj-simpson: 9-Mar-95 How did the glove get
>behin.. by Jenn...@bgnet.bgsu.edu
>i can, you are ignorant, and have no idea what you are talking about.
>ever hear of the presumption of innocence until be proved guilty. you
>think he is guilty. you have heard two months of a trial and you have
>your mind made up. go get a clue hon.
> ***********************************************
> * Scott Siegler *
> * Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering*
> * Carnegie Mellon University *
> * ss...@andrew.cmu.edu *
> ***********************************************
Scott, see if maybe they offer remedial reading there at old Carnegie Mellon.
The question has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It's a legitimate
question about a troubling issue and deserves a reasoned response - not some
feeble effort at a flame.
RAH
Richard Halavais
>From: m...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Mark George Hughes)
>Subject: Fuhrman is looking GOOOOOOOD! Go get him boy!
>Date: 10 Mar 1995 06:04:04 GMT
>Woooooooohoooooooooooooo!!!
The same time he was concocting the lies about always being with someone.
Peter W Logan
glove get b.. by Richard Halavais@crash.c
> >ever hear of the presumption of innocence until be proved guilty. you
> >think he is guilty. you have heard two months of a trial and you have
> >your mind made up. go get a clue hon.
>
> Mellon. The question has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It's a
> legitimate question about a troubling issue and deserves a reasoned response
>
> RAH
Sure, scott may not be the most eloquent person, but he is right. When
Jennifer says:
Excerpts from netnews.alt.fan.oj-simpson: 9-Mar-95 How did the glove get
behin.. by Jenn...@bgnet.bgsu.edu
> While I think OJ is guilty, I have a great deal of trouble understanding
> how the glove got behind the guesthouse (without assistance from the
> police).
she demonstrates the ignorance Scott refers to. How can she assume a
man is guilty, while unable to prove to herself that the evidence she
takes that decision on is plausible. It is up to the jury to decide
what is the truth here, and from that, decide if OJ Simpson is guilty of
the murders. Richard, I believe you need to take a few courses on the
the foundations of our legal system and on logic. You lack an
understanding of either.
Peter
Don Williams
: |/en | |
: |\och | kk...@sashimi.wwa.com |
Did anyone say he was a rocket scientist? In any case, he might have
been just a bit confused and disoriented at the time and didn't have time
to be sure he had the gloves. Clearly he didn't know he dropped one
glove behind his house.
Don
Steven Hanson
Gilmore) writes:
>
>In a previous posting, Terence Hallinan (YJN...@prodigy.com) writes:
>> It should be clear to all by now that Fuhrman placed the glove behind
the
>> guesthouse. Since it would have been messy putting the glove in his
>> pocket he,of course, wore the glove.
>>
>
>Even I have a hard time swallowing this one, Terance, but it's a darn
good,
>I'll give you that! Far more likely is that Lange brought the glove to
>Rockingham with him. Notice that Marcia never asked him about his
jacket!
>--
> CORBY GILMORE
>"The man, the myth, the magic"
>
> (or something like that!)
>
What none of you seem to remember is that there were several officers on
the Bundy crime scene prior to Fuhrman or Lange and none of them saw a
"second" glove. And these were the guys who filled in the other (later)
officers on the scene.
Judy