<>Explain: ALIBI.<>
blp740
I wish at least one of the students of Simpson #1 would explain how is one
alone in any situation provides ones self an alibi? Isn't it only ones word to
rely upon when vouching for any period of time spent either alone or in
isolation? No interaction, no phone calls, how is it done?
"The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it's open!"
blp
*opinions mine*
Bob August
blp740 wrote:
>I wish at least one of the students of Simpson #1 would explain how is one
>alone in any situation provides ones self an alibi? Isn't it only ones word to
>rely upon when vouching for any period of time spent either alone or in
>isolation? No interaction, no phone calls, how is it done?
>
It is done if ones alibi is not found to be a lie. If no witnesses and
no evidence contradict ones alibi, then it would be believable. But when
ones alibi continues to change every time evidence is found that
contradicts the alibi, it becomes completely unbelievable.
bobaugust
blp740
>On 22 Jul 2002 10:51:41 GMT, blp...@aol.com4444 (blp740) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I wish at least one of the students of Simpson #1 would explain how is one
>>alone in any situation provides ones self an alibi? Isn't it only ones word
>to
>>rely upon when vouching for any period of time spent either alone or in
>>isolation? No interaction, no phone calls, how is it done?
>>
>>
>>blp
>>*opinions mine*
>
>a pretty accurate accounting of their time, even when alone. They can
>describe television programs, radio programs (although these can be
>heard from a car radio) etc. When someone is lies about their
>activities they'll generally add or omit details from telling to
>telling. They'll embellish points that the average person wouldn't.
>Simpson for example used his chipping golf ball story. While this
>might sound plausible on a saturday afternoon, it's not plausible on a
>Sunday night at 10 pm.
>
>
>Plausability has nothing to do with the truth of a matter. I can remember
details about childbirth and raising kids, yet there are many times cannot
retrace my last hours. Wher I put things or where I last had something.
I would expect a liar to have a better story than OJ had. Liars come up with
what sounds plausible and learn to repeat it, they seldom say a lot of
different things until and unless they get hemmed up. In this case OJ was NEVER
afforded the benefit of the doubt. The media and leaks from the DA's office
were the strongest influence on what the public came to believe.
You get a bobaugust who vouches as if he were a witness to the whole thing,
many will trust what he says as the truth of the matter.
Bob August
blp740 wrote:
As well they should, since everything I say is supported by the facts,
evidence, and witness testimony.
bobaugust
confused
>
>
>I wish at least one of the students of Simpson #1 would explain how is one
>alone in any situation provides ones self an alibi? Isn't it only ones word to
>rely upon when vouching for any period of time spent either alone or in
>isolation? No interaction, no phone calls, how is it done?
A whole bunch of ways. But one of the major ways is consistency.
When someone is on the phone, interacting with people all the time
up to the critical time, then they seem to vanish, only to reappear
afterwards to resume exactly as they were before, it does raise
suspicions.
Totaljust
>I wish at least one of the students of Simpson #1 would explain how is one
>alone in any situation provides ones self an alibi? Isn't it only ones word
>to
>rely upon when vouching for any period of time spent either alone or in
>isolation? No interaction, no phone calls, how is it done?
Betty, are you having problems with O.J.'s guilt? Is this why you're having
these recent bouts of "problems" with the facts (Goldman's girlfriend, O.J.'s
golf-chipping lie, etc.)
Betty, NOBODY holds it against you that you believed in his "innocence" for all
those years. It doesn't mean that you were stupid or gullible. l know you were
functioning on emotion, not facts.
You came to the right conclusion that O.J. was the real killer. That you came
to that conclusion in 2001 instead of 1994 is irrelevant.
Keep the faith, Betty, WE BELIEVE IN YOU!
Prien
>From: PuppetMaster RichE...@sbcglobal.net
>Date: 7/22/2002 9:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <uc0ojuobioca2maoc...@4ax.com>
babbles:
>When someone is lies about their
>activities they'll generally add or omit details from telling to
>telling. They'll embellish points that the average person wouldn't.
Oh, you mean like all the cops who testified. Like Vannatter claiming Simpson
was on an unexpected trip to Chicago when he knew he was off on a businesss
trip. Or how they just couldn;t get a DR jumber for two days.
And oh yeah, Lange trestimony before grand jury and at prelims about seeing
blood on the rear gate is an absilute gem. What's even better is his publicly
confessed admission it was all false. And better yet, their treatment of that
blood smear proves they knew it was phony from the start, and that the frame
was was begun at the very start of the investigation.
Yeah, that's how you tell liars apart from those who tell the truth. Can't
keep their stories staight. Like the cops who testified kept nothing straight.
Prien
blp740
>From: pr...@aol.com (Prien)
>Date: 7/22/2002 9:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20020722214947...@mb-de.aol.com>
no problem with the lies told by prosecution witnesses they were accepted as
slips of the tongue or "little white lies".
Bob August
Prien wrote:
Once again Prien shows us his inability to comprehend the facts.
Vannatter did not know Simpson had gone to Chicago, he only knew that
Simpson's daughter did not know where her father was. You always seem to
think that people lie when there is no reason for them to lie. I guess
that is what you do, right Prien? You lie for no reason. If Vannatter
had been told that Simpson was on a business trip, he would have noted
it. It would not have prevented him from getting a search warrant.
Lange saw the blood on the rear gate, just as many other police officers
did, the morning after the murders. It was even photographed. There was
no frame. The only thing phony around here is you and your phony opinions.
There was no great priority to get a DR number. Vannatter did not
complete his two crime reports and two death notices until early in the
morning the Tuesday after the murders. That is when he telephoned the
West Los Angeles Division and obtained two DR numbers, one for each
victim. No big deal, Prien.
bobaugust
Bob August
blp740 wrote:
No problem. The prosecution witnesses did not lie.
Prien
>From: blp...@aol.com4444 (blp740)
>Date: 7/23/2002 4:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20020723042726...@mb-cc.aol.com>
notes:
>>Amen Prien, you hit the nail directly on the head, apparently the NoJ's have
>no problem with the lies told by prosecution witnesses they were accepted as
>slips of the tongue or "little white lies".
>
Thank you. Of course, noticing all this is nothing. All it requires is a brain
free of racist prejudice, knowledge of real world processes, and rational
thinking and an open mind.
NoJs, of course, possess none of this. Less than zero, actually. brains
stuffed full of various prejudices and stupidities.
A blind man at least strives to use his other senses to compensate for his
disabilities. the NoJs willfully close their brains to the truth. Nothing can
help them.
Not even pemannents stays at Looney Tune Farms.
Prien
Prien
>From: Bob August boba...@lvcm.com
>Date: 7/23/2002 7:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3D3D428A...@lvcm.com>
>
>
babbles:
>Lange saw the blood on the rear gate, just as many other police officers
>did, the morning after the murders. It was even photographed. There was
>no frame.
Really. Simple question, then August. Did Lange ever affirm under oath that
his claim of having identified blood on the rear gate was false?
Prien
Bob August
Prien wrote:
You are so weird, Prien. You have described yourself so well. You have
continually shown us you have a brain that doesn't function well. Your
many unsupported accusations shows us your racist prejudice. You have no
common sense, no knowledge of the real world, no ability to rationally
think, no open mind, and you can not understand the english language.
You are one dumb, funny dude.
bobaugust
Bob August
Prien wrote:
What are you talking about? Lange told how Phillips pointed out blood on
the rear gate to him.
bobaugust
Mike
wrote:
Hi Bob
They told it like they saw it !!!!
Its not a lie !!
Too bad some of them fucked up every single detail of their sorry
testimony.
Mike
Bob August
Mike wrote:
Mike, I do not know what witnesses you think fucked up their details.
Every witness in this case, both prosecution and defense witnesses, made
small errors. That is the problem with eye witnesses. Many people may
witness the same event, yet they all may not see things the same way.
The biggest example are estimated times. Estimated times by witnesses do
not tell us the exact time an event happened, only the general time. It
is the facts that witnesses agree on that tell us what happened and when
it happened.
In the Simpson case every prosecution witness and every defense witness
testified to facts that incriminated Simpson.
bobaugust
Prien
>Message-id: <3D3DF5FE...@lvcm.com>
>
>
keeps blubbering:
What part of the question don't you understand. It's simple enough. Answer
it.
Denying he ever did is an answer. Saying I don't know is an answer.
Yours is an admission of consternation and befuddlement.
Not surprised you would respond that way.
But answer the question if you claim all the cop testimony is always on the up
and up.
Otherwise, well,m we know what otherwise means.
Then we'll see.
Prien
John Griffin
Prien, the brain dead little cretin who thinks there was a thumbprint
inside Nicole's skull, babbled:
> >From: blp...@aol.com4444 (blp740)
>
> notes:
>
> >>Amen Prien, you hit the nail directly on the head, apparently the NoJ's
have
> >no problem with the lies told by prosecution witnesses they were accepted
as
> >slips of the tongue or "little white lies".
> >
>
> Thank you. Of course, noticing all this is nothing. All it requires is a
brain
> free of racist prejudice, knowledge of real world processes, and rational
> thinking and an open mind.
>
> NoJs, of course, possess none of this. Less than zero, actually. brains
> stuffed full of various prejudices and stupidities.
>
> A blind man at least strives to use his other senses to compensate for his
> disabilities. the NoJs willfully close their brains to the truth.
Nothing can
> help them.
> Not even pemannents stays at Looney Tune Farms.
>
> Prien
Oh, darn, the dumbest little turd who ever discovered this newsgroup
is trying to insult the normal people.
hahahahahahahaha
Imbecile, you have proven beyond imaginary doubt that you aren't
capable of understanding even the simplest aspect of the SImpson
case. It's hilarious to see such a pathetically stupid mental dwarf
trying to comment on how to use a brain.
Bob August
Prien wrote:
I love your so called traps. Okay I will play your game. You ask, "Did
Lange ever affirm that under oath that his claim of identifying blood on
the rear gate was false?
Not that I know of, Prien. If you think differently post the testimony.
Include the date, please.
bobaugust
Prien
>Message-id: <3D3EA4B4...@lvcm.com>
>
>
aNSWERS:
>I love your so called traps. Okay I will play your game. You ask, "Did
>Lange ever affirm that under oath that his claim of identifying blood on
>the rear gate was false?
>
>Not that I know of, Prien. If you think differently post the testimony.
>Include the date, please.
>
>bobaugust
>
Since you confess ignorance about this, you admit you are tutally disqualified
toi assure the world that everything the cops did was on the up and up as you
keep harping on all the time
Wallow in your ignorance. A hint for you though. It happened before the start
of the criminal trial.
I've got the goods on the bastards.
Prien
Bob August
Prien wrote:
I understand, Prien, you will not post the testimony that you have most
likely misunderstood again, because you do not want to be embarrassed
when you are proven wrong again. Good tactic, make all of the
unsupported claims you want to, but don't provide anything to support
them. That way you can't be proven wrong, right?.
But you are always proven wrong, about everything you argue, so just
stick to making unsupported claims. Gee, just like Wagner. He can not
support his claims, and he too believes them to be true. You guys have a
lot in common.
I haven't even a clue as to what you are talking about, Prien. You
referred to Lange and the blood drops on the rear gate. I posted the
testimony where Lange told how Phillips showed him the blood.
Someone is off track here. I wonder who?
bobaugust
Prien
>Message-id: <3D3F5B5A...@lvcm.com>
>
>
confesses complete ignorance of the case:
>I haven't even a clue as to what you are talking about, Prien. You
>referred to Lange and the blood drops on the rear gate. I posted the
>testimony where Lange told how Phillips showed him the blood.
Let's see, is that the only time Lange testified about blood on the rear gate?
Prien
Ragnar
> I wish at least one of the students of Simpson #1 would explain how is one
> alone in any situation provides ones self an alibi? Isn't it only ones word to
> rely upon when vouching for any period of time spent either alone or in
> isolation? No interaction, no phone calls, how is it done?
It isn't. Of course, if there's no evidence pointing to you, it really
doesn't matter anyway.
You probably don't have an alibi for the time that Elizabeth Smart
disappeared. You don't have anything to worry about, though, because
there also isn't any evidence at the scene that would incriminate you
because you weren't there.
When people remark that "OJ's whereabouts are unaccounted for during
the time of the murders", or "He has no alibi" it is of course in the
context that there is a huge amount of physical evidence linking him
to the crimes. If there wasn't any evidence pointing to OJ, the fact
that he didn't have an alibi wouldn't be all that suspicious. But his
lack of alibi, coupled with the huge amount of evidence against him,
rightly raises suspicion among those of us who view the case
objectively.
Those who first decide OJ didn't do it, then look at the evidence and
try to explain it away, have tried to concoct an alibi for him so that
there is some (allegedly) plausible way that he could be innocent yet
all that evidence could be there.
This is of course nonsense, but many people still try.
Ragnar
Ragnar
news:<20020723182957...@mb-bd.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Re: <>Explain: ALIBI.<>
> >From: blp...@aol.com4444 (blp740)
> >Date: 7/23/2002 4:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <20020723042726...@mb-cc.aol.com>
>
> notes:
>
> >>Amen Prien, you hit the nail directly on the head, apparently the NoJ's have
> >no problem with the lies told by prosecution witnesses they were accepted as
> >slips of the tongue or "little white lies".
> >
>
> Thank you. Of course, noticing all this is nothing. All it requires is a brain
> free of racist prejudice, knowledge of real world processes, and rational
> thinking and an open mind.
None of which are attributes you posess.
>
> NoJs, of course, possess none of this. Less than zero, actually. brains
> stuffed full of various prejudices and stupidities.
No, more like brains unclouded by celebrity-worship and unswayed by
unsubstantiated wild-assed guesses (theories to you) concocted by the
Defense or by self-proclaimed experts like you.
Your "knowledge of real world processes" is laughable, as evidenced by
your bizarre contentions about skull thumbprints and your completely
loony WTC theories.
Your capacity for rational thinking is zero, and you clearly harbor
strong bias against the police.
So as I said, you're 0 for 4.
>
> A blind man at least strives to use his other senses to compensate for his
> disabilities.
So what's your excuse?
> the NoJs willfully close their brains to the truth. Nothing can
> help them.
What truth? You mean the truth of whose blood (beside that of the
victims) was found at Bundy BEFORE any blood samples were taken from
OJ? The truth of blood drops observed, photographed and collected at
OJ's house BEFORE any blood samples were taken from OJ? The truth that
OJ admitted he was cut and bleeding BEFORE he left for Chicago? The
truth that OJ admitted he hadn't been bleeding at Nicole's the last
time he was there, and in fact comes perilously close to admitting he
was bleeding at Nicole's the night before?
Lange: Well, we'd like to do that. We've got, of course, the cut on
your finger that you aren't real clear on. Do you recall having that
cut on your finger the last time you were at Nicole's house?
Simpson: A week ago?
Lange: Yeah.
Simpson: No. It was last night.
> Not even pemannents stays at Looney Tune Farms.
>
> Prien
It obviously hasn't aided your powers of reasoning, so why should any
of the rest of us give it a try?
Besides, we aren't the delusional ones. You can find someone who's
lost their grip on reality every time you look in a mirror.
Ragnar
Bob August
Prien wrote:
Prien, I am not going to do your work for you. If you have a point to
make. Make it and support it.
bobaugust
John Griffin
"Ragnar" <ragnar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7d41626.02072...@posting.google.com...
He probably sees two of them, unless he closes one eye.
How likely is it that his brain has enough processing power
to integrate two signals into a composite image?
Mike
wrote:
Hi Bob
Here is one example....... Marie Kessler head of the crime lab
testified she had meetings about the case .
She could not remember who with , when , or what they were about.
She also said she never needed to take notes !!
Hey lets not even go near Martz.
Bob I think that both you and Dick tend to believe the witnesses and
therefore are comfortable making allowances here and there.
I am not so forgiving.
I think a lot is just so shaded to be useless.
The Blind date couple is another example. I have never been able to
follow their times. I doubt they even went past Nicoles in fact.
Both sides threw anything into the stew to make it taste good !!
Mike
Bob August
Mike wrote:
Mike, yes I do believe the witnesses. But I also understand the
limitations of eye witnesses. When these people were living their lives
that night, none of them knew that a murder was going to happen. And
even if they all saw the same thing at the same time, their versions
could differ. But there are facts that they would agree on. Those are
the facts that most likely tells us what really happened.
So what if Kessler did not remember or would not remember certain
details of meetings she was in. Nothing she said changed any single
piece of physical evidence.
Martz was conducting testing that had not been done before. He was using
his years of experience to guide him. The results of his testing were
indisputable. There was no EDTA preserved blood from a purple top vile
found in any blood sample he tested.
The blind date couple, Mandel and Aaronson, were important witnesses.
Not for what they saw, but for what they did not see or hear. They never
saw or heard anything unusual or out of the ordinary when they walked
past the front of Nicole's condo shortley before 10:30 that night. Maybe
listening to their testimony, without being familiar with Brentwood,
might be confusing, but if you read their testimony, there is no confusion.
Neither side's stew would have tasted very good, but the prosecutions
stew was at least edible.
bobaugust.
Prien
>Message-id: <3D40CA4...@lvcm.com>
>
>
the worm squirms:
>>>I haven't even a clue as to what you are talking about, Prien. You
>>>referred to Lange and the blood drops on the rear gate. I posted the
>>>testimony where Lange told how Phillips showed him the blood.
>>>
>>
>>Let's see, is that the only time Lange testified about blood on the rear
>gate?
>>
>>Prien
>>
>Prien, I am not going to do your work for you. If you have a point to
>make. Make it and support it.
>
>bobaugust
>
>
>
First, the man conbfesses ignorance about whether Lange made the specified
statement. Then reverts to testimony he posted on what Lange allegedly said
about this as a basis for his denial that Lange could ahve lied.
I merely asked him to stand behind his assertion that the citation he provided
ends the matter by establishing how Lange's statement shows he could not have
mistated the facts, actually he falsely identified the rear gate as such.
Well, if you are so sure that your quote answers the question, then by all
means stand up like a man and affirm it. back up your hot air. If you want to
run away from your claim, you can always confess ignorance on the point.
Demolish the point you were trying to make with your citation, though doesn't
it.
It's your choice. Has nothing to do with doing my research for me.
I know exactly when Lange falsely identified that blood was on the rear gate.
I also know exactly when he claimed that blood appeared on the rear gate. I
don;t need you to do my research for me.
I also know exactly when a criminalist proved the fraud they were commtting by
how he treated the blood that Lange had initially identified as coming from the
rear gate.
It proves the frame-up was premeditated and implemented from the beginning.
Actually, before the murders were even committed. It was part of the murder
plan.
Prien
Bob August
Prien wrote:
You know nothing Prien. Only what your little handicapped brain
misinterprets and distorts. Your asinine ramblings have always proved to
be wrong. You seem to think that normal people should know what your
delusions are without you even posting the testimony that leads you to
your delusions. That's funny.
Post the testimony that you think tells you Lange lied about the blood
he saw on the rear gate. If you think Lange has contradicted himself,
stand up and run with it Prien. If you think that you have a point that
can be made, support it. Not with your dumb ramblings but with the
actual words of the witness. Your strange interpretations of english
have all come back to bite you in the butt. Maybe that's the reason you
wont post testimony any more. Maybe you know that no will agree with
your distorted delusions of what the actually words mean, right?
Tell us, oh great weirdo, how exactly did the criminalist prove a "fraud".
bobaugust
Prien
>Message-id: <3D41E5F6...@lvcm.com>
>
babbles:
>Post the testimony that you think tells you Lange lied about the blood
>he saw on the rear gate. If you think Lange has contradicted himself,
>stand up and run with it Prien.
No, you're the bird brain who alleges Lange 's testimony that you cite shows he
did not mistate the identification.
Now affirm or deny. Don't evade. That's why you always base your claim that
simpson is guilty -- he was evasive, consciousness of guilt, he mistated
things.
Okay, you made an allegation about the trestimony. Now affirm or deny that it
means what you claim. If you affirm your allegation of Lange's accuracy is
true, I'll blow you out of the water; if you deny you know, you blow your
claim out of the water.
Works either way for me.
And if you want to avoid the issue, why then you're acting just like you claim
Simpson did that you hold as proof of guilt. Guess what that says about you?
Prien
Prien
>From: Bob August boba...@lvcm.com
>Date: 7/26/2002 6:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3D412149...@lvcm.com>
>
feeble brain mutters in response to Mike:
>Nothing she said changed any single
>piece of physical evidence.
>
For once, August, you're right. Brilliant, actually. Verbal utterances do not
change physical reality. Every child knows this. It is expressed in the
little ditty: Sticks and stoesn can break my bones but words can never hurt
me" (physically, that is).
It is assuredly not what Kessler said that affected what was or was not on the
piece of evidence at any time. What she said instead affected something much
more fundamental. It was what she purported the evidence to be like at any one
time, which would establish what could have been on it at the time of the
statement.
And now here is the trick. Since if the blood were truly evidence of the
murder, it would have had to have been on the socks from the time of the
murders, AND FOREVER AFTERWARDS. If there was EVER a time after the murders
when there was no blood o the sock, well, that breaks the chain of evidence and
proves beyoind question how the blood eventually got on the sock.
So what Kessley said, indeed affect the true state if the evidence. Her
statement, therefore is a vital test of the truth of the evidence.
And there is not the slightest question whatsoever that neither Kessley,
Yamauchi, or matheson were prepared to affirm as a fact that they saw blood on
the sock when they first viewed it. There failure toi affirm or deny is more
evasive than anything Simpson never said that you keep harping on proves his
guilt.
Well, the criminalists' evasiveness proves them to be deceptive or lying aout
what was on the sock. Absolute proof of consciousness of guilt. And guilt of
what? Knowing frame-up of the accused is a good guess.
Prien
Bob August
Prien wrote:
Wrong Prien, the reason that Simpson was the proved to be the killer,
was that every single piece of relevant physical evidence pointed to him
and only him as the killer. Nothing eliminated him. The reason Simpson
was proved to be a liar was because he continually changed his alibi
when ever new evidence contradicted his old alibi. After changing his
story so many times, Simpson's own words contradicted his new words.
Simpson's lies were not lies because the plaintiffs said they were lies,
or because they were improbable, the plaintiffs proved Simpson told
demonstrative lies. Witnesses contradicted him and documents impeached
him. Simpson's story was completely unbelievable and it made no sense.
Lange testified that Phillips showed him some blood on the rear gate.
Q WHEN YOU GOT TO THE REAR GATE, DID DETECTIVE PHILLIPS POINT ANYTHING
OUT TO YOU?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS THAT?
A POINTED OUT WHAT APPEARED TO BE A BLOOD TRANSFER OR SMEAR ON THE UPPER
RUNG OF THE GATE AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE TWO DROPLETS OF BLOOD ON THE
LOWER RUNG, LOWER INSIDE RUNG OF THE BOTTOM OF THE REAR GATE.
Q AND YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE THOSE, WERE YOU, SIR?
A YES.
Go head Prien, blow me out of the water. Prove that Lange is a liar and
our hero is innocent.
bobaugust
Bob August
Prien wrote:
No, Prien, no one lied about seeing blood on Simpson's socks. If anyone
wanted to lie, after finding out that blood was found on the socks, they
would have said they also saw it all along. But they didn't do that, did
they? The reality of socks was that there was no noticeable blood. The
tiny blood splatters on the black socks were not noticeable under normal
lighting. That is a reality. It wasn't until the socks were looked at
under strong lighting that the tiny blood splatters were seen.
The blood on those socks was later tested to see if they came from
Simpson's and Nicole's reference sample, as suggested by the defense,
and the results were undeniable. The blood was not EDTA preserved blood
from a purple top vial. The blood on the socks was not planted.
Add the fact that blue black cotton fibers were found on Simpson's
socks. The same blue black cotton fibers that were found all over
Goldman's shirt and on Simpson's right hand glove, and the truth becomes
obvious. Simpson wore those socks when he committed the murders.
What is funny is that you think that because a prosecution witness
sounded to you like they were being evasive, then that is proof to you
that they are lying. No physical proof, no contradictory testimony, no
contradictory evidence. Just by listening to them or reading their
testimony, genius Prien can tell a lie from the truth. But when Simpson
is contradicted by witnesses, photographs, telephone records, and his
own previous words, genius Prien does not believe Simpson is lying at
all. Everyone else is lying, not Simpson, right?
You are very screwed up.
bobaugust
John Griffin
"Prien" <pr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020727095128...@mb-fk.aol.com...
It says he knows you're a fucking idiot. There's a big news item.
Everybody knows you're a fucking idiot, thumbprint cretin.
Prien
>Message-id: <3D431436...@lvcm.com>
>
keeps babbling:
>Lange testified that Phillips showed him some blood on the rear gate.
>
>Q WHEN YOU GOT TO THE REAR GATE, DID DETECTIVE PHILLIPS POINT ANYTHING
>OUT TO YOU?
>A YES.
>Q AND WHAT WAS THAT?
>A POINTED OUT WHAT APPEARED TO BE A BLOOD TRANSFER OR SMEAR ON THE UPPER
>RUNG OF THE GATE AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE TWO DROPLETS OF BLOOD ON THE
>LOWER RUNG, LOWER INSIDE RUNG OF THE BOTTOM OF THE REAR GATE.
>Q AND YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE THOSE, WERE YOU, SIR?
>A YES.
>
>Go head Prien, blow me out of the water. Prove that Lange is a liar and
>our hero is innocent.
>
>bobaugust
>
>
Okay, are you thereby claiming that is the only affirmation lange made about
blood on the back gate?
Are you also claiming that at no time in any of the criminal proceedings did
Lange admit that he falsely identified blood being on what he had described as
the rear gate?
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <3D431962...@lvcm.com>
>
>
babbles:
>What is funny is that you think that because a prosecution witness
>sounded to you like they were being evasive, then that is proof to you
>that they are lying. No physical proof, no contradictory testimony, no
>contradictory evidence. Just by listening to them or reading their
>testimony, genius Prien can tell a lie from the truth. But when Simpson
>is contradicted by witnesses, photographs, telephone records, and his
>own previous words, genius Prien does not believe Simpson is lying at
>all. Everyone else is lying, not Simpson, right?
>
>You are very screwed up.
>
>bobaugust
>
>
Well now what's all the consciousness of guilt babble about regarding
Simpson';s alleged lies. You have nothing but your claimed proof that Simpson
alleged lies or was being evasive that you keep serving up as your proof of
guilt.
There is, however, a huge difference between whatever Simpson said about event
s the night before the murders. At the time they occurred, those events could
not have had the slightest signifiance to him, so why would he or anyone else
clearly remember them?
There is, however, a huge difference regarding the criminalists failing to
recall or having vague recollections or not observing things clearly. It was
their job to be observant and to record what they observed. Not merely their
job, their duty. When they failed their duty, it was ni mere mistake.
Criminal negligence at best, malice aforethought at worst.
That's why their evasiveness is proof of wrongdoing. They have no business
being evasive when their job is to seek the truth and do justice. Their
evasiveness denies the possibility of either.
Prien
Bob August
bobaugust
Bob August
Prien wrote:
Simpson's alleged lies? That's funny. Simpson was not alleged to be
lying, he was proved to be lying. What ever the criminalists did in this
case, they did not do anything that changed one single piece of physical
evidence. Your opinion that they did not do the best job they could have
done, changes nothing. There was never any criminal negligence by any
criminalist. Only false claims by the defense.
bobaugust
Mike
Hitting the nail on the head here !
Kessler is no flunkie that can be brushed aside. She was the head of
the lab !
Another point not brought up is that after the shambles of the sweat
suit this , the socks , was the only peice of clothing of OJ's they
had to try and link him to the crime.
And they did look at them.
My recollection of the trial is that the jury were shown these socks
under normal lighting conditions and had no trouble seeing the blood !
Bob commonsense says to me that if the main criminologist in the case
+ the head of the crime lab both tell me that they do not see any
blood Then there is no blood.
Mike
Bob August
Mike wrote:
Mike, what is so hard for you to understand that tiny blood drops on
navy blue socks could not be easily seen under normal lighting? Of
course the jury had no problem seeing where the blood was on the socks.
By the time the jury saw the socks, the area where the blood had been
collected, had been saturated with liquids, and was very obvious to see.
They were not seeing the socks in their original condition before the
blood was collected.
Neither Kestler or anyone else examined the socks closely for blood. No
one, prior to when the blood was seen, ever looked at the socks with a
microscope or a magnifying glass. No one said that there was no blood on
the socks, only that none was seen under normal lighting. That is why
they were marked to be examined later under laboratory conditions using
strong lighting.
August 16, 1995 Michele Kessler
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you didn't examine the sock. You looked at it; is
that correct?
MS. KESTLER: We did a cursory look at each piece of evidence to
determine what analysis, if any, we were going to perform as well as
inventory it.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, when a criminalist is doing a detailed search of
an item for blood, you use high intensity light to examine that item,
don't you?
MS. KESTLER: That's one of the things, yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you use high intensity light when you looked at
the socks that day?
MS. KESTLER: No. The light is about like in here.
MR. DARDEN: And you weren't doing a detailed search for blood at that
time, were you?
MS. KESTLER: No.
MR. DARDEN: Another means by which you would search for blood on a pair
of socks, dark colored socks, would be to use a microscope; is that right?
MS. KESTLER: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Did you use a microscope that afternoon?
MS. KESTLER: No.
MR. DARDEN: And that's because you weren't conducting a detailed search
for blood on the socks, were you?
MS. KESTLER: No. We were just trying to determine what we might--and
that's what "Blood search" means. There was going to be a blood search
done. We were asking for that to be performed. There was no obvious
blood under these kind of conditions, office condition.
MR. DARDEN: And is that what the notation means, "Blood search, none
obvious"?
MS. KESTLER: That's correct.
Mike, the only head that Prien ever hit is his own head. If his asinine
ramblings start to make sense to you, then you have a big problem.
bobaugust
Prien
>From: basem...@xtra.co.nz (Mike)
>Date: 7/29/2002 2:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3d448e1f...@news.xtra.co.nz>
notes:
>My recollection of the trial is that the jury were shown these socks
>under normal lighting conditions and had no trouble seeing the blood !
>
Your recollections are entirely correct. The simple act of whoing the socks to
the jury that Scheck though of was enough to turn a whole army of prosecutio
witnesses into liars in the eyes of the jury. ot funding th blood on the socks
until August. And thye have the gall to claim its evidence of the crime.
It's actually amazing Ito even allowed this shit into evidence.
Prien
Prien
>From: basem...@xtra.co.nz (Mike)
>Date: 7/29/2002 2:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3d448e1f...@news.xtra.co.nz>
notes further:
>Bob commonsense says to me that if the main criminologist in the case
>+ the head of the crime lab both tell me that they do not see any
>blood Then there is no blood.
>
Youy're right on the mark there. But their claims were even more deceptive
that it appears. They essentiall;y neither affirmed or denied the presence of
blood in a way that enabled them to deny or affirm it later depending on how
the was was to come out. Their statements, however, also ensured that they did
not destroy the socks as evidence, while their equivocation perjury proofed
their claim.
Pure bull shit testimony.
Prien
Bob August
Prien wrote:
Prien, I guess you are as uninformed as Mike about this. Yes, the jurors
were shown the socks under normal lighting, but the socks were not in
the same condition as they were before testing was performed on them.
Even when viewed on television, it was obvious that there were large
stains on the socks, left from the collection process of adding liquids
to the stains.
Any one with even a small amount of common sense and life experience,
would know that tiny dried blood drops on navy blue nylon socks would be
very hard to see. But you, Prien, have no common sense, and your life
experience is very limited, so of course you are easily deceived. That
is why your opinions are so incorrect and worthless.
bobaugust
Bob August
Prien wrote:
You evidently did not read the testimony, Prien, or if you did, you once
again did not comprehend what you read. Greg Matheson explained to the
court about how the blood was not able to be seen under normal lighting
conditions. In fact, blood could not be seen on the socks under the
lighting of the courtroom or the high quality photographs taken of the
socks.
August 16, 1995
Later on August 4, 1994 Yamauchi examined the socks closely for the
first time. He did a quick test and found the presence of blood.
Thereafter, DNA tests confirmed the presence of Simpson's blood and
Nicole's blood. After defense accusations that the blood was planted
from reference samples, more tests were performed on the these blood
samples. It was undeniably confirmed that none of the blood that was on
the socks contained any EDTA preserved blood from a purple top vial.
There was never one single piece of evidence ever found to be planted or
tampered with in the Simpson case. Every accusations was proved false.
bobaugust
je
activities they'll generally add or omit details from telling to
telling. They'll embellish points that the average person wouldn't.
Not exactly true. When someone is retelling a story and being honest it
may differ quite a bit in sequence and additions or omissions.
When someone lies they may tell the story exactly the same as they
memorized the lie they are telling. And if lying they may completely
contridict what they are saying with out an explnation of the
contridiction. I might honestly make a mistake. Like the clock said
10;00. but later I may find the clock is 10 min. fast but in this case I
have a logical reason for changing what I am saying.
I may say one time "I looked at the clock" and at another "I looked at
the kitchen clock" This is normal for an honest person.
Also another falicy about lying is that lyers do not look you in the
eye. Correct for children, but real lyers look you right in the eye.
Jean
John Griffin
"je" <lib...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11227-3D4...@storefull-2293.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>
> Jean
That part about incorrectly guessing that it was around 11pm and then later
realizing it was 9:37 is true, for sure.
Prien
>From: Bob August boba...@lvcm.com
>Date: 7/29/2002 7:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3D45D272...@lvcm.com>
>
>
wallows in ignorance:
>Any one with even a small amount of common sense and life experience,
>would know that tiny dried blood drops on navy blue nylon socks would be
>very hard to see.
Nonsense. It's not teh color that gives it away. It's the dullness in
comparison to the sheen on the material. Unless the drops were microscopic,
which they couldn;t have een or they would not have soaked through to the other
side, then they would have been observable.
Blood dries a dull maroonish color. The flat sheen would have stood out like a
neon sign.
Prien
Bob August
Prien wrote:
Sorry Prien, but once again you are full of crap. Not only was the blood
not visible under normal lighting, but it was not visible under the
lighting in the courtroom or in the high quality photographs taken of
the socks.
Yes, they were tiny drops of blood on the socks. It was only a
microscopic speck that Herbert MacDonell testified that had penetrated
one side of Simpson's sock and transferred to the other side.
"The defense theorized that this could not have happened if someone had
been wearing the socks at the time because blood cannot go through
someone's ankle. They claimed that the idea that no one was wearing the
socks when the blood was deposited on them supported their planting
theory. The implication was that someone deposited Nicole's blood while
the socks were lying flat on a table."
Goldberg presented a photograph of the socks before they were collected.
"It clearly showed that the scenario he outlined to Dr. Lee was, in
fact, what had happened. The socks were collected inside out, with the
toe touching the ankle, showing how blood got from one side of the sock
to the other"
"(Goldberg) also elicited evidence from the forensic science literature
that a single drop of blood on nylon material could take from seventy
five minutes to nine hours to dry. the socks were nylon. Therefore, the
blood could also have transferred from one side to the other after
Simpson returned to Rockingham and took his socks off."
It's amazing how you believe your funny opinions, that contradict the
facts in this case, are the truth and the facts are lies. Your brain
seems to work backwards when it comes to understanding reality.
Tell us how you explain the blue black cotton fibers found on the socks.
The same blue black cotton fibers that were found all over Ron Goldman's
shirt and Simpson's right hand glove. I am waiting with baited breath.
bobaugust
Mike
wrote:
>
>
Hi Bob
Was the blood dry or wet ?
If it was dry why were there no specks falling off into the evidence
bag ?
If it was wet why no smears ?
Mike
Bob August
Mike wrote:
Mike, as I understand it, the tiny blood drops were absorbed into the
fabric of the socks. When Herbert MacDonell incorrectly testified that
Nicole's blood penetrated one side of Simpson's sock and had transferred
to the other side, he was talking about a microscopic speck.
Hank Goldberg "elicited evidence from the forensic science literature
that a single drop of blood on nylon material could take from seventy
five minutes to nine hours to dry. the socks were nylon. Therefore, the
blood could also have transferred from one side to the other after
Simpson returned to Rockingham and took his socks off."
When the socks were looked at and marked to be checked later for blood,
and when the blood was actually seen under strong lighting, the blood
was dry..
bobaugust
Mike
wrote:
Hi Bob
White shagpile carpet is where the socks were left overnight and yet
not a speck was on the carpet ?
Mike
Prien
>From: Bob August boba...@lvcm.com
>Date: 7/30/2002 8:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3D473656...@lvcm.com>
>
>
babbles:
>Hank Goldberg "elicited evidence from the forensic science literature
>that a single drop of blood on nylon material could take from seventy
>five minutes to nine hours to dry. the socks were nylon.
Here we go with blood pseudo science. Do you have any idea of the chemistry of
blood drying? If you did, you would realize that the surface the blood is on
has far less to do with how fast it dries than the really critical elements of
temperature and the amount of moisture in the air and/or on the surface the
blood is on.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <3d47443a...@news.xtra.co.nz>
>
replies to August:
>White shagpile carpet is where the socks were left overnight and yet
>not a speck was on the carpet ?
>
> Mike
>
Great point Mike. Here August relies on the forensic science unearthed by the
prosecution which ordains that even a single drop of blood on nylon would take
a MINIMUM of 75 minutes, and could take up to hours, to dry.
And not a speck of blood on the white carpet from a drop on the sock which the
prosecution's forensice scientist tells them must have been dripping wet for
well over an hour.
Nothing about the prosecution's case makes the slightest sense. It's one
Columbo moment after the next.
Prien
Bob August
Mike wrote:
Mike, Simpson's blood on his sock came from his cut finger, probably
transferred there when he took the sock off. Nicole's blood was most
likely from splatters, when Simpson walked through her blood before
leaving Bundy. These were very small blood stains. They evidently never
made contact with the rug they were found on, next to Simpson's bed. The
socks were not found on the white carpet.
bobaugust
Bob August
Prien wrote:
And if you knew anything about of the chemistry of blood, you would know
that the amount of blood is directly related to how long it takes the
stain to dry. Goldberg introduced that fact to show how blood may have
been transferred from one part of the sock to another.
Simpson's blood on his socks, most likely came from the cut on his
finger, probably when he took them off. Nicole's blood was most likely
from splatters, when Simpson walked through her blood before leaving
Bundy. These were very small blood stains that dried on the socks. That
is why they were so hard to see.
bobaugust
Bob August
Prien wrote:
What doesn't make sense is you, Prien, when you give us an example of
your "expertise" that is always contradicted by the facts and the
evidence, and most of the time based on false information. The socks
were not found on the white carpet.
One Columbo moment after the next? That's funny. I don't think the
prosecution was smart enough to come up with even one Columbo moment.
bobaugust
Prien
>Message-id: <3D47C4F...@lvcm.com>
>
again exposes his ignorance:
>And if you knew anything about of the chemistry of blood, you would know
>that the amount of blood is directly related to how long it takes the
>stain to dry.
Not even close, dummy. It's not the AMOUNT of blood, the the surface area of
the total volume exposed to air that matters. AS a simple example that even
you might understand, if 1 cc of blood were in a test tube, it would take far
longer to "dry" than if it were spread out on top of a surface. So it's not
the amount of itthat matters, dummy.
The only way that nylon could affect drying time is based on how the material
affects the cohesion of the blooddroplet -- does it allow itto spread out
easily, or does the surface make the blood adher and retard its motion so it
would be more concentrated, leaving smaller surface area per volume than if it
spread out. But if it did so, then it would be a glob rather than spreadout,
and would have left a on white carpet. Didn't happen. Just more bogus
evidence.
Prien
Prien
>From: Bob August boba...@lvcm.com
>Date: 7/31/2002 7:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3D47C74B...@lvcm.com>
>
babbles:
> The socks
>were not found on the white carpet.
It was found on the bedroom carpet that was light. A photo shows it's on a
very light colored, patterned oriental type rug. Mike's point wasclear -- the
blood would have stood out like the neon signs i Times square.
>I don't think the
>prosecution was smart enough to come up with even one Columbo moment.
Of course, not. You're too dumb to notice that one key point of the police
testimony was to perjury proof it while allowing them to make it appear they
were affirming facts critical to make their case against Simpson but without
ever in fact expressly affirming it to be a fact.
Prien
John Griffin
"PuppetMaster" <RichE...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> brown area rug. And here I thought you were the Simpson Case expert.
rotfl!
Someone needs to tell the fucking idiotic little thumbprint cretin that you
were being sarcastic there. I guess I'll have to do it.
I think his answer is "I say a brown area rug is a white carpet, and if you
disagree with me, it's because you don't understand the problem." He's
unbelievably stupid, you know.
Bob August
Prien wrote:
It's not the amount that matters? Funny. You are so full of crap that
your mind can not comprehend reality. I always like your standard
conclusion that somehow your warped, incorrect opinions prove to you
that all of the incriminating evidence in this case is either bogus,
planted or tampered with. You are amazing.
Once again Prien, the socks were not found on the white carpet. Funny.
The small blood stains on the socks were not "gobs."
Once again Prien, the blood found on the socks were very small stains.
Goldberg used real documentation to support the reality that the blood
on Simpson's socks, transferred from one part of the sock to another
part of the sock, when the parts touched.
The amount of time it took Nicole's blood to dry on Simpson's socks, is
meaningless. Nicole's blood would not have dried by the time Simpson
took his socks off, only about a half hour or so after he killed her.
bobaugust
Bob August
Prien wrote:
>>Subject: Re: <>Explain: ALIBI.<>
>>From: Bob August boba...@lvcm.com
>>Date: 7/31/2002 7:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3D47C74B...@lvcm.com>
>>
>
>babbles:
>
>>The socks
>>were not found on the white carpet.
>>
>
>It was found on the bedroom carpet that was light. A photo shows it's on a
>very light colored, patterned oriental type rug. Mike's point wasclear -- the
>blood would have stood out like the neon signs i Times square.
>
Wow. Prien. That's so dumb. Mike did not know that the socks weren't
found on the white carpeting, no big deal, and evidently neither did
you. So you try to weasel out of your mistake by pointing to
photographic lighting? Let me clue you into reality. The color of the
rug did not matter. No blood specks ever fell on the rug or in the
evidence bag. Not too hard to understand, at least for normal people,
when you consider that the blood was only small stains embedded in the
nylon fibers, not "gobs" of blood.
>
>
> >I don't think the
>
>>prosecution was smart enough to come up with even one Columbo moment.
>>
>
>Of course, not. You're too dumb to notice that one key point of the police
>testimony was to perjury proof it while allowing them to make it appear they
>were affirming facts critical to make their case against Simpson but without
>ever in fact expressly affirming it to be a fact.
>
>Prien
>
Huh? Give me an example, Prien.
bobaugust
je
Re: ‹›Explain: ALIBI.‹›
Group: alt.fan.oj-simpson Date: Tue, Jul 30, 2002, 10:20pm (EDT+4) From:
pr...@aol.com (Prien)
I think any housewife who has done the laundry, would know this. Not
only is there a different sheen but also a different texture. Try
getting a garment with dried blood and you will find that it sticks out
like a sore thumb because of the stiffness. If any housewife or anyone
who does the family laundry knows this, then so much more so a trained
lab person.
Either we have completely ignorant lab people who don't have the
knowledge or observational powers of most people or they lied. Plain and
simple.
Jean
je
Re: ‹›Explain: ALIBI.‹›
Group: alt.fan.oj-simpson Date: Tue, Jul 30, 2002, 11:07pm (EDT+4) From:
boba...@lvcm.com (Bob August)
You really can't have it both ways. Either the spot was more than
microscopic on the orginal side or it could not have bled to the other
side. Micorscopic drops are absorbed on the outer threads, do not bleed
thru to the inside of the sock and then to the next surface.
And of what significance are blue black fibers when you have nothing to
compare them to. Or are you trying to compare them to dark clothes that
happened to be Arnels anyhow.And that were never collected much less in
any whay matched to any fibers at the crime scene.
Jean
Bob August
je wrote:
No Jean, what is plain and simple is that you do not know what you are
talking about. You envision of blood is not what what was on the socks.
Simpson's blood most likely came from the cut on his knuckle, probably
transferred when he took his socks off. Nicole's blood was most likely
splattered stains. These were all very small blood stains that
eventually dried, embedded in the nylon fibers of the socks. The socks
were a dark navy blue.
The "lab people" were the ones who found the blood. Kessler, Matheson,
and Yamauchi first reviewed the physical evidence. The socks were given
a cursory look and marked to be looked at closer, later. When Yamauchi
later looked at the socks under strong lighting, he first saw the small
blood stains.
bobaugust
je
Re: ‹›Explain: ALIBI.‹›
Group: alt.fan.oj-simpson Date: Wed, Jul 31, 2002, 5:33am (EDT+4) From:
pr...@aol.com (Prien)
I had never heard of that hours to dry junk. Incredible. sure a pool of
blood might take time, but we are talking about a drop. By this theory,
when I used to manage to get blood on myself most days at work, that
would have meant that I would have been dripping blood all day that was
on my nylon uniform. What a crock.
Jean
Bob August
je wrote:
Right Jean, I can't have it both the ways you imagine. But what you
imagine is incorrect. Simpson's and Nicole's blood were very small blood
stains. It was Herbert MacDonell, the defense witnesses who gave us his
dumb theory involving microscopic specks.
His asinine story was proven wrong when Dr. Lee agreed with Hank
Goldberg's explanation based on photographs of the condition the socks
were in when they were found.
You ask what is the significance of the blue black cotton fibers? Well,
lets see if you can figure it out for yourself. Blue black cotton fibers
were found all over Ron Goldman's shirt, found on Simpson's right hand
glove, and found on Simpson's socks. Do you get it yet, Jean? Maybe they
came from his clothes. Wow. What a revelation, right Jean?
The dark colored sweats found in Simpson's washing machine were not
Arnelle's. But I like the way you have accepted that Arnelle did her
laundry that night. Good for you, Jean. Considering the fact that Kaelin
told us that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit early in the
evening and a dark colored sweat suit was found in his washing machine,
it isn't too hard to conclude the dark colored sweat suit was the one
Simpson wore.
"The police found a load of wet laundry sitting in Simpson's washing
machine, apparently including some of Arnelle's underwear. The
housekeeper, Gigi Guarin, hadn't run it. She had been away that weekend
and had testified in the criminal trial that she had left Friday with
all the laundry dried and folded. In any case, she didn't do Arnelle's
wash. When shown a video of the contents of the washing machine while
testifying in the criminal trial, Gigi identified the laundry basket as
Arnelle's. Arnelle said she hadn't done any laundry from June 9 through
June 12, nor had she been inside the main house, which included the
laundry room, since Saturday night. She said she gotten home Sunday
morning and gone straight to bed. Simpson didn't do the laundry, that
night or any night."
Arnelle Simpson lied.
bobaugust
Bob August
je wrote:
Jean, your story is a crock. It has nothing to do with the Simpson case.
Prien is arguing a meaningless argument about drying time. Prien shows
us his complete ignorance by telling us that "the prosecution forensice
scientist tells them have been dripping wet for well over an hour"
No the prosecution forensic scientist did not say that, and there was no
dropping blood on the sock. The dummy can not realize that there were
only very small blood stains. And evidently you, Jean, have the same
problem as dummy Prien. Funny.
bobaugust
blp740
>From: pr...@aol.com (Prien)
>Date: 7/31/2002 6:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20020731182929...@mb-fr.aol.com>
and they will buy it.
>
>
>
>
>
Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission.
- Eleanor Roosevelt
Bob August
blp740 wrote:
Good one Betty. I guess you are referring to the criminal trial jury and
how the defense deceived them with their dumb false theories.
bobaugust
Prien
>Message-id: <3D48A987...@lvcm.com>
>
proclaims his ignorance:
>It's not the amount that matters? Funny. You are so full of crap that
>your mind can not comprehend reality.
I guessyou missed the part about the surface a reaper volume. Figures. Dip
shit.
Prien
Prien
>From: Bob August boba...@lvcm.com
>Date: 8/1/2002 1:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3D48CA06...@lvcm.com>
>
drools:
>ean, your story is a crock. It has nothing to do with the Simpson case.
>Prien is arguing a meaningless argument about drying time.
You're the fool who brought up the drying times of blood on nylon the nitwit
Goldberg came up about that you were alleging established something about the
Simpson case.
I merely poinrted out how ridiculous that crap was to prove ut had nothing to
do with the Simpson case.
Damn, August, you appear to be learning and now agree with me.
Keep it up, and you might pass kindergarden.
Prien
Bob August
Prien wrote:
You weirdo. You have no brain. Do you not understand the difference
between small stains and "globs" of blood?
Do you not understand that your argument is completely worthless and dumb?
bobaugust
Bob August
Prien wrote:
Your memory isn't too good is it, Prien? Yes, I brought up the drying
times of nylon because they did have something to do with this case.
Goldberg used that testimony to support his explanation for how blood
got on different parts of the sock, based on the condition photographs
show the socks were found in.
You, genius, are the one who did not, and evidently still does not,
understand why Goldberg offered that testimony, so you made a big deal
about the time. You can't weasel out of this one so easily. You made the
dumb argument. And in your ramblings you showed us that you did not even
know that the socks were not found on the white carpeting, until after
you were corrected. Funny.
You pointed out nothing with your dumb arguments about how blood "globs"
dry on nylon. Funny.
bobaugust
Prien
>Message-id: <3D49E2...@lvcm.com>
>
babbles:
>You pointed out nothing with your dumb arguments about how blood "globs"
>dry on nylon. Funny.
>
I leave you to wallow in your ignorance.
Prien
Bob August
Prien wrote:
You are such a gullible fool, aren't you, Prien? "Globs" of blood does
not mean you think there was globs of blood on the socks. (At least I
hope you don't still believe that.) It is only the word that reminds us
all, how dumb you were when you tried to attack Goldberg's witness with
your meaningless arguments. At first you thought that the prosecutors
said there was dripping blood on the socks, so you asked why was there
no dried specks found on the white carpet? Then you argued that the it
would take a long time for the blood to dry. Exactly what the
prosecutors said. You don't even know what you are arguing.
You are the one who introduced the word "glob" in your funny attempted
explanation of how blood dries. An explanation that doesn't even account
for the fact that there were only small blood stains on the socks. Funny.
And you embarrassed yourself again, by not knowing that the socks were
not found on the white carpet.
Wow, and you still want to keep this nightmare going, right Prien? Amazing.
bobaugust
John Griffin
"Bob August" <boba...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:3D49DF86...@lvcm.com...
Of course he doesn't. If you were eight feet tall, you'd think eight feet
is a normal height. By the same reasoning, he thinks a completely worthless
and dumb argument is normal.
I wonder how long it's going to take the imbecile to figure out that a brown
rug and a white carpet aren't exactly the same thing.
Prien
>Message-id: <3D4A137C...@lvcm.com>
>
babbles incoherently:
>Then you argued that the it
>would take a long time for the blood to dry. Exactly what the
>prosecutors said. You don't even know what you are arguing.
I guess you missed the conditionals that were the foundation for the
discussion. I never argued any such nonsense. I would suggest you reread what
I wrote to get the proper meaning, but since you missed it the first time,
asking you to do it again would send you off on a pointless task.
Prien
Bob August
Prien wrote:
You fool, Prien. Your argument was useless, meaningless, and dumb. You
didn't even know what you were arguing about. Your continued responses
tying to weasel out of another of your mistakes wont cut it. So dumb.
But funny.
bobaugust
