Clark avoids telling how Goldman got to Bundy
Prien
clark's closing argument to see what she had to say about how Goldman got to
Bundy. Just as I thought.
Here is all she had to say in hefr closing argument on September 26:
AT ABOUT 9:50, TEN OF 10:00 THAT NIGHT, RONALD GOLDMAN LEFT THE
MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT.
WHEN HE LEFT HE WAS WEARING THE WHITE SHIRT AND DARK PANTS THAT
WERE PART OF HIS WAITER'S UNIFORM AND THAT UNIFORM WAS LATER FOUND BY HIS
SISTER, KIM GOLDMAN, IN HIS APARTMENT DRAPED OVER THE BEDROOM DOOR.
THAT UNIFORM IS HERE IN EVIDENCE.
SO WE KNOW THAT RON WENT HOME AND CHANGED CLOTHES AFTER HE LEFT THE
MEZZALUNA AT ABOUT 9:50. THE OTHER WAITRESS IN THE RESTAURANT, TIA GAVIN,
TESTIFIED THAT IT TAKES ABOUT A MINUTE TO WALK FROM THE MEZZALUNA TO HIS
APARTMENT. SO EVEN BEING A LITTLE GENEROUS, HE GOT HOME BY ABOUT 9:52, SAY.
HE CHANGED, HE FRESHENED UP, BECAUSE WE KNOW HE WASN'T WEARING THAT
WAITER'S UNIFORM WHEN HE WAS FOUND, AND SO IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO INFER THAT
HE GOT TO NICOLE'S HOUSE WITH THE ENVELOPE SOMETIME SHORTLY AFTER 10:00.
AND WHEN I SAY SOMETIME SHORTLY AFTER 10:00, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY
WHAT TIME, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE DO, BUT 10:10 OR SO WOULD SEEM A
REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET FRESHENED UP, CHANGED, GET OVER THERE, BASED
ON WHAT WE DO KNOW.
(snips)
BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW, WHEN HE LEFT THE MEZZALUNA, CHANGING
CLOTHES, FRESHENING UP, AND I THINK STEWART TANNER TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS --
THEY HAD PLANS TO MEET AT THE BAJA CANTINA, HE WAS GOING TO GET CLEANED UP TO
GO SOMEWHERE.
IT IS REASONABLE THEN TO INFER THAT HE TOOK TEN MINUTES OR SO TO DO
THAT, CHANGE CLOTHES, FRESHEN UP AND THEN GO OVER TO BUNDY.
[So Goldman just somehow changed and "get(s) over there, based on what do
know." I guess based on what we do know, it's certainly not by him driving the
car is it? Or perhaps you could point to where in her closing argument Clark
identifies Goldman's mode of travel?]
[How nice. He just gets over there. Did the Toyota disappear? Why was it so
hard for Clark to avoid making it more specific by saying "drove to Bundy"
instead of just saying that he "get(s) there" presumably somehow? Did the
starship Enterprise play a role?]
[The fact is HOW Goldman "got there" is the key to the case for two reasons.]
[One, if he didn;t "get there" driving the car, then whatever other mode of
travel he used totally alters his time and reason for being there, and where
and when he could have been murdered. For once he didn't get there by driving,
there are numerous other ways he could have gotten there, including as a dead
body dumped at Bundy after having been killed elsewhere.]
[Two, if he didn't "get there" driving the toyota, how then did the toyota "get
there?" If it didn;'t "get there" by Goldman driving it, It's presence at
Bundy is complete and absolute proof of massive evidence fabrication by the
police.]
[So while August continues to prattle on about how insignificant this issue is,
the issue of how Goldman in fact "got there" is critical to the entire case.]
[Clark's filure even to breathe a hint during her closing argument of how
Goldman "got there" is then equal proof that she damn well knew of its
significance and her failure to prove how Goldman got there, and that she had
at all costn mentioning it for reasons Ito made clear with respect to how Clark
sought to dly saw the figure in the driveway:]
THE COURT: NO. I RECOLLECT THAT THERE IS SOME IMPRECISION IN THE TIMES
AND THE ONLY TIMES THAT WE HAVE ARE TIME STAMPS BY THE PHONE RECORDS. I AGREE
WITH YOU THERE.
HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS A RATIONAL BASIS TO MAKE
THAT ARGUMENT AND THEY MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. IF IT IS ILLOGICAL OR IF IT
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO THE JURY, THEY MAKE THAT ARGUMENT AT THEIR PERIL, BUT
SINCE THEY CAN EXTRAPOLATE, SO TO SPEAK, FROM THE TESTIMONY, I THINK THEY ARE
ENTITLED TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.
[There you have why Clark dared not breathe even a hint of how Goldman actually
got there. Do you get it August? Okay, let me help you out here. As Ito said:
"IF IT IS ILLOGICAL OR IF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO THE JURY, THEY MAKE THAT
ARGUMENT AT THEIR PERIL, BUT SINCE THEY CAN EXTRAPOLATE, SO TO SPEAK, FROM THE
TESTIMONY, I THINK THEY ARE ENTITLED TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT."]
[Yup, she sure could claim Goldman drove to Bundy, but she would be making that
extrapolation from the testimony at her direst peril because the testimony and
evidence DIDN'T SUPPORT IT AT ALL. And she knew it. And she knew better than
to be such a fool.]
[No one should, however, fear that August can come within light years of
realizing what a fool he is by jumping to a conclusion that Clark dared not
even hint at.]
[Now I also admit that you have one minor point. The defense did not directly
mention how Goldman got to Bundy either. They didn't have to. What they did
do is repeatedly drive home the point the prosecution's case was specualtion,
conjecture, and lies by the two big liars. Clark's failure to identify how
Goldman "got there" was, just as I said, simply one more brad in the
prosecution's coffin that the defense did not even have to mention to make
count as just another of the many pieces that didn't fit.]
[And if it doesn't fit, you must then acquit. Remember that, August? The
defense didn't have to spell out for the jury each piece that didn't fit.
They just had to keep reminding the jury of all those pieces out there that
didn't. Which the defense did, repeatedly.]
[And just a simple side note. It was to the advantage to the defense not to
make a direct issue out of the key not fitting. BVy raising it, they would
implicitly have assumed the burden of showing how Goldman got there if it
wasn't by driving the car. As it was, by the defense simply letting the
prosecution dangle by not allowing Clark to establish that he drove the car
there, the defense planted the seeds for reasonable doubt about the
PROSECUTION'S CASE, without assuming any burden to establish an alternative.]
[Your obvious failure to grasp this shows you also have no conception of trial
strategy. But Beaver had already made that obvious ages ago.]
Prien
bobaugust
> [And It didn't. Remember that, August? The
> defense didn't have to spell out for the jury each piece that didn't fit.
> They just had to keep reminding the jury of all those pieces out there that
> didn't. Which the defense did, repeatedly.]
>
> [And just a simple side note. It was to the advantage to the defense not to
> make a direct issue out of the key not fitting. BVy raising it, they would
> implicitly have assumed the burden of showing how Goldman got there if it
> wasn't by driving the car. As it was, by the defense simply letting the
> prosecution dangle by not allowing Clark to establish that he drove the car
> there, the defense planted the seeds for reasonable doubt about the
> PROSECUTION'S CASE, without assuming any burden to establish an alternative.]
>
> [Your obvious failure to grasp this shows you also have no conception of trial
> strategy. But Beaver had already made that obvious ages ago.]
>
> Prien
Prien, your interpretation of what Clark didn't say is amazingly dumb.
Funny but dumb.
Clark never mentioned the red Toyota did she? Why? Because during
Lange's testimony the defense tried to make Clark waste time supporting
this meaningless detail, so she dropped it. Did you forget about that
already, Prien?
Did the defense ever suggest to the jury there was something wrong with
the police investigation about the red Toyota? No.
Did the defense ever suggest that there was some kind of police
conspiracy about the red Toyota? No.
What I like best, Prien, is your explanation why the defense never
suggested any of these things or even talked about this subject at all.
"They didn't have to."... because if they did they would then have to
assume the burden of supporting a credible alternative explanation.
Imagine that. Just like you have to do, Prien.
And Prien's big finish. Because the defense never said any of these
things or even talked about this subject somehow means, "the defense
planted the seeds for reasonable doubt about the PROSECUTION'S CASE,
without assuming any burden to establish an alternative."
Brilliant Prien, just brilliant. Prien has given us his understanding of
a successful defense. Just don't say anything. Not only do you eliminate
the tiresome problem of having to offer and support an alternative
explanation, but you actually destroy your opponents case. Wow.
But Prien, you didn't follow your own advice. You did make claims about
the red Toyota. It is your burden to support your claims. You haven't,
you can't, and you never will.
Your claims about the red Toyota are irrelevant.
bobaugust
Prien
>From: bobaugust boba...@lvcm.com
>Date: 10/22/2003 3:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8mqlb.104787$gv5.24669@fed1read05>
keeps burbling:
>And Prien's big finish. Because the defense never said any of these
>things or even talked about this subject somehow means, "the defense
>planted the seeds for reasonable doubt about the PROSECUTION'S CASE,
>without assuming any burden to establish an alternative."
>
>Brilliant Prien, just brilliant. Prien has given us his understanding of
>a successful defense. Just don't say anything. Not only do you eliminate
>the tiresome problem of having to offer and support an alternative
>explanation, but you actually destroy your opponents case. Wow.
>
>But Prien, you didn't follow your own advice. You did make claims about
>the red Toyota. It is your burden to support your claims. You haven't,
>you can't, and you never will.
>
>Your claims about the red Toyota are irrelevant.
>
You have again proven how little you understand trial strategy.
Do you recall Beaver saying over and over again that the defense should never,
never, never, and not ever assume the burden of proving anything?
You can see the reason why in the Kennedy cousin murder case. the defense
sought to prove he couldn't have done it. When the stories of the witnesses
didn't completely hold up, he was convicted, not because the prosecution made
its case, but as jurors said, they just didn't believe the alternative the
defense offered, and if that alternative wasn't true, then he must be guilty.
Now say the defense assumes an affirmative position on the keys and car issue
by expressly showing the prosecution had failed to make it case, and that the
car must have gotten there some other way.
Now they have assumed the burden of showing, or at least suggesting to the
jury, they knew how the car got there. Of course, the defense had no idea
exactly how the car got there, it was only clear the prosecution had failed to
establish it was by Goldman driving it there.
That's all they had to do. That's doubt. because if the prosecution has
failed to provde express proof that links the car to Goldman, the jurors are
left wondering how the car did get there. And the easy conclusion for them to
reach is that Goldman didn't drive it. That's all the defense needs to win.
And they did win.
You have to hand it to Petrocelli, tho0ugh. He avoided the entire issue by
saying nothing aboutn the car or whether the keys found fit the car.
But then, Sherlock's observation about the significance of the dog not barking
it totally lost on you.
In this case, it is not what is said that counts, but what was left UNSAID;.
And what is clear is that Clark avoided saying anything about how Goldman "got"
to Bundy.
Why do you suppose she avoided the word "drive" like the plague and fixated
instead on "get" to Bundy?
I'll give you a clue. "Drive" identifies the specific activity that brought
Goldman to Bundy. "Get" leaves the whole question hanging in air since it
allows a million ways for Goldman to have "gotten" there, including as a body
of someone having been killed elsewhere.
Marcia's argument does not rule out that possibility, and by not ruling it out,
she in fact rules it in as a plausible possibity.
It also by itself sinks her case.
One truth demolishes a million lies.
Prien
bobaugust
The only thing you got right Prien, is that Clark purposely avoided any
reference at all to how Goldman got to Bundy. But the reasons why you
have imagined she did this are only your fantasy. Funny.
It wasn't because Clark didn't know how Goldman got to Bundy, she did.
The police investigation answered that question.
Clark had never called the owner of the red Toyota to testify. It wasn't
in the record. She could not refer to it. It was a meaningless issue as
to who the killer was. The defense agreed. They never brought it up again.
The only one who doesn't get it is you Prien. You have created a fantasy
about the red Toyota and the only thing that supports it is that the
defense never talked about it. Good one, Prien.
Your claims about the red Toyota are irrelevant.
bobaugust
Mike
wrote:
>>
>> One truth demolishes a million lies.
>>
>> Prien
>
>The only thing you got right Prien, is that Clark purposely avoided any
>reference at all to how Goldman got to Bundy. But the reasons why you
>have imagined she did this are only your fantasy. Funny.
>
>It wasn't because Clark didn't know how Goldman got to Bundy, she did.
>The police investigation answered that question.
>
>Clark had never called the owner of the red Toyota to testify. It wasn't
>in the record. She could not refer to it. It was a meaningless issue as
>to who the killer was. The defense agreed. They never brought it up again.
>
>The only one who doesn't get it is you Prien. You have created a fantasy
>about the red Toyota and the only thing that supports it is that the
>defense never talked about it. Good one, Prien.
>
>Your claims about the red Toyota are irrelevant.
>
>bobaugust
>
>
Hi Bob
It would have been better to actually call her to the stand.
Maybe Ron said something about his intentions ?
Because the trial was all about OJ and Nicole Ron was almost
forgotten.
I never thought Marcia got the motive for the murders.
The prosecution floundered from day 1 on this issue.
I have always thought that it was no coincidence that it was only when
Ron arrived that anything happened.
Even if you accept the prosecution version of events , Nicole was
alive when Ron showed up .
Maybe Ron was the trigger ?
Mike
bobaugust
Mike, I agree that Clark never got the motive right. But motive is not
necessary to convict someone of murder. Evidence is.
Was Ron was the trigger? I believe he probably was.
We know Simpson was pissed at Nicole for many reasons. We know Nicole
changed dinner plans last minute excluding Simpson. We know she treated
him coldly at the recital. We know the detrimental comments Simpson made
to Kaelin about Nicole after the recital.
In the past when Simpson had problems with Nicole, he could turn to
Paula Barbieri. But not this time. We know that Simpson was trying to
get hold of Paula the entire day. We know Simpson heard Paula's
telephone message later after the recital, breaking off her relationship
with him.
Nothing probably would have happened that evening if Simpson's
housekeeper had stuck to her original plans to return that Sunday
evening. But that 8:00 telephone call she made to Simpson asking
Simpson's permission to stay the night gave him the opportunity to do
something about his anger.
Simpson changed into all dark clothing, taking a hat, gloves and a knife
to Bundy. What was Simpson planning on doing? Kill her? Maybe, maybe
not. Scare her? Threaten her? Cut her tires? Maybe, we don't know.
What we do know is that sometime after Simpson confronted Nicole he hit
her. She most likely hit the back of her head when she fell, knocking
her unconscious. Their Akita dog was barking loudly and continuously.
That's when Goldman walked in and yelled at Simpson. Simpson was most
likely surprised, never even hearing Goldman until he yelled. Simpson
reacted by yelling back and attacking Goldman.
Why? Because he was standing over Nicole lying unconscious on the ground
with a knife in his hand? Anger? Fright? Rage? Loss of control? For
whatever reason Simpson stabbed and cut Goldman over 30 times before
dropping him to the ground to bleed to death.
Simpson returned to Nicole, put one foot on her back, pulled her head up
by hair and sliced her throat. He could not leave a living witness to
his killing of Ron Goldman.
That was Simpson's motive for killing Nicole.
bobaugust
Prien
>Message-id: <573mb.110211$gv5.45461@fed1read05>
yaks:
>It wasn't because Clark didn't know how Goldman got to Bundy, she did.
Dumbo, the question in court is not what Clark know, but what evidence she has
to prove a fact that establishes her claims aboujt what she allegedly knows.
the fact is, Clark presented no proof, and neither have you.
>The police investigation answered that question.
>
Oh, they tested the keysnthe found and proved they could be used to start the
car.
could you cite the evidence where they proved that?
They took a photo showing car was parked next to alley, did they?
Post the proof.
They have Goldman's fingerprints inside the car?
Post the proof.
Otherwise, you know nothing, judt like, Clark.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <8Qjmb.112045$gv5.110155@fed1read05>
>
babbles again:
>Mike, I agree that Clark never got the motive right. But motive is not
>necessary to convict someone of murder. Evidence is.
Bubble head burbles again.
Motive is motive is evidence. But that's too deep for you.
But lack of motive if evidence of his not having done it. So it is necesary
for convicting someone of murder, because if there is no motive, as Ito
instructed the jury, that is an indication of innocence.
According to Ito's instruction, the jury could have tossed the case simply on
the basis of the prosecution's failure to establish motive.
I guess this is waaaaaaaaaaay too deep for you.
Prien
Prien
>Date: 10/24/2003 7:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3f99b21c...@news.xtra.co.nz>
noted:
>It would have been better to actually call her [the owner of Toyota] to the
stand.
>
Not if she would not identify the keys Lange gave her as the keys to her
Toyota.
Or if she would reveal Ron had plans that made it absurd for him to have taken
any glasses to Bundy.
Or if she were to say any number of things that would have demolished the
prosecution's case.
Clark's failure to call her when she knew the importance of those keys for
establishing that Goldman drove the car proves she knew the witness would be
devastating to the prosecution, or she would have called her.
She would definitely become hysterical trying to threaten the defense intio
stipulating to Ron driving the car.
Just imagine how much more significant this was than the phone records that the
defense allegedly stipulated to. Those were apparently far more significant
than the keys, but the defense went along with it.
Why would they then avoid stipulating to something that was as meaningless as
August Claims?
Because they all knew it was critical, and blew the prosecution;s case. Not
even the defense would go along with this for their show trial.
They could explain stipulating to the phone records when effective defense
called on them to refuse to do so.
They could not explain stipulating to Goldman having driven the car when the
prosecution had no proof he did it.
Prien
bobaugust
You are so dense, Prien. The police investigation revealed the fact that
Ron Goldman drove his friend's red Toyota to Bundy. The owner of the red
Toyota identified the keys found near Goldman's body as her keys that
she gave to Goldman to drive her car. John De Bello testified that
Goldman was driving that car that night.
No one ever questioned the police investigation. No one ever accused the
police of some kind of conspiracy about the red Toyota. Not the criminal
trial defense, not the civil trial defense.
It was and is a non issue. It is the relevant physical evidence that
tells us who the killer is, not this meaningless detail.
Only you, Prien, with your great handicaps can not understand what
everyone else understands. You have created a fantasy out of ignorance
with nothing to support it except your imagination.
Your claims and fantasy about the red Toyota are irrelevant.
bobaugust.
bobaugust
Prien's fantasy again. No one questioned the police investigation that
revealed the fact that Ron Goldman drove his friend's red Toyota to
Bundy. No one ever accused the police of some kind of conspiracy
involving the red Toyota.
Not the criminal trial defense, not the civil trial defense.
The red Toyota was not important. The keys were not important. Clark did
not believe this was important. That is why she never called witnesses
about this. She did not want to waste court time on meaningless issues.
The criminal trial defense did not believe this was important. That is
why they never talked about it again.
The civil trial defense did not believe this was important. That is why
they never talked about it at all.
Nothing about this issue was critical. Nothing about this issue would
have blown the prosecution case. Nothing about this issue has anything
to do with who the killer was. The only thing that is blown here is
Prien's fantasy. Reality always destroys Prien's imaginary claims. Funny.
Prien, your claims about the red Toyota are irrelevant.
bobaugust
bobaugust
Ketchall 1
and OJ argued over that. Also, didn't I read that Nicoles Realator almost
stopped at the Condo about 10:15 to leave 'For Rent' signs but changed her mind
because it was getting to late.(Maybe all the house lights down stairs were
off) I think money matters probably capped the ongoing arguments between the
two.
David Emerling
news:8mqlb.104787$gv5.24669@fed1read05...
> Prien, your interpretation of what Clark didn't say is amazingly dumb.
> Funny but dumb.
>
> Clark never mentioned the red Toyota did she? Why? Because during
> Lange's testimony the defense tried to make Clark waste time supporting
> this meaningless detail, so she dropped it. Did you forget about that
> already, Prien?
>
> Did the defense ever suggest to the jury there was something wrong with
> the police investigation about the red Toyota? No.
>
> Did the defense ever suggest that there was some kind of police
> conspiracy about the red Toyota? No.
Bob, you astutely point out a common theme in most of Prien's arguments. He
continually makes observations that were never made by the defense. He
draws conclusions that they never drew. He makes arguments that they never
made. He connects pieces of evidence that the defense never connected.
This begs the question - Does Prien think he's smarter than the army of
attorneys at Simpson's side? Perhaps Simpson should have hired Prien!
A far fetched as many of the defense arguments were, even THEY realized that
they had certain logical limitations. Prien obviously feels no such
compulsion to be bounded by logic. Instead, he flies off into all kinds of
tangents.
To him, EVERYTHING is a conspiracy ... EVERYTHING has been falsified ...
EVERYTHING has been tampered with ... EVERYTHING is not as it seems.
He is true entertainment. And I think he knows it.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bobaugust
David, the part I like best about Prien is that when ever the defense
contradicts his ideas or the defense and the prosecution agree about
something, that is proof to Prien that the criminal trial was really
only a "show trial."
That's how Prien knows he is right and everyone else is wrong. A name,
"show trial" that all die hard pro-j's like to use as a last resort to
ignore reality and remain in their fantasy worlds. Funny.
bobaugust
bobaugust
Prien, Evidently you didn't read or comprehend my posting. I pointed out
Simpson's motive for killing Nicole.
Please post where Ito ever instructed the jury they could "toss the
case" simply based on the prosecution's failure to establish motive.
bobaugust
Prien
>Date: 10/25/2003 10:20 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Gwwmb.20212$oC5....@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com>
warbles:
>Bob, you astutely point out a common theme in most of Prien's arguments. He
>continually makes observations that were never made by the defense. He
>draws conclusions that they never drew. He makes arguments that they never
>made. He connects pieces of evidence that the defense never connected.
Bumble brain is back. So good of you to join up again with your racist pal
August to substantiate his totally illogical and irrantional proofs that he
pretends is evidence of something in this case.
But just to point out the major flaw in the edifice you construct that is but a
mirage, the fact the defense does not make an argument, that it does do reach a
conclusion or that it fails to connect something is not proof that the argument
is not sound, there is no fatual basis for it, that it is not in fact the ONLY
inference to be drawn from the evidence the prosecution in fact presented.
Let's see the state of this evidence about whether Goldman in fact drove the
car:
By their own admission, the police never tested to determine whether any key
found anywhere in the crime scene or in Goldman's possession in fact fit the
ignition so it could be used to operate the car;
They failed to produce a single picture despicting the car parked where they
allegedly found it when they took their initial crime scene phoitos (or any
photos, for that matter);
They failed to provide the report of, or present the officers detailed to
write down the license number of cars found in the area at the initial stages
of their investigation (before Fuhrman and Phillips evn arrived, apparently),
that identified the license number of the car Goldman drove and where it was
found in the vicinity;
None of the officers or detectives who arrived at the earliest stages of the
investigation ever reported seeing the car where Goldmamn purportedly left it
even though it was parked next to the alley on Dorothy where each of them
walked past it to get to the rear from Bundym (that includes Riske, Rossi,
Phillips, Fuhrman, Vannattter, Lange, and Spangler);
Riske affims at the civil trial that he notice NO CARS parked on Dorothy when
he first got there.
Now these are all facts presented by the prosecution/plaintiffs on the question
of how Goldman arrived at the crime scene, which they allege is by driving that
car and leaving it there, which is the only way they can create the scenario of
his innocent arrival to be a good Samartian and drop off the allegedly lost
glases as he passed Bundy on his way to a night on the town after work at the
baja Cantina).
And from these facts, you brain dead moron NoJs instantly conclude and declare
that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Goldman drove
the car there to the exclusion of all other possibilities, and denounce as
irrational anyone who dares state otherwise.
The fact and the law is that based on the state of the evidence, the jury was
legally mandated to reach the only possible conclusion that in the absence of
ANY PROOF that he did so, Goldman did not in fact drive the car to Bundy, and
to conclude that he did would have been totally unresasonable. This legally
mandated conclusion of this efvidence by itself destroys the entire prseuction
case, and this one truth that he could not and did not drive the car destroys
any possibiity that simpson could have committed the murders, and this simple
truth resutes all the lies the prosecutiinand plaintiffs presented to claim
oitherwise.
Why the defense did not strive to strike this point is a question you need to
address to them.
They could have had reasons to avoid doing so to avoid even the hint of
assuming the burden of proving how
Goldman had in fsact gotten to Bundy, or proving how the car then got there.
(I have my suspicions, and the police are deeply involved, but neither I nor
the defense had the proof necessary to establish it. The defense would then be
well advised to avoid it.) It was, as I have also said, a show trial, and the
defense was not about to demolish the carefullyn orchestrated flim flam they
presented by focusing on the one point that would have totally exposed the
entire fraud to the whole world, and would have left a substantial portioin of
the public howling for some heads to roll.
It is the facts that determine and limit what dots are to be connected and what
conclusions can reasonably be drawn from them, not what the defense did or
failed to do with them for their own reasons, which they are certainly never
going to reveal.
Now, if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt and present evidence that
establishes that Goldman drove the car that contradicts the points I have made
and conclusions I have drawn from the facts I presented, I would love to see
it.
Maybe you can do better than your racists pal August, but he has already
confessed he has NO EVIDENCE that proves Goldman drove the car. Lange's
allegation that she identified a key as hers is no proof whatever that she
identified a car key. Lange's failure to so state is all the proof necessary
that she never so identified it.
Otherwise, all I hear from you is more congenitally based racist propaganda to
justify the lynching of a nigger.
But that's no surprise at all.
Prien
bobaugust
Prien, your reasoning is completely flawed, if you can call it
reasoning. Funny.
There were a lot of meaningless details in this case that no one proved.
Simpson was not proved to be the killer based on unproved meaningless
details, he was proved to be the killer based on the relevant physical
evidence.
How Goldman got to Bundy is irrelevant as to who killed him when he was
at Bundy. The criminal trial defense and the civil trial defense
understood that. Your faulty reasoning does not change anything except
point out how screwed up and out of touch with reality you really are.
All of the racist propaganda in this newsgroup comes only from you,
Prien. But that's no surprise at all.
All of your imagined claims about the red Toyota are irrelevant.
Every argument you have ever made is irrelevant except to your personal
fantasies.
Keep up the good work.
bobaugust
Prien
>Date: 10/26/2003 5:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <eTXmb.117121$gv5.75968@fed1read05>
proves his stupidity by alleging:
>How Goldman got to Bundy is irrelevant as to who killed him when he was
>at Bundy. The criminal trial defense and the civil trial defense
>understood that.
Wrong. How Goldman got to Bundy is central to the prosecution's case. The
killings as they occurred can be attributd to Simpsin if, and ONLY if Goldman
accidenally shows up to deliver the glasses while driving past the condo on his
way to the Baja Cantina.
Moreover, to buttress this scenario, the car he allegedly drove was found
parked at the crime scene hours after the policem arrived.
So unless Goldman in fact drove the car, Goldman must have gotten there some
other way than by driving. And there is then no way to juggle the evidence to
attribute the murders to Simpson.
Moreover, if Goldman in fact got there some oither way, how then did the car
gret there? Goldman didn't get up after he was murdered and drive it there,
did he?
Goldman driving the car to Bundy is the critical piece of evidence that makes
it possible to attribute the murders to Simpson.
If that evidence was false, or was planted afterwards to butress the scenario
to attribute the murder to Simpson, that refutes the authenticity and
credibility of all the evidence.
Case closed.
If you imagine Goldman drove the car to Bundy, present the evidence that PROVES
IT.
Not your endliess mindless twattle, but real, genuine evidence.
As I also pointed out when citing the argument at side bar, the defense
strongly contested clark's scenario that goldman drove the car when they
refused the stipulation she was begging them to accept.
You have no evidence that is necessary to substantiate your claim.
You're a loser.
Prien
Prien
>Date: 10/25/2003 8:13 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <OFumb.113607$gv5.16483@fed1read05>
babbles:
>Prien, your claims about the red Toyota are irrelevant.
>
Then why do you keep harping on them and repeating your nedless drivel that it
was unimportant.
If you think it happened, present the evidence that proves it.
Your claim that they ignored it because everyone felt it was unimportant is
merely more of your mindless pontifications with no basis in fact.
Present the proof that anyone considered it insignificant when Clark express
brought it up at end of Lange's trstimony, and became hysterical when she was
unable to prove her claim and the defense refused to rant her point.
If the defense thought it was meaningless, why didn't they simply sgree to her
stuipulation?
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <dJBmb.114431$gv5.100766@fed1read05>
>
asks:
>Please post where Ito ever instructed the jury they could "toss the
>case" simply based on the prosecution's failure to establish motive.
Reread my post and the point out where I ev>Please post where Ito ever
instructed the jury they could "toss the
>case" simply based on the prosecution's failure to establish motive.
Quick reread my most and show where I evn hinted the ito said >Please post
where Ito ever instructed the jury they could "toss the
>case" simply based on the prosecution's failure to establish motive.
Quick reread that post and show where I even hinted that Ito said that.
I instead said that absence of motive is a sign of innocence.
It is then cleary only my conclusion that based on Ito's instruction that the
absence of evidence is an indication of innocence, the jury could well take the
prosecution's failure to prove motive as an indication of Simpson's innocence
and toss the case right then and there.
I was also onoly responding to your asinine observation that the prosecution
had no obligation to prove motive as part of their case.
True, but failing to show motice gives the jury every reason to toss the case
based on Ito's jury instruction.
So the prosecution had to prive motice in an attempt to overcome the inference
of innocence to be drawn from the failue yo show it.
I realize I have taken these vastly beyond your intellectual capacities to
comprehend it, but I only go where the truth leads me.
Prien
bobaugust
You are as full of crap as you always are, Prien. Your dumb claims
about how Goldman got to Bundy are completely irrelevant and only show
us all how much you live in your fantasies.
No one, let me emphasize this again, no one but you has ever made the
claims you make. Not the criminal trial defense, not the civil trial
defense, not even Simpson. Only Prien, who lives in his paranoid fantasy
world.
And what is your proof for your claims? Nothing. Only your handicapped
imagination. You read words from the transcripts and can not even
understand what people are saying. You think they mean only what you
want them to mean. Like your last idiotic claim that Ito instructed the
jury they could "toss the case" if the prosecution failed to show
motive. Funny.
How Goldman got to Bundy was not central to the prosecution case. Unless
you think the word central means that no one talks about it. Why?
Because everyone except you knows how Goldman got to Bundy. He drove his
friend's red Toyota there. That is what the police investigation revealed.
But backwards Prien doesn't believe the police. Backwards Prien doesn't
believe the prosecution. Backwards Prien doesn't believe the defense.
The only thing Backwards Prien believes are the voices in his head.
Your claims, Prien are pure, unsupported fantasy that not only never
happened, they contradict the known evidence and make no sense to anyone
except you.
But it's understandable why you refuse to accept the truth about this
and continue to make your irrelevant claims. You have failed in every
argument you ever made about the Simpson case. Your opinions are derived
from your colossal handicaps.
It's understandable why your believe you are right and every one else in
the world is wrong. You need professional help. But please don't get
any, we wouldn't want to change anything about you. You are so dense
it's hilarious and what's really funny is that you are the only one who
doesn't realize it. Keep up the good work, Prien.
bobaugust
bobaugust
You are so dense, Prien. You ask again why the defense never agreed to
Clark's stipulation? I have explained this to you over and over again.
Maybe if you started reading what I post you wouldn't have to ask the
same dumb questions so many times.
Since you can never seem to read beyond a couple of sentences, it would
be a waste of time to post the answers to your dumb questions again.
Just go back and read my previous postings or continue in your ignorance
of not understanding why Clark got so upset at the defense tactics. Funny.
<e73mb.110212$gv5.35886@fed1read05>
This whole issue is irrelevant and meaningless. We know how Goldman got
to Bundy. He drove his friend's red Toyota there. That is what the
police investigation revealed. It is you and only you who can not
understand this.
Your claims about the red Toyota are irrelevant.
bobaugust
bobaugust
Prien wrote:
Prien, go back and read your own posting. Prien wrote:
"According to Ito's instruction, the jury could have tossed the case
simply on the basis of the prosecution's failure to establish motive."
Then go back to the transcripts and read what Ito instructed the jury.
Once again Prien, you have put your own meanings on something you do not
understand. Funny.
Motive is not necessary to find someone guilty of murder. Evidence is.
bobaugust
Prien
>Message-id: <rW_mb.117849$gv5.45954@fed1read05>
>
babbles again:
>I have explained this to you over and over again.
>
>Maybe if you started reading what I post you wouldn't have to ask the
>same dumb questions so many times.
>
>Since you can never seem to read beyond a couple of sentences, it would
>be a waste of time to post the answers to your dumb questions again.
>Just go back and read my previous postings or continue in your ignorance
>of not understanding why Clark got so upset at the defense tactics. Funny.
>
>This whole issue is irrelevant and meaningless. We know how Goldman got
>to Bundy. He drove his friend's red Toyota there. That is what the
>police investigation revealed. It is you and only you who can not
>understand this.
>
>Your claims about the red Toyota are irrelevant.
>
All your prior explanations have done no more than repeatredly dewscribed your
delusional fantasies about how goldman got to Bundy.
If you really think the police investigation proved it, perhaps you could
identify the material evidence they unearthed and booked that proved that he
did so?
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <f0%mb.117859$gv5.68544@fed1read05>
burbles:
>According to Ito's instruction, the jury could have tossed the case
>simply on the basis of the prosecution's failure to establish motive."
>
>Then go back to the transcripts and read what Ito instructed the jury.
Okay bubble head, Ito's jury instructioon on motive:
MOTIVE IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED AND NEED NOT BE SHOWN. HOWEVER,
YOU MAY CONSIDER MOTIVE OR LACK OF MOTIVE AS A CIRCUMSTANCE IN THIS CASE.
PRESENCE OF MOTIVE MAY TEND TO ESTABLISH GUILT. ABSENCE OF MOTIVE MAY TEND TO
ESTABLISH INNOCENCE.
YOU WILL THEREFORE GIVE ITS PRESENCE OR ABSENCE, AS THE CASE MAY
BE, THE WEIGHT TO WHICH YOU FIND IT TO BE ENTITLED.
Notice he makes clear that the ABSENCE OF MOTIVE may tend to ESTABLISH
INNOCENCE, and that the jury CAN give it THE WEIGHT TO WHICH YOU FIND IT TO BE
ENTITLED.
Acccording to Ito's jury instruction, it was, therefore, entirely within the
province of the jury to give it such weight that it was sufficient for them to
flush the case down the toilet.
Exacty what I said.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <jW_mb.117847$gv5.65680@fed1read05>
brays:
Now your reduced to describing your hysteria induced delusional fantasies.
But if you actually imagine there is real, material evidence that proves
Goldman drove the vehicle to Bundy, present it.
Prien
bobaugust
Prien. the evidence is the police investigation of the red Toyota that
was parked near the murder scene. The keys that were found near
Goldman's dead body were booked into evidence. These keys were later
identified by the owner of the red Toyota as her keys that she gave Ron
Goldman to use when she loaned him her car.
The only delusions around here are your idiotic fantasies.
Your claims about the red Toyota are irrelevant.
bobaugust
bobaugust
No Prien it was not sufficient to flush the case down the toilet and
that is not what happened. Once again you show us you do not understand
anything about this case.
I said that motive is not necessary to convict someone of murder.
Read Ito's first line again. "Motive is not an element of the crime
charged and need not be shown."
"However, you may consider motive or lack of motive as a circumstance in
this case."
As a circumstance, Prien, not the most important end all evidence that
can be presented.
"Absence of motive may tend to establish innocence. You will therefore
give its presence or absence, as the case may be, the weight to which
you find it to be entitled."
The weight to which you find it to be entitled does not mean that all of
the other evidence presented should be ignored and disregarded because
you do not believe the motive that was offered.
I can see defense attorney Prien now addressing a jury. Prien says, "It
doesn't matter that sixteen witnesses saw my client shoot the victim. It
doesn't matter that the victim's blood was found on my client. It
doesn't matter that my client's fingerprints were found on the murder
weapon. None of the physical evidence or any of the witnesses mean
anything if you don't believe the motive presented by the prosecution.
Since the prosecution could not tell you why my client would commit
these murders then you must find him not guilty." Right Prien?
Maybe in your fantasy world that makes sense. About as much sense as
every other argument you have ever made about this case. Funny.
bobaugust
bobaugust
I have already explained to you the evidence that proves Goldman most
likely drove his friend's red Toyota to Bundy, Prien, many times. You
just aren't capable of comprehending it.
It's your turn. You present evidence that contradicts the police
investigation. You present evidence that supports your claims about the
red Toyota. You haven't, you can't, and you never will.
Prien
>Message-id: <s5unb.121474$gv5.11294@fed1read05>
>
keeps burbling:
>Prien. the evidence is the police investigation of the red Toyota that
>was parked near the murder scene.
When did the police find the car? Did the police prove it was there when they
first arrived? If so, where is the proof?
The keys that were found near
>Goldman's dead body were booked into evidence. These keys were later
>identified by the owner of the red Toyota as her keys that she gave Ron
>Goldman to use when she loaned him her car.
>
Did they prove the keys fit the car? Where is the proof she identified them as
the keys to the Toyota?
Still haven't managed to provide any material evidence that peroves he drove or
even could have drive the car, have you.
But you do continue to provide graphic descriptions of your delusional
fantasies that he drove the car.
Trying presenting some real, material evidence.
Prien
Prien
displays his moronism:
>"Absence of motive may tend to establish innocence. You will therefore
>give its presence or absence, as the case may be, the weight to which
>you find it to be entitled."
Did you see the words "the weight to which YOU find it to be entitled"
entitled. It's absolutely clear it is entirely up to the jury to determine how
much weight to accord to that element.
As I said, the prosecution doesn't have to prove motive, but if they present
none, the jury would be perfectly entitled to flush the prosectuon's case down
the toilet if they didn't believe it made sense for the accused to have
committed the murders, esepcially if the prosecution failed to produce iron
clad, irrefuable evidence he did it -- like maybe a confession, or a video
showing him committing the murders. Motive definitely wouldn't mean much then.
But that's not the situation in the Simpson case, is it?
>
>The weight to which you find it to be entitled does not mean that all of
>the other evidence presented should be ignored and disregarded because
>you do not believe the motive that was offered.
>
>I can see defense attorney Prien now addressing a jury. Prien says, "It
>doesn't matter that sixteen witnesses saw my client shoot the victim. It
>doesn't matter that the victim's blood was found on my client. It
>doesn't matter that my client's fingerprints were found on the murder
>weapon. None of the physical evidence or any of the witnesses mean
>anything if you don't believe the motive presented by the prosecution.
Damn, when you're right, you are so right. Now could you produce the sixteen
witnesses who saw Simpson commit the murders? How about his finger prints on
the knife that is proven to have been used to kill the victims? Shucks, can
you simply produce the knife?
Now, when you can present that kind of evidence to prove s
Simpson did it, I will agree with you that motive is of no consequence.
See how simple you have made mit to prove Prien wrong. I even told you in
advance I will agree with you if you produce what it takes.
But gee, you if you don't have that kind of evidence, the argument you have
presented to refute my point merely graphically desribes you delusional
fantasies about the case.
Now, if you can present some real, material evidence to lend some weight to
your fantasies, you could actually have something.
I'm waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiting.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <56unb.121478$gv5.98337@fed1read05>
babbles:
>I have already explained to you the evidence that proves Goldman most
>likely drove his friend's red Toyota to Bundy
"Most likely" is EVIDENCE? Are you nuts?
You don't have to answer that.
And I see you still failed to produce the real material evidence needed to
prove Goldman drove the car.
You have merely treated us to further graphic descriptions of your delusional
fantasies.
Now, go find some real evidence.
Prien
MsMoJoRisin4
>Date: 10/28/03 8:22 PM Central
>>I have already explained to you the evidence that proves Goldman most
>>likely drove his friend's red Toyota to Bundy
>
>"Most likely" is EVIDENCE? Are you nuts?
>
>You don't have to answer that.
>
>And I see you still failed to produce the real material evidence needed to
>prove Goldman drove the car.
>You have merely treated us to further graphic descriptions of your delusional
>fantasies.
>Now, go find some real evidence.
>Prien
===========
Mr. August,
Why do you continue to feed him?! LOL I've just read like a month or more of
posts about the "red toyota" theory ...
Good Grief!
**MoJo**
bobaugust
In order to make a logical inference, you have to have normal
intelligence and common sense. You have neither, Prien. You are not
capable of making logical inferences.
The police conducted a routine investigation into the cars that were
parked near the murder scene. That is how they learned that Ron Goldman
drove the red Toyota to Bundy.
That is the evidence.
You have never offered anything that contradicts that evidence. You have
never offered anything that supports your idiotic claims.
bobaugust
Prien wrote:
I have produced the evidence that tells us Ron Goldman drove the red
Toyota to Bundy. There is no other evidence. Nothing contradicts
what the police investigation revealed. Nothing contradicts what John De
Bello testified to.
The problem is not the evidence, the problem is you, Prien.
You are not capable of using common sense reasoning. You are not able to
make logical inferences. You create idiotic fantasies.
You do not understand what normal people understand. You are abnormal.
bobaugust
Prien wrote:
No Prien, you go find some real evidence to support your delusions and
idiotic fantasies.
I have produced the evidence that normal people understand. Since you
are not normal it keeps going over your head.
The police investigation was real. John De Bello's testimony was real.
Logical inferences are real.
You have offered nothing that contradicts the police investigation. You
have offered nothing to support your idiotic fantasies.
bobaugust
I know, it's unbelievable. But as long as this moron continues to post
messages about this, I will respond to him. It's a dirty job but someone
has to do it.
Prien
>Message-id: <RIOnb.123059$gv5.92695@fed1read05>
more graphic descriptions of August's delusional fantasies:
>The police conducted a routine investigation into the cars that were
>parked near the murder scene. That is how they learned that Ron Goldman
>drove the red Toyota to Bundy.
>
>That is the evidence.
That';s the evidence? they conducted an investigation? What real, genuine,
material evidence did they find that proves their investigation establised that
Goldman drove the car?
Perhaps you can post it if any exists?
You stupid fool.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <uJOnb.123060$gv5.59440@fed1read05>
babbles in part:
>I have produced the evidence that tells us Ron Goldman drove the red
>Toyota to Bundy.
You haved presented nothing but your delusional fantasies. Did DeBello
trestify he saw Goldman drive the Toyota to Bundy?
He didn't? Then whatev er he says counts for nothing.
Before you can draw an inference, you need real, material evidence as a
foundation. Provide it, oir all yiou have is your delusional fantasies.
Prien.
Prien
>Date: 10/28/2003 9:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20031028214949...@mb-m06.aol.com>
>
joins the babbler:
>Mr. August,
>Why do you continue to feed him?! LOL I've just read like a month or more
>of
>posts about the "red toyota" theory ...
>Good Grief!
>**MoJo*
He needs to keep his delusions alive. Without proof that Goldman in fact drove
that Toyota anywhere, the prosecution's case collapses because they cannot then
put Goldman at the scene in a way that accounts for the double murder.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <cKOnb.123061$gv5.6347@fed1read05>
>
babbles:
>I have produced the evidence that normal people understand. Since you
>are not normal it keeps going over your head.
>
I see you still haven't manage to produce a single item of solid, physical
evidence that proves Goldman drove the car.
I'm not asking for much. Just one, single, solitary, piece of soldi, physcial
evidence that establisheds Goldman was in the car and could, and in fact did
drive it.
Nothing but your delusional fantasies
We know all, about your solid police invetigation. It wasn;t even sifficiently
solid for Fung to identify the object they recovered as a car key, much less a
Toyota car key.
Nothing but illusions that feed your delusions.
Produce real, physical evidence.
And I can keep this up as long as you can.
I assure you that you are not winning.
Prien
bobaugust
Prien, it does not matter how many times I post the evidence, the only
evidence might I add, you are not capable of understanding it.
You have never posted anything that contradicts the real evidence or
that supports your idiotic fantasy, and you never will.
bobaugust
Prien, you are the last one to talk about drawing inferences. All you do
is invent idiotic fantasies using faulty inferences based on nothing but
your imagination.
Drawing reasonable logical inferences is not in your vocabulary. You are
not capable of doing it. You don't even know what it means.
bobaugust
I assure you Prien, you lost a long time ago.
Not only are your asinine claims about the red Toyota yours and yours
alone, you aren't even capable of comprehending that it's completely
meaningless as to who the killer was.
Your faulty reasoning and inability to understand the evidence has
caused you to make some of the dumbest claims anyone has ever made about
the Simpson case. That's why you always lose. Good job, Prien.
Ketchall 1
Did you ever drive somewhere to quickly drop off something and keep your keys
in your hand? I sure have. Obviously, Goldman did not leave the car keys in the
car or put them in his pocket. What other argument would support anything but
that?
Prien
>Message-id: <An2ob.123341$gv5.111158@fed1read05>
babbles:
>Prien, it does not matter how many times I post the evidence, the only
>evidence might I add, you are not capable of understanding it.
>
You ahve yet to post any evidence. All you have posted is grap[hic
descriptions of your delusional fantasies.
Tell everyone of Fung even managed to identify in the porperty report innwhich
he desribed and logged the evidence they collcted that he ever actually had a
toyota car key.
Present the evifdence the police ever had in their possession a key that they
established would operate the car Goldman allegedly drove.
When you do that, you might get to have posted evidence.
Otherwise, all you have done is exposed your delusions about the case.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <Fn2ob.123342$gv5.90356@fed1read05>
keeps babbling:
>Prien, you are the last one to talk about drawing inferences. All you do
>is invent idiotic fantasies using faulty inferences based on nothing but
>your imagination.
Still having trouble finding and posting real evidence that proives Goldman
drove the car.
So you keep treating us to your delusional fantasies.
Tell us, did Fung identify in his property report that they ever found Toyota
car keys?
Prien
Prien
>Date: 10/30/2003 11:16 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20031030111611...@mb-m18.aol.com>
>
notes:
Whatever he did with them, if they were ever in his possession to drive the
car, they must have been found in the crime scene - either on his person, in
the car, or near his body if he had them in his hand and he was murdered at
Bundy.
The real and only issue is that the police failed to establish that they ever
found anywhere in th crime scene or in the Toyota any keys that could be used
to operate the car. Now if Goldman was murdered at Bundy while holding the
keys, I seriously doubt that he took the trouble to hide them, or that the
killers would do so.
There would most certainly have been no reason for Simpson to have done so.
The fact that NO KEYS are proven to have been found that fit the Toyota
definitive establishes according to Ito's jury instructions that the ONLY
reaosdnable inference to be drawn from the set of facts established by the
prosecution is that the keys necessary to operate the car goldman allegedly
drove were not at the crime scene. The only inference to be drawn therefrom is
that Goldman could not possibly have driven the car there. And if that car was
found thee, it had to have been brought to the crime scene after Goldman's
murder.
And that is definitive proof of massive evidence tampering.
Complete and total proof of Simpson;s innocence.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <Kn2ob.123343$gv5.72593@fed1read05>
babbles:
>Not only are your asinine claims about the red Toyota yours and yours
>alone, you aren't even capable of comprehending that it's completely
>meaningless as to who the killer was.
So that's the evidence you ahve Goldman drove the car.
Nothing but more graphic descriptions of your delusional fantasies.
You stupid, racist fool.
Prien
bobaugust
Prien, get your facts straight. Fung did not record "key," he recorded
"keys."
The owner of the red Toyota did not identify one key, she identified
keys. Were there only automobile keys found or were their other keys as
well? That was never made clear and is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the owner of the red Toyota identified the keys
that were found as her keys. It was understood by everyone, except
someone with a defective brain, that one of those keys was for operating
the red Toyota.
All of your idiotic claims are yours and yours alone because you are the
only one who is not capable of making logical inferences.
Your idiotic claims about the keys and the red Toyota are irrelevant.
bobaugust
bobaugust
No Prien, Fung did not describe the keys. That does not mean that one of
the keys found was not an automobile key that fit the red Toyota.
The owner of the red Toyota identified the keys that were found as her
keys.
To understand what this evidence means, you have to be able to make
logical inferences. You aren't capable of that, Prien. You never have
and never will understand what normal people understand.
That's your problem, not ours.
Your idiotic claims about the keys and the red Toyota are irrelevant.
bobaugust
bobaugust
The only thing you have proved Prien, is how delusional you are. Of
course this is proof of massive evidence tampering in your little world
of ignorance.
In Prien's little world Prien is always right. But Prien is the only one
in his little world so of course everyone else is wrong, a liar, or a
racist. Funny, sick but funny.
The fact is Prien, that the keys found at Bundy included a key to the
red Toyota that was parked on Dorothy St.
The fact is that you you are not capable of understanding this.
The fact is that this entire issue is meaningless to who the killer was.
bobaugust
No Prien, the portion of my posting that you responded to has nothing to
do with the evidence. It was about your inability to understand the
evidence and how insignificant this issue is to who the killer was.
Try to stay with us here.
The evidence is from the police investigation and De Bello's testimony.
Your idiotic claims about the keys and the red Toyota are irrelevant.
bobaugust
Ketchall 1
Okay, you have a right to what you think happened but you should at least
support your statement(s) as to what happened to Ron from the time he left work
until Officer Riske found him. The simple story is that he was enroute to
meeting his friends and stopped at Bundy to deliver the glasses; this info is
substantiated, right. So who do you think and why did someone kill and dump
his body at Bundy. Lets hear your theory.
Prien
>Date: 10/31/2003 7:23 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20031031192315...@mb-m11.aol.com>
>
notes:
>Okay, you have a right to what you think happened but you should at least
>support your statement(s) as to what happened to Ron from the time he left
>work
>until Officer Riske found him. The simple story is that he was enroute to
>meeting his friends and stopped at Bundy to deliver the glasses; this info is
>substantiated, right. So who do you think and why did someone kill and dump
>his body at Bundy. Lets hear your theory.
>
Sorry, but I have already made my position clear about this.
I am analyzing the evidence the police expressly declared they found in the
Simpson case to evaluate and conclude whether it is sufficient to establish
that Simpson could have done it, or not. My conclusion on this point is also
obvious -- the evidence the police compiled is so false, fraudulent and
nonsensical that it proves that it was impossible for Simpson to have done it
under any circumstances.
The prosecution's case collapses at every turn. Their failure to establish
with physcial evidence that Goldman even had in his possession the means to
operate the car he allegedly drove on his way to, as you say, meet a friend and
drop of the glasses on his way there totally collapses.
That could not have happened.
You then ask me to speculate about what Goldman really did during that period.
How can I or anyone do that when the police did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to
investigate what Goldman actually did and where he went. They allegedly did
not even bother to listen to the messages left on his answering machine which
are cited in his family's book, and which make absolutely clear that Goldman
could not possibly have planned an after work get together with Tanner on the
spur of the moment as alleged to account for his willingness to drop off the
glasses.
There are several messages asking about where Ron was beause he had not arrived
where he was then expected, and it sure wasn't at the Baja Cantina.
The whole case is a fraud from start to finish.
That's clear from the evidence the police presented.
As to what actually happened.
Demand the authorities conduct a real investigation. That's what it takes to
find out. And that's why I won't specualte about what could have happened,
because there no one looked for evidcence of how this crime was actually
committed and why.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <rfjob.127570$gv5.11659@fed1read05>
nit picks:
>Prien, get your facts straight. Fung did not record "key," he recorded
>"keys."
>
>The owner of the red Toyota did not identify one key, she identified
>keys. Were there only automobile keys found or were their other keys as
>well? That was never made clear and is irrelevant.
>
>What is relevant is that the owner of the red Toyota identified the keys
>that were found as her keys. It was understood by everyone, except
>someone with a defective brain, that one of those keys was for operating
>the red Toyota.
>
>All of your idiotic claims are yours and yours alone because you are the
>only one who is not capable of making logical inferences.
>
>Your idiotic claims about the keys and the red Toyota are irrelevant.
>
Key. keys, shmeeze.
The fact is that Lange was asked if the keys fit the Toyota. He confirmed he
did not check if the KEYS fit the Toyota. therefore, he was BARRED from
identifying them as the Toyota car keys. ABSOLUTELY BARRED. Could not testify
about it.
Theowner of the car identiofied the KEYS as hers. Now tell us, did she
identify ANY of those KEYS as the KEY TO THE TOYOTA. If she did, y7ou might
have something.
Did Fung identify ANY of the KEYS as the KEY TO THE TOYOTA? Tell us, please?
If he did, you might have something.
But if no one ever in fact identifed any of the KEYS as THE key to the aTOYOTA,
there is NO EVIDENCE and zippo proof thsat such keys were3 ever found by the
police, which makes it absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for Goldman to have operatedd the
car.
Well, he might have hot wired it.
Did the police find any evidence th3e car was hot wired?
You keep presenting nothing but graphic descriptions of your delusional
fantasies.
Prien
.
Prien
admits:
>No Prien, Fung did not describe the keys. That does not mean that one of
>the keys found was not an automobile key that fit the red Toyota.
Thank you. Fung fails to identify any key as THE KEY to a Toyota. But now
August expresses a brand new evidentiary principle - that the failure to
asffirm something was found is not proof it could not have been found,m which
completes the dialectic transformation to its opposite that it must have been
the key August is looking for.
Very good August. A most enlightening desription of your delusional fantasies.
Keep it up, and you'll be permanently certifiable.
>The owner of the red Toyota identified the keys that were found as her
>keys.
>
>To understand what this evidence means, you have to be able to make
>logical inferences. You aren't capable of that, Prien. You never have
>and never will understand what normal people understand.
>
Where in the alleged identification is there any reference that ANY of the keys
was THE KEY to the Toyota car.
You heed a lesson for making minferences. First, in court, they must be based
on an estabished fact.
Where has there been a shred of evidence presented that establishes as a fact
that a TOYOTA CAR KEY was among the keys shown to the owner of the car?
Could you point that out to us August? That is the FACT that is required as
the foundation for the inference that the TOYOTA car key found at the crime
scene as identified by the owner of the car was the key to HER car.
Notice the firststep. For the inference to be valid, you first need proof that
there was, in fact a Toyota car key there.
Now. could you point to the express evidence that so proves it?
Otherwise, you keep treating us to nothing but descriptions to your delusional
fantasies.
Prien
Prien
babbles:
>that you responded to has nothing to
>do with the evidence. It was about your inability to understand the
>evidence and how insignificant this issue is to who the killer was.
>
>Try to stay with us here.
I didn;t ask where it came from. Try identifying actual, physical evidence
that estabishes there was a Toyota car key anywhere in the crime scene.
All else is but the delusional fantasies of a congenital racist.
Prien
Prien
keeps babbling:
>The fact is Prien, that the keys found at Bundy included a key to the
>red Toyota that was parked on Dorothy St.
I see you are still having trouble citing any real evidence that proves your
claim is composed of anything more than the delusional fantasies of a
congenital racist.
Prien
Ketchall 1
>I am analyzing the evidence the police expressly declared they found in the
>Simpson case to evaluate and conclude whether it is sufficient to establish
>that Simpson could have done it, or not. My conclusion on this point is
Okay, but nothing has changed or been reported by anyone who could have
information your seeking and remember it's been 10 long years. Good Luck
bobaugust
And you keep showing us that you incapable of understanding simple
explanations. The owner of the red Toyota identified the keys she gave
Ron Goldman when she loaned him her car.
No one had to ever say Toyota key. That is a logical inference that was
understood by everyone except you.
Lange was not "absolutely barred". The defense made continuous hearsay
objections to his testimony. If this issue was of any importance to who
the killer was, Clark would have simply called the owner of the red
Toyota to testify and identify the keys as her keys to operate her car.
But this issue was not important, so Clark dropped it.
And because it was not relevant to who the killer was, the defense never
talked about it again. Not the criminal trial defense. Not the civil
trial defense. And not even Simpson.
The only person who can not understand this is you, Prien.
Your idiotic claims about the keys and the red Toyota are irrelevant.
bobaugust
bobaugust
Prien, no one had to say that the keys that were found were Toyota keys.
They didn't even have to say they were automobile keys. The fact that
after the owner of the red Toyota was found and identified the keys as
her keys that she gave Ron Goldman to operate her car is all we have to
know to understand this.
But not Prien. This whole argument is not about the keys or the red
Toyota, it is about you, Andy. You and your colossal handicaps, you poor
fool.
If someone does not say the exact words that you require to understand
something, you go off to la la land. Since your requirements are that of
a retarded person you understand very little. All of your failed dumb
arguments are proof of that.
bobaugust
You are completely confused. You still can't even understand that this
issue is meaningless as to who the killer was.
The owner of the red Toyota identified the keys that were found near Ron
Goldman's body as her keys. The same keys that she gave Ron Goldman to
operate her car that she loaned him. That tells us all we have to know
to understand that Ron Goldman drove the red Toyota to Bundy.
Your idiotic claims about the keys and the red Toyota are irrelevant
bobaugust
bobaugust
What we all see Prien, is that you are not able to understand simple
evidence. Not only do you not understand this evidence, you can't even
understand that it is evidence. The only evidence.
You still can't understand that it is a meaningless issue as to who the
killer was. That is why no one, not the criminal trial defense, not the
civil trial defense, not even Simpson ever made the dumb claims you have
made about this.
Your fantasies are yours and yours alone.
MsMoJoRisin4
>that estabishes there was a Toyota car key anywhere in the crime scene.
>
>All else is but the delusional fantasies of a congenital racist.
>
>Prien
>
Just like the little pink bunny ... he keeps going, and going, and going ...
LOL
The keys were found next to Rons body along with the glasses in the envelope
and his beeper (or was this not PROVEN to be his beeper ... another sinister
piece of evidence planted?) They (the keys) were identified by the owner of the
Toyota as the keys she had given to Ron to operate her car that was found
parked where Ron had left it. I'm sure that she knew who she loaned her car to
and I'm sure that she was able to identify her own set of keys when the police
returned them to her with Rons blood still on them.
MsMoJoRisin
MsMoJoRisin4
>support your statement(s) as to what happened to Ron from the time he left
>work
>until Officer Riske found him. The simple story is that he was enroute to
>meeting his friends and stopped at Bundy to deliver the glasses; this info is
>substantiated, right. So who do you think and why did someone kill and dump
>his body at Bundy. Lets hear your theory.
>
>
I second that request, what is your theory on this? Where was Ron actually
killed, who killed him, and why? How was he transported to Bundy?
I'm sure this will be entertaining.
MsMoJoRisin
MsMoJoRisin4
find out. And that's why I won't specualte about what could have happened,
because there no one looked for evidcence of how this crime was actually
committed and why.
Prien
Prien,
Believe it or not, I actually agree with this statement.
I also believe that OJ didn't kill them but I do think he was there after the
fact, evidence does point to this.
MsMoJoRisin
bobaugust
MsMoJoRisin, what evidence do you think points to this?
bobaugust
MsMoJoRisin4
>MsMoJoRisin, what evidence do you think points to this?
>
>bobaugust
Bobaugust,
Lots of things, first of all with the timelines created by witnesses, I don't
see that OJ had the time to commit the murders and get back to his house in
time to meet the limo driver. There are many things that make me think he was
there after the fact though. The way his footprints were left at Bundy but
other footprints were "smeared" from the sidewalk, the blood that OJ shed there
and at his house that night. I believe that OJ was called by the real killer
that night and asked to come and help him (after the fact). IMO it was Jason
Simpson who committed the murders. He was like a ticking time bomb and Nicole
had pissed him off by changing her dinner plans that night. Jason was supposed
to cook for her party after the recital but she changed her mind earlier that
afternoon and took them to Mezzaluna instead. Jason was the head chef on
Sunday nights at Allan Ladd Jackson's restaurant and he felt like this would be
his "shinning moment" his chance to impress Nicole with his culinary skills and
she cancelled the event for him. He was able to get off work early that night
because business was so slow and he went to Bundy to confront her (I estimate
his time of arrival to be around 10pm, give or take a few minutes). I believe
that Jason was enraged with her and they argued. She went back inside (and got
a knife out because Jason was violent and she knew his problems, her knife was
found on her kitchen counter) and he went to his jeep to get his chef knives
then he came back up the walkway and had her come back outside to continue the
"discussion" without waking his two younger siblings. I believe that she
wouldn't listen to him and simply tried to dismis him and he wouldn't stand for
that so he attacked her, Ron came up during the attack and he had to be killed
too because he had witnessed the attack on Nicole. He (Jason) was known to
attack people with knives (and was on probation at the time of the murders for
doing so) Jason is a very violent person and has had problems since he was a
teenager with his temper and "black outs" where he does things to people that
he "can't remember". His only alibi was that he was working until 10 pm that
night. He did get off work early (due to lack of business that night) and
further investigation by the LAPD would have proven that (like asking his
coworkers, which they didn't even do!) But they seemed to have "tunnel vision"
for OJ and didn't even want to look at any other suspects. OJ went there after
the murders, to help his son. I believe that he changed the crime scene and
shifted the evidence to point to himself so that he could protect his son.
Read Jason Simpson's deposition and you will see just how vague he is about his
own actions that night. He states that he worked until after 10pm and his
girlfriend picked him up in his own Jeep. He then says that he took her home
to her apartment and he went home to his apartment and watched TV, alone, until
about 3am. He also doesn't seem to remember if he had a phone either at home
or a cell phone at that time of his life. Another thing to see is the picture
of Jason in the court room as the verdict was announced. He was not elated and
celebratory as his aunt, grandma, and sister were ... he sat there stoned faced
and staring off in disbelief, with an angry look on his face. He (IMO) was
shocked that OJ had indeed gotten away with saving his butt and covering up the
murders he had committed. Maybe he was wondering if a new investigation would
be opened now too. I have the picture scanned on my computer if any of you
would like to see it, please send me an email address and I will forward it to
you. Jason Simpson was dismissed as a suspect after Allen Ladd Jackson gave
the police his alibi. When the fact is that Mr. Jackson was not even at the
restaurant that night and he didn't know what time Jason left Jackson's
restaurant. At the time of the murders, Mr. Jackson was facing IRS problems
from back taxes but after he provided Jason Simpson with an alibi, he had the
money to pay off his IRS liens and even open a new restaurant on the other side
of town. Says "alibi, bought and paid for" to me. Jason was not even
considered a suspect after Mr. Jackson offered the police his alibi. Another
thing to think about is that while on his way back from Chicago the next
morning, OJ called his attorney ... not to retain him for himself, but to
retain his services for Jason if needed ... why would he do this? I could go
on and on but that will be another post.
MsMoJoRisin
bobaugust
MsMoJoRisin, you are confused about a couple of issues. Yes, Jason
Simpson was eliminated. Jason had neither the opportunity the means or
the motive to commit this crime. Not only did he have a legitimate alibi
there isn't one single piece of relevant physical evidence that points
to him.
The time line is completely consistent with Simpson committing these
murders. If you want to see it go to this web page. I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have about it.
http://www.bobaugust.com/timeline3.htm
It is all of the relevant physical evidence that tells us Simpson was
the killer. Everything points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer.
Nothing eliminates him and nothing points to anyone else. It is all of
the witnesses who tell us when Simpson did it, and it is Simpson's
fabrications, contradictions, and lies that confirm it.
Robert Heidstra was a defense witness in the criminal trial. Heidstra
was an ear and eye witness to these murders. Heidstra was called by the
criminal defense to show that Marcia Clark's time line was incorrect.
In the civil trial Heidstra was a plaintiff witness. Petrocelli used
Heidstra as his key witness to prove that Simpson committed the murders.
Proved to a certainty.
bobaugust
John Junot
[snip]
> Bobaugust,
>
> Lots of things, first of all with the timelines created by witnesses, I don't
> see that OJ had the time to commit the murders and get back to his house in
> time to meet the limo driver.
this depends on what "witnesses" you refer to, and how much wieght you
put on each one's testimony. There can be no doubt that the muders
happened between ten and 11. the one-way driving time between
Rockingham and Bundy is between four to six minutes. There are
various estimates for how long the murders themselves would take.
If you accept the 'barking dog witnesses' as being earwitnesses to the
crime, the the murders tok place around 10:15. If you accept Heidstra
as an earwitness to the crimes, the the muders had to have aekn place
about 10:35. However neither set of witnesses themselves claimed to
have been earwitnesses to the murders themselves. The 'barking dog
witnesses' testified to haering a barking dog, period. Heidstra
testified to hearing Nicole's Akita barking, two men's voices he
couldn't identify, and to seeing a LIGHT-COLORED Jeep-like vehicle
(the streeetlights distorted color vision.
there is also the problem of Jill shively's alleged near-collision
with OJ at around 10:40 and Kaelin's hearing 'three thumps' at the
same time.
You are also leaving out a number of other facts: i.e. the 'missing
evidence' of the shoes, knife and sweatsuit. the absence of at least
the shoes and knife has to be explained in terms of any timeline that
has OJ doing the crime. the condition and location of the Rockingham
glove are also highly important facts that must be explained, as are
the blood droplets at Rockingham -- and the absence of such droplets
on the south pathway.
so committing the murders and the round-trip driving time are, by
themselves, not enough to exclude the possibility of OJ's guilt.
There are many things that make me think he was
> there after the fact though. The way his footprints were left at Bundy but
> other footprints were "smeared" from the sidewalk,
This is a prime example of conclusion-jumpsing. ONLY SHOEPRINTS were
at bundy. And I don't know what you are referring to by "other
footprints" that were "smeared" from the sidewalk. there were none
such things, and the shoes prints were not laid down by OJ.
the blood that OJ shed there
While there is no doubt that the blood used to make the five blood
drops found at bundy originated in OJ's body, this is NOT the same as
saying the OJ "shed" them there. If you want to use those drops as
evidence against OJ,. then you must explain ALL the qulaites of those
dros, including (1) the thinness in DNA, (2) that they were dropped
from a stationary source, and (3) they were dropped from less than two
feet above the walk. IN other words, they were planted.
> and at his house that night. I believe that OJ was called by the real killer
> that night and asked to come and help him (after the fact).
this means OJ would have had to have received the call at about 10:15
at the earliest.
TO BE CONTINUED
bobaugust
Simpson's blood drops were not dropped from a stationary source. Kato
Kaelin's time estimates were just that, time estimates. Heidstra heard
the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo and then about five
minutes later saw Simpson's Bronco speed away from the crime scene. Jill
Shively then encountered the Bronco and made eye contact with O.J. Simpson.
The continued is simply John Junot's failed fantasy theory and
fabrication about superman Kaelin. A theory that contradicts the facts,
the evidence and the witness testimony. A theory that is completely
unsupported, unrealistic and makes absolutely no sense.
Give it up already John, unless you like sounding as moronic as Prien.
bobaugust
John Junot
[snip]
. I believe that OJ was called by the real killer
> that night and asked to come and help him (after the fact).
This would have been at 10:15, give or take five minutes.
IMO it was Jason
> Simpson who committed the murders. He was like a ticking time bomb and Nicole
> had pissed him off by changing her dinner plans that night. Jason was supposed
> to cook for her party after the recital but she changed her mind earlier that
> afternoon and took them to Mezzaluna instead. Jason was the head chef on
> Sunday nights at Allan Ladd Jackson's
I could be wrong about this, but I believe that restaurant at the time
was owned by Michael Jackson, the British-born LA radio announcer, but
it is a minor point.
restaurant and he felt like this would be
> his "shinning moment" his chance to impress Nicole with his culinary skills and
> she cancelled the event for him.
it is recorded that Jason impressed the family with his culinary
skills at least once before -- at the Momorial Day celebration at
Rockingham less than two weeks before the murders. it is extrememly
likely that Jason had had other chances to show off his cooking
skills. If the "jealous husband" thoery of OJ's motive is "thin",
then this suggested "frustrated cook" theory of Jason's motive is
vaporous.
He was able to get off work early that night
> because business was so slow and he went to Bundy to confront her (I estimate
> his time of arrival to be around 10pm, give or take a few minutes).
Unless you have personally interviewed Jason's co-worker's on this
point, your statment amounts to nothing but uncorroborated
speculation.
I believe
> that Jason was enraged with her and they argued. She went back inside (and got
> a knife out because Jason was violent and she knew his problems, her knife was
> found on her kitchen counter) and he went to his jeep to get his chef knives
> then he came back up the walkway and had her come back outside to continue the
> "discussion" without waking his two younger siblings. I believe that she
> wouldn't listen to him and simply tried to dismis him and he wouldn't stand for
> that so he attacked her, Ron came up during the attack and he had to be killed
> too because he had witnessed the attack on Nicole.
It's avery, very difficult to visualize exactly how this confrontation
could have taken place. did Ron come in through the front gate and
happen upon Jason in the act of attacking? Why then no reports of
yelling? Would an unarmed man in that situation wade into a larger,
younger, armed attacker, or retreat and yell for help? And keep in
mind that sheer tininess of the murder scene -- rounghly the equivbant
of three phone booths shoved together.
He (Jason) was known to
> attack people with knives (and was on probation at the time of the murders for
> doing so) Jason is a very violent person and has had problems since he was a
> teenager with his temper and "black outs" where he does things to people that
> he "can't remember". His only alibi was that he was working until 10 pm that
> night. He did get off work early (due to lack of business that night) and
> further investigation by the LAPD would have proven that (like asking his
> coworkers, which they didn't even do!)
Yeah, but Have YOU?
But they seemed to have "tunnel vision"
> for OJ and didn't even want to look at any other suspects. OJ went there after
> the murders, to help his son. I believe that he changed the crime scene and
> shifted the evidence to point to himself
And exactly how did he do this 'shifting' and exactly what kind of
'shifting' was necessary? Who brought the gloves to the scene? the
ski cap? Why would OJ deliberately drip blod from himself, and, even
if he did, how did he do it so that most of the DNA disappeared, and
why did he lean over and hold still to do it?
so that he could protect his son.
> Read Jason Simpson's deposition and you will see just how vague he is about his
> own actions that night.
you must remmeber, though, that at the time it happened, nobody
informed him that his actions at the time would be significant to
anyone, or that there was any reason to make an ieffort to momorize
what he did, or to keep close track of the time.
He states that he worked until after 10pm and his
> girlfriend picked him up in his own Jeep.
Now, if his girlfiend confirms his story, and if you believe her, then
this by itself blows the hell out of your 'Jason did it' theory,
because it means that Jason would have had to (1) get off work, (2)
talk his girlfried home, (3) drive from there to Bundy, (3)do the
murders, (4) call his father, (5)wait for his father to arrive, (6)
figure aout what to do to clear up any evidence against Jason and
'plant' evidence pointing to OJ, (7) do it, and, finally, (8) leave OJ
enough time to get back to Rockingham, somehow leave the Rockingham
glove on the south path, get back inside, change, and get out with his
bags at 10:56 to be seen by Park.
In other words, YOUR suggested Jason-did-it timeline leaves "OJ and
Jason" on a timeline even TIGHTER than the one suggested by Marcia
Clark, which you reject as not alllowing enough time for OJ to do it
all!!
He then says that he took her home
> to her apartment and he went home to his apartment and watched TV, alone, until
> about 3am. He also doesn't seem to remember if he had a phone either at home
> or a cell phone at that time of his life.
Big deal. What difference does it make if he did or didn't?
Another thing to see is the picture
> of Jason in the court room as the verdict was announced. He was not elated and
> celebratory as his aunt, grandma, and sister were ... he sat there stoned faced
> and staring off in disbelief, with an angry look on his face. He (IMO) was
> shocked that OJ had indeed gotten away with saving his butt and covering up the
> murders he had committed. Maybe he was wondering if a new investigation would
> be opened now too.
Maybe he was remembering the very end of the Bronco chase, when he
jumped out onto the Rockingham driveway and yelled "Don't shoot my
dad".
I have the picture scanned on my computer if any of you
> would like to see it, please send me an email address and I will forward it to
> you. Jason Simpson was dismissed as a suspect after Allen Ladd Jackson gave
> the police his alibi. When the fact is that Mr. Jackson was not even at the
> restaurant that night and he didn't know what time Jason left Jackson's
> restaurant. At the time of the murders, Mr. Jackson was facing IRS problems
> from back taxes but after he provided Jason Simpson with an alibi, he had the
> money to pay off his IRS liens and even open a new restaurant on the other side
> of town. Says "alibi, bought and paid for" to me.
How in the hell do you know this?
John Griffin
That goofy nonsense has provided some pretty good laughs over
the last eight years. Please do go on and on...see if you can
revitalize it. It's too bad Junot isn't posting now. The
battle of the two dumbest ideas ("Jason did it" vs. "Kato did
it") could be worth a few chuckles.
John Junot
news:<20031102142426...@mb-m13.aol.com>...
[snip]
> Bobaugust,
>
> Lots of things, first of all with the timelines created by witnesses, I don't
> see that OJ had the time to commit the murders and get back to his house in
> time to meet the limo driver.
this depends on what "witnesses" you refer to, and how much wieght you
There are many things that make me think he was
> there after the fact though. The way his footprints were left at Bundy but
> other footprints were "smeared" from the sidewalk,
This is a prime example of conclusion-jumpsing. ONLY SHOEPRINTS were
at bundy. And I don't know what you are referring to by "other
footprints" that were "smeared" from the sidewalk. there were none
such things, and the shoes prints were not laid down by OJ.
the blood that OJ shed there
While there is no doubt that the blood used to make the five blood
drops found at bundy originated in OJ's body, this is NOT the same as
saying the OJ "shed" them there. If you want to use those drops as
evidence against OJ,. then you must explain ALL the qulaites of those
dros, including (1) the thinness in DNA, (2) that they were dropped
from a stationary source, and (3) they were dropped from less than two
feet above the walk. IN other words, they were planted.
> and at his house that night. I believe that OJ was called by the real killer
> that night and asked to come and help him (after the fact).
this means OJ would have had to have received the call at about 10:15
at the earliest.
I believe that OJ was called by the real killer
Prien
>Date: 11/1/2003 8:49 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20031101084953...@mb-m21.aol.com>
writes:
> Okay, but nothing has changed or been reported by anyone who could have
>information your seeking and remember it's been 10 long years. Good Luck
>
Actually, that's not correct. At the time, and even in L&V, claim was phone
company lacked records of local calls.
That was a lie. It was subsequently estabished that the phone company not only
had the capabiity but regularly kept track of all calls, local and long
distance.
And the police knew it.
They used thsat information but never revealed what they found because it
destroyed their case.
Such as when or if there were any calls to the Mezz bu Nicole.
Prien
Prien
>Date: 11/1/2003 5:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20031101173357...@mb-m02.aol.com>
writes:
>Prien,
>Believe it or not, I actually agree with this statement.
>I also believe that OJ didn't kill them but I do think he was there after the
>fact, evidence does point to this.
>MsMoJoRisin
>
>
Except all the evidcence that points to him being there is entirely false and a
fraud, and the police knew it, starting with the stages blood flows and blood
pools where the bodies were found to the phony shoe prints.
Every piice of evifdence in this case is fabricated. They did not even have
any fingerprints on the envelope.
Prien
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <LjPob.129005$gv5.57719@fed1read05>
>
babbles:
>No one ever had to say Toyota key. That is a logical inference that was
>understood by everyone except you.
Wrong. That does not establish even a sliver of a foundation that those ALSO
contained the keys to the Toyota. Whether or not the Toyota key were present
at the crime scene is a FACT the is required to be proved by EVIDENCE, not an
inference derived from hearsay testimony.
Thye damn well did have to say there were Toyota keys present. Otherwise,
there is no prooif they were. Moreover, they were supposed to have been
available and presented in court.
>Lange was not "absolutely barred". The defense made continuous hearsay
>objections to his testimony.
TEhen reread the testimony when ito abruptly asks Lange if he personally
t4ested the keys, and when Lange answered, he promptly cuit off any further
testimony on it, by, I believe, telling Clark to move on.
Lange was a fact witness. he could only tesrify to facts that he perrsonally
knew about. If he didn;t test the car keys, he could not ientify or testify
that the keys they found fit the Toyota. Period.
So August still has no evidence establishing they ever found any Toyots car
keys.
He does, however, keep revealing his delusional fantasies about the case.
Prien
Prien
babbles:
>Prien, no one had to say that the keys that were found were Toyota keys.
>They didn't even have to say they were automobile keys. The fact that
>after the owner of the red Toyota was found and identified the keys as
>her keys that she gave Ron Goldman to operate her car is all we have to
>know to understand this.
>
So if they didn;t have to say even that, and they didn't say it, how can you
know what kind of keys they were? Where then do you imagine that what they are
talking about are keys to the Toyota?
I get what youn are trying to say. If she identified the keys as here, well,
then they MUST HAVE included the keys to the Toyota.
But absolutely wrong. There is no absolute imperative that prescribes that if
keys belonging to her were found, they MUST HAVE inlcuded the keys to the
Toyota. We went through this before. People may keep car key and other keys on
separate chains. If she only gave him the car, why would she also give him
other keys.
So merely because she identified the keys as hers did not mean she affirmed the
keys she was shown included the keys to the Toyota. That is what has to be
proved, and her identification prioves nothing of the sort.
So you still have no proof anyone ever found the Toyota keys.
Lots more evidence of yourm delusional fantasies, though.
Prien
Prien
babbles:
>The same keys that she gave Ron Goldman to
>operate her car that she loaned him. That tells us all we have to know
>to understand that Ron Goldman drove the red Toyota to Bundy.
Only if you can proive the keys found in the crime scene were for the Toyota.
>
>Your idiotic claims about the keys and the red Toyota are irrelevant
>
I see you still have no real evidendce they found any Toyota car keys.
But lots more evidence of yourmdelusional fantasies.
Prien
Prien
babbles:
>What we all see Prien, is that you are not able to understand simple
>evidence. Not only do you not understand this evidence, you can't even
>understand that it is evidence. The only evidence.
>
Well, the present the physical evidence that establish Toyota car keys were
ever found.
All yiu have presented are the delusional fantasies that are the producs of
your congenital racism.
And if it were really as meaningless and irrelevant as you claim, you would not
have been making this into the issue you have.
Prien
John Griffin
> [ exercises in evidence-ignoring snipped ]
Uh-oh...it's the "Jason Did It" versus "Kato Did It" goofiness.
All we need now is that clown J. Neil Schulman's "Shipp Did It"
to make this circlejerk complete.
bobaugust
Prien, the only one revealing delusional fantasies here is you. This is
not a court of law. We all understand from the information that Lange
gave that the police conducted an investigation into the cars parked
near the murder scene.
We all understand that the police found the owner of the red Toyota and
were informed that she had loaned it to Ron Goldman. We all understand
that she identified the keys that were found near Ron Goldman's body as
her keys that she gave Goldman to operate her car. We all understand
that is why the police returned the car and the keys to her.
We all understand that Ron Goldman drove that car to Bundy.
This is not about the keys, this is only about you Prien. You do not
understand what everyone else understands. You are mentally handicapped.
bobaugust
Prien says, "If she only gave him the car, why would she also give him
other keys."
Very good Prien, she wouldn't. She gave him the keys to operate the car.
Maybe there were other keys on that key ring, maybe there were not.
What we know is that after she identified her keys, the police concluded
that Ron Goldman drove the red Toyota to Bundy. That was the result of
the police investigation.
We all understand this because we are all normal people who can make
logical inferences.
You are not capable of understanding this. You are mentally handicapped.
Your idiotic claims about the keys and red Toyota are irrelevant.
bobaugust
bobaugust
What we all see is how dumb you are Prien. It's amazing to see how many
times you continually show your ignorance. You are the only one who can
not understand the obvious.
Your idiotic claims about the keys and the red Toyota are irrelevant.
bobaugust
bobaugust
Evidence does not have to be physical evidence. I am not making this
into any kind of issue, you are the one who is making all the idiotic
claims.
The real issue here is how many times you will continue to show us all
how dumb you are.
Your idiotic claims about the keys and red Toyota are irrelevant.
bobaugust
Prien
>Message-id: <vTNpb.7841$PD2.6383@fed1read05>
blabbers:
>We all understand that Ron Goldman drove that car to Bundy.
>
More manifestations of your delusional fantasies.
Now instead of declaring what you understanding is, how about citing some
actual, real, physical evidence that proves the toyota car keys were ever in
the crime scene.
I hate to break this to you, but your understanding is evidence of squat.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <BTNpb.7843$PD2.3309@fed1read05>
burbles:
>Prien says, "If she only gave him the car, why would she also give him
>other keys."
>
>Very good Prien, she wouldn't. She gave him the keys to operate the car.
Because on the phone messages cited in Goldman book, one caller tells him
Andrea needs the car AND keys.
As you have insistently demanded, if she gave him the car, she must also have
given him the keys, and there was, consequently, no reason to single out the
car key for identification.
Very, very, good. Now explain why the caller was telling Goldman Andrea needed
the car AND the keys if having one was the same as holding the other? Only if
she had also given him ANOTHER set of keys having nothing to do with the car.
And having identified some keys as belonging to her in no way also establishes
she identified her car keys when this message clearly indicates goldman had
both the car (and certainly keys needed to operate it) key and KEYS that Andrea
also wanted back.
Prien
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <ETNpb.7844$PD2.3535@fed1read05>
babbles:
>Your idiotic claims about the keys and the red Toyota are irrelevant.
>
Further manifestations of your racist delusional fantasies.
Now could you present some actual, real, physical evidence that proves the
Toyota keys were in the crime scene.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <HTNpb.7845$PD2.6687@fed1read05>
burbles:
>Evidence does not have to be physical evidence. I am not making this
>into any kind of issue, you are the one who is making all the idiotic
>claims.
Well, the key is physsical evidence. Now presnt the testimony where the Toyota
key was presented to the jury as evidence that Goldman could operate the Toyota
he alleged drove.
Otherwise we have nothing more than further manifestations of your racist
delusional fantasies.
Try presenting some real evidence for a change.
Prien
I have presented evidence and testimony from
bobaugust
Did you forget you're the one with the problem here, Prien. You're the
only one who can't understand the evidence.
The difference here is between everyone who understands what Lange said
and what Prien claims because Prien does not understand what Lange said.
The police were satisfied that the keys they found at the murder scene
were the keys to the red Toyota found parked on Dorothy St. They
concluded, as all normal people conclude, that Ron Goldman drove the red
Toyota to Bundy.
You, Prien are the only one who does not understand this.
bobaugust
bobaugust
Wait a minute, you lost me. You say that there was no reason to single
out the car key for identification.
That doesn't make sense.
The police conducted an investigation. They identified the owners of
cars parked near the murder scene. When they contacted the owner of the
red Toyota she told them she had loaned her car to Ron Goldman. When the
police met with her, they showed her the keys that were found at the
murder scene. She identified them as her keys.
You seem to be very confused about a message on Goldman's answering
machine. Once again Prien reads simple normal words and then Prien goes
off to la la land. It is not uncommon for people to say give me your car
and keys. You don't even have a car, do you Prien?
bobaugust
bobaugust
Prien, the real evidence has been presented. You continue to show us all
you still can't understand it. You are a very slow learner.
bobaugust
bobaugust
Prien, yes, the keys were physical evidence. The physical evidence that
tells us Ron Goldman drove the red Toyota to Bundy.
bobaugust
Prien
>Message-id: <Nc1qb.12522$PD2.56@fed1read05>
burbles:
>The police were satisfied that the keys they found at the murder scene
>were the keys to the red Toyota found parked on Dorothy St. They
>concluded, as all normal people conclude, that Ron Goldman drove the red
>Toyota to Bundy.
continued manifestations of racist delusional fantasies.
If they in fact did what they claimed, where isntheevidence they presented that
poves it?
Perhaps you could post it instead of exhibiting your delusions.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <Qc1qb.12523$PD2.4235@fed1read05>
>
babbles:
>Wait a minute, you lost me. You say that there was no reason to single
>out the car key for identification.
>
>That doesn't make sense.
>
That's what you have been declaring. That merely by having given Goldman the
car, it meant also having given him the keys to it, and by identifying keys
that were hers, she was identifying car keys.
That being the case, when she left a message asking for the return of the car,
she would also be automatically requesting the return of the keys needed to
opoerate it.
But the message left for Goldman was specifically asking that he return BOTH
the car AND keys. According to your rationale, there was then absoltueoy no
reason for her to identify keys that she wanted returned in addition to the
car, since the keys for the car are automatically incuded within the request
for the return of the keys.
She would seoparately specify that he return the car AND keys onoy if she had
also given him a set of keys that had nothing to do with operating the car.
Then she wo0uld specify needing BOTH to be returned, thereby indicating that
Goldman not onoy had keys to the car, but ANOTHER set of her keys.
Sijce Goldman then had to have two separate sets of keys belonging to Andrea,
her identifying some keys as hers does NOT aumatically create the foundation
that the only inference to be drawn from that is that it includes the Toyota
car keys.
Ito's jury instructions compel the jury to draw from the police failure to
prove the Toyota keys were found in the crime scene the conclusion pointing to
innocence, namely that nthey were not so found and Goldman reached the scene by
some other means than driving the car.
Now, if you can prove otherwise, I'll be waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiting.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <Sc1qb.12524$PD2.4841@fed1read05>
blabbers:
>Prien, the real evidence has been presented. You continue to show us all
>you still can't understand it. You are a very slow learner.
>
Only as manifestatioons of your racist delusional fantacies.
Now if you have some actual direct evidence proving they found the Toyota keys,
by all means share it with us.
Prien
Prien
>Message-id: <Vc1qb.12525$PD2.6505@fed1read05>
babbles:
>Prien, yes, the keys were physical evidence. The physical evidence that
>tells us Ron Goldman drove the red Toyota to Bundy.
True enugh. Now were they presented to the jury in court?
By all means tell us.
Otherwise, you have presented only further manifestations of your racist
delusional fantacies.
Prien
bobaugust
The evidence is in Lange's testimony. Normal people understand what
Lange said. You do not.
It has been posted, you just can't understand it.
bobaugust
bobaugust
Because someone left a message on Ron Goldman's answering machine that
said, "Andrea needs the car and keys." Prien thinks that means Andrea
could have given Ron two sets of keys. Prien then says it could have
been the second set of keys that Andrea identified for the police.
Wow. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you, Prien. You poor fool.
You evidently didn't read my explanation to you in the post you just
responded to. Since you do not own a car, let alone more than one car,
you are evidently not aquatinted with how normal people talk about cars.
It is not uncommon for people to say "car and keys."
Besides the fact that the keys that were found near Ron Goldman's body
included automobile keys. Those were the keys that Andrea identified as
her keys. The keys that she gave Ron Goldman to operate her car.
What Ito told the jury has nothing to do with this issue. This is all
about you Prien, your handicaps and your idiotic irrelevant claims. Funny.
bobaugust