THE INVISIBLE BRAD ROBERTS
Robert C. Miller
From A PROBLEM OF EVIDENCE:
Here is another intriguing circumstantial fact that is
not public knowledge: Of the dozens of cops of all ranks who
have been identified and documented as having been present in
some capacity at the Bundy crime scene, even as looky-loos,
one who definitely was there does not appear in any report.
That police officer was Detective Brad Roberts, Mark Fuhrman's
long-time former partner.
"Roberts is all over that crime scene, and he's never
ever brought into the case," Pat McKenna says. "And not only is
he not brought into the case, there are no reports by Roberts
anywhere. He's a detective, he didn't write one word? Give me
a fucking break."
The General
Fuhrman and Roberts were not officially on the case after
Vannatter and Lange arrived on the scene. They turned over
everything to them. It was not their job to write police
reports after that. They were only helping out in an
unofficial capacity. Fuhrman's name was not on any reports
either. The first time the defense knew that he had anything
to do with the case was when he showed up to testify at the
preliminary. They were shocked at what a good witness he was,
and they knew immediately that they had to destroy him.
Robert C. Miller
John Griffin wrote:
> stupid bastard dumb shit
> lamebrained bullshit in a vacuum. fucking break.
> fucking brain.
[...]
John Griffin
In article <33E217...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Here is another intriguing circumstantial fact that is
I'm just correcting that line for you. It should read:
Here is more silly gossip that is
>not public knowledge: Of the dozens of cops of all ranks who
>have been identified and documented as having been present in
>some capacity at the Bundy crime scene, even as looky-loos,
>one who definitely was there does not appear in any report.
>That police officer was Detective Brad Roberts, Mark Fuhrman's
>long-time former partner.
> "Roberts is all over that crime scene, and he's never
>ever brought into the case," Pat McKenna says. "And not only is
>he not brought into the case, there are no reports by Roberts
>anywhere. He's a detective, he didn't write one word? Give me
>a fucking break."
Do you suppose, bob, that if you gave that stupid bastard a
little hint he might be able to see some connection between
"not brought into the case" and "didn't write one word"?
You might also suggest that the dumb shit ask Roberts why
he didn't write anything, rather than volunteering all that
lamebrained bullshit in a vacuum. Just whisper in his ear
"...your turn to do the paperwork, Mark" and see if any
lights go on.
Pat McKenna needs a hell of lot more than a fucking break.
Give him a fucking brain.
confused
"Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>From A PROBLEM OF EVIDENCE:
>
> Here is another intriguing circumstantial fact that is
>not public knowledge: Of the dozens of cops of all ranks who
>have been identified and documented as having been present in
>some capacity at the Bundy crime scene, even as looky-loos,
>one who definitely was there does not appear in any report.
>That police officer was Detective Brad Roberts, Mark Fuhrman's
>long-time former partner.
Except that Roberts wasn't identified as Fuhrman's partner until after
the case was over. Ronald Phillips was shown to the public as Fuhrman's
partner.
John Griffin
In article <33E2C6...@worldnet.att.net>,>John Griffin wrote:
>> stupid bastard dumb shit
>> lamebrained bullshit in a vacuum. fucking break.
>> fucking brain.
Isn't this precious? Bob is trying to pretend he understood
the above 5% of what I wrote! Is the little guy fooling anyone
other than himself?
Obviously 5% of my words outweighed 100% of whatever he was going to try
to say, but how in hell did he figure that out for himself?!? Why is
he making it so obvious that he gave up?
Tune in tomorrow for another episode of "See Spot run. See Bobby
snivel. See Bobby redefine 'lame.'"
alwalker
One more example of the NO J tactics and level of communication.
Bob miller has little need for such gutter tactics, tho I will get
down'
and dirty with NO Js occasionaly.
Then we have all revelations so easily discounted by NO Js !!
Is it maybe they fear OJ being exhonerated ? Boy oh boy, what
would they say then ? What would the party line be ?
HOW SHOULD WE KNOW ? WE JUST LISTENED TO THE
MEDIA !!
I would bet my pension plan Freeloader wont give up a dime !!!
He would continue his betterment of the goldbergs campaign.
Al Walker
Robert C. Miller wrote in article <33E2C6...@worldnet.att.net>...
:John Griffin wrote:
:> stupid bastard dumb shit
:> lamebrained bullshit in a vacuum. fucking break.
:> fucking brain.
:
:[...]
:
John Griffin
In article <5rved9$h...@camel12.mindspring.com>,
alwalker <nos...@stone.like thee> wrote:
> [ paraphrasing: "I'm really impressed by Crazy Infantile Bob's
> altering of quotes. "]
> Robert C. Miller wrote in article <33E2C6...@worldnet.att.net>...
>:John Griffin wrote:
>:> stupid bastard dumb shit
>:> lamebrained bullshit in a vacuum. fucking break.
>:> fucking brain.
Crazy Infantile Bob desperately needs attention.
He finally figured out that he can just randomly select words
from others' writing and do a hell of a lot better than he does
when he tries to write his own. He was the last one to notice.
Oh, by the way, Crazy Little Bobby, as you know I have always done as much
as I can to try to help you, and I'll continue now that you finally
admitted you have nothing to say. If your reading skills were as
funtional as your quote-altering skills, you would have noticed that
"fucking break" was in your quote from that ignorant son of a bitch who
seems to have replaced that ignorant son of a bitch Freed in your bedtime
fantasies. You should have included both instances. I'm not saying that
the average nine-year-old would have done better than that (or anything
else you've ever tried to write), because it goes without saying.
* -------------------The alt.fan.oj-simpson FAQ--------------------- *
*Q1: Did that lying, wife-beating, illiterate scumbag Simpson do it? *
* A: Yes. *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
NKC
On Sat, 2 Aug 1997 09:51:00 -0400, "alwalker" <nos...@stone.like thee>
wrote:
>One more example of the NO J tactics and level of communication.
>Bob miller has little need for such gutter tactics, tho I will get
>down'
>and dirty with NO Js occasionaly.
But Al, It's not "gutter tactics," he's totally disarmed hilbilly.
Bob is clever: he's simply reducing hilbilly's arguments to their very
essence. By organizing the invectives [the heart of hilbilly's
expression], he's providing perspective for those who weren't able to
recognize it before.
Bob...knows how to do it. [Tickle the funny bone, that is.]
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||maguey
John Griffin
In article <33e3c913....@news.sirius.com>,
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>But Al, It's not "gutter tactics," he's totally disarmed hilbilly.
>Bob is clever: he's simply reducing hilbilly's arguments to their very
>essence. By organizing the invectives [the heart of hilbilly's
>expression], he's providing perspective for those who weren't able to
>recognize it before.
Now that Crazy Infantile Bob has given up trying to understand the parts
that are beyond him, and you have all this sympathy for him, it's time for
your maiden voyage into trying to refute something I've said. You can even
inherit all the points he scored in his lame attempts. (joke.) I don't
mind toying with your little mind for a while, but I hope there are at
least one or two things that are more "clever" to you than Bob's new form
of baby talk.
The General
Bet...@WebTv.Net wrote:
>
> In article <33E217...@worldnet.att.net>,
> >
> > Here is another intriguing circumstantial fact that is
> > not public knowledge: Of the dozens of cops of all ranks who
> > have been identified and documented as having been present in
> > some capacity at the Bundy crime scene, even as looky-loos,
> > one who definitely was there does not appear in any report.
> > That police officer was Detective Brad Roberts, Mark Fuhrman's
> > long-time former partner.
> >
> > ever brought into the case," Pat McKenna says. "And not only is
> > he not brought into the case, there are no reports by Roberts
> > anywhere. He's a detective, he didn't write one word? Give me
> > a fucking break."
>
>
> Apparently the plot thickens, I have wondered why Brad Roberts name never
> came up before.Why hasn't some of these TV shows put him on to back up
> Furhmans story. Smells stinky .
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
You apparently missed the second Diane Sawyer interview of
Mark Fuhrman during which he discussed the evidence which he
and his partner found that was never introduced at the trial.
Brad Roberts was on the show and backed up everything he said.
The reason that Roberts is not on more TV shows is that he is
still a working cop on the LAPD.
carrot
Robert C. Miller wrote:
>
> Give me a fucking break.
Ok, Bob, you may go copulate now.
BM.
Betty Owens
Bet...@WebTv.Net wrote in article <8707775...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <33E217...@worldnet.att.net>,
> "Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > From A PROBLEM OF EVIDENCE:
> >
> > Here is another intriguing circumstantial fact that is
> > not public knowledge: Of the dozens of cops of all ranks who
> > have been identified and documented as having been present in
> > some capacity at the Bundy crime scene, even as looky-loos,
> > one who definitely was there does not appear in any report.
> > That police officer was Detective Brad Roberts, Mark Fuhrman's
> > long-time former partner.
> >
> > "Roberts is all over that crime scene, and he's never
> > ever brought into the case," Pat McKenna says. "And not only is
> > he not brought into the case, there are no reports by Roberts
> > anywhere. He's a detective, he didn't write one word? Give me
> > a fucking break."
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Apparently the plot thickens, I have wondered why Brad Roberts name never
> came up before.Why hasn't some of these TV shows put him on to back up
> Furhmans story. Smells stinky .
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
If you watched Prime Time Live on 2/19/97, you saw Brad Roberts interviewed
by Diane Sawyer. I just replayed the tape of the interview to be sure that
I
was correct in what I am about to say. Roberts confirmed the following:
l. The fingerprint on the lock on the back gate. Roberts was the first to
see
it when Fuhrman took him through the crime scene. He pointed the print out
to Fuhrman. Roberts said he saw the blood on the gate. Tom Nolan (another
detective from West LA station) has also said that he remembers seeing the
fingerprint on the lock that morning.
Read American Tragedy, (2nd Edition). Lawrence Schiller says in a
footnote.
"In an interview for the book, Kelly said that the fingerprint Fuhrman was
referring to was removed when a locksmith, on June 14, 1994, changed the
lock on the back gate at the direction of Lou Brown." Do you believe that
the
locksmith is also involved in the "frame up" of Simpson?
Both Roberts and Fuhrman told Diane that they did not know whose
fingerprint
was on the lock but that they were sure it was the murderer's. Since
Fuhrman
listed the fingerprint in his notes which were given to Vannatter before
they went
to Rockingham, it would have been stupid for Fuhrman to have planted the
glove knowing that the murderer's print was at the crime scene. What if
the
print was not Simpson's?
2. Roberts was with Fuhrman when they saw the empty swiss army knife
box on the bathtub in Simpson's bathroom. Roberts told the detectives who
were in charge of the Rockingham crime scene (Robbery & Homicide). Diane
asked Det. Luper about the knife box. Luper said he did remember seeing
the empty knife box but he thought it was just a "knick knack". It was not
collected but a photograph was taken of the bathtub showing the box. This
photo was shown on TV.
3. Roberts found dark colored (blue black) sweat clothes in the washing
machine and told detectives from Robbery & Homicide. They looked at the
clothes but they were not collected. A video tape made by LAPD shows
the sweat clothes in the washing machine. A second search warrant was
obtained to go back and look for the clothes (among other things) on
6/28/94,
but they were gone.
4. Roberts also found a blood stain on the light switch in the maid's
bathroom
(which is near the laundry). Roberts told Det. Richard Haro and Det. Jim
Harper. Diane talked to Det. Haro who said he did remember "something
about
a blood smear on the light switch in the maid's bathroom, but that's been a
long time ago". This blood was never collected.
These are only a few of the things that Roberts talked about. When Diane
asked why he did not testify at the trial, Roberts said he is still
wondering about
that. He stated that he was not interviewed by the DA office (nor by
Robbery
Homicide or even by the defense). Nobody ever talked to him.
Fuhrman stated that he had repeatedly asked Marcia to call Brad Roberts,
but she
always said NO. Marcia Clark in her book confirms that Fuhrman was very
insistant that she call Roberts. She referred to Fuhrman as "a pain in the
ass".
I guess because he kept bugging her about Roberts.
Diane Sawyer also asked Roberts if he had problems getting permission to
appear on "Prime Time Live". He said he had permission but he was told
that "he had nothing to gain and everything to lose" by doing so. He said
he
didn't know what was meant by "everything to lose".
On 2/21/97, Fuhrman appeared on Burden of Proof. At the beginning, Greta
said that she had called LAPD to ask permission to interview Brad Roberts
for
the show and she was told that he was NOT PERMITTED to give anymore
interviews with Mark Fuhrman.
Why is LAPD refusing to let Roberts be interviewed? My guess is that they
don't want to be embarrassed by the sloppy, lazy investigation by Lange,
Vannatter, and Robbery Homicide.
1. Vannatter and Lange admitted they did not read Fuhrman's notes.
2. The blood on the back gate was not collected for 3 weeks. Lange
has admitted that he did not do a final walk through to be sure that all
the
evidence was collected before releasing the crime scene.
3. The fingerprint was not collected at all. A locksmith later removed
the lock after the crime scene was released.
4. The empty swiss army knife box was not collected (but it was
photographed).
5. The dark colored (blue black) sweat clothes were not collected from
the washing machine (but they were video taped).
6. The blood stain from the light switch in the maid's bathroom was
not collected. (but Det. Haro does remember something about the blood
stain)
IMO, the LAPD and DA already had their scapegoat (Mark Fuhrman) and they
didn't want Roberts talking or testifying about ALL the incriminating
evidence
they neglected to collect.
Instead of a "Conspiracy to Frame O.J.", it looks more like a "Conspiracy
to Lose The Evidence That Might Convict A Guilty Football Hero." O.J. was
a
hero to the LAPD. They were in awe of him (including Fuhrman). You can
tell
that by listening to the Interview with Simpson by Vannatter and Lange.
Certainly
didn't sound like the police interviewing a suspect in a murder case.
BTW, in an interview with Victoria Tuensing, Mark Fuhrman said that Donald
Thompson (the black policeman who handcuffed O.J. at Rockingham) was a
very good cop. Fuhrman said Thompson did exactly what he was supposed
to which was to keep Simpson from coming into the crime scene at Rockingham
while a search was being conducted. If you look at the video, you can see
that Thompson is trying to stop O.J. who just keeps on walking. Finally,
he
handcuffs him.
Also, if the defense thought that Brad Roberts was being hidden from them,
why didn't they interview him. They could have called him to testify.
Betty
Bet...@webtv.net
Bet...@webtv.net
In article <01bca1f5$414dabc0$LocalHost@default>,
Betty,
Your reasoning makes no sense, Lange was simply trying to prevent a more
tragic situation from occurring than already had occurred. If Furhman was
O.J.'s friend , what pray tell did he do that would bring you to that
conclusion?
According to Marcia Clark's closing statement, the prosecution had the
obligation to tell the truth, yet at every crook and turn she fought to
keep anything out that didn't fit into her scheme of things.
NKC
On 3 Aug 1997 05:25:10 -0700, hilb...@big.aa.net (John Griffin)
wrote:
> I don't
>mind toying with your little mind for a while, but I hope there are at
>least one or two things that are more "clever" to you than Bob's new form
>of baby talk.
Oh come on, hilbilly. No need to get jealous. I think you're really
really clever, too, in your own special way.
####################################
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bet...@webtv.net
In article <33E22E...@wco.com>,
The General <gen...@wco.com> wrote:
>
> Robert C. Miller wrote:
> >
> > From A PROBLEM OF EVIDENCE:
> >
> > Here is another intriguing circumstantial fact that is
> > not public knowledge: Of the dozens of cops of all ranks who
> > have been identified and documented as having been present in
> > some capacity at the Bundy crime scene, even as looky-loos,
> > one who definitely was there does not appear in any report.
> > That police officer was Detective Brad Roberts, Mark Fuhrman's
> > long-time former partner.
> >
> > "Roberts is all over that crime scene, and he's never
> > ever brought into the case," Pat McKenna says. "And not only is
> > he not brought into the case, there are no reports by Roberts
> > anywhere. He's a detective, he didn't write one word? Give me
> > a fucking break."
>
> Vannatter and Lange arrived on the scene. They turned over
> everything to them. It was not their job to write police
> reports after that. They were only helping out in an
> unofficial capacity. Fuhrman's name was not on any reports
> either. The first time the defense knew that he had anything
> to do with the case was when he showed up to testify at the
> preliminary. They were shocked at what a good witness he was,
> and they knew immediately that they had to destroy him.
General,
Not everyone was so impressed with Mark Furhman as you obviously were.
Since he was relieved of his duties in the early morning hours of June
13th, do you not find it odd that for the next two days he was the key
player on the scene? Unless reassignment is simply a formality and
actually means nothing. Why can't you see that what Furhman did was to
inject himself into the case as a key player. After being told that the
case was being taken over by robbery homicide, he had been jerked around
again by LAPD. This time he would make sure that he would be there for
the long haul, how could they ignore the key player.
It's people like you who defend even the illogical that make it possible
for the Furhmans of the world to exist. By restricting the field of
exploration, you therefore limit the possibility of realizing the truth.
When it is all said and done, Furhman's name will likely be in the mix,
as one who needed to be looked at further.
BLP
BL P
General,
Defending the LAPD is the equivalent of
defending the Malitia. This is an out of control gustapo run
organization. It
is beyond fixing.
BLP
The General
BL P wrote:
>
> General,
>
> Not only have you researched this , you have bought it hook line and
> sinker. If Brad Roberts and Mark Furhman were
> releived of their duties at both scenes, why were they still rambling
> through O.J.'s house the next day ? Because it
> is written, it is not necessarily true. Lies can be written more easily
> than spoken.
>
>
>
> BLP
I don't quite understand the police policy myself, but
I am sure they were authorized to do the search of
Simpson's house. I don't think they just showed up,
against police policy, and injected themselves into
the case. The LAPD is like a military organization.
All the officers have to follow orders. They don't
just do what they want to.
The General
Where did you get your information on the LAPD?
In the next post you made, you said that you live
on the East Coast. So how do you know about the LAPD?
Robert
BL P wrote:
>
> General,
>
> Defending the LAPD is the equivalent of
> defending the Malitia. This is an out of control gustapo run
> organization. It
> is beyond fixing.
>
>
>
> BLP
Actually, your "brain" is beyond fixing.
-r
Bet...@webtv.net
Are you saying that you find Lawrence Shiller's account credible? I have
a problem with a writer being considered a reliable source.
> Both Roberts and Fuhrman told Diane that they did not know whose
> fingerprint
> was on the lock but that they were sure it was the murderer's.
Dah, who else ? I wonder if it matched one of the other unidentifiable
fingerprints.
Since
> Fuhrman
> listed the fingerprint in his notes which were given to Vannatter before
> they went
> to Rockingham, it would have been stupid for Fuhrman to have planted the
> glove knowing that the murderer's print was at the crime scene. What if
> the
> print was not Simpson's?
Unless Furhman knew first hand who the fingerprint belonged to.
> 2. Roberts was with Fuhrman when they saw the empty swiss army knife
> box on the bathtub in Simpson's bathroom. Roberts told the detectives who
> were in charge of the Rockingham crime scene (Robbery & Homicide).
Furhman had been releived of his duties, he or Brad Roberts didn't have
any business searching around O.J.'s house.
Diane
> asked Det. Luper about the knife box. Luper said he did remember seeing
> the empty knife box but he thought it was just a "knick knack". It was not
> collected but a photograph was taken of the bathtub showing the box. This
> photo was shown on TV.
This makes the LAPD look like the dumbest bunch of so called
investigators on earth. What were they looking for? gloves, shoes and
socks?
> 3. Roberts found dark colored (blue black) sweat clothes in the washing
> machine and told detectives from Robbery & Homicide. They looked at the
> clothes but they were not collected.
The clothes in the washer were not collected because, they belonged to
Arnelle Simpson.
A video tape made by LAPD shows
> the sweat clothes in the washing machine. A second search warrant was
> obtained to go back and look for the clothes (among other things) on
> 6/28/94,
> but they were gone.
Who pray tell leaves clothes in the washer for 15 days, O.J did have a
housekeeper.
> 4. Roberts also found a blood stain on the light switch in the maid's
> bathroom
> (which is near the laundry). Roberts told Det. Richard Haro and Det. Jim
> Harper. Diane talked to Det. Haro who said he did remember "something
> about
> a blood smear on the light switch in the maid's bathroom, but that's been a
> long time ago". This blood was never collected.
Could O.J. have been in the maids quarters too? Let me get this straight,
came across the lawn at 10:55, came out dressed at 11:05, at what point
did he go to the maids quarters and to the laundry room ?
BLP
Betty Owens
Bet...@WebTv.Net wrote in article <8708915...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <01bca1f5$414dabc0$LocalHost@default>,
> "Betty Owens" <bowe...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >
> Betty,
>
> Your reasoning makes no sense, Lange was simply trying to prevent a more
> tragic situation from occurring than already had occurred. If Furhman was
> O.J.'s friend , what pray tell did he do that would bring you to that
> conclusion?
>
> According to Marcia Clark's closing statement, the prosecution had the
> obligation to tell the truth, yet at every crook and turn she fought to
> keep anything out that didn't fit into her scheme of things.
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
The defense team said that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence because
he hated all black people and really hated black men who were
married to white women. They said he had been waiting to "get" O.J.
ever since the 1985 incident in which O.J. smashed the windshield
of the car with the baseball bat.
If Fuhrman hated O. J. so much, why would he wait 10 years to
"get" him, when he had the perfect opportunity then. Instead, Fuhrman
protected O.J.'s image and kept the incident quiet. He could have
done any or all of the following to cause trouble for O.J.
1. He could have arrested O.J. and taken him to the police station
which would have been at the least very embarrassing for O.J.
2. He could have filed a police report on the incident which would
have put it on the record.
3. He could have called reporters and told them the story. It would
have been public knowledge immediately.
4. He could have made money by selling the story to one of the
tabloids which would have put it on the front page of their paper.
Making the incident public would have damaged O.J.'s "good"
reputation badly. It might have even cost him his job and product
endorsements. I would say that Fuhrman did O.J. a really BIG
favor.
Fuhrman only came forward with the information on the incident
after the 1/1/89 arrest. At that time, all the cops at West L.A.
were asked if they had ever responded to a 911 call involving
O.J. Simpson and Nicole. It was Fuhrman's duty to give all the
information he had. Too bad that none of the other cops had
the integrity to come forward also.
Further proof that the LAPD covered up for O.J.'s violence
toward Nicole is on the tape recorded by Sgt. Lally at the 10/23/93
incident where O.J. kicked in the door. One of the cops is
heard on the tape telling O.J. that they were going to try to
keep this quiet. Again, they were protecting O.J.'s image and
not treating him the way they would treat any other domestic
violence call.
By the way, I also watched all of the trial on Court TV, and I
based my belief that he is guilty of murder on the evidence
which was presented at the trial. I did not form my opinion
on what the reporters and commentators said on the nightly
talk shows. NOT EVERY PERSON who watched Court TV
thinks that O. J. is innocent or agrees with the verdict in
the criminal trial. I know many people who were "glued" to
the tv and watched every minute who feel he is GUILTY.
Betty
confused
BET...@webtv.net (BL P) wrote:
>General,
>
>Not only have you researched this , you have bought it hook line and
>sinker. If Brad Roberts and Mark Furhman were
>releived of their duties at both scenes, why were they still rambling
>through O.J.'s house the next day ? Because it
>is written, it is not necessarily true. Lies can be written more easily
>than spoken.
All you have to do is look at any Pro-J book to know this is true. Any
chance you can convince Bob?
BL P
General,
This is the "90's", news travels fast, we
even get CNN out here in the far east.
BLP
Robert C. Miller
OJ took no more than FIVE OR SIX minutes inside, and that included
an intercom call to Park a minute into that time. -bob]
Robert C. Miller
[...]
Betty Owens
Bet...@WebTv.Net wrote in article <8710945...@dejanews.com>...
Are you saying that you find "A Problem of Evidence"
credible? I thought you said that you have a problem with a writer
being considered a source. The writer is saying that Pat McKenna
was his source. Lawrence Schiller is saying that John Kelly was the
source for the information about the locksmith. What is the difference?
Betty
Betty Owens wrote:
> > l. The fingerprint on the lock on the back gate. Roberts was the
first to
> > see
> > it when Fuhrman took him through the crime scene. He pointed the print
out
> > to Fuhrman. Roberts said he saw the blood on the gate. Tom Nolan
(another
> > detective from West LA station) has also said that he remembers seeing
the
> > fingerprint on the lock that morning.
> >
> > Read American Tragedy, (2nd Edition). Lawrence Schiller says in a
> > footnote.
> > "In an interview for the book, Kelly said that the fingerprint Fuhrman
was
> > referring to was removed when a locksmith, on June 14, 1994, changed
the
> > lock on the back gate at the direction of Lou Brown." Do you believe
that
> > the
> > locksmith is also involved in the "frame up" of Simpson?
>
> Are you saying that you find Lawrence Shiller's account credible? I have
> a problem with a writer being considered a reliable source.
Not necessarily, but Lucile apparently considers Schiller credible because
she has been posting from the book all week. This information could be
easily checked out because John Kelly has a statement from the locksmith.
> > Both Roberts and Fuhrman told Diane that they did not know whose
> > fingerprint
> > was on the lock but that they were sure it was the murderer's.
>>
> Dah, who else ? I wonder if it matched one of the other unidentifiable
> fingerprints.
We will never know now whose fingerprint it was, but if O.J. lost a
glove in the struggle and was cut on that hand, it probably was his bloody
fingerprint left when he opened the gate to leave.
> Since
> > Fuhrman
> > listed the fingerprint in his notes which were given to Vannatter
before
> > they went
> > to Rockingham, it would have been stupid for Fuhrman to have planted
the
> > glove knowing that the murderer's print was at the crime scene. What
if
> > the
> > print was not Simpson's?
>
> Unless Furhman knew first hand who the fingerprint belonged to.
Unless Fuhrman KNEW that the fingerprint belonged to Simpson, it would
be extremely STUPID to plant the glove to "frame O.J." when he had
every reason to believe the fingerprint would be lifted for evidence.
If it were Fuhrman's fingerprint (as you seem to be suggesting), why would
he call attention to the print by listing it in his notes?
>
> > 2. Roberts was with Fuhrman when they saw the empty swiss army knife
> > box on the bathtub in Simpson's bathroom. Roberts told the detectives
who
> > were in charge of the Rockingham crime scene (Robbery & Homicide).
>
> Furhman had been releived of his duties, he or Brad Roberts didn't have
> any business searching around O.J.'s house.
Lt. Frank Spangler (Phillips boss) told Phillips that they (West L.A.
detectives)
were to assist Robbery-Homicide. Phillips had sent Brad Roberts to
interview the couple who found the dog wandering the street This was to
assist Robbery-Homicide. Lt. Rogers (Lange and Vannatter's boss) was
at Bundy and approved the decision of Lange and Vannatter to go to
Rockingham and to take Phillips and Fuhrman with them.
Lt. Rogers took charge of the Bundy crime scene while they were gone.
Fuhrman was told to go to Rockingham.
Fuhrman and Roberts were asked to assist in the search of O.J.'s house
by Vannatter. They were also asked to assist in the second search of
O.J.'s house on 6/28/94 (the second search warrant).
What was Fuhrman supposed to do when ordered to help Robbery-
Homicide? I don't think he could have said, "No! I have been removed as
lead detective, and therefore, I won't do anything to help even when I am
ordered to by my boss." Not in the real world, he wouldn"t. He would have
been disciplined for disobeying an order. Give me a break!
Do you think all the cops from West L.A. were supposed to leave when
Lange and Vannatter took over the case?
> Diane
> > asked Det. Luper about the knife box. Luper said he did remember
seeing
> > the empty knife box but he thought it was just a "knick knack". It was
not
> > collected but a photograph was taken of the bathtub showing the box.
This
> > photo was shown on TV.
>
> This makes the LAPD look like the dumbest bunch of so called
> investigators on earth. What were they looking for? gloves, shoes and
> socks?
Well, I don't disagree that the investigators from Robbery-Homicide did
a very sloppy job.
>
> > 3. Roberts found dark colored (blue black) sweat clothes in the
washing
> > machine and told detectives from Robbery & Homicide. They looked at
the
> > clothes but they were not collected.
>
> The clothes in the washer were not collected because, they belonged to
> Arnelle Simpson.
>
Wrong! Who said that the clothes in the washer belonged to Arnelle?
She certainly did not testify to that in court. I just finished reading
the
transcript of her testimony.
According to the book by Lange and Vannatter, Dennis Fung
examined the dark clothes found in the washer.
There were "red stains" on them, but Fung did not do a test to see if
it was blood. Instead he decided the stains were caused by "rust" from
the washing machine. Can you imagine O.J. Simpson having a washer
in his home that was so old and rusty that it would cause "rust" stains
on clothing? I can't believe he would. Marcia Clark says in her book that
she was very upset when she found out that the clothes were not
collected by Fung. So Fuhrman, Roberts, Dennis Fung, Vannatter,
Lange and Clark all commented on the clothes in the washing machine and
nobody has said they were Arnelle's clothes. I think they could tell
the difference between clothes that would fit Arnelle and clothes that
would
fit O.J.
By the way, Arnell did try to cover up for her father in her testimony by
stating that she had never seen him wear a dark sweat suit. We know
from the exercise video tape O.J. made, that he was wearing a blue-black
sweat suit. According to testimony in the civil trial from the wardrobe
woman, O.J. liked the sweat suit so much that he wanted one to take
home. They gave O.J. one which he took home.. Was Arnelle lying in her
criminal trial testimony? In the civil trial, the plaintiff's attorneys
issued
a subpoena for the sweat suit that he was given, and he could not
produce it. What happened to it?
> A video tape made by LAPD shows
> > the sweat clothes in the washing machine. A second search warrant was
> > obtained to go back and look for the clothes (among other things) on
> > 6/28/94,
> > but they were gone.
>
> Who pray tell leaves clothes in the washer for 15 days, O.J did have a
> housekeeper.
Of course, the clothes were gone and probably destroyed. They should
have been collected on 6/13/94 when they were found.
> > 4. Roberts also found a blood stain on the light switch in the maid's
> > bathroom
> > (which is near the laundry). Roberts told Det. Richard Haro and Det.
Jim
> > Harper. Diane talked to Det. Haro who said he did remember "something
> > about
> > a blood smear on the light switch in the maid's bathroom, but that's
been a
> > long time ago". This blood was never collected.
>
> Could O.J. have been in the maids quarters too? Let me get this straight,
> came across the lawn at 10:55, came out dressed at 11:05, at what point
> did he go to the maids quarters and to the laundry room ?
>
Well, maybe it happened like this: Simpson went to the maid's room to
get in the house without being seen. He turned on the light and realized
that he must have dropped the glove when he ran into the air conditioner.
He went back to look for it but couldn't see it in the dark. He knew time
was running out. The limo driver was waiting and he had to get cleaned
up and ready to go to the airport. In a state of panic, he went back to
the
driveway and in the front door where he was seen by Parks at l0:55.
He took off his shoes in the foyer and put them in the small bag (the one
that he refused to let anyone else touch). Going upstairs, he hurriedly
removed his clothes and put them in the washer to wash the blood
stains off. In his haste, he left the socks on the floor instead of
putting
them in the washer. He took a very fast shower and dressed quickly.
Rushing around in a panic to get everything done, made him hot and
sweaty as testified to by both Kato and Parks. If he had been home all
evening, as he claims, why would he be hot and sweaty?
Betty
Robert C. Miller
EGK wrote:
>
> You people sure don't look very hard for anything you don't wish to
> see. Brad Roberts was interviewed on the same ABC show where Mark
> Fuhrman gave his first interview. He corroborated everything Fuhrman
> said.
>
> Of course, to you people that will simply mean he's part of the same
> massive conspiracy but you'll have one less red herring to toss out at
> least.
>
> And Bob, before anyone gives you a fucking break, you need a fucking
> life.
[Ah, now that's a logical answer. It must be very frustrating
to you to not be able to answer these questions. Sorry. -les t.]
EGK
You people sure don't look very hard for anything you don't wish to
see. Brad Roberts was interviewed on the same ABC show where Mark
Fuhrman gave his first interview. He corroborated everything Fuhrman
said.
Of course, to you people that will simply mean he's part of the same
massive conspiracy but you'll have one less red herring to toss out at
least.
And Bob, before anyone gives you a fucking break, you need a fucking
life.
On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 05:41:07 -0600, Bet...@WebTv.Net wrote:
>In article <33E217...@worldnet.att.net>,
> "Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> From A PROBLEM OF EVIDENCE:
>>
>> Here is another intriguing circumstantial fact that is
>> not public knowledge: Of the dozens of cops of all ranks who
>> have been identified and documented as having been present in
>> some capacity at the Bundy crime scene, even as looky-loos,
>> one who definitely was there does not appear in any report.
>> That police officer was Detective Brad Roberts, Mark Fuhrman's
>> long-time former partner.
>>
>> "Roberts is all over that crime scene, and he's never
>> ever brought into the case," Pat McKenna says. "And not only is
>> he not brought into the case, there are no reports by Roberts
>> anywhere. He's a detective, he didn't write one word? Give me
>> a fucking break."
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Apparently the plot thickens, I have wondered why Brad Roberts name never
>came up before.Why hasn't some of these TV shows put him on to back up
>Furhmans story. Smells stinky .
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
**************************************************************************
There'd be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't
take that as an invitation to walk all over you. - Calvin & Hobbes
**************************************************************************
Address changed to deter spam. Email e...@lightlink.com+ by losing the + sign
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <33EF68...@worldnet.att.net>,
>>
>> You people sure don't look very hard for anything you don't wish to
>> see. Brad Roberts was interviewed on the same ABC show where Mark
>> Fuhrman gave his first interview. He corroborated everything Fuhrman
>> said.
>>
>> Of course, to you people that will simply mean he's part of the same
>> massive conspiracy but you'll have one less red herring to toss out at
>> least.
>>
>> And Bob, before anyone gives you a fucking break, you need a fucking
>> life.
>
>to you to not be able to answer these questions. Sorry. -les t.]
You asked why Brad Roberts hasn't been on TV backing up
Fuhrman's story. EGK pointed out that he had. Sounds to
me like he answered your question pretty handily.
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <33EF68...@worldnet.att.net>,<cuts>
>
>[Let me offer a couple of alternative theories. There were cops at
>the crime scene, to include Captain Dial, who were there to make
>sure that exculpatory evidence was removed. If there had been a
>fingerprint there, and it pointed to the real killer(s), then it
>served their purposes to remove it. If there really was a box up
If Fuhrman was in on the conspiracy, why did he include the
fingerprint in his notes?
Robert C. Miller
Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
> In article <33EF68...@worldnet.att.net>,
> >
> >[Let me offer a couple of alternative theories. There were cops at
> >the crime scene, to include Captain Dial, who were there to make
> >sure that exculpatory evidence was removed. If there had been a
> >fingerprint there, and it pointed to the real killer(s), then it
> >served their purposes to remove it. If there really was a box up
>
> If Fuhrman was in on the conspiracy, why did he include the
> fingerprint in his notes?
[Well, maybe someday he'll tell us.]
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <33EFB6...@worldnet.att.net>,
Robert C. Miller <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>>
>> In article <33EF68...@worldnet.att.net>,
>> Robert C. Miller <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You people sure don't look very hard for anything you don't wish to
>> >> see. Brad Roberts was interviewed on the same ABC show where Mark
>> >> Fuhrman gave his first interview. He corroborated everything Fuhrman
>> >> said.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, to you people that will simply mean he's part of the same
>> >> massive conspiracy but you'll have one less red herring to toss out at
>> >> least.
>> >>
>> >> And Bob, before anyone gives you a fucking break, you need a fucking
>> >> life.
>> >
>> >[Ah, now that's a logical answer. It must be very frustrating
>> >to you to not be able to answer these questions. Sorry. -les t.]
>>
>> You asked why Brad Roberts hasn't been on TV backing up
>> Fuhrman's story. EGK pointed out that he had. Sounds to
>> me like he answered your question pretty handily.
>
>Roberts being invisible at the criminal trial.]
My mistake. It was actually BLP who asked:
>
> Apparently the plot thickens, I have wondered why Brad Roberts name never
> came up before.Why hasn't some of these TV shows put him on to back up
> Furhmans story. Smells stinky .
>
I think that was the question that EGK was answering.
As far as the trial is concerned that is something I wonder about also.
Why do *you* think Brad Roberts was invisible at the criminal trial?
Apparently it wasn't because he was unwilling to back up Fuhrman, which
I believe was EGK's point.
Robert C. Miller
EGK
And now Betty Owen just posted a very elaborate reply to yours and
BLP's moronic posts attempting to toss in another red herring to your
ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Again, you people just keep your head in the sand and come up with all
kinds of excuses and when someone refutes you, you lie and deny, or
attempt to change the subject to yet another red herring just like
your idol, the butcher.
Robert, you're pretty much a johnny come lately to this newsgroup.
You haven't posted anything original here at all yet you continue to
claim you come up with things and no one can refute you. I posted
here back before the trial even began and there's nothing coming from
you that hasn't been shot down over and over. It's not that people
can't refute, it's that it's gotten boring. Nothing is going to prove
guilt to the likes of people like you and BLP who refuse to believe
what's in front of them and cry and whine about how minds were made up
about Simpson's guilt all the while you both have no trouble at all
insinuating the guilt of plenty of other people involved in some
imagined conspiracy to frame your beloved Saint OJ.
I used to love OJ Simpson the football player and even enjoyed
watching his acting attempts in the movies. I never idolized him
though and knew next to nothing about his personal lifestyle. All of
it means nothing in the face of the evidence. Anyone who doesn't
believe Simpson murdered two people in cold blood is either a liar or
has ulterior motives.
Which is it with you?
.
On Mon, 11 Aug 1997 18:05:18 -0700, "Robert C. Miller"
<robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
**************************************************************************
The General
EGK wrote:
>
> And now Betty Owen just posted a very elaborate reply to yours and
> BLP's moronic posts attempting to toss in another red herring to your
> ridiculous conspiracy theories.
>
> Again, you people just keep your head in the sand and come up with all
> kinds of excuses and when someone refutes you, you lie and deny, or
> attempt to change the subject to yet another red herring just like
> your idol, the butcher.
>
> Robert, you're pretty much a johnny come lately to this newsgroup.
> You haven't posted anything original here at all yet you continue to
> claim you come up with things and no one can refute you. I posted
> here back before the trial even began and there's nothing coming from
> you that hasn't been shot down over and over. It's not that people
> can't refute, it's that it's gotten boring. Nothing is going to prove
> guilt to the likes of people like you and BLP who refuse to believe
> what's in front of them and cry and whine about how minds were made up
> about Simpson's guilt all the while you both have no trouble at all
> insinuating the guilt of plenty of other people involved in some
> imagined conspiracy to frame your beloved Saint OJ.
>
> I used to love OJ Simpson the football player and even enjoyed
> watching his acting attempts in the movies. I never idolized him
> though and knew next to nothing about his personal lifestyle.
You made a very interesting point here. I knew nothing
about Simpson's lifestyle either. This is in spite of
the fact that I real all the tabloids faithfully and
watch all the shows like Geraldo. I had no idea that
Simpson was married to a white woman. I wonder if
Simpson tried to keep Nicole in the background.
alwalker
EGK wrote in article <33efc1d0...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>
>I used to love OJ Simpson the football player and even enjoyed
>watching his acting attempts in the movies. I never idolized him
of
>it means nothing in the face of the evidence. Anyone who doesn't
>believe Simpson murdered two people in cold blood is either a liar
or
>has ulterior motives.
>
>Which is it with you?
>
You like to control the conversation dont you ? Your accusations are
completely without merit. What you call evidence I call gossip and
conjecture. Even the blood which i would have serious problems with,
is explained by the under oath comments of the woman who gathered
the blood .
She told the DA and the grand jury under oath that the
envelopes she placed her gathered blood evidence in, were not the
envelopes she was shown in court as containing the blood she
gathered.
The conclusion is obvious, the blood was switched before being sent
to
be classified by DNA.
The real killers blood was thrown out or the blood
drops at bundy
were actually the blood of the victims that dripped from
the knife as the killer walked away. Thats why the drops are not
apparently from finger tip length, but more like from the tip of a
longer knife.
The truth is that OJ is a victim just like His ex wife and mr
goldman.
He is no hero, and his life style is not a model for anyones kids to
see and admire. His ball days are long gone, and his life has been
destroyed by well meaning fools, who believed the media spin
without listening to the trial evidence.
Since you did not know, nor were related to the victims, your anger
and serious hate directed at mr simpson seems out of place .
So I conclude that you are either a racist who sees OJ as a symbol
of the racist views you have , or you are a rabble rowser, who
just
likes to get involved in high profile cases. Which is it Mr EGK
?
The General
Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
> In article <33EFB6...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Robert C. Miller <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <33EF68...@worldnet.att.net>,
> >> Robert C. Miller <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >EGK wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> You people sure don't look very hard for anything you don't wish to
> >> >> see. Brad Roberts was interviewed on the same ABC show where Mark
> >> >> Fuhrman gave his first interview. He corroborated everything Fuhrman
> >> >> said.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, to you people that will simply mean he's part of the same
> >> >> massive conspiracy but you'll have one less red herring to toss out at
> >> >> least.
> >> >>
> >> >> And Bob, before anyone gives you a fucking break, you need a fucking
> >> >> life.
> >> >
> >> >[Ah, now that's a logical answer. It must be very frustrating
> >> >to you to not be able to answer these questions. Sorry. -les t.]
> >>
> >> You asked why Brad Roberts hasn't been on TV backing up
> >> Fuhrman's story. EGK pointed out that he had. Sounds to
> >> me like he answered your question pretty handily.
> >
> >[No, I reprinted a section of A PROBLEM OF EVIDENCE about
> >Roberts being invisible at the criminal trial.]
>
>
> >
> > Apparently the plot thickens, I have wondered why Brad Roberts name never
> > came up before.Why hasn't some of these TV shows put him on to back up
> > Furhmans story. Smells stinky .
> >
>
> I think that was the question that EGK was answering.
>
> As far as the trial is concerned that is something I wonder about also.
> Why do *you* think Brad Roberts was invisible at the criminal trial?
> Apparently it wasn't because he was unwilling to back up Fuhrman, which
> I believe was EGK's point.
The decision about whether Roberts would be visible or
invisible at the criminal trial was made by Marcia Clark.
She put Ron Phillips on the stand even though he did not
find any of the evidence. I think she did that to provide
a partner for Fuhrman, because she deliberately kept
Fuhrman's real partner off the stand. The reason she
kept Roberts off was out of gratitude to Vannatter for
giving her the opportunity to be in the trial of the
century which eventually made her millions of dollars.
She knew that Roberts would testify to Vannatter doing
a very poor job as a detective on this case. That's
why she kept him off the stand. She coached Fuhrman
on what to say about the fingerprint that was not
collected, so that he wouldn't imply that the other
detectives did a bad job in his testimony. She didn't
want to have to coach another detective and take the
chance on being accused of suborning perjury.
BL P
IS IT EGK OR EKG???????????
BLP
dan
In article <5sr5t4$5...@camel1.mindspring.com>, nos...@stone.likethee says...
>
>(amazingly, the SAME hyeguy babble he's been rambling on and on about STILL
>for two years deleted to save you all the trouble)
>So I conclude that you are either a racist who sees OJ as a symbol
> of the racist views you have , or you are a rabble rowser, who
>just
>likes to get involved in high profile cases. Which is it Mr EGK
What? Where do you get the balls to call someone racist? Why don't you use
that "Goldberg" line again? How about telling us some more how you don't
want blacks living next door to you unless "they're the Huxtables?" How
about telling us some more about how "NBC hired dumb hispanics like
Geraldo?" How about telling us some more about how the Hollocaust was
right, you fucking racist nazi. I hope you die soon, fuckface.
EGK
Wow, "Al".
I've been here long enough to know you're both a liar and someone with
an ulterior motive. I just love how you accuse me of racism. I don't
even hate OJ as you seem to believe. Your lies about the case itself
and your ulterior motives have always been quite evident since you
entered this newsgroup. It no longer interests me to debate the
evidence with the likes of you because most everything you come up
with is lies or distortions anyway which lead you to make absurd leaps
in supposed logic.
It's amazing how you can dismiss all of Simpson's own lies and excuses
and conclude he's innocent all the while claiming bindles which didn't
have initials automatically leads to "proof" of evidence planting.
Simply amazing in your hypocrisy, "Al".
By the way, "Al", if the blood was obviously switched, where did they
get a sample of OJ's blood without the high levels of EDTA which would
have had to have been present in the test tube samples and why didn't
the defense ever bother to test any of their own cuts for EDTA?
Oh, and "Al", it isn't difficult at all to control a conversation with
someone such as yourself. Keep living in your dream world.
>So I conclude that you are either a racist who sees OJ as a symbol
> of the racist views you have , or you are a rabble rowser, who
>just
>likes to get involved in high profile cases. Which is it Mr EGK
>?
EGK
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:49:54 -0400, BET...@webtv.net (BL P) wrote:
>Betty Owens,
>Since it is apparent that you think you have all of the facts of this
>case, I challenge you to spell them out step by step. Convince us
>Pro,Pro's that we are wrong, that things are not as screwed up as they
>appear and do it in a fashion that is easily understood.
>
>
>
>BLP
Easily understood? 2+2=4 seems to be at or near your limit of
comprehension.
There's nothing that will convince you people now. You've entrenched
yourself into a position where even if the butcher confessed you'd try
and make some excuse for him.
The cops and the prosecution screwing up does not = Simpson innocent
no matter how much you wish it were true. Nor does their screwing up
indicate some massive conspiracy to frame him either.
That's what's so ludicrous about your whole position. There was
definitely a mountain of evidence linking OJ Simpson to the crime.
You refuse to believe it. That's your prerogative yet at the same
time you use allegations and innuendos and claim that's "proof" of a
conspiracy to frame him. You've claimed Mark Fuhrman is everything
from a racist to the mastermind of a frame-job yet no evidence has
ever surfaced to back it up except for him saying naughty words on a
tape which he claims was embellished for a screen play. Contrast that
to your recent excusing of Simpson for saying he'd get the bitch by
claiming everyone says things like that and doesn't necessarily mean
it. :) He sure seemed angry enough on a certain 911 tape. You don't
even understand the sheer depth of the hypocrisy shown by your
position.
No one can make the blind see or the deaf hear. You and yours are
both when it comes to Simpson.
alwalker
EGK wrote in article <33f14219...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>Wow, "Al".
>
>I've been here long enough to know you're both a liar and someone
with
>an ulterior motive. I just love how you accuse me of racism. I
don't
>even hate OJ as you seem to believe. Your lies about the case
itself
>and your ulterior motives have always been quite evident since you
>entered this newsgroup. It no longer interests me to debate the
>evidence with the likes of you because most everything you come up
>with is lies or distortions anyway which lead you to make absurd
leaps
>in supposed logic.
Do you know something about me that I dont ?
You accuse others
but your allowed to, is that it ?
Seems you are a no show like the buggerboys club. If you would site
the time and place where I performed these atrocious deeds I might
be able to comment. But true to form with guys who just repeat
idle words of others, it is to make themselves sound knowledgable!
You make no
such site, just idle accusations.
You accused those who think OJ is not guilty of being liars
or having ulterior motives, but you dont like it when you are
subjected to the same logic. Talk about one dimensional
thinking.
We have a tape of Your mr furman telling the world that his on the
stand
performences are not who he really is. Then you have the nerve to
accuse OJ of lieing on the stand when there is not one shred of
proof,
just the NO js and petrocellis allegations of wrongdoing.
>It's amazing how you can dismiss all of Simpson's own lies and
excuses
>and conclude he's innocent all the while claiming bindles which
didn't
>have initials automatically leads to "proof" of evidence planting.
>Simply amazing in your hypocrisy, "Al".
>
>By the way, "Al", if the blood was obviously switched, where did
they
>get a sample of OJ's blood without the high levels of EDTA which
would
>have had to have been present in the test tube samples and why
didn't
>the defense ever bother to test any of their own cuts for EDTA?
The blood that was supposed to be from bundy was switched with
blood from rockingham which was OJs and did not have E.D.T.A.
The switch was further proven when normally kept
numbers of swatches
taken for evidence were conveniently not kept. Thats not an
accident.
The spaces on the evidence sheets are left blank, where the number
of swatches of each stain are to be recorded. Some coincidence huh?
And as for the defense testing, that was the prosecutions job, and
the
judge had forbid destructive testing on any samples given to the
defense.
99 percent of the tests are destructive of the test material. And the
reason
the defense wanted the samples was to pin down the prosecutions
use of samples. In other words if the tests showed impossible
things,
the swatches the defense had must correspond to the results.
It was
clear from day one there was hanky panky going on with the blood
evidence. Or did you think the video of thano peratis was kosher ?
Twice he adamantly states he took eight CCs, then when it is
going to sink the prosecution, they do an end run and video tape
such lies as to make lieing an art form. Was it just accepted by
your
side that prosecution witnesses just swear to facts and then change
their mind ? Is that you idea of truth and justice ??
And you dont think
there are two sides to an issue ?
Okay, its now your turn to call me
a liar and not answer my post.
But we know why you will do that,
and it has nothing to do
with my lieing,
its because the ones who
accuse me,
have trouble answering
my comments !!
One more thing, I cant for the life of me think what my ulterior
motive
can be for claiming OJ is not guilty. Please tell me why you think
so!
Al Walker
>Oh, and "Al", it isn't difficult at all to control a conversation
with
>someone such as yourself. Keep living in your dream world.
Ever been accused of being delusional ?
BL P
Robert C. Miller
EGK wrote:
>
> By the way, "Al", if the blood was obviously switched, where did they
> get a sample of OJ's blood without the high levels of EDTA which would
> have had to have been present in the test tube samples and why didn't
> the defense ever bother to test any of their own cuts for EDTA?
driveway (but we know better because the bindles didn't have
Mazzola's initials on them) were never tested for EDTA. No EDTA
was found because they didn't look for it. Period. -bob]
Robert C. Miller
> comprehension.
>
> There's nothing that will convince you people now. You've entrenched
> yourself into a position where even if the butcher confessed you'd try
> and make some excuse for him.
>
> The cops and the prosecution screwing up does not = Simpson innocent
> no matter how much you wish it were true. Nor does their screwing up
> indicate some massive conspiracy to frame him either.
>
> That's what's so ludicrous about your whole position. There was
> definitely a mountain of evidence linking OJ Simpson to the crime.
> You refuse to believe it. That's your prerogative yet at the same
> time you use allegations and innuendos and claim that's "proof" of a
> conspiracy to frame him. You've claimed Mark Fuhrman is everything
> from a racist to the mastermind of a frame-job yet no evidence has
> ever surfaced to back it up except for him saying naughty words on a
> tape which he claims was embellished for a screen play. Contrast that
> to your recent excusing of Simpson for saying he'd get the bitch by
> claiming everyone says things like that and doesn't necessarily mean
> it. :) He sure seemed angry enough on a certain 911 tape. You don't
> even understand the sheer depth of the hypocrisy shown by your
> position.
>
> No one can make the blind see or the deaf hear. You and yours are
> both when it comes to Simpson.
>
> **************************************************************************
> take that as an invitation to walk all over you. - Calvin & Hobbes
> **************************************************************************
> Address changed to deter spam. Email e...@lightlink.com+ by losing the + sign
[At least that was better than Marcia Clark's summation. Still
a little short on evidence, though. -bob]
Robert C. Miller
Kris Van Allen wrote:
>
> SNIPPED
> If he had been home all
> >>evening, as he claims, why would he be hot and sweaty?
> >
> >get to the airport. Whether he committed the crime of not, we are all
> >in agreement that he was in a rush to get to the airport.
> >
> >Clio
>
> --
> Kris - but we disagree as to WHY he was rushing.
>
> Of course he was rushing - (according to OJ's story) he gets out of the
> shower and puts on his dirty sweatsuit, puts a bag outside in the dark, then
> turns on the outside lights after he goes inside, then buzzes the driver
> in, then changes clothes again, and all of this happens after 10:45 when he
> expected the limo to already have been there.
>
> Don't you find it funny that he puts on the dirty clothes instead of just
> dressing in the clothes he will wear when he is so late?? The fact that Park
> saw him in the sweats after OJ said he took a shower is proof that OJ was
> LYING. No one puts on dirty clothes after a shower only to change again 3
> minutes later.
>
> Don't you find it funny that he buzzes in the driver after he goes in the
> house, and not when he came out (according to OJ's story)??? he said he knew
> the driver was buzzing when he got out of the shower.
>
> His actions (the sweats, turning on the light after he is seen going inside,
> buzzing the driver after he goes inside) are consistent with a person just
> entering the house, and not consistent with a person taking a shower, getting
> dressed, buzzing in the driver, and carrying bags down to the car.kris
>
> [Park didn't initially say sweats. -bob]
Kris Van Allen
SNIPPED
If he had been home all
>>evening, as he claims, why would he be hot and sweaty?
>
Betty Owens
EGK <nos...@fromyou.com> wrote in article
<33f24278...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:49:54 -0400, BET...@webtv.net (BL P) wrote:
>
> >Betty Owens,
> >Since it is apparent that you think you have all of the facts of this
> >case, I challenge you to spell them out step by step. Convince us
> >Pro,Pro's that we are wrong, that things are not as screwed up as they
> >appear and do it in a fashion that is easily understood.
> >
> >
> >BLP
>
I have never claimed that I had all the facts in the case, but when
something
is posted as a fact and it hasn't been testified to or proven (as the
clothing in
the washer belonging to Arnelle), I have the right to point that out.
Everyone
has the right to give an opinion as to what could have happened. You have
given your opinions on several things.
I'm not a member of the Johnnie Cochran's dream team, so I won't waste
my time trying to convince the Pro-js of anything. It would be as useless
as trying to convince an atheist of the existence of God by using the Bible
as proof. The atheist refuses to accept the Bible as God's word so the
Bible means nothing to him. In the same way, the pro-js refuse to accept
ANY evidence that points to O.J.'s guilt (its all part of a conspiracy to
frame
O.J.) so they ignore it. In my opinion, ALL the evidence incriminates O.J.
and there is no evidence pointing to anyone else.
Betty
alwalker
So mr EGK,
you make me a fortune teller. I correctly predicted you would not be
able to back up your accusations, or your smug comments.
I predicted how you would be unable to site the place and occasion
when I lied or had an ulterior motive for my comments.
Then you join the west coast bugger boy group and like a coward, you
fall back on accusing me of being someone else . Thats what I
said, you havent the ability to answer my comments or points,
so you resort to the gutless tactic of calling me names. You are
just as pitifull as the others.
Well you can go back to your blissfully ignorant status.
I suppose having others see how your
unable to reply to my
allegations doesnt bother you, since that is usually the situation
with those like you who bully and
gang up on OJ. How sad!
You seem to enjoy seeing a black family subjected to a white
mans rage . A seventy year old mother forced into court to
defend and expose her actions leasing a car. But so what,
Its only OJs mom, she should have killed him at birth right ?
You viscious and racist NO js have lots of guts calling others
names or making accusations.
Your groups cowardice is legendary. You need great numbers
of your fellow bigots to do or say anything. The boycott group
and the rest of you mob creatures havent any recourse to your
position. When the real killers are found you will be a parahia
among the decent people of the world. Thats the future for you!
Al Walker
EGK wrote in article <33f28e1c...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>I told ya, "Al", I've been around here a long time. Everyone who's
>been here a while remembers your late "hyeguy" persona. All anyone
>has to do is look up your posts under that pseudonym and read some
of
>your racist diatribes against hispanics for instance.
>
>You bore me, "Al", "Hyeguy" or whatever you choose to call yourself
>this week. Better and smarter people then you were in here during
the
>trial itself trying to claim OJ was innocent. Unfortunately, they
>didn't do any better then you do. Even the defense team in the
>criminal trial couldn't offer anything but accusations and
innuendos
>and red herrings. It was fortunate for them they got a jury that
was
>ready, willing and able even before the trial began to believe the
>distortions they presented. Unfortunately, the civil trial wasn't
>such good news since Simpson himself had to take the stand and his
>lies pretty much ended any hope of winning that one. Of course you
>probably believe those shoes were placed on Simpson's feet via fake
>photography and printed in a sports magazine a year before the
>murders. Those damned conspirators thought of everything, huh?
>
>As I said in another post. It's your prerogative to believe what
you
>wish and I believe you to be so entrenched in your position that
even
>a confession by the butcher wouldn't convince you otherwise. It's
my
>prerogative to think anyone who can't see Simpson killed two people
is
>either a liar or has an ulterior motive such as race baiting or
simple
>hero worship. I guess there is a third choice. You could be just
>plain stupid.
>
>
>On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:03:25 -0400, "alwalker" <nos...@stone.like
Bet...@webtv.net
In article <01bca873$91c14880$c0f4aec7@default>,
Betty,
You know not one damn thing about my limit of conprehension,at best you
can attest to your own. From reading your post it is quite obvious that
you didn't see te trial. Those who watched it can easily tell who is
adlibbing and who knows what took place in courtroom #103. I admit to not
being able to recite day, time and who spoke what, I can remember what
was brought out during the trial. **************************************
> > There's nothing that will convince you people now. You've entrenched
> > yourself into a position where even if the butcher confessed you'd try
> > and make some excuse for him.
*************************************
You cannot lump us into one big pot, we are individuals who have
differing levels of belief when it comes to the guilt or innocence of
O.J. Simpson. Some beleive that he definately didn't do it; Others feel
that if he did it wasn't proven in the courtroom; Some think that it is a
possibility that he could have, but not within the timeline or not alone.
I think most of us think that prejudice and passion are not suppose to be
deciding factors. Wild stereotypes and unseemly ideas does not make for
proof. **************************************
> > The cops and the prosecution screwing up does not = Simpson innocent
> > no matter how much you wish it were true. Nor does their screwing up
> > indicate some massive conspiracy to frame him either.
**************************************Correct, their screwing up only
prevents us from knowing the factual answers. There screwing up (since
they were the developers of the scenario presented to the jury and the
public), proved they were not sure of thier own case.
They were unsure of their theory and
it reared it head throughout the trial.Had they presented cogent and
consistant facts , instead of trying so hard to disallow any exculpatory
information, they would have come across better.
**************************************
> > That's what's so ludicrous about your whole position. There was
> > definitely a mountain of evidence linking OJ Simpson to the crime.
> > You refuse to believe it. That's
**************************************
THE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE;
A CLAIM OF ANGER AND RAGE, WHEN A VIDEO TAKEN AT THE TIME DISPROVED THOSE
ALLEGATIONS;
PRO'S TAKE THINGS AT FACE VALUE, BELIEVING THAT WHICH CAN BE SEEN,NO'S ON
THE OTHER HAND, BELIEVE WHAT THEY ARE TOLD, COMBINING THAT WITH THEIR OWN
BIASES MAKE FOR FACTS IN THEIR MINDS.
A SINISTER CLAIM OF A MISSING ALIBI WHEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE IN A
HOUSE ALONE TO PROVIDE AN ALIBI EXCEPT SOMEONE IS THERE TO VOUCH FOR
THEM.
THE TIME BASED ON A PLAINTIFF WAIL OF A DOG AND WITNESSES WHO TOLD OF
VARYING TIMES AND NONE FIT.
TWO GLOVES, ONE AT THE SCENE, THE OTHER AT THE HOME OF THE SUSPECT, NO
INDICATION OR EVIDENCE AS TO WHO PUT IT THERE AND WHY.
THREE THUMPS ON A BACK WALL OR AIR CONDITIONER THAT KATO THOUGHT WAS AN
EARTHQUAKE. (HYPERBOLE TO SAY THE LEAST).
A BLOOD TRAIL OF NEAT CIRCULAR DROPS LEADING AWAY FROM THE SCENE, OTHER
DORPS LEADIND IN ANOTHER DIRECTION THAT WEREN'T COLLECTED OR DEEMED
IMPORTANT; BLOOD SEEN IN AND ON THE BRONCO BY SOME, AND NOT BY OTHERS.
DETECTIVES WHO OUTRIGHT LIED ABOUT THEIR REASON FOR GOING OVER THE WALL
AND VIOLATING THE FOURTH AMMENDMENT
RIGHTS OF O.J.. (not evidence , just a fact)
A KNIT CAP WITH HAIR SIMILAR TO THE DEFENDANT; (THAT POSSIBLY CAME FROM
HIS HOME IN THE FIRST PLACE).
VIDEOS SHOWING THE SLOPPY HANDELING OF TEST SAMPLES, AND THE DISREGUARD
FOR PROTOCOL BY THE CRIMINALIST; THE RECANTMENT OF TESTIMONY TO REDO WHAT
THEY SCREWED UP DURING TESTIMONY; (again a fact not evidence).
A VIDEO (WITH TIMER) SHOWING NO SOCKS
WHERE SOCKS WERE CLAIMED TO BE FOUND,
TAKEN BEFORE THE DOCUMENTED COLLECTION TIME.
GLOVES TRIED ON IN COURT THAT DIDN'T FIT, ONLY TO ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT
WHAT THE WORLD SAW THAT DAY WASN'T REALLY WHAT THEY SAW. PROSECUTORS
FREAKED AND PUNDITS SCRAMBLED TO UNRING THE PROVERBIAL BELL. (TOO LATE)
EVIDENCE OF ABUSE THAT WAS DENIDE BY THE BROWNS, NOT KNOWN BY CLOSE
FRIENDS AND REFERENCED ON THE AUDIO TAPE. (SHE SAID HE HADN'T HIT HER
SINCE "89'.)
THIS WILL BE CONTINUED;
your prerogative yet at the same
> > time you use allegations and innuendos and claim that's "proof" of a
> > conspiracy to frame him. You've claimed Mark Fuhrman is everything
> > from a racist to the mastermind of a frame-job yet no evidence has
> > ever surfaced to back it up except
**************************************
How do you expect evidence to surface, when the ones with the most at
stake are the keepers of the evidence. ?????
**************************************
for him saying naughty words on a
> > tape which he claims was embellished for a screen play.
************************************** Why would you beleive that it was
for a screenplay when he made references to Judge Ito's wife and other
administrators? Why do you suppose that the excuse surfaced after the
fact as did the explaination for the ill fit of the gloves. (and you
think we're slow)? ************************************** Contrast that
> > to your recent excusing of Simpsonfor saying he'd get the bitch by
**************************************
Please tell me where that reference is attributed to me.
I think that I said most people say "I will kill you at one time or
another." ************************************** claiming everyone says
things like that and doesn't necessarily mean
> > it. :) He sure seemed angry enough on a certain 911 tape. Youdon't
************************************** I don,t know if you are married or
have been, knowing men as I claim to, few if any would take kindly to
seeing you perform oral sex on another man. Doing it away from the home
where your children are in another room wouldn't be acceptable to most
men, let alone in a place where they could come in. My take on this part
of their lives is, that if ever there were a time that he would kill two
people, the time should have been then and they were the two.
**************************************
> > even understand the sheer depth of the hypocrisy shown by your
> > position.
> >
> > No one can make the blind see or the deaf hear. You and yours are
> > both when it comes to Simpson
**************************************
Being called dumb and blind by you and
the likes there of is the equivalent
of having Ray Charles be the guide for
Jose Luciano.
BLP
*************************************
> > There'd be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't
> > take that as an invitation to walk all over you. - Calvin & Hobbes
> >
> **************************************************************************
> > Address changed to deter spam. Email e...@lightlink.com+ by losing the +
> sign
> >
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Bet...@webtv.net
In article
<871580...@dejanews.com>,
screwing up (since
> they were the developers of the
scenario presented to the jury and
the
> public), proved they were not sure
of thier own case.
>
> They were unsure of their theory and
trial.Had they presented cogent and
> consistant facts , instead of trying
BL P
Confused,
Wow had the prosecution had you they could have gotten a different
verdict.
Andrea Mazolla testified that she initialed the ones that went to
Cellmark..
BLP
EGK
I told ya, "Al", I've been around here a long time. Everyone who's
been here a while remembers your late "hyeguy" persona. All anyone
has to do is look up your posts under that pseudonym and read some of
your racist diatribes against hispanics for instance.
You bore me, "Al", "Hyeguy" or whatever you choose to call yourself
this week. Better and smarter people then you were in here during the
trial itself trying to claim OJ was innocent. Unfortunately, they
didn't do any better then you do. Even the defense team in the
criminal trial couldn't offer anything but accusations and innuendos
and red herrings. It was fortunate for them they got a jury that was
ready, willing and able even before the trial began to believe the
distortions they presented. Unfortunately, the civil trial wasn't
such good news since Simpson himself had to take the stand and his
lies pretty much ended any hope of winning that one. Of course you
probably believe those shoes were placed on Simpson's feet via fake
photography and printed in a sports magazine a year before the
murders. Those damned conspirators thought of everything, huh?
As I said in another post. It's your prerogative to believe what you
wish and I believe you to be so entrenched in your position that even
a confession by the butcher wouldn't convince you otherwise. It's my
prerogative to think anyone who can't see Simpson killed two people is
either a liar or has an ulterior motive such as race baiting or simple
hero worship. I guess there is a third choice. You could be just
plain stupid.
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:03:25 -0400, "alwalker" <nos...@stone.like
thee> wrote:
**************************************************************************
confused
"Robert C. Miller" <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>[The blood swatches sent to Cellmark that were allegedly from the
>driveway (but we know better because the bindles didn't have
>Mazzola's initials on them)
Maybe the initials were on the samples sent to DOJ.
>were never tested for EDTA. No EDTA was found because
>they didn't look for it. Period.
That's right, NOBODY was looking for EDTA. Any chance they all already
knew what the results would be?
BL P
I expect that corrections are forth coming,
that and other typo's. DO FORGIVE. Memory at my age works on a delay
system, you youthful ones, keep living.
BLP
Betty Owens
Bet...@WebTv.Net wrote in article <8716067...@dejanews.com>...
Everything else was posted by someone else - Not Betty.
_________________________________________________
> > > Easily understood? 2+2=4 seems
> to be at or near your limit of
> > > > comprehension.
> >
> *************************************
> > Betty,
> >
> > You know not one damn thing about my
> limit of conprehension,at best you
> > can attest to your own. From reading
> your post it is quite obvious that
> > you didn't see te trial. Those who
> watched it can easily tell who is
> > adlibbing and who knows what took
> place in courtroom #103. I admit to
> not
> > being able to recite day, time and
> who spoke what, I can remember what
> > was brought out during the trial.
> **************************************
BLP,
Regardless of what you may think, I did watch the trial on
Court TV everyday. You have said before that everyone
who watched all the trial on tv believed that O.J. was
not guilty and the people who believe he is guilty didn't
watch the trial. Prove it! I know many people who
watched the trial daily who believe O.J. is guilty beyond
any doubt.
Two people can witness the same event and have different
opinions as to what actually happened. Two people can
read the same book and have different interpretations as
to what point the author was making in the book. You
certainly have a right to believe that O.J. is innocent, but
other people have a right to believe that he is guilty. I am
sure that I could not say anything to change your mind, and
neither can anything you say change my mind.
By the way, were you answering my post or the post by
EKG? I couldn't tell. Everything written after "Betty" was
written by someone else. However, as I tell my kids,"Don't
yell if you want people to take what you say seriously."
Thanks for the laugh.
Betty
Robert C. Miller
albertwalker wrote:
>
> Robert C. Miller wrote:
> >
> > Kris Van Allen wrote:
> > >
> > > SNIPPED
> > > house, and not when he came out (according to OJ's story)??? he said he knew
> > > the driver was buzzing when he got out of the shower.
> > >
> > > His actions (the sweats, turning on the light after he is seen going inside,
> > > buzzing the driver after he goes inside) are consistent with a person just
> > > entering the house, and not consistent with a person taking a shower, getting
> > > dressed, buzzing in the driver, and carrying bags down to the car.kris
> > >
>
> positively were sweats. He said it "could" have been a top coat,
> or bathrobe in the first trial !! Thinking anyone would put dirty
> bloody sweats back on after just showering is preposterous, just
> preposterous. Kris. try again.
[No, he put the bloody sweats in the washer, and then he put another
pair of sweats on to change out of so that he could discard them
at the airport. And then there were the sweats that he got rid of
in Chicago and the ones he brought back in his bag that he gave
to whatshisname.]
Clio
On 14 Aug 1997 05:32:04 GMT, "Betty Owens" <bowe...@sprynet.com>
wrote:
>I'm not a member of the Johnnie Cochran's dream team, so I won't waste
>my time trying to convince the Pro-js of anything. It would be as useless
>as trying to convince an atheist of the existence of God by using the Bible as proof.
Why do the Pro-Js have to be the atheists, I think the No-Js should be
the atheists and the Pro-Js should be the God fearers. <g>
>
> The atheist refuses to accept the Bible as God's word so the
>Bible means nothing to him. In the same way, the pro-js refuse to accept
>ANY evidence that points to O.J.'s guilt (its all part of a conspiracy to
>frame
>O.J.) so they ignore it.
And some of the No-Js refuse to think that it is possible that someone
tampered with the evidence. What is the difference?
Betty, I like picking with you, but I don't mean anything personal, I
like you. I like everybody..........I am the Pollyanna of AFOJS (am I
making anyone sick yet?)
>In my opinion, ALL the evidence incriminates O.J.
Well you are not entitled to your opinion! <g>
<snip>
Clio
confused
BET...@webtv.net (BL P) wrote:
Really? What day 4/20/95 or 4/25/95 - 4/27/95? I ran the term 'cellmark'
through the testimony on those days, no hits from Andrea Mazzola.
Care to try again?
Kris Van Allen
In article <5t1vn0$v...@camel3.mindspring.com>, "keepit"@stonelike.thee says...
>
>Robert C. Miller wrote:
>>
>> Kris Van Allen wrote:
>> >
>> > SNIPPED
>> > Don't you find it funny that he buzzes in the driver after he goes in the
>> > house, and not when he came out (according to OJ's story)??? he said he
knew
>> > the driver was buzzing when he got out of the shower.
>> >
>> > His actions (the sweats, turning on the light after he is seen going
inside,
>> > buzzing the driver after he goes inside) are consistent with a person
just
>> > entering the house, and not consistent with a person taking a shower,
getting
>> > dressed, buzzing in the driver, and carrying bags down to the car.kris
>> >
>> > [Park didn't initially say sweats. -bob]
>
>And I thought park said they "could" have been sweats, not that they
>positively were sweats. He said it "could" have been a top coat,
>or bathrobe in the first trial !! Thinking anyone would put dirty
>bloody sweats back on after just showering is preposterous, just
>preposterous. Kris. try again.
Kris - I believe Park was ASKED if it COULD have been a robe, and the cross
showed he did not see ANY characteristics of a robe or a coat at all - what he
saw was consistent with pants and sweatshirt.
I did not say I thought he put on dirty clothes after a shower, but if you
believe OJ's story, that's what he did, therefore I do not believe OJ's story.
All of his actions are consistent with a man just entering the house - buzzing
in the driver after he goes in, turning on the lights AFTER he goes in, and
coming out in different clothes.
Most people just out of the shower and in a robe would have turned on the
lights, buzzed the driver in, get dressed, then take the bags down.
Then again, most people wouldn't make the driver wait for 30 minutes without
giving the driver a hint that he is home and should continue to wait. NO reply
from OJ for 30 minutes????? And you make an excuse that OJ is just being rude,
rather than the obvious - OJ was not at home at 10:22.kris
MSLU123
>Robert C. Miller wrote:
>>
>> Kris Van Allen wrote:
>> >
>> > SNIPPED
>> > Don't you find it funny that he buzzes in the driver after he goes in
the
>> > house, and not when he came out (according to OJ's story)??? he said
he
>knew
>> > the driver was buzzing when he got out of the shower.
>> >
>> > His actions (the sweats, turning on the light after he is seen going
>inside,
>> > buzzing the driver after he goes inside) are consistent with a person
>just
>> > entering the house, and not consistent with a person taking a shower,
>getting
>> > dressed, buzzing in the driver, and carrying bags down to the
car.kris
>> >
>> > [Park didn't initially say sweats. -bob]
>
>And I thought park said they "could" have been sweats, not that they
>positively were sweats. He said it "could" have been a top coat,
>or bathrobe in the first trial !! Thinking anyone would put dirty
>bloody sweats back on after just showering is preposterous, just
>preposterous. Kris. try again.
I think it was a bathrobe and it was after his shower. That is what he
said he did. Took a shower then went downstairs with a suitcase. That is
when Parks saw him. Isn't funny how the prosecution twisted everything
around to their story? Not funny at all.
Lucile
MSLU123
>Kris - I believe Park was ASKED if it COULD have been a robe, and the
cross
>showed he did not see ANY characteristics of a robe or a coat at all -
what
>he
>saw was consistent with pants and sweatshirt.
>
>I did not say I thought he put on dirty clothes after a shower, but if
you
>believe OJ's story, that's what he did, therefore I do not believe OJ's
>story.
>
>All of his actions are consistent with a man just entering the house -
>buzzing
>in the driver after he goes in, turning on the lights AFTER he goes in,
and
>coming out in different clothes.
>
>Most people just out of the shower and in a robe would have turned on the
>lights, buzzed the driver in, get dressed, then take the bags down.
>
>Then again, most people wouldn't make the driver wait for 30 minutes
without
>giving the driver a hint that he is home and should continue to wait. NO
>reply
>from OJ for 30 minutes????? And you make an excuse that OJ is just being
>rude,
>rather than the obvious - OJ was not at home at 10:22.kris
Its been stated over and over and even at the trial the Parks being a new
driver didn't know that OJ always kept the chauffers waiting because he
was last minute person. He didn't pack until the last minute and they
were always hurrying to the airport to try to make the plane. And maybe a
person like yourself would make a driver wait but OJ wasn't like us...he
viewed the driver as a servant and he felt he didn't have to do anything
special for him because he payed him very good money for his services and
he was used to OJ doing this every time he went to the airport. OJ didn't
know this was a new driver and I am sure he never in this world thought so
much would come of his being late as usual.
Lucile
albertwalker
confused
BET...@webtv.net (BL P) wrote:
>Confused,
>
>Somethings are better done hands on, computers are great but much
>depends on the astuteness of the user.
(If only you knew...)
>Mazolla when being questioned by Peter Nuefeld,
This guestion?-
Q BY MR. NEUFELD: WHEN YOU SAW THE BOARD -- YOU SAY THE BOARD HAD
BEEN SHOWN TO YOU PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIFYING IN THIS CASE, HADN'T
IT?
A I HAD A QUICK LOOK AT IT, YES.
Q WELL, WHEN YOU HAD A QUICK LOOK AT IT, MISS MAZZOLA, DID YOU
SAY TO THE PROSECUTOR, "WAIT A SECOND. YOU'RE MISSING ONE
IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE BLOODSTAIN EVIDENCE COLLECTION
PROCESS, NAMELY THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE COIN ENVELOPE"?
DID YOU SAY THAT TO THEM?
MR. GOLDBERG: THIS IS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Or Maybe this one-
Q DID YOU RECOGNIZE ANY OF THE HANDWRITING ON THOSE TWO
BINDLES?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q DID YOU RECOGNIZE THE INITIALS H., I THINK IT WAS C.L.?
A AT THAT TIME, NO.
Q OR WHEN YOU SAW THEM IN FRONT OF YOU ON THE WITNESS STAND?
A I DID NOT.
Q TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS THERE ANYONE BY THE NAME OF HENRY LEE
THAT WORKS AT THE LABORATORY?
MR. NEUFELD: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS
WITNESS.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO ONE BY THAT NAME WORKS AT THE LABORATORY.
> he asked to put into evidence envelopes that were retrieved by a
>defense representative at Cellmark.
The defense attempted to confuse the issue by mixing the samples
separated by Lee for the defense with those gathered by Fung and
Mazzolla.
<snips>
>.Neufeld asked Mazzola if she had placed her initials on each
>(that is the apparent required procedure)
Nope, even though Neufeld was trying to imply it was.
>she replied that she had. Like in many other instances, the
>prosecution attempted to rehabilitate her testimony and asked if
>she was sure that she had placed her initials on them, of course she then
>didn't remember.
She isn't the only that can't remember here.
There isn't the mention of Cellmark anywhere in her testimony. You
remember wrong. See a computer isn't bothered by all that day to day
stuff that causes us to misremember things.
>The ones who watched the trial and understood the system may have
>beleived he was guilty, but conceded that it wasn't proven.
But you are making that decision based on misremebered information.
Mazzolla never talked to Neufeld about samples to cellmark, even though
you remember them clearly doing so.
Clio
In article <5t2adv$nmn$1...@spock.dis.cccd.edu>, kvan...@mail.cccd.edu says...
> Kris - I believe Park was ASKED if it COULD have been a robe, and the cross
> showed he did not see ANY characteristics of a robe or a coat at all - what he
> saw was consistent with pants and sweatshirt.
At the preliminary hearing he said:
Q PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, HAS ANYONE POINTED OUT THAT THERE
MAY BE A DISCREPANCY IN THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU GAVE AT THE GRAND JURY AND
THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GIVE TODAY?
A NO.
<snip>
Q DID YOU EVER DESCRIBE MR. SIMPSON AS COMING OUT OF THE HOUSE
WEARING A BLACK OVERCOAT?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.
THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: I REMEMBER HIM WEARING SOME KIND OF A COAT.
>
> I did not say I thought he put on dirty clothes after a shower, but if you
> believe OJ's story, that's what he did, therefore I do not believe OJ's story.
This is OJ's "story" from his deposition:
Q: Right after you took your shower, you dried. Right?
A: Yes.
Q: And then you dressed. Right?
A: Halfway, yeah, and eventually, yes. Yes.
Q: When you were packing your Vuitton bag to finish off the packing, were
you already fully dressed?
A: No.
Q: So you were partly dressed.
A: Yes.
Q: You had pants on?
A: Yes.
Q: Loafers?
A: Yes
Q: No shirt?
A: Yes.
Q: And then you resumed packing.
A: Yes.
Q: Finished packing.
A: When I finished packing, yes.
Q: Put your shirt on.
A: Yes.
Q: Then put that other shirt over it Right?
A: Yes.
Q: Then went downstairs.
<snip>
Clio
Frencharino
In article <5stper$1...@camel4.mindspring.com>, nos...@stone.likethee says...
>
>Do you know something about me that I dont ?
>You accuse others
> but your allowed to, is that it ?
>
>Seems you are a no show like the buggerboys club. If you would site
>the time and place where I performed these atrocious deeds I might
>be able to comment. But true to form with guys who just repeat
>idle words of others, it is to make themselves sound knowledgable!
>You make no
>such site, just idle accusations.
>
No. You know and we all know that you're a racist and a nazi. There's no
hiding that. The only thing we don't know is why you still keep signing your
posts as "al walker" when everyone in the group knows your name is Mike
Chilengarian.
How is the doughnut festival going, fatty?
French
swheats
MSLU123 wrote:
>
> >Kris - I believe Park was ASKED if it COULD have been a robe, and the
> cross
> >showed he did not see ANY characteristics of a robe or a coat at all -
night, and the lighting wasn't bright enough to see very well. From
Parks testamony in the criminal trial:
BY MS. CLARK:
Q MR. PARK, I NOTICE YOU ARE NOT WEARING GLASSES AT THIS MOMENT.
ARE YOU WEARING CONTACTS?
A NO, I'M NOT.
Q ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, SIR, WHEN YOU PICKED UP MR. SIMPSON
TO TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT, WERE YOU WEARING GLASSES?
A NO, I WASN'T.
Q WERE YOU WEARING CONTACTS?
A NO, I WASN'T.
Q DO YOU EVER WEAR GLASSES?
A SOMETIMES.
Q FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
A A LOT OF TIMES DRIVING AT NIGHT, JUST SEEING FREEWAY SIGNS FROM A
VERY FAR DISTANCE.
Q SO WHAT DO YOU NEED GLASSES FOR?
A WHAT DO I -- WHAT DO I NEED THEM FOR?
Q YES. WHEN DO YOU NEED THEM?
A FOR SEEING VERY FAR DISTANCES.
Q AND FOR SEEING WHAT AT A DISTANCE? FOR SEEING OBJECTS?
A NO, JUST FOR READING STREET SIGNS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. OBJECTS I'M
FINE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT IS JUST LITTLE STREET SIGNS, YOU KNOW,
SIGNS ARE PRETTY SMALL.
Q OKAY.
So now it has been proven his eyesight is not 20/20 and he must have
glasses, we must further accept his word that his vision was not
impaired. He was not able to locate freeway entrances, but he could see
clearly a dark figure and what he was possibly wearing. There is
further testamony of Park during the criminal trial regarding lighting:
AND WHAT WAS THE LIGHTING LIKE FOR THE BALANCE OF THE DRIVEWAY
THAT YOU COULD SEE?
A IT WASN'T VERY BRIGHT AT ALL. THERE WAS SOME LIGHTING, BUT IT -- IT
WAS -- YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T A VERY BRIGHT LIGHT, LIKE I SAID. THE
BRIGHTEST LIGHT CAME FROM THIS AREA, (INDICATING).
Q FROM THE ENTRANCE AREA?
A UH-HUH.
> >he
> >saw was consistent with pants and sweatshirt.
> >
> >I did not say I thought he put on dirty clothes after a shower, but if
> you
> >believe OJ's story, that's what he did, therefore I do not believe OJ's
> >story.
But you can believe Park's.
> >
> >All of his actions are consistent with a man just entering the house -
> >buzzing
> >in the driver after he goes in, turning on the lights AFTER he goes in,
> and
> >coming out in different clothes.
Not necessarily, OJ knew his property and probably didn't need to turn
on every light in the house to maneuver. There has been proven there
was some lighting in the entrance of the house. Maybe that was enough
for him. It's been shown it wasn't enough for Parks to see clearly.
> >
> >Most people just out of the shower and in a robe would have turned on the
>
> >lights, buzzed the driver in, get dressed, then take the bags down.
Most people? We are not robots. Who can truthfully say what routine
you would have if you flown regularly. Why turn on so many lights that
you would have to go throughout the house to turn off before your
departure.
> >
> >Then again, most people wouldn't make the driver wait for 30 minutes
> without
> >giving the driver a hint that he is home and should continue to wait. NO
Kris You keep saying 'most people'. How do you know what most people
would do in any circumstance. Have you polled 'most people' who are
rich or millionnaire's to see what their behavior is with their
chauffer?
> >reply
> >from OJ for 30 minutes????? And you make an excuse that OJ is just being
> >rude,
> >rather than the obvious - OJ was not at home at 10:22.kris
>
> Its been stated over and over and even at the trial the Parks being a new
> driver didn't know that OJ always kept the chauffers waiting because he
> was last minute person. He didn't pack until the last minute and they
> were always hurrying to the airport to try to make the plane. And maybe a
> person like yourself would make a driver wait but OJ wasn't like us...he
> viewed the driver as a servant and he felt he didn't have to do anything
> special for him because he payed him very good money for his services and
> he was used to OJ doing this every time he went to the airport. OJ didn't
> know this was a new driver and I am sure he never in this world thought so
> much would come of his being late as usual.
>
> Lucile
Good point Lucille. Parks did call his boss, Dale St.John, according to
Parks testamony St.John assured him this was normal for OJ to be late.
Parks stated that he was told if OJ wasn't out by 11:15 he should go on
home.
I agree with you there was no reason for OJ to let the chauffer know
what was going on, and to our knowledge OJ didn't know Dale St.John
wasn't the driver.
Shirley
BL P
Confused,
the transcripts that I have been able to retreive do not go back that
far. Don't take my admission of delayed memory as an opportunity to
attempt to pull the wool over my eyes.
I appeal to other Pro's to tell what they remember about this. Since we
know that not only do we see things through different eyes, we
apparently hear through different ears, (not literally for those of you
who are a little slow).
BLP
alwalker
Clio wrote in article ...
>In article <5t2adv$nmn$1...@spock.dis.cccd.edu>, kvan...@mail.cccd.edu
says...
>
>> Kris - I believe Park was ASKED if it COULD have been a robe, and
the cross
>> showed he did not see ANY characteristics of a robe or a coat at
all - what he
>> saw was consistent with pants and sweatshirt.
>
>At the preliminary hearing he said:
>
>Q PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, HAS ANYONE POINTED OUT THAT
THERE
>MAY BE A DISCREPANCY IN THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU GAVE AT THE GRAND
JURY AND
>THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GIVE TODAY?
>
>A NO.
>
><snip>
>
>Q DID YOU EVER DESCRIBE MR. SIMPSON AS COMING OUT OF THE HOUSE
>WEARING A BLACK OVERCOAT?
>
>MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME.
>
>THE COURT: OVERRULED.
>
>THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.
>
>THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>
>THE WITNESS: I REMEMBER HIM WEARING SOME KIND OF A COAT.
>
>>
>> I did not say I thought he put on dirty clothes after a shower,
but if you
>> believe OJ's story, that's what he did, therefore I do not believe
OJ's story.
>
Clio,
You did it again ! I would suppose you wont be debated by kris any
more.
He didnt even get to put ketchup on his words, before you had him eat
them.
You need to keep some sort of score clio. They all fall by the
wayside after
you post the actual transcipts.
Its a shame griffin is too smart to get into
factual discussions with
some people. He chuckles and snorts, he gets abusive, he cusses
like a drunken sailor, but he wont debate with some people.
Your a one woman hit squad , and I enjoy your comments and satire.
Dont stop.
Al
Kari And Nona
O.J. says on his video that he had no idea it wasn't Mr. St. John in the
Limo or he would have acknowledged his presence sooner. I find it
incredible the way O.J.'s normal actions that many of us probably do daily
are blown up into these menacing actions. How many of us whilst packing or
loading things will say to someone else, never mind that
box/bag/etc.....I'll get it? Never has it meant that something bloody was
inside of it. From what was testified to by Kato, all O.J. really did was
tell Kato "I'll get that bag." and this one statement has been turned
inside out to be ominous. Put together with Park's testimony where he
speaks about taking a smaller bag and rearranging it to go inside the
bigger carry on bag whilst driving to the airport is a reasonable
explanation for why he said to Kato to leave that bag be. He wished to not
put it into the trunk, but wanted to bring it into the car to put inside
the other bag he had inside the back of the limo. Had some dastardly deed
been going on, wouldn't O.J. have asked parks to close the window between
the back and the driver's seat?? If one throws out Geraldo's hype and
exploitation type explanations, one might see how simple and innocent all
of O.J.'s actions were that night. A guilty man who had just killed for
the first time could not possibly act
as coolly and calmly as O.J. did. His feeling warm is easily explained by
having just gotten out of the shower within the last 45 minutes. It is
also humid in L.A., even at 64 degrees. This can prolong this feeling of
being warmer than one is after a shower.
When I was nineteen my high school boyfriend and his sister were killed.
I'm sure that although it was a car accident, anyone culd have made me look
responsible since we had just broken up because of my mistake. I said
things that could have been misconstrued to make me look guilty. Had I
been someone who could have made a name for themselves by making me look
guilty. Someone could have said they saw me driving the Semi truck that
drove across his path and caused him and his sister to be killed. I had
several friends try to tell me that he said certain things about me before
he died as several people saw the accident and for some reason tried to
hurt me. Had I not been told by his parents that he was killed instantly,
I'd still be living with some pretty horrible accusations. Had the driver
run away after the accident, I could have been accused. The point is,
anyone can look guilty. All is in the eye of the beholder. Until many
start seeing things without distortion, the regular actions of O.J. that
night will never be seen as clear actions
of an innocent man. A guilty man would have canceled his trip and made
sure he had a very good alibi, as well as lots of time to clean up any
incriminating evidence. the FACT that O.J. went to Chicago is enough to
know he has to be innocent. Considering the threats he and Nicole had been
recieving before these killings, it is no wonder he starting getting really
scared when he heard of the blood here and there. He knew he was being set
up and it would scare anyone to death.
confused
BET...@webtv.net (BL P) wrote:
BLP,
It isn't my habit or way to "pull to wool over ones eyes" I am here to
examine the case. If you'd like, I'll send you the relevant transcripts
or post the whole day here,(which will annoy everyone, but assure that
they aren't tampered with).
albertwalker
alwalker wrote:
> Well you can go back to your blissfully ignorant status.
>
> I suppose having others see how your
> unable to reply to my
> allegations doesnt bother you, since that is usually the situation
> with those like you who bully and
> gang up on OJ. How sad!
>
> You seem to enjoy seeing a black family subjected to a white
> mans rage . A seventy year old mother forced into court to
> defend and expose her actions leasing a car. But so what,
> Its only OJs mom, she should have killed him at birth right ?
> You viscious and racist NO js have lots of guts calling others
> names or making accusations.
Al Walker
EGK, you coward and racist.
See? I told the world you run from my comments and hide
behind the your a racist stuff!!
But after the way goldman has tried to get at OJ through
the little old lady, you must be ashamed of your hero now!!
Or is it you real intent ? to see the black man and his
family ripped apart by a white man ? We shall see
Al walker
dan
In article <5t5ke1$e...@camel12.mindspring.com>, nos...@stone.likethee
says...
>
>
>
>Its a shame griffin is too smart to get into
> factual discussions with
>some people. He chuckles and snorts, he gets abusive, he cusses
>like a drunken sailor, but he wont debate with some people.
>
Really Hyeguy? Kind of how like you called me and a number of other people
here that you can't dispute, "faggots," "assholes," "mother fuckers" and
have said "fuck you" to us a number of times? Like that? Hey, at least
"dweeb" isn't something a sailor would say. That's something a little sixth
grader would say. That, and bugger.
Could you please quote some more scripture?
rob...@interpow.net
In article <5t7b2c$f...@camel12.mindspring.com>,
alwalker wrote:
>
> alwalker wrote:
> > Well you can go back to your blissfully ignorant status.
> >
> > I suppose having others see how your
> > unable to reply to my
> > allegations doesnt bother you, since that is usually the situation
> > with those like you who bully and
> > gang up on OJ. How sad!
> >
> > You seem to enjoy seeing a black family subjected to a white
> > mans rage . A seventy year old mother forced into court to
> > defend and expose her actions leasing a car. But so what,
> > Its only OJs mom, she should have killed him at birth right ?
> > You viscious and racist NO js have lots of guts calling others
> > names or making accusations.
>
>
> EGK, you coward and racist.
> See? I told the world you run from my comments and hide
> behind the your a racist stuff!!
>
> But after the way goldman has tried to get at OJ through
> the little old lady, you must be ashamed of your hero now!!
>
> Or is it you real intent ? to see the black man and his
> family ripped apart by a white man ? We shall see
>
> Al walker
I think "Trina" has finally split "her" pantyhose here.
Hey Adolf-Trina Walker-Chilengarian: you just raped Poland and conquered
France; what are you gonna do now?
Adolf: I'm going to Disneyland!
-r
dan
In article <5t09g9$1...@camel3.mindspring.com>, nos...@stone.likethee says...
>
>
>Your right clio, Every evening when I shower I take fifteen twenty
>minutes
>to cool down after the shower. Otherwise if I get dressed right away
>I
>perspire in the clean clothes.
Well of course you cool down. You weight, what? 300 pounds? You fat old
guys stink and I don't think your showers are long enough, fatty.
This has happened as long as I can
>recall.
>Maybe its because I take as hot a shower as I can stand. Anyone
>else
>need to cool down after showers ??
Uh, no. I take a shower and usually I'm clean and refreshed. Of course, I'm
not rolling around in my own shit like you do, so I can understand why you
need to cool off. Hitler did the same thing, I believe, right fatboy?
EGK
Al "Hyeguy" Walker wrote
(Absolutely nothing as usual)
I have one word for you "Al"
YAWWWWNNNNNNNN
Clio
In article <5t5ke1$e...@camel12.mindspring.com>, nos...@stone.like says...
> Clio,
> You did it again ! I would suppose you wont be debated by kris any
> more.
I have to admit that I am pretty proud of that one. I am always hesitant
to read Kris, Sperzel's, and Confused's post because they are usually
good with their facts, and are hard to argue with.
<snip>
> Its a shame griffin is too smart to get into
> factual discussions with
> some people.
I have thought that myself.
>
> Your a one woman hit squad , and I enjoy your comments and satire.
> Dont stop.
Thank you.
Clio
Mary Hepburn
Somebody wrote:
>
> > Its a shame griffin is too smart to get into
> > factual discussions with
> > some people.
Clio wrote:
> I have thought that myself.
>
Somebody wrote:
> > Your a one woman hit squad , and I enjoy your comments and satire.
> > Dont stop.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Clio
I'll say this for you, Clio: You got the guts of Al Walker's
proctologist if you think you can beat Griffin in a
sardonic-tournament-- left alone, and in a discussion of the "facts".
<g>
alwalker
Mary Hepburn wrote in article <33F89E...@midland.com>...
Give mary the booby prize, she has the distiction
of falling for hillbillys bullshit and not recognising it.
I gave you more credit than that Mary, frustrated,
yes, unable to see thru phonies, I thought you could!
Sorry you flunk the test .
But you might learn how to make griffins neat FAQ list.
I think its about kindergarden level!
al walker
dan
In article <5tb0bi$7...@camel4.mindspring.com>, nos...@stone.likethee says...
>
>
>Give mary the booby prize, she has the distiction
> of falling for hillbillys bullshit and not recognising it.
>I gave you more credit than that Mary, frustrated,
>yes, unable to see thru phonies, I thought you could!
>Sorry you flunk the test .
>But you might learn how to make griffins neat FAQ list.
>I think its about kindergarden level!
>al walker
Yeah, his list could never be anywhere near as clever as something like the
"bugger boys club," right fatso? You never cease to amaze me with your
stupidity. I love the phrase "hillbillys(sp) bullshit." Shouldn't you be
following it up with one of your scriptures? (or are you dropping that
charade you fucking hypocrite)
Kris Van Allen
>>In article <5t2adv$nmn$1...@spock.dis.cccd.edu>, kvan...@mail.cccd.edu
> says...
>>
>>> Kris - I believe Park was ASKED if it COULD have been a robe, and
>the cross
>>> showed he did not see ANY characteristics of a robe or a coat at
>all - what he
>>> saw was consistent with pants and sweatshirt.
>>
>>At the preliminary hearing he said:
>>
>>Q PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, HAS ANYONE POINTED OUT THAT
>THERE
>>MAY BE A DISCREPANCY IN THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU GAVE AT THE GRAND
>JURY AND
>>THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GIVE TODAY?
>>
>>A NO.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Q DID YOU EVER DESCRIBE MR. SIMPSON AS COMING OUT OF THE HOUSE
>>WEARING A BLACK OVERCOAT?
>>
>>MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME.
>>
>>THE COURT: OVERRULED.
>>
>>THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.
>>
>>THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>>
>>THE WITNESS: I REMEMBER HIM WEARING SOME KIND OF A COAT.
Kris - the question was OJ coming OUT of the house, not going inside when Park
first saw him.
>>
>>>kris
>>> I did not say I thought he put on dirty clothes after a shower,
>but if you
>>> believe OJ's story, that's what he did, therefore I do not believe
>OJ's story.
>>
Poster???
Kris - so where is it he said he put on a robe or overcoat???
>><snip>
>>
>>Clio
>>
>
>Clio,
>You did it again ! I would suppose you wont be debated by kris any
>more.
>He didnt even get to put ketchup on his words, before you had him eat
>them.
>You need to keep some sort of score clio. They all fall by the
>wayside after
>you post the actual transcipts.
Kris - then post the transcripts of OJ going INTO the house and the part where
Park said he saw no flaps of a robe or coat when OJ went INTO the house.
>al
>Its a shame griffin is too smart to get into
> factual discussions with
>some people. He chuckles and snorts, he gets abusive, he cusses
>like a drunken sailor, but he wont debate with some people.
>
>Your a one woman hit squad , and I enjoy your comments and satire.
>Dont stop.
>Al
>
>
Kris - When asked to clarify, Park in the criminal trial said he saw NO flap
or anything to indicate a "coat" or robe when he saw the man going into the
house.
And a coat in Southern California in the summer is not the same as a coat in
other climates. When I grab my "coat", it is usually a jacket or a sweater.
Again, your quote question was about OJ coming OUT of the house. Park first
saw OJ going INTO the house.
....................................................
.......
alwalker
Kris Van Allen wrote in article <5ti08s$qk$1...@spock.dis.cccd.edu>
...
>In article <5t5ke1$e...@camel12.mindspring.com>, nos...@stone.lik
ethee says...
>>
>> Clio wrote in article ...
Comon kris, it was the one time OJ was seen by park on the drive
for the
first time that night. Dont try that silly stuff after you have
been shown
the actual testimony!! He was NOT wearing any sweat suit, and
park never
said he was . And if he tried to change his testimony during the
civil trial,
he was caught !
Al says,
The semantics and little word games dont change the facts kris.
It was
your allegation that started this discussion,
about sweat suits vs robe or coat.
So where do we go from here ? There is nothing that is ACTUAL
FACT
to implicate OJ. Lots of people (like you) have listened to the
sound
bites on the evening news, and have thought he was seen wearing
a dark sweat suit! I dont blame you, I blame the media for their
complete fabrication and rumor promotion. Then when something
valid and indicative of OJs being innocent is heard in court,
there is
not one word of it in the media!
I want to tell you, any of your discussions with clio will be
backed up
by the actual testimony, if there is any question of its being
so.
Lets try and just go by the factual and testified to material ,
OK ?
Perhaps one of us can see what it is the other side is trying
to
say ?
Al Walker
Bet...@webtv.net
In article <5tie8u$g...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
"alwalker" <nos...@stone.like thee>
wrote:
//////////////////////////////////////
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE INCONSTANCIES IN TESTIMONY DURING THE TRIAL.
Logically one would expect that ones account of what happened that night
would be more accurate right after it happened. After the prosecution got
finished trying to create the scenario that fit the story they wanted to
tell the jury, the hyperbole came to the forefront.
BLP
//////////////////////////////////////
> >>>THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
> >>>
> >>>THE WITNESS: I REMEMBER HIM WEARING SOME KIND OF A COAT.
> >
> >
> >
> >Kris - the question was OJ coming OUT of the house, not going
> inside when Park
> >first saw him.
> al walker says,
> Comon kris, it was the one time OJ was seen by park on the drive
> for the
> first time that night. Dont try that silly stuff after you have
> been shown
> the actual testimony!! He was NOT wearing any sweat suit, and
> park never
> said he was . And if he tried to change his testimony during the
> civil trial,
> he was caught !
//////////////////////////////////////
The civil trial was a joke, I have often wondered what the mindset was of
Robert Baker and Co., they didn't fight too hard for O.J., maybe it was
because he was virtually broke. On the other hand, by that time with
Fujasaki at the gavel. there was no way that o.j. was going to win even
if someone else confessed.
BLP
//////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////////
Clio ,
how do you do that? Maybe there is a way us Web Tv'ers can learn that
also. Posting tha actual testimony really exposes the NO'S as phonies. It
is terrific. BLP //////////////////////////////////////
> >Kris - then post the transcripts of OJ going INTO the house and
> the part where
> >Park said he saw no flaps of a robe or coat when OJ went INTO
> the house.
> >
> >>al
> >>Its a shame griffin is too smart to get into
> >> factual discussions with
> >>some people. He chuckles and snorts, he gets abusive, he
> cusses
> >>like a drunken sailor, but he wont debate with some people.
//////////////////////////////////////
Al,
how else do you think fake people hide their ignorance . Resorting to
name calling and cursing switches the focus and they can get away with
being less than smart.
BLP///////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////////
Please place the blame where it belongs, Kris is a grownup now and has to
be held responsible for seeking out the truth. It is in all of our best
interest to know what the truth really is,
BLP
//////////////////////////////////////
> complete fabrication and rumor promotion. Then when something
> valid and indicative of OJs being innocent is heard in court,
> there is
> not one word of it in the media!
>
> I want to tell you, any of your discussions with clio will be
> backed up
> by the actual testimony, if there is any question of its being
> so.
>
> Lets try and just go by the factual and testified to material ,
> OK ?
> Perhaps one of us can see what it is the other side is trying
> to
> say ?
>
> Al Walker
GOOD STUFF AL WALKER!!!!!!!!!!!