JOHN DE BELLO
dick wagner
http://wagnerandson.com . In that place it is illustrated with several
pictures of De Bello from his TV appearance at the grand jury. I
thought that he looked considerably different than I had imagined from
reading his words in the transcript.]
BACKGROUND: John DeBello was the manager of the Mezzaluna restaurant
at the time of the Bundy murders, and he testified before the grand jury
and in the preliminary hearing, but not in later proceedings.
Two Mezzaluna employee witnesses, Tia Gavin and Karen Crawford,
testified that DeBello was one of two managers present on the night of
June 12th, the other was Richard Arbolino, a person who was never heard
from in the official proceedings. The Mezzaluna was a relatively small
restaurant (3 waiters on that Sunday night) and so it is somewhat
strange that it would have two managers. This is most easily explained
by the idea that either 1) one of them was there for a special purpose
(as to invigorate a failing business), or 2) there was an anticipated
change of management and the crime occurred at a moment when there was
an overlap, while the old manager indoctrinated the new guy. I favor
the second of these possibilities. [DEBELL04.JPG]
DeBello testified that he had been the manager for a year (since June
1993) and said (prelim.), "I'm a general manager of the restaurant. I
do all the hiring, firing, and make sure that the food comes out good,
all the time, consistent. And I'm there from morning to night,
usually." He had hired Goldman the previous February, and had signed
Goldman's timecard at the end of his shift on Sunday night. On the
morning after the murder he heard about the crime from the media, and
went to the scene; it was he who first identified Goldman's body and
gave police the connection to the Mezzaluna. And, it was he who
represented the management of the restaurant in court in the first two
weeks after the murder. But after that, DeBello was never publicly
heard from again. The telephone book for the fall of 1993 lists
Arbolino, but not DeBello.
From the foregoing it appears to me that DeBello was the earlier
manager of the Mezzaluna, was the de facto manager at the time of the
murders, had expected to leave at about that time, and was grooming
Arbolino as his successor.
GENERAL RELIABILITY AS A WITNESS: DeBello was an imperfect witness.
In a couple of instances, he made mistakes that were of a non-suspicious
nature, which might make some people think that his other testimony is
of questionable reliability.
Specifically, in the grand jury he identified the other waiters working
on June 12th as "Tia Smith and Heather Nygren." The first of these was
actually Tia Gavin. In the preliminary hearing, DeBello at first says
that Stewart Tanner was not working on the 12th, but later corrects
himself when he realizes that the 12th was a Sunday, and the
restaurant's Sunday schedule had Tanner as the bartender and Crawford
(the usual bartender) working the reception station.
Both of these errors are surprising, insofar as DeBello characterizes
himself elsewhere as an unusually attentive manager, and uses the fact
to explain why he noticed Karen Crawford go outside where she discovered
Juditha's glasses.
CONTRADICTIONS: There are several instances in which DeBello's
testimony appears to obscure material facts in the case, and these seem
to me to me more suspicious than the simple errors cited above.
[DEBELL14.JPG]
In one case (Shapiro's cross-examination in the prelim) DeBello claimed
that he saw Karen Crawford pick up the glasses at 9:10 or 9:15. And
yet, Crawford consistently says that she found the glasses as a result
of Juditha's phone inquiry, and that call was documented by phone
records as occurring at 9:37. DeBello says that he saw Crawford pick up
the glasses "on the sidewalk" by the valet station, whereas Crawford is
very specific that she picked them up "in the street" beyond the (24"
wide) gutter. DeBello described the glasses that Crawford picked up as
being wire frame with clear lenses (not sunglasses), even though he was
inside the restaurant when she recovered them and it was night.
(DeBello says he did not see the glasses after Crawford brought them
inside the restaurant.) Insofar as DeBello did accurately describe
these details, he apparently did get a close look at the glasses, but
possibly closer and under better circumstances of visibility than he
claimed.
Then, in DeBello's grand jury testimony, he says that he talked to
Goldman briefly "at the bar" after Goldman got off work, and before
Goldman chatted with co-workers. (In fact, he says, "I was speaking to
him behind the bar that evening. That is the last time I spoke to
him.") But Crawford said that when Nicole called (at 10:45 -- just 5
minutes before Goldman left the restaurant), Crawford drew Goldman away
from a conversation with DeBello and Arbolino who were having dinner at
the table by the front door. Again, a contradiction between DeBello and
Crawford. In the criminal trial (2/7/95), Tia Gavin says, Goldman "was
sitting with John DeBello and Richard Arbolino, the managers at the
time." A contradiction between DeBello and Tia Gavin. (Also notice "at
the time," which implies that DeBello and Arbolino were not both still
the managers when this was said, eight months after the crime.)
SUSPICIOUS INTERJECTIONS: We see on p. 59 of Lange and Vannatter that
DeBello tells the police, "In conversation, victim Goldman states to the
witness that he had been seeing victim Brown socially..." But, in the
criminal trial Karen Crawford says of the relationship between Nicole
and Goldman, "My understanding of it was that it was very causal, at
most. [They just knew each other.]" This is another contradiction
between Crawford and DeBello. (The idea that Nicole and Goldman were
little more than acquaintances was confirmed by several media interviews
with Nicole's girlfriends in the weeks after the murders.)
DeBello further insinuates that Goldman had a dangerous relationship
with Nicole when he also says for his police report, "Prior to Goldman's
departure [from the Mezzaluna Sunday night], the witness [DeBello]
admonished Goldman to use caution in his relationship with Nicole
Brown. The witness feels that although Goldman listened to this advice,
he seemed 'non-affected' by it."
There was also a misunderstanding in the police report when the
detectives gathered all Mezzaluna employees together for a group
interview, and out of that there came the concept that Stewart Tanner
had said that Goldman told him that he "volunteered" to take the glasses
to Nicole. But, when asked about this explicitly in the preliminary
hearing, Tanner said that he had never said such a thing. Asked to
explain how it was so written in the report, Tanner said that many
people were talking at the same time while the detectives were making
their notes. Someone, but not Tanner, injected the "volunteered"
concept, and that could have been DeBello. [DEBELL32.JPG]
AN IMPROPER MEETING: Between the time of the grand jury and the
preliminary hearing there was a meeting of Simpson case witnesses at a
restaurant/bar on San Vicente called "Mama's" (now long defunct.) My
informant attended, is not sure at whose invitation she went, but says
that at the meeting were Kato Kaelin, Jill Shively, John DeBello, Karen
Crawford, and one or two other witnesses. It was somewhat like a
support group, and the witnesses freely talked about themselves and
their Simpson case experiences with the others.
I do not believe that such a meeting was exactly illegal, but it was
highly irregular and/or improper. My informant got an attorney days
later and when he heard about the meeting he forbade her to go to
another -- although another such meeting was scheduled. My own
interpretation of this is that someone -- DeBello, I think -- was trying
to steer the witness's "recollections" to create a rendition favorable
to his purpose.
A PATTERN: From all of this, I see a pattern in which DeBello
untruthfully appears to obscure his association with Goldman on Sunday
night, is the source of confusing information about the glasses,
attempted to create the false impression that Goldman had an intimate
(and dangerous) relationship with Nicole, and may have injected the
concept that Goldman "volunteered" to take the glasses. I also note
that DeBello was in a position -- according to Gavin and Crawford -- to
keep Goldman in the restaurant as long after his shift as he wanted, for
social reasons. (You do not walk out on a social conversation with your
boss without cause, and according to Goldman's plans, he did not have an
immediate cause.) DeBello is the person who hired Goldman in February
(just after the Wasz incident) and was in a position to determine that
Goldman would work that Sunday night, and to have an assignment which
would cause him to get off work at 9:30. In short, DeBello had a leash
on Goldman, and could influence him to take the actions he actually did
take that night.
DeBello was also in a position to coordinate the action with other
participants at other locations, since he knew as soon as it happened
that Juditha's call inquiring about the glasses came in, and knew
immediately when it had been arranged that Nicole and Goldman had agreed
to the delivery of the glasses that night. Cell phone technology of
that time would allow DeBello to immediately and inconspicuously relay
such critical information to conspirators positioned at the condo.
DE BELLO'S ROLE: It is my opinion that DeBello was the only person in
the court proceedings that was, in fact, a part of the conspiracy to
kill Nicole and frame Simpson. It is a basic principle in interpreting
testimony that there are two sources that one does not take at face
value: 1) the defendant, and 2) the killer. (These are often, of
course, the same person.) So, if DeBello was part of the plot, his
testimony is contrived to disguise the truth, not elucidate it.
[DEBELL52.JPG]
A possible specific way in which DeBello interacted with Goldman in the
critical few minutes before 10:00 is described in the speculative
article, "Critical Phase" at our site, http://www.wagnerandson.com .
That article also explains why the garage door opener was stolen; shows
why Nicole changed her plan for picking up the glasses from the time she
talked to her mother to the time she called Goldman five minutes later;
why Goldman himself was so anxious to deliver the glasses that night;
why the bath was drawn and the bed opened while there were preparations
for entertaining in the living room; why "mommy cried"; why the knife
was on the kitchen counter; and most interestingly, why the ice cream
cup was on the banister, away from all other indications. All in one
tidy package that works if DeBello is in on the plan.
DeBello's complicity also would explain the mystery of Juditha's
glasses. (In view of the circumstances of the glasses, Juditha appears
to be mistaken in believing that she lost them upon alighting from the
car before dinner. The fact that they "had mud on them" was also
inconsistent with the place where they were found.) DeBello says that
it was his practice (common in upscale restaurants) to schmooze up the
guests. ("On occasion I would say, 'Hello. How's everything? How's
your dinner this evening? Is everybody enjoying themselves?'.") And,
in fact, he knew whom the four children in Nicole's party were related
to, indicating that he had performed this courtesy for Nicole's dinner
party. This is typically done first and most thoroughly during the
ordering phase of the meal, and so Juditha's reading glasses are
expected to have been on the table where DeBello could have purloined
them. (If not, how could Juditha have ordered from the menu?)
De Bello had the opportunity to take the glasses and later put them in
the street where they would be discovered, but do that late enough in
the evening that they would not be run over in the street. If he was
complicit in the conspiracy to murder Nicole he also had the motive to
create a cause for Nicole to leave the safety of her condo after 10:00
o'clock at night -- to get the glasses from Goldman.
Considering that so many mysterious details are cleared up by the
hypothesis that DeBello was "in on the deal," I am inclined to think
that he was.
SPECIFICALLY: If De Bello was part of the conspiracy, I think he did
the following specific things to facilitate the plot... [DEBELL57]
* Was a point of coordination with Margot, the limo company, and
out-of-town visitors.
* Hired Goldman expressly as a goat to be groomed for a role and
eventually sacrificed.
* Purloined Juditha's glasses from the dining table at the beginning of
the evening, put them in a planter box outside where they would be safe
(but where they became muddy) until after 9:00 o'clock, when they were
planted in the street in front of the restaurant for Crawford to find a
few minutes later.
* Encouraged Goldman's dreams of opening his own club or restaurant,
and fostered the idea that doing favors for a rich woman like Nicole
would help.
* Scheduled Goldman to work an early shift on the murder night, and
then detained him (socially) after work and until the call came from
Nicole asking him to bring the glasses that night.
* Made brief cell phone calls to conspirators in place at Nicole's
condo advising when 1) Juditha had been told that her glasses were
found, and 2) when Goldman left the restaurant with the glasses.
* Broadcast much misinformation after the fact to obscure the true
details of the crime and to create an early suspicion that Goldman might
have been a cause of jealousy for Nicole's ex-husband.
Dick Wagner ( Van Nuys, CA (9/29/02) DEBELLO2.txt
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
More fantasy speculation from you, Dick. You create meaningless
questions that you do not know answers to, and then make up answers to
create your fantasy conclusions.
I like it when you say the fact that Juditha's eyeglasses had mud on
them is inconsistent with where they were found. Wrong. Juditha told how
there was a puddle next to the curb when she got out of the car and
dropped her glasses. Water and dirt make mud.
Your bull crap fantasy about the eyeglasses only tells us the ridiculous
extremes you will go to when you do not know the facts and start making
up your own facts and conversations that never took place. Funny Dick.
bobaugust
dick wagner
I see that you here depart slightly from your usual mindless name
calling and groundless scorn to object to a specific idea -- my analysis
of the cause of Juditha losing her glasses.
I had pointed out that the glasses were found with mud on them, and say
that is inconsistent with the circumstances of the situation. To that
you say...
________________________________________
I like it when you say the fact that Juditha's eyeglasses had mud on
them is inconsistent with where they were found. Wrong. Juditha told how
there was a puddle next to the curb when she got out of the car and
dropped her glasses. Water and dirt make mud.
________________________________________
Your last statement, "Water and dirt make mud" about exhausts your
understanding of the silltuation. It is true that Juditha said that she
dropped the glasses when she alighted by a puddle in front of the
restaurant. As I have pointed out many times, however, Juditha could
not actually remember that she dropped her glasses when she arrived, or
she would have recovered them then, and they would not be lost.
Therefore, she is reconstructing the idea that she dropped the glasses
in the street from the fact that they were found there. Since she does
not remember dropping the glasses, she likewise does not know if there
was a puddle where she imagines she dropped them and is also
reconstructing the "puddle" from the fact that there was mud on the
glasses when they were found.
Contrasting these erroneous presumptions by Juditha, I did actually go
inspect the pavement in front of the Mezzaluna just after a light rain,
and there was NO depression in front of the front door of the restaurant
where a puddle could accumulate, and there was no puddle on that wet
pavement at that time. As ususal, your blind and uncritical reading of
the transcript (and in this case other written sources) leads you to a
completely unrealistic understanding that is correctly understood by
anybody who will go and look for themselves. No depression in the
street, Bob, no puddle, no mud.
This error about the mud ranks right up there in the previous
discussion of this topic with the fuss that you and Griffin made to
claim there was no valet station there, but DeBello talks about such,
and advertisements we found for the Mezzaluna at that time of the crimes
promote the fact that it offers valet parking. You guys simply do not
know what you are talking about, but carelessly throw around words like
"bull crap" and "fantasy" to hide the fact. Few are confused by your
childish trick.
--dick wagner
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
You must have a very bad memory, Dick. These are all old arguments that
have been explained to you before. Here goes again.
You claim that Juditha Brown's memory is based on where her eyeglasses
were found. You have it backwards and you can not support your false
speculation. Juditha Brown testified that she told Karen Crawford to
look outside, and about the puddle.
December 6, 1996
Q. Now, after you got home, you -- I'm sorry -- do you recall who you
spoke to at Mezzaluna?
A. It was a woman. No, I don't remember her name.
Q. Do you recall the substance of the conversation?
A. Yes. I said can you -- I know I left my glasses somewhere; could you
please check outside. Because I had Justin on my lap, and as I got out
of the car, I said, maybe they had fallen out, and there was a puddle in
front where we got out. So I said, could you just check there and see
if you find my glasses. And she returned and she says, "Yes, I have
them." I said, "What luck."
Yes, Dick, you did visit the Mezzaluna Restaurant, but not on June 12,
1994. It means nothing that you didn't see a puddle at the curb when you
went there.. But what you did well, was what you always do well, you
provided a photograph of the curb and the gutter. That picture
completely supports Juditha Brown's testimony.
Now comes the fun. Your dumbest argument. Of course the Mezzaluna
Restaurant offered valet parking, Dick, just not on Sundays.
bobaugust
Omar A.
Juditha did recall more in the civil trial. By then, she had discussed
the situation a number of times and picked up some additional details
not provided earlier. Not much of an issue here.
Dick's analysis of Debello's testimony was more interesting. Debello's
recollection and facts contradict the INITIAL details Crawford
provided.
What's also interesting is not only Debello (and his presumed assumed
name), but also other things Debello did or said. For one thing, he
called Ron's mom (left a message)to ask her if she knew where Ron was.
Ron's mom hadn't been informed of the murder yet. She became angry on
returning the call.
Tanner also pagered Ron in the morning after he was killed. This
happened about the time Debello was at the scene. I wonder if the
repeated pager calls cleared the memory of earlier pages ROn had
rec'd.
The meetings of the witnesses says more about Debello than anything
else. Especially since some details were refined in subsequent
testimony of nearly all those in attendance.
Another character was Zlomsowitch. Still another manager. You know
what they say about tooooooo many cooks? Well,how about
toooooooooooooooo many managers!
Something was not kosher abaout all that.
Omar A.
************************
Bob August <boba...@lvcm.com> wrote in message news:<3D97B947...@lvcm.com>...
Bob August
Omar A. wrote:
Omar A. Nothing Debello ever said credibly contradicted what Juditha
Brown said. Yes the testimony I posted is from the civil trial. Nothing
Juditha Brown ever said before or after the criminal trial was
contradicted or incorrect. In the criminal trial the time and substance
of her call to the Mezzaluna Restaurant was stipulated to by the defense
as correct and accurate. No has ever questioned or contradicted what she
said. Only Wagner, trying to justify his false fabrications and fantasy
stories.
Wagner's changing of the facts is nothing new, he does that all of the
time. Wagner changes what witnesses actually said to what he thinks they
should have said, or what he wants them to have said to try and support
his fabrications. After making up his own versions he than calls his
fabrications the truth of what happened. Wagner's truth that only Wagner
believes.
Do not be deceived by Wagner's shyster tactics, he is wrong. Your
comment that because it was the civil trial seems to mean that you think
Juditha's testimony is not correct is as bad as Wagner's false claims,
if that is what you are saying. The civil trial was a continuation of
the Simpson case. New evidence was presented. New test results were
presented. New witnesses testified.
The witnesses who testified in the civil trial, who previously testified
in the criminal trial, the preliminary hearing, or the grand jury, never
changed anything they said. Not Juditha Brown, not anyone. The biggest
difference between the criminal trial and the civil trial is that
Simpson testified. Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer in the
civil trial. To a certainty. Juditha Brown told the truth.
bobaugust
dick wagner
You tell Omar, "Do not be deceived by Wagner's shyster tactics, he is
wrong." What a hoot you are, Bob! Unable to refute my claims with
actual facts, you now resort to admonishing the reader not to believe me
and simply denouncing me without any proof that what I say is wrong.
Well, when you have been so constantly embarassed by the actual
evidence, I am not surprised you resort to such a tactic.
Let us look at the present instance. You say (in vague generality)
"Nothing Juditha Brown ever said before or after the criminal trial was
contradicted or incorrect."
As I have repeatedly pointed out, one of the things Juditha Brown said
is that she lost the glasses when she alighted from the car upon
arriving at the restaurant. But, if she knew at that time that she lost
the glasses, she would have picked them up and they would not be lost
(unless she was a complete ninny). So, her statement about losing the
glasses when she arrived is not a matter of her observation, but of her
reconstruction based on the fact that Crawford says that she found the
glasses in the street. Juditha Brown is no more of an authority to
speculate on how the glasses got in the street than you are, Omar is, or
I am.
Now, if Juditha's conjecture that she lost the glasses upon arriving is
correct, then the glasses lay in the busy street of San Vicent over the
dinner hour in front of the front door of a popular restaurant, for
three hours without being discovered by a passerby or by the parking
valet, and without being run over by a car, even though that parking
place is posted after 6PM as "Passenger Loading," meaning that cars come
and go in that place, but do not park there. Furthermore, the glasses
were recovered with mud on them and there is no way that mud could be in
that place of the street -- particluarly on a day when it had not
rained. For these reasons, it appears impossible that the Juditha lost
her glasses when she arrived.
This, then, is an instance when something "Juditha Brown said was
incorrect" in contradiction to your assertion to the contrary. Do you
see how it works, Bob? One determines the facts of the situation by
relying on the reality of that place and time, not by handwaving to make
the answer "come out right," which is your constant way.
--dick wagner
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
I like that. You are the one who doesn't have a hoot. You have no common
sense so you invent dumb scenarios, Dick. Juditha Brown did not realize
she dropped her glasses when she got out of the car. It wasn't until she
was leaving the restaurant that she could not find them. On the drive
back home she tried to think of what happened to them.
December 6, 1996
Q. Now, did you get in the car, then, and head down towards your house?
A. Yes. I -- we looked for my glasses, still, I know, because I
didn't have the glasses in the restaurant. So we looked in the jeep and
we didn't see them. And it was 8:30 by that time and the children had
to go to bed, so we said, well, let's go; I'll call.
Q. And did you get in the car and head down to Orange County?
A. We drove home. And on the way home, a terrible depression came
over me, something I have never experienced. My whole body got really
heavy. And I haven't had it before and I haven't had it afterwards. It
was -- it was a whole feeling. And as we arrived at home, I shook
myself, and I thought, "God, I have to buy a pair of new glasses
again." And I went on the phone and I called Mezzaluna.
Juditha Brown told Karen Crawford that she thought she might have
dropped her eyeglasses when she got out of the car. She remembered a
puddle at the curb.
Karen Crawford
July 4, 1994
Q based on what she said, what did you do?
A I looked around the restaurant, and I also looked outside, for a pair
of glasses.
Q Did you find it?
A Yes, I did.
Q Where did you find it?
A I found them outside, where I had seen them getting out of the
vehicle. They were in the gutter, a few inches away from the curb.
*
February 7, 1995
Q. WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU FOUND THEM?
A. THEY WERE MUDDY. I WIPED THE MUD OFF OF THEM. I TOLD HER THAT I HAD
FOUND THE GLASSES AND I ASKED HER IF SHE WOULD BE PICKING THEM UP THAT
NIGHT.
The eyeglasses lay in the street under the car, not under the wheels of
the car. On the street where any other car that had pulled up to the
curb or parked where the Browns were parked would not have run over the
eyeglasses with their tires. Got it yet, Dick?
The passenger loading zone sign you saw years after the murders is
irrelevant as to what happened on June 12. 1994. There are all kinds of
ways that water can accumulate at the curb besides from rain. Funny. As
the tires of a car, the Browns and others, went through the water when
the car left or came, parked, or whatever, water could very well have
splashed onto the eyeglasses sitting in the street very near to the
puddle. You are so dumb, Dick. Give it up already. Your dumb
fabrications are stupid.
That's right, one determines what happens from the real facts of the
situation, not like you do by making up facts, conversations, and
witnesses. Funny.
bobaugust
dick wagner
In discussing the problems with the popular story of Juditha's glasses,
you comment on my understanding by saying, "You must have a very bad
memory, Dick. These are all old arguments that have been explained to
you before. Here goes again."
I am afraid that it is YOU who have the bad memory, Bob. I have
explained the flaws in your foolish explanations often before. Here
goes again.
You quote Juditha's deposition (interestingly, not testimony) in which
she alledges that she told Crawford that she had dropped her glasses in
the street when she arrived. What you do not show us is Crawford's
testimony in which she says that as a result of Juditha's call, she
looked first at the table where the party had dined, asked the bus boys
if they had seen the glasses, and finally recalled that she had seen the
party arrive in front of the restaurant, and so checked the street there
-- whereupon she found the glasses. Now, if it was true, that Juditha
told her at the outset that the glasses were in the street, why would
Crawford look in those other places first, and then say that she was
motivated to look in the street by her recollection that the party
arrived there (rather than because Juditha suggested it)?
We see this strange contradiction after we have previously observed
Juditha's penchant for giving testimony about things that are beyond her
knowledge, or which she remembers incorrectly... The idea that she knew
where she lost the glasses, the idea that she knew that there was a
puddle, when she could not even have known she lost the glasses in the
street, the idea that she talked to Nicole at 11:00 o'clock, when the
phone bill showed it was 10:42... Juditha -- sweet woman that she is --
is nonetheless an unreliable witness, and evidenced by the fact that no
attorney, in any trial, was willing to put her on the witness stand.
So, when there is this contradiction between Crawford and Juditha, you
are the only one in the world that believes Juditha, and you only do
that because it is necessary to support your mistaken notion of the
crimes. Your house of cards collapsed long ago, Bob.
I describe (from first hand observations) the conditions in front of
the restaurant and the fact that there was no depression in the street
in which a puddle could accumulate. Your mumbo jumbo hand waving does
not make it different.
At the end you assert that there was no valet parking on Sunday. What
IN THE WORLD give you that idea, Bob, except your own desparate need
that it be true? I have dined on San Vicente (with Marla) on Sunday
night, and it is usual (if not universal) for restaurants there to have
valet parking. The parking restriction sign at the curb in front of the
Mezzaluna does not except Sunday for the "Loading Zone" designation, and
when De Bello described that Karen Crawford had picked up the glasses
"near the valet station" he was talking about that Sunday night. He did
not say she picked them up "near where the valet station would have been
on another night."
(You may not know, Bob, but a valet station on San Vicente Blvd. is not
a permanent fixture. It only exists when the valet is on duty. It
consists of a sign to lean against the parking meter and a folding stool
for the valet to sit on when he is not parking or fetching cars. When
he is not on duty, those things are stashed in a closet in the
restaurant, and there is not a thing that would be called a "valet
station." So, when De Bello relates Crawford's search to the valet
station, it requires that the valet was on duty.)
Your thinking on this subject is so shallow I can not believe many
people take you seriously. You must make other no-Js cringe to be
associated with your kind of thinking.
--dick wagner
John Griffin
"dick wagner" <wag...@westworld.com> wrote
No, it doesn't. It seems unlikely, to you. The evidence says it happened.
How many cars actually drove into the parking place rather than stopping
in the street to discharge passengers during those three hours?
Juditha's statement is typical of that kind of situation. For instance, I
know
someone who lost her car keys one day, and spent an hour searching all
over my house for them. She moved furniture, asked her three-year-old
if he had been playing with her key ring, looked inside two refrigerators,
dumped about two cubic feet of stuff out of a 1/3 cubic foot purse and
searched through it, looked under the cushions on every couch in the
house and some other stuff I can't remember. All the while, I was calling
"here, keys, here keys" to see if they'd come running, and she wasn't
too amused. As a result of all that, she was late for an appointment
after she finally found the keys. Her explanation was "I locked my keys
in my car." Seems reasonable to me. There was no reason to go into
detail. Same with Juditha's glasses. She just accepted the only logical
explanation, as any agendaless person would.
> This, then, is an instance when something "Juditha Brown said was
> incorrect" in contradiction to your assertion to the contrary. Do you
> see how it works, Bob? One determines the facts of the situation by
> relying on the reality of that place and time, not by handwaving to make
> the answer "come out right," which is your constant way.
You started with the assumption that it would be impossible for the
glasses not to be crushed during a three hour period. This is equivalent
to asserting that either a car tire or a shoe would necessarily be in
contact
with every square inch of the area. (Okay, I know you started with the
need to assert that one of the evil conspirators snagged the glasses
from the table, but that's too silly to bring up here.)
As for the mud, it sounds like someone might have watered some plants,
hosed down the sidewalk, spilled a drink, dumped some ice, or relieved
himself there earlier in the day. Maybe some obnoxious little brat saw
the glasses and spat on them. I don't know if there's a grassy parking
strip in that spot, but if so, it probably has a little drain into the
gutter.
Since it hadn't rained for a while, there could be lots of gunk in the
gutter.
Water+gunk=mud. This is orders of magnitude more likely than the
sneaky busboy theory.
Does it seem to anyone else that there's a faint smell of hay in this
newsgroup lately? It's probably just my imagination.
Mike
wrote:
Hi Dick
It is hard not to laugh out loud whenever you read some of the Browns
testimony.
I especially like the deep dark gloom that descended upon her after
she left because she could not find her glasses.
Why ?
And then when the glasses are found she does not tell anyone how her
suffering has ended !
Mike
dick wagner
As before, you have written an interesting and provocative post. In
this case you have provoked me to go back and read p. 5 of "His Name is
Ron" for the description of De Bello's call to Patti Goldman...
Patti had been out all day and when she got home there was a message on
her answering machine from the manager of the Mezzaluna, John De Bello.
She returned the call at just after 5PM. The conversation ran like
this:
PG: "This is Patti Goldman. You called?"
JD: "Do you know where Ron is?"
PG: "Why are you asking ME where Ron is?"
JD: "Because he was supposed to call in for his schedule and he didn't
call in."
...
PG: "I have no idea where Ron is, and how dare you call our house and
leave such a pressing, urgent message. I thought something had, God
forbid, happened to Ron. Don't ever do that to us again!"
JD: "I'm really sorry. I just thought maybe you knew where he was."
Recall that late in the morning, DeBello visited the crime scene
specifically because he thought the then unidentified victim might be
Goldman, and he was at that time interviewed by Lange (see L&V, p. 59);
presumably, he did identify Goldman's body for Lange. Thereby, he knew
full well where Goldman was by the time Patti called him at 5 PM, and
yet he is cagey with her, asking her where he is. It is my
interpretation that he was trying to determine what she knew at that
time, and specifically whether she had been informed of Ron's death.
Otherwise, he could have just said that the earlier call was a mistake,
and appologize for having made it.
As to Zlomsowitch, he was not exactly a manager of that restaurant; he
was in the management of the chain of which that restaurant was an
element. My informant also met him, and it was her impression that he
was a nice guy, and not at all suspicious or sinister. However, she is
a trusing soul, and does not think that many people are sinister. I,
myself, notice how quick Zlomsowitch was with anecdotes that made
Simpson look bad, and I wonder if he was really a disinterested witness.
--dick wagner
Thomas P. Jabine
Yeah, and then the next thing she knows, someone's calling her up
to tell her that her daughter's been slashed to death. Pretty funny,
Mike.
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
You are full of crap Dick, just like you are most of the time. You never
explained any flaws in what I said, I explained the flaws in what you
have said and still say. Yes, I did post Karen Crawford's testimony
about what she did after she talked to Juditha Brown. I repeat,
Karen Crawford
July 4, 1994
Q based on what she said, what did you do?
A I looked around the restaurant, and I also looked outside, for a pair
of glasses.
Q Did you find it?
A Yes, I did.
Q Where did you find it?
A I found them outside, where I had seen them getting out of the
vehicle. They were in the gutter, a few inches away from the curb.
*
February 7, 1995
Q. WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU FOUND THEM?
A. THEY WERE MUDDY. I WIPED THE MUD OFF OF THEM. I TOLD HER THAT I HAD
FOUND THE GLASSES AND I ASKED HER IF SHE WOULD BE PICKING THEM UP THAT
NIGHT.
I have explained previously to you Dick, that Karen Crawford was not
stupid, she was the acting manager. The first thing she did was check
the area where the Brown party was sitting, asked other employees if
they had seen them, and then she looked outside. Karen Crawford did not
say that she told Juditha Brown her eyeglasses were muddy, after finding
them, she only told her that she had found them. Juditha Brown was the
one who told Crawford that there was a puddle by the curb when she got
out of her car with Justin on her lap.
You are Mr. Backwards man again. You reverse what was said because you
probably never even read Juditha Brown's words until after they were
posted for you. So you created your entire fantasy based on what
Crawford said and then fabricated what you think Juditha Brown said.
That is obvious by your comment that Juditha's statement was from her
depostion. Wrong. Look at the date that I posted where the testimony
came from. December 6, 1995 when Juditha Brown testified in the civil
trial. Testimony you, Dick, obviously never read until after you created
your false fabrication.
Juditha Brown never said she talked to Nicole at 11:00.
The fact that Juditha Brown remembered a puddle in front of the
restaurant is not beyond her knowledge. It is beyond your knowledge.
Juditha Brown did not say her eyeglasses fell in the street, she said
that she had Justin on her lap when she got out of the car and said
maybe her eyeglasses had fallen out. She said there was puddle in front
where she got out.
What in the world gave me the idea that the Mezzaluna Restaurant did not
have valet parking on Sundays? Testimony by DeBello that Sunday night
was the night that DeBello could rest because Karen Crawford took over
as acting manager. No one, not DeBello, not Crawford, not Gavin, not the
prosecution, and not the defense, ever mentioned or referred to a valet.
The Brown's parked their own car that night in front of the restaurant.
DeBello said that he saw Crawford pick up the eyeglasses by the valet
stand. He did not say there was a valet on duty. He only referred to the
valet stand. I have no idea where you got your information from about
the valet stand. It sounds like something you observed years after the
murders. Just like the "loading zone" sign, it is irrelevant.
The picture of the curb shows that water could very well have
accumulated between the curb and street just like Juditha Brown
remembered. There does not have to be a depression in the street. Water
can accumulate next to the curb from many different sources. The fact is
that Juditha Brown testified that there was a puddle in front of the
restaurant tells us that it was there.
bobaugust
Bob August
Mike wrote:
If you thought that was funny, Mike, you should laugh hysterically at
Wagner's version of what he fantasizes happened to the eyeglasses.
bobaugust
dick wagner
I had asserted that Juditha testified in the civil trial from a
deposition, and you correct me by saying, "... obvious by your comment
that Juditha's statement was from her depostion. Wrong. Look at the date
that I posted where the testimony came from. December 6, 1995 when
Juditha Brown testified in the civil trial."
I had relied in my recollection on the summary of the transcripts
posted on the Walraven site. For December 6th it gives...
______________________________
Friday, December 6
The plaintiffs begin to wrap up their case. Includes testimony from the
mothers of the victims.
Witnesses: Bruce Weir, Leroy Taft, Robert Kardashian (Deposition),
Sharon Rufo (Deposition), Juditha Brown (Deposition)
_______________________________
However, when I read the introduction to her testimony in the
transcript, it appears that you are right on this point.
For the rest, you are completely out of touch with the reality of the
situation (as usual).
--dick wagner
dick wagner
Speaking of the "puddle" that Juditha says was at the place where she
alighted from the car you say, "There are all kinds of
ways that water can accumulate at the curb besides from rain. Funny."
Funny, indeed, Bob. The problem is that the place where the glasses
were found was not "at the curb" but a couple of inches beyond the
concrete on the pavement of the street. I put a tape measure to the
concrete gutter in that place and it is 24" wide. Any water "at the
curb" would be completely irrelevant to the question of the situation
where the glasses were found.
As ever on this subject, you are completely out of touch with reality.
--dick wagner
dick wagner
You say of Juditha's account, "I especially like the deep dark gloom
that descended upon her after she left because she could not find her
glasses."
Yes; I think this is yet another example of how Juditha's eventual
version is colored by what she knows the facts were eventually, not what
she knew at the time. In the specific that you mention, I am sure we
are supposed to infer that Juditha had a premonition of the disaster
that was about to befall her daughter.
--dick wagner
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
Yeah right, Dick. You are the one who is out of touch with the reality
of this case. You fabricate and fantasize stories that are completely
inconsistent with the known facts and contradicts witness testimony.
Nothing you fabricate and create is supported by anything except your
mistakes and imagination. You do not know what reality is. You show us
over and over that you think reality is your truth, Wagner's truth. The
reality of fantasy and fabrication.
bobaugust
Prien
>From: dick wagner wag...@westworld.com
>Date: 9/30/2002 10:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3D990B...@westworld.com>
notes in part about August:
> Your thinking on this subject is so shallow I can not believe many
>people take you seriously. You must make other no-Js cringe to be
>associated with your kind of thinking.
>
Actuyally, I must disagree with you here. August is a deep thinker compared to
the usual NoJ riff raff.
Prien
Prien
>Date: 10/1/2002 1:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3d991aad...@news.xtra.co.nz>
writes about Juditha:
>It is hard not to laugh out loud whenever you read some of the Browns
>testimony.
>
>I especially like the deep dark gloom that descended upon her after
>she left because she could not find her glasses.
>
>Why ?
>
>And then when the glasses are found she does not tell anyone how her
>suffering has ended !
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
Summed it up nicely. It's right out from beyond the Twilight Zone.
Prien
Mike
wrote:
>MIKE:
Hi Dick
In New Zealand recently there was a case where the neighbour of an 11
year old girl was accused of raping her.
In the trial the scientists testified that the DNA matched and he was
convicted.
However some scientists disagreed and the case was reopened.
In short it was not his DNA and last week another man wasput on trial
this week .
The innocent man got $900,000 compensation after he was in prison for
3 years.
The point of this is the reaction of other people to the innocent man.
People who had been to the trial interpreted everything he did and
said as evidence of his guilt. they 'knew' he was guilty.
Many callers to the radio doubted the DNA anyway bcause all the
things they had heard pointed to his guilt.
Many other cases in the US havecome forward as well. People convicted
of rape , even where the victim has identified them , have been
cleared by DNA evidence.
It seems clear to me that the mind plays powerfull tricks on us.
I am sure that many events get muddled up in our minds.
I think we have reached the point where we must doubt a lot of eye
witness testimony , because it is so unreliable.
One only has to look at the OJ case to see just how many different
interpretations there are.
Mike
confused
>Hi Dick
>
>In New Zealand recently there was a case where the neighbour of an 11
>year old girl was accused of raping her.
>
>In the trial the scientists testified that the DNA matched and he was
>convicted.
Not true. At trial the tests were inclusive.
http://www.menz.org.nz/Casualties/1997%20newsletters/May%2097.htm
>One only has to look at the OJ case to see just how many different
>interpretations there are.
Especially when one decides before hand what happened.
John Griffin
"confused" <mo...@maui1.tonga> wrote
> basem...@xtra.co.nz (Mike) wrote:
>
> >Hi Dick
> >
> >In New Zealand recently there was a case where the neighbour of an 11
> >year old girl was accused of raping her.
> >
> >In the trial the scientists testified that the DNA matched and he was
> >convicted.
>
> Not true. At trial the tests were inclusive.
You have two typos there.
"Inclusive" should be "inconclusive."
"Not true" should be "blatant lie."
It was a hell of a lot closer to conclusive than the EDTA thing the
Simpson thralls swallowed, but not even close to good enough
to convict the guy. However, that didn't matter. As soc.singles
cretin/fool/pretender mike would say "She said he did it, and the
jury agreed. That settles it." The guy's new trial is another
example of how dumb failed pretend lawyer mike is.
> http://www.menz.org.nz/Casualties/1997%20newsletters/May%2097.htm
>
> >One only has to look at the OJ case to see just how many different
> >interpretations there are.
>
> Especially when one decides before hand what happened.
Kari (or maybe Lucy) wrote the Simpson cult founding principle:
"I watched the entire trial. I knew from the start he was innocent,
and nothing was going to change my mind."
Tacitly she added "I couldn't do laundry for six months because
they didn't have any detergent commericials, the bastards."
confused
>"confused" <mo...@maui1.tonga> wrote
>> Not true. At trial the tests were inclusive.
>
>You have two typos there.
>"Inclusive" should be "inconclusive."
>"Not true" should be "blatant lie."
Thank you. I guess I should proofread better.
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
Dick, you say the water near the curb is irrelevant because the
eyeglasses were found in the street. You are correct. The puddle is not
relevant to your fabrication and fantasy, but it is relevant to the
truth of what happened. It is why the eyeglasses were dirty and muddy
when they were found.
Lou Brown parked the Jeep on the street in front of the Mezzaluna
Restaurant, at the curb. Juditha Brown was sitting in the passenger
seat, her grandson sitting on her lap. She opened the door to step out
and saw that there was a puddle in the street next to the curb. She
stepped over it to get to the sidewalk. That is what she remembered.
She did not know that she dropped her eyeglasses at the time, but when
she thought back on it, she realized that she might have. She said that
she first realized that she did not have her eyeglasses when she was in
the restaurant. After dinner when they got to their car, they all looked
for her eyeglasses. They did not find them in the Jeep. They would have
continued looking, most likely going back to the restaurant, except that
it was getting late and the small children had to go to bed. Juditha
said she would call the restaurant about them as soon as she got home.
When she called, she told Karen Crawford that she left her eyeglasses
somewhere. She told Crawford that she might have dropped them when she
got out of her car. There was a puddle there. Crawford was not dumb. The
first thing she did was check where the Brown's were sitting and asked
the busboys. When that did not produce the eyeglasses she then checked
outside, like Juditha Brown suggested. She saw the eyeglasses lying in
the street. When she picked them up they were dirty and muddy.
The Brown's had not seen the eyeglasses because they would have been
under their car. The tires of the Jeep would have been near the curb in
the puddle, if it was big enough. When the jeep pulled away the tires
could very well have splashed water on the eyeglasses.
In the more than one hour between the time the Brown's left the
restaurant and Crawford found the eyeglasses, there may have been other
cars that parked at the curb and left, splashing more water on the
eyeglasses. That is not the only way the eyeglasses could have gotten
dirty and muddy, as they lay in the street under the car, but it is a
reasonable explanation based on the facts that the witnesses testified to.
Is there anything you do not understand about this reasonable
explanation, Dick?
bobaugust
Bob August
dick wagner wrote:
Maybe she did. Who knows.
bobaugust
Prien
>Date: 10/2/2002 1:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <o92lpucu6k7ifhr74...@4ax.com>
notes:
>Especially when one decides before hand what happened.
>
>
>
Hey, like every NoJ.
The women in my office knew on Tuesday morning after murders that Simpson did
it.
That was before anyone heard of any evidence. Some crime solvers they were.
Of course, these same folk also knew right away the Central Park jogger was
raped by those kids. Now proven to be entirely false, the produce of police
frame up and fabrications.
Prien
Prien
missmarple8
Sheila Weller wrote in Raging Heart: "Although she died from the
first wound, it was the second lower wound upon which Nicole's friends
focused. Says one, "When we heard her breasts were slashed, we knew
who killed her".
That's how a lot of people "knew who killed her". And those friends
were the people who cooperated with Weller in writing the book.
In her Afterword, Weller wrote A Correction: "It appears that Nicole
Brown Simpson was NOT slashed in the neck-to-breast fashion described
in Chapter 1. Instead, as was eventually brought out at the trial her
throat was probably slashed after she was unconscious; a foot was
applied to her back and her head pulled up by her hair before the
fatal slash was administered. My apologies to my readers for this."
Miss Marple
Bob August
missmarple8 wrote:
Very good Miss Maple, I agree. To the question if Simpson was the
killer, people who make up their minds based on feelings and thoughts,
and not the actual evidence, are only guessing. They do not really know.
But they have a fifty fifty chance of being right.
You guessed wrong, Miss Marple.
bobaugust
Prien
>Date: 10/3/2002 3:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <becbb46c.02100...@posting.google.com>
>
>That's how a lot of people "knew who killed her". And those friends
>were the people who cooperated with Weller in writing the book.
>
>In her Afterword, Weller wrote A Correction: "It appears that Nicole
>Brown Simpson was NOT slashed in the neck-to-breast fashion described
>in Chapter 1. Instead, as was eventually brought out at the trial her
>throat was probably slashed after she was unconscious; a foot was
>applied to her back and her head pulled up by her hair before the
>fatal slash was administered. My apologies to my readers for this."
>
>
>Miss Marple
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yeah, and I wonder how many people heard of the apology. But everyone heard of
the lie and jumped to the wrong conclusion they refuse to change despite all
the proof presented that their conclusions are based on falsehoods. That's how
prejudice colors thinking.
It was actually utterly irresponsible for Weller to have published such a lie
which so prejudiced people's view of the case.
Prien
missmarple8
She published a rumor, like so many others. And she probably read it
while standing in line at her grocery store, waiting to pay for her
groceries. - Like millions of others who know nothing about the case
except what they read in the rag head lines.
It is not surprising that Petrocelli confessed to have gotten most of
"the new information" from the Enquierer. And had no problem with it
being "paid for information".
Miss Marple
missmarple8
I'm not guessing, bobaugust, are you?
Miss Marple
Bob August
missmarple8 wrote:
No I am not guessing, we know to a certainty that Simpson was the
killer. Of course you are guessing Miss Marple. There is nothing that
supports your opinion except proven lies by our hero. You have guessed
wrong and you still can not comprehend it. Funny..
bobaugust
Omar A.
It's sort of weird that both Debello and Richard Arbolino shared their
names with well-known Hollywood personalities. Could these names be
assumed names?
If possible, why would two restaurant managers need to use names other
than their given names?
Omar A.
dick wagner
You say, "It's sort of weird that both Debello and Richard Arbolino
shared their names with well-known Hollywood personalities."
I don't have a list of members of the Screen Actors Guild, but I have a
couple of books that list many movies and cross reference the casts.
The most recent of these ("Video Movie Guide 2001") lists 10,000 movies
but does not show an actor named Arbolino. I was surprised to see that
it lists a De Bello, but his name is James, not John. There is only one
credit for James De Bello and it is for a forgettable movie called
"Detroit Rock City" (2 stars). Since this was released in 1999, if
there is more than a coincidence in the names, it is because the actor
copied the name of the Simpson case character, not the other way
around.
However, a man named John DeBello was the director of "Attack of the
Killer Tomatoes (1980)," which is a famously camp movie because it is SO
bad. In any event, I would dispute that De Bello is a "well known
Hollywood personality," though I am open to being enlightened if there
is some other source of fame than being an actor or director that would
qualify him as a household name. (No indication of Arbolino as a
director, however.)
--dick wagner
Omar A.
Well, who's counting?! Ok, neither Debello nor Arbolino can be
considered household names, but Arbolino was an actor and was in a few
films including Bikini Summer (or something like that) and at least
another movie called Mirror Images. Still not too well-known, but an
actor just the same.
John Debello, as you say, was a director.
Perhaps they sought better luck in the restaurant business? (Ha Ha).
Whatever the case, the names could still have been assumed names.
Omar A.
missmarple8
Check Google, a lot comes up on both names, both of them being sort of
has beens in the movie business. I found Richard Arbolino on some list
of 1000 worst actors or something like that. Maybe they started out
in the restaurant business, like Goldman, and then returned to it.
Maybe it's a Hollywood thing. Or maybe it's just a same name
coincidence.
Miss Marple
dick wagner
You say, "Whatever the case, the names [Arbolino and De Bello] could
still have been assumed names."
Quite so. I have believed that De Bello was operating under an assumed
name ever since I came to the realization that Juditha's glasses were
not "lost upon arrival at the restaurant" as Juditha claimed. This
seems somewhat confirmed by the fact that he was forever busy in
"contributing" to the case, and then dropped out of the picture after
the preliminary hearing. Also, he was in a position to contribute to
Goldman's presence when Nicole's call came in, and to provide real time
status to the unfolding plot.
--dick wagner
