OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL

Post by Ketchall 1
From what we learned, OJ wore casual dress to the dance recital and later that
evening a dark blue sweat suit. So I've always been curious as to when, where,
and why did he change into the bruno magli dress shoes and long dress socks.
It just doesn't fit.

His attire wasn't THAT casual at the recital. I believe he wore the
socks and Maglis to the recital and again later on when he went to
Nicole's. While he claimed to have worn Reebocks to McDonald's, I
don't believe that was ever corroborated.

Even so, he would have wanted something dark, so it isn't surprising
that he didn't wear white tennis shoes to Nicole's. Whether or not he
truly thought the Magli's were 'ugly-assed shoes', they were dark and
had soft soles, which meant they would be quiet.

One further point: I wouldn't classify the Maglis as 'dress shoes',
although they may pass for such in SoCal. Here in the East I'd say the
Maglis might pass for business casual, but not as dress shoes.

Ragnar

P.S. Good to see you back!

Ketchall 1

2003-09-05 14:01:00 UTC

Post by Ragnar
His attire wasn't THAT casual at the recital. I believe he wore the
socks and Maglis to the recital and again later on when he went to
Nicole's. While he claimed to have worn Reebocks to McDonald's, I
don't believe that was ever corroborated.

First, you make sense. But since I believe that he went to Nicole's in a fit
of rage after a phone conversation with her, then I feel he wore his Chicago
trip clothes over there too then when he returned got rid of shoes, clothes,
etc., and quickly put on a spare sweat suit; got his own blood on that sweat
suit which he put in the washer. Just a few seconds to peel off his shoes and
clothes, stuff in the bag and slip on a sweat suit that could of been anywhere
outside the house.

bobaugust

2003-09-05 19:38:36 UTC

Ketchall 1, what makes you believe that Simpson wore his Chicago trip
clothes when he went to Bundy? Kato Kaelin testified that Simpson was
wearing a dark colored sweat suit when he came to Kaelin's room and they
went to McDonalds, shortly after 9:00.

bobaugust

Ketchall 1

2003-09-05 23:07:41 UTC

Post by bobaugust
Ketchall 1, what makes you believe that Simpson wore his Chicago trip
clothes when he went to Bundy? Kato Kaelin testified that Simpson was
wearing a dark colored sweat suit when he came to Kaelin's room and they
went to McDonalds, shortly after 9:00.
bobaugust

I certainly don't know that Simpson wore his Chicago trip clothes to Bundy but
it's possible that he could have changed clothes after he and Kaelin parted
company, right. What's strange is that OJ wore casual wear to the dance
recital and lets say he wore the long dress socks and bruno maglie's also, then
when he got home he changed into a sweat suit but still wore a pair of shoes to
be seen in (by kato) that sure didn't go with a sweat suit. The other side of
the coin would be had his sweats and tennis shoes on but then put on long dress
socks and the bruno maglie's and then went to Bundy. My guess is that he and
Nicole had a knock down drug out phone conversation and he went to Bundy right
then and went in what he was wearing right then. Just a guess.

bobaugust

2003-09-05 23:55:42 UTC

Ketchall 1, Simpson said he wore black loafers to the the recital. Were
they the Bruno Magli's he wore later? Maybe. After the recital he
claimed he changed into golf pants, golf shirt, white socks and Reeboks.

Kaelin tells us that when Simpson came to his room and they went to
dinner about 9:00 that night, Simpson was then wearing a dark colored
sweat suit.

There would be nothing unusual with Simpson wearing his Bruno Magli
shoes with a dark colored sweat suit. The Lorenzo style Bruno Magli
shoes were casual loafers. Think of them as expensive hush puppies. They
would not have looked unusual when worn with Simpson's sweat outfit or
casual clothing.

There is no evidence of such a telephone call you imagine. Simpson did
place a couple of phone calls to Nicole that day. He first called Nicole
on his cell phone from his Bronco, just after 2:00 in the afternoon, and
talked to her about the recital.

Sometime about 9:00, before Simpson went to Kaelin's room and to
McDonalds, he said he made several phone calls. One call was to his
daughter Sydney. He said Nicole answered the phone and and then put
Sydney on. If this was the phone call you are guessing about, Simpson
was already wearing his sweat suit, and didn't arrive at Bundy until
about an hour and a half later.

bobaugust

missmarple8

2003-09-06 07:55:33 UTC

Kato testified that Mr. Simpson wore a dark sweat suit when he left
for the airport. He also testified that Mr. Simpson wore a dark sweat
suit when they met at about 6.30 to 7.00, when Mr. Simpson returned
from the recital.

We know from other witnesses what Mr. Simpson wore on the trip to
Chicago. We know from other witnesses and a photograph that he didn't
wear a sweat suit to the recital, so something is wrong with Kato's
memory.

Miss Marple

bobaugust

2003-09-06 11:13:54 UTC

Kato testified that Mr. Simpson wore a dark sweat suit when he left
for the airport. He also testified that Mr. Simpson wore a dark sweat
suit when they met at about 6.30 to 7.00, when Mr. Simpson returned
from the recital.
We know from other witnesses what Mr. Simpson wore on the trip to
Chicago. We know from other witnesses and a photograph that he didn't
wear a sweat suit to the recital, so something is wrong with Kato's
memory.
Miss Marple

Miss Marple, yes we know Kaelin was mistaken about Simpson wearing the
dark colored sweat suit when he left for Chicago. At that time Kaelin
was most likely more concerned about the noises he heard made by someone
behind his room and he didn't pay very much attention to what Simpson
was wearing.

But there is no doubt that he saw Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat
suit earlier in the evening when they went to McDonalds. Kaelin even
attempted to describe it. Isn't amazing that the killer left blue black
fibers on Goldman's shirt, on his right hand glove, and on Simpson's
socks? Isn't it amazing that a dark colored sweat suit was found in
Simpson's washing machine the morning after the murders?

Isn't it amazing that sweat suit has never been seen again? Just as
Simpson's Bruno Magli shoes have never been seen again. Just as the
small dark colored bag that Simpson stopped Kaelin from getting when
they were loading luggage has never been seen again. Amazing.

bobaugust

missmarple8

2003-09-06 18:32:57 UTC

Kato testified that Mr. Simpson wore a dark sweat suit when he left
for the airport. He also testified that Mr. Simpson wore a dark sweat
suit when they met at about 6.30 to 7.00, when Mr. Simpson returned
from the recital.
We know from other witnesses what Mr. Simpson wore on the trip to
Chicago. We know from other witnesses and a photograph that he didn't
wear a sweat suit to the recital, so something is wrong with Kato's
memory.
Miss Marple

Miss Marple, yes we know Kaelin was mistaken about Simpson wearing the
dark colored sweat suit when he left for Chicago. At that time Kaelin
was most likely more concerned about the noises he heard made by someone
behind his room and he didn't pay very much attention to what Simpson
was wearing.
But there is no doubt that he saw Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat
suit earlier in the evening when they went to McDonalds. Kaelin even
attempted to describe it. Isn't amazing that the killer left blue black
fibers on Goldman's shirt, on his right hand glove, and on Simpson's
socks? Isn't it amazing that a dark colored sweat suit was found in
Simpson's washing machine the morning after the murders?
Isn't it amazing that sweat suit has never been seen again? Just as
Simpson's Bruno Magli shoes have never been seen again. Just as the
small dark colored bag that Simpson stopped Kaelin from getting when
they were loading luggage has never been seen again. Amazing.
bobaugust

Maybe they didn't find the shoes and the sweat suit because they
looked in all the wrong places.

And how do you deal with the testimony that Mr. Simpson was wearing
the sweat suit when he came back from the recital? Kind of wrecks
your theory that he changed into the murder clothes after Gigi called
and he found his opportunity to sneak out unseen to do his deed.

Miss Marple

bobaugust

2003-09-06 21:13:42 UTC

Kato testified that Mr. Simpson wore a dark sweat suit when he left
for the airport. He also testified that Mr. Simpson wore a dark sweat
suit when they met at about 6.30 to 7.00, when Mr. Simpson returned
from the recital.
We know from other witnesses what Mr. Simpson wore on the trip to
Chicago. We know from other witnesses and a photograph that he didn't
wear a sweat suit to the recital, so something is wrong with Kato's
memory.
Miss Marple

Miss Marple, yes we know Kaelin was mistaken about Simpson wearing the
dark colored sweat suit when he left for Chicago. At that time Kaelin
was most likely more concerned about the noises he heard made by someone
behind his room and he didn't pay very much attention to what Simpson
was wearing.
But there is no doubt that he saw Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat
suit earlier in the evening when they went to McDonalds. Kaelin even
attempted to describe it. Isn't amazing that the killer left blue black
fibers on Goldman's shirt, on his right hand glove, and on Simpson's
socks? Isn't it amazing that a dark colored sweat suit was found in
Simpson's washing machine the morning after the murders?
Isn't it amazing that sweat suit has never been seen again? Just as
Simpson's Bruno Magli shoes have never been seen again. Just as the
small dark colored bag that Simpson stopped Kaelin from getting when
they were loading luggage has never been seen again. Amazing.
bobaugust

Maybe they didn't find the shoes and the sweat suit because they
looked in all the wrong places.
And how do you deal with the testimony that Mr. Simpson was wearing
the sweat suit when he came back from the recital? Kind of wrecks
your theory that he changed into the murder clothes after Gigi called
and he found his opportunity to sneak out unseen to do his deed.
Miss Marple

Miss Marple, the police actually obtained a second search warrant to
look for the sweats they had not collected from Simpson's washing
machine during the first search. They did not find them because they
were not in Simpson's house when they went back to look.

They never found the Bruno Magli shoes because they were disposed of by
Simpson. Simpson claimed he never owned any Bruno Magli shoes. This
isn't really that hard too understand, is it?

Once again, Kaelin was not really paying very much attention to what
Simpson was wearing the day of murders, why should he have? Kaelin did
remember that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit that day
when they went to McDonalds, and then evidently assumed that was what
Simpson was wearing the entire day, because that was the only clothing
he remembered.

But one thing is very clear, Kaelin did remember and testified that
Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit. Simpson denied he ever
wore it that day.

That was Simpson's tactic through out his trial, deny, deny, deny.
Regardless if he was contradicted by witnesses, telephone records, or
even photographs. Simpson would simply lie.

And who believes Simpson's lies? Weirdos, freaks, racists, police
haters, and the dumb and ignorant. You believe his lies, don't you Miss
Marple? Funny.

bobaugust

missmarple8

2003-09-07 04:37:07 UTC

Kato testified that Mr. Simpson wore a dark sweat suit when he left
for the airport. He also testified that Mr. Simpson wore a dark sweat
suit when they met at about 6.30 to 7.00, when Mr. Simpson returned
from the recital.
We know from other witnesses what Mr. Simpson wore on the trip to
Chicago. We know from other witnesses and a photograph that he didn't
wear a sweat suit to the recital, so something is wrong with Kato's
memory.
Miss Marple

Miss Marple, yes we know Kaelin was mistaken about Simpson wearing the
dark colored sweat suit when he left for Chicago. At that time Kaelin
was most likely more concerned about the noises he heard made by someone
behind his room and he didn't pay very much attention to what Simpson
was wearing.
But there is no doubt that he saw Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat
suit earlier in the evening when they went to McDonalds. Kaelin even
attempted to describe it. Isn't amazing that the killer left blue black
fibers on Goldman's shirt, on his right hand glove, and on Simpson's
socks? Isn't it amazing that a dark colored sweat suit was found in
Simpson's washing machine the morning after the murders?
Isn't it amazing that sweat suit has never been seen again? Just as
Simpson's Bruno Magli shoes have never been seen again. Just as the
small dark colored bag that Simpson stopped Kaelin from getting when
they were loading luggage has never been seen again. Amazing.
bobaugust

Maybe they didn't find the shoes and the sweat suit because they
looked in all the wrong places.
And how do you deal with the testimony that Mr. Simpson was wearing
the sweat suit when he came back from the recital? Kind of wrecks
your theory that he changed into the murder clothes after Gigi called
and he found his opportunity to sneak out unseen to do his deed.
Miss Marple

There has never been a witness testifying to having seen a sweat suit
in the washing machine, right? And there has never been a photograph
showing a sweatsuit in the washer, right? (Dark blobs don't count) Or
do you know things nobody else does.

Post by bobaugust
They never found the Bruno Magli shoes because they were disposed of by
Simpson. Simpson claimed he never owned any Bruno Magli shoes. This
isn't really that hard too understand, is it?

There has never been a witness testifying that Mr. Simpson ever was
seen wearing Bruno Maglis. Never a receipt or note that he ever
bought one of the 290 pairs that allegedly existed. The Scull photos
should never have been allowed into evidence. To allow photographic
evidence the photographer is bound to swear that he has had the
evidence in his care (chain of custody) from it was taken till it was
presented in court. Scull's photo was out of his custody for some six
weeks and sold to The National Enquirer (with its impeccable record of
honesty and integrity) went on a trip to London England and so on and
so on.

What happened to the "shoe shine picture"? Didn't it show the sole of
Mr. Simpson's shoes? Were they the wrong kind, maybe?

Post by bobaugust
Once again, Kaelin was not really paying very much attention to what
Simpson was wearing the day of murders, why should he have? Kaelin did
remember that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit that day
when they went to McDonalds, and then evidently assumed that was what
Simpson was wearing the entire day, because that was the only clothing
he remembered.

What about Kaelin's testimony that Mr.Simpson was wearing that same
outfit at about seven o'clock that same evening? You keep ignoring
that, cause that ruins your whole scenario with the rage building.

Post by bobaugust
But one thing is very clear, Kaelin did remember and testified that
Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit. Simpson denied he ever
wore it that day.

Kaelin's testimony, Preliminary hearings, July 5

Q WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT WEARING AT THAT TIME?
10 A I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT CLOTHING. I THOUGHT IT
WAS A SWEAT OUTFIT.
11 Q SWEAT OUTFIT, LIKE SWEATSHIRT OR NYLON-TYPE?
A A WARMUP, I BELIEVE. I MEAN, I AM NOT POSITIVE
12 ON THAT, BUT I THINK IT WAS A WARMUP OUTFIT.
Q COULD YOU -- CAN YOU REMEMBER WHAT KIND OF
13 MATERIAL IT WAS, OR COULD YOU TELL AT THE TIME?
A NO, I COULD NOT.
14 Q WHAT COLOR WAS IT?
A IT WAS DARK.
15 Q BLACK?
A A DARK COLOR.
16 Q WAS IT BLACK?
A I MEAN IT WAS DARK OUT, SO IT WAS A DARK COLOR.
17 I MEAN, IT COULD HAVE BEEN DARK BLUE OR BLACK.
Q ONE OF THOSE?
18 A RIGHT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
19 DID IT HAVE LONG SLEEVES?
A YES.

Seems more like Clark's testimony, don't you think?

Miss Marple

Post by bobaugust
That was Simpson's tactic through out his trial, deny, deny, deny.
Regardless if he was contradicted by witnesses, telephone records, or
even photographs. Simpson would simply lie.
And who believes Simpson's lies? Weirdos, freaks, racists, police
haters, and the dumb and ignorant. You believe his lies, don't you Miss
Marple? Funny.
bobaugust

bobaugust

2003-09-07 11:55:14 UTC

Kato testified that Mr. Simpson wore a dark sweat suit when he left
for the airport. He also testified that Mr. Simpson wore a dark sweat
suit when they met at about 6.30 to 7.00, when Mr. Simpson returned
from the recital.
We know from other witnesses what Mr. Simpson wore on the trip to
Chicago. We know from other witnesses and a photograph that he didn't
wear a sweat suit to the recital, so something is wrong with Kato's
memory.
Miss Marple

Miss Marple, yes we know Kaelin was mistaken about Simpson wearing the
dark colored sweat suit when he left for Chicago. At that time Kaelin
was most likely more concerned about the noises he heard made by someone
behind his room and he didn't pay very much attention to what Simpson
was wearing.
But there is no doubt that he saw Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat
suit earlier in the evening when they went to McDonalds. Kaelin even
attempted to describe it. Isn't amazing that the killer left blue black
fibers on Goldman's shirt, on his right hand glove, and on Simpson's
socks? Isn't it amazing that a dark colored sweat suit was found in
Simpson's washing machine the morning after the murders?
Isn't it amazing that sweat suit has never been seen again? Just as
Simpson's Bruno Magli shoes have never been seen again. Just as the
small dark colored bag that Simpson stopped Kaelin from getting when
they were loading luggage has never been seen again. Amazing.
bobaugust

Maybe they didn't find the shoes and the sweat suit because they
looked in all the wrong places.
And how do you deal with the testimony that Mr. Simpson was wearing
the sweat suit when he came back from the recital? Kind of wrecks
your theory that he changed into the murder clothes after Gigi called
and he found his opportunity to sneak out unseen to do his deed.
Miss Marple

There has never been a witness testifying that Mr. Simpson ever was
seen wearing Bruno Maglis. Never a receipt or note that he ever
bought one of the 290 pairs that allegedly existed. The Scull photos
should never have been allowed into evidence. To allow photographic
evidence the photographer is bound to swear that he has had the
evidence in his care (chain of custody) from it was taken till it was
presented in court. Scull's photo was out of his custody for some six
weeks and sold to The National Enquirer (with its impeccable record of
honesty and integrity) went on a trip to London England and so on and
so on.
What happened to the "shoe shine picture"? Didn't it show the sole of
Mr. Simpson's shoes? Were they the wrong kind, maybe?

Post by bobaugust
But one thing is very clear, Kaelin did remember and testified that
Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit. Simpson denied he ever
wore it that day.

Kaelin's testimony, Preliminary hearings, July 5
Q WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT WEARING AT THAT TIME?
10 A I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT CLOTHING. I THOUGHT IT
WAS A SWEAT OUTFIT.
11 Q SWEAT OUTFIT, LIKE SWEATSHIRT OR NYLON-TYPE?
A A WARMUP, I BELIEVE. I MEAN, I AM NOT POSITIVE
12 ON THAT, BUT I THINK IT WAS A WARMUP OUTFIT.
Q COULD YOU -- CAN YOU REMEMBER WHAT KIND OF
13 MATERIAL IT WAS, OR COULD YOU TELL AT THE TIME?
A NO, I COULD NOT.
14 Q WHAT COLOR WAS IT?
A IT WAS DARK.
15 Q BLACK?
A A DARK COLOR.
16 Q WAS IT BLACK?
A I MEAN IT WAS DARK OUT, SO IT WAS A DARK COLOR.
17 I MEAN, IT COULD HAVE BEEN DARK BLUE OR BLACK.
Q ONE OF THOSE?
18 A RIGHT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
19 DID IT HAVE LONG SLEEVES?
A YES.
Seems more like Clark's testimony, don't you think?
Miss Marple

Miss Marple, this is getting tiresome again. Your inability to
understand the reality of this case is amazing. You know as well as I do
that no witness testified about the sweat suit found in Simpson's
washing machine, because it was never collected. That does not mean it
wasn't there.

Yes, the sweat suit was video taped in the washing machine. The
photograph taken from the video tape is in Fuhrman's book. All clothing
in a washing machine may look like blobs. So what, that doesn't change
the fact that it was a sweat suit according to the witnesses who saw it.
It was seen by Brad Roberts, Fuhrman, two RHD detectives, Dennis Fung,
and the video photographer.

The second search warrant on June 28 made reference to the black cotton
type sweat suit. The police realized their mistake and went back to
collect the sweats, but they were gone.

Your opinion about the Scull photographs is irrelevant. The simple fact
is that the Scull photograph and negatives were authenticated by experts
and then supported by the thirty Flammer photographs as well as a
television video tape. The Scull photographs and the Flammer photographs
showed Simpson wearing the same exact Bruno Magli, Lorenzo style shoes
with Silga soles that the killer wore. Simpson of course denied and lied
that he ever wore those shoes, despite the many photographs showing him
wearing them.

The "shoe shine" photographs showed Simpson wearing other Bruno Magli
shoes, not the Lorenzo style he wore to the Buffalo Bills football game
where Scull and Flammer photographed him.

I already answered you about Kaelin's testimony when he said he saw
Simpson wearing dark colored sweats. Do you read my responses or is your
reading comprehension problem surfacing again. Kaelin only remembered
Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat suit when they went to McDonalds.
He did not remember any of the other clothing Simpson might have been
wearing earlier in the day or when he left for the airport. There was no
reason for Kaelin to have remembered those details.

You also show us your handicap in understanding english. Clark asked the
questions, Kaelin answered them. No it doesn't sound like Clark was
testifying, Kaelin was.

bobaugust

missmarple8

2003-09-10 19:58:09 UTC

Post by bobaugust
I already answered you about Kaelin's testimony when he said he saw
Simpson wearing dark colored sweats. Do you read my responses or is your
reading comprehension problem surfacing again. Kaelin only remembered
Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat suit when they went to McDonalds.
He did not remember any of the other clothing Simpson might have been
wearing earlier in the day or when he left for the airport. There was no
reason for Kaelin to have remembered those details.
bobaugust

Questions to Kaelin by Petrocelli in the Civil trial, November 19:
Q. By the way, what was Mr. Simpson wearing at the time of that
conversation, at about 6:30, 7 o'clock?

A. I thought it was a sharp-looking sweatsuit, dark, white zipper.

Q. What do you mean by a sweatsuit?

A. Like a jogging outfit.

Have you seen the picture of Mr. Simpson that Ron Fishman took at the
recital?

Miss Marple

bobaugust

2003-09-11 00:03:13 UTC

Q. By the way, what was Mr. Simpson wearing at the time of that
conversation, at about 6:30, 7 o'clock?
A. I thought it was a sharp-looking sweatsuit, dark, white zipper.
Q. What do you mean by a sweatsuit?
A. Like a jogging outfit.
Have you seen the picture of Mr. Simpson that Ron Fishman took at the
recital?
Miss Marple

Miss Marple,

Simpson described the clothing he wore to the recital. A white shirt,
black pants, a black sweater jacket, socks and black loafers.

Simpson said some time between 7:30 and 9:00 he changed clothes. He said
he changed into blue golf pants, a golf shirt, white socks and Reeboks.
He said when he went to McDonalds, he put a coat on.

Simpson said he wore those clothes until he changed for his trip.

For his trip he said he changed into jeans, white shirt, jean jacket, no
socks, and black or blue loafers.

Kaelin said that when he returned to Rockingham later that Sunday,
Simpson was home from the recital. Kaelin went into Simpson's kitchen
and talked to him. Kaelin said Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat
suit.

Some time after that Simpson twice went to Kaelin's room and then they
went to McDonalds. Kaelin said Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat
suit during those events.

Blue black cotton fibers were found on Goldman's shirt, the killer's
right hand glove, and on Simpson's socks. Trace evidence that points to
Simpson as the killer. Not to mention the dark colored sweat suit found
in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-11 01:34:42 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/10/2003 8:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Kaelin said that when he returned to Rockingham later that Sunday,
Simpson was home from the recital.

Could you post the testimony about this.

This should be good.

The real fact is that Kato was involved in a pick up basket ball game, came
home and watched the Rockets-Knicks championship basketball game until it
ended. It was then that he went to the kitchen and allegedly saw Simpson.

Kato had no idea when Simpson actually returned home. It also also almost a
certainty that the game did not end until at or after 7 pm since the game
itself lasted 2:48 hours. It could not have ended a second earlier than 6:48,
if the game tipped off at EXACTLY 4:00 PDT. But there are introductions,
pre-game hype, etc, so its an absolutely cedrtainty the game did not start at
exactly 4:00, but much more like 4:30.

Kaelin went into Simpson's kitchen

and talked to him. Kaelin said Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat
suit.

This is really terrific, man of no Brains. Kato sees Simpson right after end
of basketball game upon Simpson freturning from the recital. By all the
witnesses at criminal trial who testified about this, recital ended at or after
7 p.m. Simpson is photographed in a light shirt, etc. and is definitely not
wearing a sweat suit. Immediatley upon freturning from the recital, Kato swears
Simpson is wearing a sweat suit he definitely did not have on at the recital.

Simpson is definitey a quick change artist here.

Why would Simpson change into those clothes?

WEll, he had to be wearing the clothes thqat matched the fibers they found so
he could be linked to the murder site. Soi Kato put them on Simpson. And
another compromised witness tells the story the prosecution wants to hear.

August, you're a congenitally prejudiced racist idiot.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-11 03:29:41 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/10/2003 8:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Kaelin said that when he returned to Rockingham later that Sunday,
Simpson was home from the recital.

Could you post the testimony about this.
This should be good.
The real fact is that Kato was involved in a pick up basket ball game, came
home and watched the Rockets-Knicks championship basketball game until it
ended. It was then that he went to the kitchen and allegedly saw Simpson.
Kato had no idea when Simpson actually returned home. It also also almost a
certainty that the game did not end until at or after 7 pm since the game
itself lasted 2:48 hours. It could not have ended a second earlier than 6:48,
if the game tipped off at EXACTLY 4:00 PDT. But there are introductions,
pre-game hype, etc, so its an absolutely cedrtainty the game did not start at
exactly 4:00, but much more like 4:30.
Kaelin went into Simpson's kitchen

and talked to him. Kaelin said Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat
suit.

This is really terrific, man of no Brains. Kato sees Simpson right after end
of basketball game upon Simpson freturning from the recital. By all the
witnesses at criminal trial who testified about this, recital ended at or after
7 p.m. Simpson is photographed in a light shirt, etc. and is definitely not
wearing a sweat suit. Immediatley upon freturning from the recital, Kato swears
Simpson is wearing a sweat suit he definitely did not have on at the recital.
Simpson is definitey a quick change artist here.
Why would Simpson change into those clothes?
WEll, he had to be wearing the clothes thqat matched the fibers they found so
he could be linked to the murder site. Soi Kato put them on Simpson. And
another compromised witness tells the story the prosecution wants to hear.
August, you're a congenitally prejudiced racist idiot.
Prien

Prien You are correct. Kaelin didn't say Simpson was home when he got
back to Rockingham.

When Kaelin arrived home he was planning to eat his take out sushi
during the last quarter of the Knick's game.

Eliot writes, "He arrived at the guest house, stretched out on the floor
to give his back a rest, and flipped the TV on with the remote. A few
minutes passed, before he heard O.J. once again calling his name. Kato
got up and saw O.J. through the screen door, waving him into the main
house."

"Once in the main house, O.J. asked who won the basketball game and Kato
asked O.J. how the recital went."

Kaelin remembers Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat suit when he went
to the main house early that evening. Simpson inferred he was wearing
the same clothing he wore to the recital. I agree, Kaelin could very
well have been mistaken about what Simpson was wearing then.

Kaelin testified that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit both
times Simpson later came to his room and when they went to McDonalds.

Kaelin remembers Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat suit when Simpson
left for the airport. We know Kaelin was mistaken then.

That's the point, Prien. There was no reason for Kaelin to be aware of
what clothing Simpson was wearing throughout the day. All Kaelin
remembers is that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit that
evening. He did not remember any other clothing.

Kaelin's testimony had nothing to do with what the prosecutors wanted
Kaelin to say. Kaelin testified at the Grand Jury on June 17, 1994. He
told how Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit that evening. At
that time testing for trace evidence wasn't even completed, and at that
time Kaelin was certainly not bending over backwards to help the
prosecutors.

It seems you still have a problem understanding when Simpson left the
recital. I have explained this to you before, did you forget? Telephone
records and Simpson himself tells us he was home before 7:00.

In his initial statement Simpson said the recital "ended about 6:30,
quarter to seven, something like that".

Later Simpson said,

January 24, 1996

Q: What time is it now when you arrived at the house?
A: I don't recall.
Q: What's your best estimate of the time?
A: 7:00 o'clock maybe. I could be wrong. Could be 6:00 o'clock.
Whatever length of time it took for the affair to end, and I was
three or four minutes away from my house.
Q: No stops in between?
A: No.

Later Simpson admitted he was in his house before 7:00.

November 26, 1996

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You see 18:56, sir, right there?
A. Yes.
Q. That's 6:56?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. 476-4619?
A. Yes.
Q. Message 999. That's to your message manager?
A. I believe 999 would have been numbers to my message manager.
Q. So does that help you remember that at 6:56 p.m. from your home phone
number 476-4619, you called and picked up a five-minute message?
A. No, I didn't pick up any message.
Q. The records than are incorrect?
A. I don't know about the records. I know I was at home. I know I
checked my home message machine. And I know Kato came in, and Kato and
I was talking.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-12 03:45:46 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/10/2003 11:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Eliot writes, "He arrived at the guest house, stretched out on the floor
to give his back a rest, and flipped the TV on with the remote. A few
minutes passed, before he heard O.J. once again calling his name. Kato
got up and saw O.J. through the screen door, waving him into the main
house."
"Once in the main house, O.J. asked who won the basketball game and Kato
asked O.J. how the recital went."

At least you're learning about who is right.

But your quotes kill you tale. REcall that Kato testifies that he did not see
Simpson until AFTER the game ended. I already posted the times involved.
Since Elliott writes that Simpson waved to him, Kato then went to Simpson and
Simpson asked him about how the game went, this all had to occur after the game
ended, which could not be one second earlier than 6:48, but actually had to be
much later.

NOw Since Simpson also asked about how the game went, he must have known the
game was over by then, or he would have turned on TV and could see how IT WAS
GOING. Simpson being a spoirts freak, he would have known when could expect
the game to have been over. If he was really interested in how the game went,
and he wasn;t already sure it was over, he would not have needed kato to tell
him.
Simpson's question about the game establishes that it was well past seven when
this happened. The call he allegedly made before 7 inside his house is
completely phony.

The rest of what you write is irrelevant, as it is already addressed above.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-12 05:51:46 UTC

At least you're learning about who is right.
But your quotes kill you tale. REcall that Kato testifies that he did not see
Simpson until AFTER the game ended. I already posted the times involved.
Since Elliott writes that Simpson waved to him, Kato then went to Simpson and
Simpson asked him about how the game went, this all had to occur after the game
ended, which could not be one second earlier than 6:48, but actually had to be
much later.
NOw Since Simpson also asked about how the game went, he must have known the
game was over by then, or he would have turned on TV and could see how IT WAS
GOING. Simpson being a spoirts freak, he would have known when could expect
the game to have been over. If he was really interested in how the game went,
and he wasn;t already sure it was over, he would not have needed kato to tell
him.
Simpson's question about the game establishes that it was well past seven when
this happened. The call he allegedly made before 7 inside his house is
completely phony.
The rest of what you write is irrelevant, as it is already addressed above.
Prien

Prien, Kaelin got to his room during the last quarter of the game. He
said that "a few minutes passed, before he heard O.J. once again calling
his name." and he went to the main house.

Had the basketball game ended or was it still going? It's really
meaningless. Simpson told us that after he got home from the recital he
checked his messages and then Kaelin came over.

Telephone records show a phone call to Simpson's message center at 6:56.
Simpson said he was in his house at that time.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-12 22:15:21 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/12/2003 1:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time

keeps babbling:

It's not meaningless because Kato specifically testified at criminal trial that
he did not see OJ until AFTER the game ended.

Now add that to the Petrocelli allegation that the alleged call at 6:56 was
made in kato's presence, and when the game ended is key. If it ended after 7,
and kaot watched it until it was over, and only then went to see Simpson, there
is no way he could have been present for that call as alleged in plaintiff
case.

That call was entirely phony. And Simpson was utterly surprised by the time of
that call, and denied having made it.

Now uyou prove that it was indeed a call made by Simpson. Not just your
idiotic babblings that he did, but PROVE that it was Simpson on the line at
6:56.

Hint: you can't do it without someone provy to the call declaring and
affirming that the person alleged to be making it was in fact talking into the
telephone while connected to the line shown in the phone records.

Tell us, then, man of no knowledge, who on earth is available to do so?

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-13 00:32:57 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/12/2003 1:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time

It's not meaningless because Kato specifically testified at criminal trial that
he did not see OJ until AFTER the game ended.
Now add that to the Petrocelli allegation that the alleged call at 6:56 was
made in kato's presence, and when the game ended is key. If it ended after 7,
and kaot watched it until it was over, and only then went to see Simpson, there
is no way he could have been present for that call as alleged in plaintiff
case.
That call was entirely phony. And Simpson was utterly surprised by the time of
that call, and denied having made it.
Now uyou prove that it was indeed a call made by Simpson. Not just your
idiotic babblings that he did, but PROVE that it was Simpson on the line at
6:56.
Hint: you can't do it without someone provy to the call declaring and
affirming that the person alleged to be making it was in fact talking into the
telephone while connected to the line shown in the phone records.
Tell us, then, man of no knowledge, who on earth is available to do so?
Prien

Prien, I'm sorry but you are wrong again, about everything. Kaelin said,
that when he went to Simpson's house they talked about the recital.
Simpson had already checked his messages.

Simpson said when he got home, he first checked his messages and then
Kaelin came over.

The 6:56 phone call from Simpson's house was made to Simpson's cell
phone message manager. Paula Barbieri had left a message on Simpson's
cell phone. Simpson admitted he was in his house at 6:56.

There was other evidence verifying that Simpson picked up that long
message from Paula.

Simpson had told told criminal defense violence expert Dr. Lenore
Walker, which she duly noted on paper, when she examined him in jail.

Walker's notes read: "'Called Paula, not home, Call forward on car phone
message from Paula, Whole long message about golf, Don't see you. He's
not sure if in Arizona or Las Vegas, or if angry with him. He listens to
message. Kato goes by house.'"

Paula too, had testified in her deposition that Simpson had picked up
her message and responded to it on her answering machine.

That proves it, Prien. Telephone records, testimony from Paula, notes
from a defense expert who Simpson talked about it to, and Simpson's own
words.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-13 02:49:40 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/12/2003 8:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Walker's notes read: "'Called Paula, not home, Call forward on car phone
message from Paula, Whole long message about golf, Don't see you. He's
not sure if in Arizona or Las Vegas, or if angry with him. He listens to
message. Kato goes by house.'"
Paula too, had testified in her deposition that Simpson had picked up
her message and responded to it on her answering machine.
That proves it, Prien. Telephone records, testimony from Paula, notes
from a defense expert who Simpson talked about it to, and Simpson's own
words.
bobaugust

I don't care what these poeple claim.

Post the testimon y where Simpson affirms he made the 6:56 call. He in fact
denied it when shown the record.

The fact is two PROSECUTION witnesses tesified Simpson was still at the recital
past 7 pm, as were the Brown. I don't care what the records say, especially
when calls can be made to appear to have been made from a phone when they were
not so made.

Walker's notes read: "'Called Paula, not home, Call forward on car phone
message from Paula, Whole long message about golf, Don't see you. He's
not sure if in Arizona or Las Vegas, or if angry with him. He listens to
message. Kato goes by house.'"

Great. Previously, you cited Eliot where Kato claims Simpson called to him
while he was waching basketball game and he then went to see Simpson in the
kitchen (and Kato's tesatimony puts this after game is over). Kato was then
lying in his bed from the time he returned from playing basketball until
Simpson called him.

Okay, now you want to use wWalker's notes to prove that Simpson listens to
message and Kato goes by house.

No way if Kato was lying on his bed watching game. At no point could Simpson
have seen him walking anywhere around the time he was allegedly making the call
because Kato watched the end of the Rockets game before the Simpson episode
occurred.

You can't even add 1 by itself and still get the right answer.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-13 14:02:15 UTC

I don't care what these poeple claim.
Post the testimon y where Simpson affirms he made the 6:56 call. He in fact
denied it when shown the record.
The fact is two PROSECUTION witnesses tesified Simpson was still at the recital
past 7 pm, as were the Brown. I don't care what the records say, especially
when calls can be made to appear to have been made from a phone when they were
not so made.

Great. Previously, you cited Eliot where Kato claims Simpson called to him
while he was waching basketball game and he then went to see Simpson in the
kitchen (and Kato's tesatimony puts this after game is over). Kato was then
lying in his bed from the time he returned from playing basketball until
Simpson called him.
Okay, now you want to use wWalker's notes to prove that Simpson listens to
message and Kato goes by house.
No way if Kato was lying on his bed watching game. At no point could Simpson
have seen him walking anywhere around the time he was allegedly making the call
because Kato watched the end of the Rockets game before the Simpson episode
occurred.
You can't even add 1 by itself and still get the right answer.
Prien

What are you talking about, Prien? Is this your reading comprehension
problem again? You don't care what "these people" claim? It's evident
that you don't care about any evidence that contradicts your fantasies.
Let me make it very simple for you.

Simpson said when he got home from the recital he checked his messages
and then Kaelin came over.

Simpson said that he was home when the 6:56 phone call was made from his
house to his message manager.

Simpson told Dr. Lenore Walker he made that phone call. She wrote about
it in her notes. Exactly what he told her. Dr. Lenore Walker was the
defense domestic violence expert. She examined Simpson when he was in
jail. She took notes during her examination. I bet you now think she was
in on the conspiracy, right?

Paula Barbieri testified she believed Simpson left her his message in
response to her message to him.

Simpson outright lied about this. Did he have another explanation? No.

End of argument. I can't help it if you can not understand simple
english or can not comprehend when someone's lies are impeached. That's
your problem, not ours. You do not know what a lie is. You think a lie
is when someone says something you do not agree with.

It does not matter when the basketball game ended, because if it ended
before Kaelin went to Simpson house then it ended before 7:00. Because
Kaelin went to Simpson's house before 7:00.

Who ever said Simpson was lying on his bed? Do you just read things,
fantasize what you think happened, and then make things up? I guess you do.

"He (Kaelin) arrived at the guest house, stretched out on the floor to
give his back a rest, and flipped the TV on with the remote. A few
minutes passed before he heard O.J. once again calling his name. Kato
got up and saw O.J. through the screen door, waving him into the main
house."

Prien, have a five year old child explain this to you. Some one closer
to your mental age may be able help you understand how to tell when
someone is caught in a lie.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-13 20:54:47 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/13/2003 10:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Simpson said that he was home when the 6:56 phone call was made from his
house to his message manager.

Cite the testimony and date. What you claim about it means nothing.

Also, what Walker writes is what she CLAIMS happened. I don't take that kind
of hearsay as proof of anything.

During his interview with L&V, Simpson definitey did not claim to have called
his answering service after getting home from the recital. He instead said he
tried to call her. He then also claims he got home from recital at seven
something.

That completely fits with the other prosecution witnesses about when the
recital ended, and when Simpson was still at the recital.

Proof, August, provide real proof it was otherwise.

Petroliar's crap counts for nothing without proof Simpson was in fact on the
line.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-13 21:42:48 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/13/2003 10:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Simpson said that he was home when the 6:56 phone call was made from his
house to his message manager.

Cite the testimony and date. What you claim about it means nothing.
Also, what Walker writes is what she CLAIMS happened. I don't take that kind
of hearsay as proof of anything.
During his interview with L&V, Simpson definitey did not claim to have called
his answering service after getting home from the recital. He instead said he
tried to call her. He then also claims he got home from recital at seven
something.
That completely fits with the other prosecution witnesses about when the
recital ended, and when Simpson was still at the recital.
Proof, August, provide real proof it was otherwise.
Petroliar's crap counts for nothing without proof Simpson was in fact on the
line.
Prien

Prien. I have posted this testimony before. This time read it.

November 26, 1996

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You see 18:56, sir, right there?
A. Yes.
Q. That's 6:56?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. 476-4619?
A. Yes.
Q. Message 999. That's to your message manager?
A. I believe 999 would have been numbers to my message manager.
Q. So does that help you remember that at 6:56 p.m. from your home phone
number 476-4619, you called and picked up a five-minute message?
A. No, I didn't pick up any message.
Q. The records than are incorrect?
A. I don't know about the records. I know I was at home. I know I
checked my home message machine. And I know Kato came in, and Kato and
I was talking.

Walker's notes are not hearsay. They were presented in the civil trial.
Paula Barbieri's testimony is not hearsay.

All of this is proof that Simpson is lying. It seems you think the only
proof of a crime is that you, Prien, have to have see the crime for
yourself. You just do not seem to be able to comprehend how someone can
be impeached. Contradiction by a witness, and written notes of what
Simpson actually said to someone who was working to help him are just
lies to you, right?

Now you do some posting. Please post the testimony where Simpson said he
got home from the recital AFTER 7:00. Other wise, in your own words
Prien's crap counts for nothing. But we already know that.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-15 22:40:21 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/13/2003 5:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
A. I believe 999 would have been numbers to my message manager.
Q. So does that help you remember that at 6:56 p.m. from your home phone
number 476-4619, you called and picked up a five-minute message?
A. No, I didn't pick up any message.

Notice that here we are talking about a message picked up at a specific time.
simson absolutely denies picking up a message at that point, and certainly the
one Petrocelli mentions.

Q. The records than are incorrect?
A. I don't know about the records. I know I was at home. I know I
checked my home message machine. And I know Kato came in, and Kato and
I was talking.

Does Simpson here confirm the accuracy of the records? If youi think so, point
to the words?

Simpson specifically questions the accuracy of the records. His attorneys
should never have admitted them, and have instead forfced Petrocelli to prove
the authenticity and accuracy of the records by compelling the submission of
the genuine phone company records by someone qualified to attest to them. Had
they then been smart, they could have questioned them about the possibiolity of
calls being made remotely from a line.

Simpson, however, definitely questions the accruacy of those records, but
without definitely declaring them to be false since he had no proof that would
have nebaled him to do so in the absence of the actual records.

And just as I thought. Simpson never affirmed WHEN any of the events he
desribed occurred. If you think otherwise, can you point to the exact words
where he says precisely when each event he described occurred? Could you do
that August?

He says he checked HIS home message machine, not the message manager.

What you cited is still garbage.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-16 00:29:24 UTC

Notice that here we are talking about a message picked up at a specific time.
simson absolutely denies picking up a message at that point, and certainly the
one Petrocelli mentions.

Q. The records than are incorrect?
A. I don't know about the records. I know I was at home. I know I
checked my home message machine. And I know Kato came in, and Kato and
I was talking.

Does Simpson here confirm the accuracy of the records? If youi think so, point
to the words?
Simpson specifically questions the accuracy of the records. His attorneys
should never have admitted them, and have instead forfced Petrocelli to prove
the authenticity and accuracy of the records by compelling the submission of
the genuine phone company records by someone qualified to attest to them. Had
they then been smart, they could have questioned them about the possibiolity of
calls being made remotely from a line.
Simpson, however, definitely questions the accruacy of those records, but
without definitely declaring them to be false since he had no proof that would
have nebaled him to do so in the absence of the actual records.
And just as I thought. Simpson never affirmed WHEN any of the events he
desribed occurred. If you think otherwise, can you point to the exact words
where he says precisely when each event he described occurred? Could you do
that August?
He says he checked HIS home message machine, not the message manager.
What you cited is still garbage.
Prien

Prien, you are getting very confused again. Stick to the subject.
You asked me to post the Simpson's testimony where Simpson said he was
in his house before 7:00. That is what I posted.

We all know Simpson lied about not making the 6:56 call to his message
center. We know he lied when he said he did not get Barbieri's message.
We know because he told Dr. Walker that he called his message center and
what the message said. We know because Barbieri told us he responded to
her message.

Back to the subject. Read it again Prien,

A. I don't know about the records. I know I was at home.

Once again, Prien. Please post the testimony where Simpson said he got
home from the recital AFTER 7:00. Other wise, in your own words Prien's
crap counts for nothing. But we already know that.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-17 02:03:08 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/15/2003 8:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Prien, you are getting very confused again. Stick to the subject.
You asked me to post the Simpson's testimony where Simpson said he was
in his house before 7:00. That is what I posted.

REally. could you point to the words in the text you cited where simpson
expressly affirmns that any of the activities he described ooccurred at or
bedfore 7:00 p.m.?

We all know Simpson lied about not making the 6:56 call to his message
center. We know he lied when he said he did not get Barbieri's message.

I thought not. "We" all don't know that. You imagine it. Now if you could
post some real proof, we migth get somewhere.

Wa;ker's commentary is pure burbling. I have alreayd shown you how her
comments are in conflict with both what Simpson and Kato said about how the
events occurred.

Moreover, whatever she wrote is pure hearsay. There is no telling whether she
got right what Simpson actually told her.

You're reliance on her garbage to prove something about the case is just proof
of the broken reeds you rely on to buttress your illusions about the case.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-17 12:37:07 UTC

REally. could you point to the words in the text you cited where simpson
expressly affirmns that any of the activities he described ooccurred at or
bedfore 7:00 p.m.?

We all know Simpson lied about not making the 6:56 call to his message
center. We know he lied when he said he did not get Barbieri's message.

I thought not. "We" all don't know that. You imagine it. Now if you could
post some real proof, we migth get somewhere.
Wa;ker's commentary is pure burbling. I have alreayd shown you how her
comments are in conflict with both what Simpson and Kato said about how the
events occurred.
Moreover, whatever she wrote is pure hearsay. There is no telling whether she
got right what Simpson actually told her.
You're reliance on her garbage to prove something about the case is just proof
of the broken reeds you rely on to buttress your illusions about the case.
Prien

Prien, once again you can't back up your claims with anything but your
fantasies and inability to understand the reality of what is being said.
I posted Simpson's testimony where he agreed that he was in his house at
6:56 but claimed he did not make the phone call to his message center.

More Simpson testimony, from the beginning:

"And if phone records indicate, sir, that that 6:56 call was placed from
your home, would that refresh your recollection?"

"No, it wouldn't, because I know at about that time I was in my kitchen
talking to Kato." Simpson was on top of his alibi; he thought he knew
everything there was to know about the available evidence.

"At exactly 6:56, you can remember that specifically, can you?" Now
you'd think Simpson would have sensed a trap; there had to be a reason I
keyed in on this time. But, no, he kept rolling out his alibi.

"I believe I came back home, and I was trying to make those calls again,
and Kato came in and we were talking,"

I asked if he recognized a phone number. It was his home phone on June
12, 1994. "It may have been one of my numbers," he said. He was
equivocating about his own home phone. I showed him the computer printout,

Simpson looked quizzical. He had created his alibi to cover all the
known physical evidence and by this time must have been comforted by the
assumption that nothing new would appear. But the piece of paper he held
in his hand was genuinely new, and I watched as he scanned the rows of
numbers and tried to take it all in.

"So," I asked, "does that help you remember the 6:56 P.M., from your
home phone number, you called and picked up a five minute message?

Simpson denied the undeniable, "No, I didn't pick up any message."

"The records, then, are incorrect?"

"I don't know about the records. I know I was at home. I know I checked
my home message machine. And I know Kato came in, and Kato and I was
talking.

Now try to understand this, Prien.

Dr. Walker did not give commentary. Dr. Walker met with Simpson on
February 25, 1995. She spent some sixty some hours with Simpson. Dr.
Walker took contemporaneous notes of her sessions with Simpson. They
were turned over to the attorneys and they were read in court.

"'Called Paula, not home, Call forward on car phone message from Paula,
Whole long message about golf, Don't see you. He's not sure if in
Arizona or Las Vegas, or if angry with him. He listens to message. Kato
goes by house.'"

Now Prien, how do you think Dr. Walker knew in February 1995, about a
call forward to Simpson's car phone and a message from Paula? How do you
think that Dr. Walker knew it was a long message about golf, and Paula
was out of town in Las Vegas? Paula testified that before she left town
she never told Simpson she was going to Las Vegas. How do you think Dr.
Walker knew that Paula was angry with Simpson? How do you thing Dr.
Walker knew that as Simpson listened to the message, Kato went by his house?

(Kaelin went by Simpson's house to his room, Prien, where he turned on
the television to watch the basketball game, and after "a few minutes
passed, he heard O.J. calling his name" and "saw O.J. through the screen
door, waving him into the main house.")

Dr. Walker knew all of these things, Prien, because that is what Simpson
told her on February 25, 1995.

Busted and impeached. Just like you are, Prien. It seems the only two
people on earth who deny the undeniable and can not admit to this
reality are Simpson and Prien. Two proven liars.

You posted no testimony, Prien. Your asinine belief is based on your own
personal fantasies. You make things up and you do not understand what
you read. You have proven once again to everyone who reads this thread
what we all know, "Prien's crap counts for nothing."

Simpson was in his house before 7:00 P.M., after returning from his
daughter's recital. That is a proven fact.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-18 00:39:19 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/17/2003 8:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time
I posted Simpson's testimony where he agreed that he was in his house at
6:56 but claimed he did not make the phone call to his message center.

You posted no such thing. He referred to doing a number of things. Can you
point to the words and cite testimnony where Simpson expressly affirms that the
acitivity occurred at the time yiou claimed? I mean simpson saying this
happened at 6:56 p.m.?

"And if phone records indicate, sir, that that 6:56 call was placed from
your home, would that refresh your recollection?"
"No, it wouldn't, because I know at about that time I was in my kitchen
talking to Kato."

I thought you can't. Where in that citation does Simpson affirm he was in fact
anywhere at that time. He in fact says it wouldn;t refresh his recollection,
thereby making the record unauthneicated, and he only claims that it was around
that time he was talking toi kato. Around that time could just as well be
AFTER 6:56, say 7:10. It would still be around 6:56.

Get it through your fat head you have nothing that in fact proves that Simpson
made that call, or was anywhere near his kitchen at exactly 6:56 as you keep
dreaming.

Simpson was on top of his alibi; he thought he knew

everything there was to know about the available evidence.

What alibi. Did the murders occur at 6:56? Simpson needed no alibi for that
time period. Whethere he did or did not pick up the call was proof of abslutely
nothing regarding the murders. It made absolutely no sense for him to falsely
deny having picked up the message at that time. EvEN IF HE HAD, IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN PROOF OF NOTHING, not even a motive.

"At exactly 6:56, you can remember that specifically, can you?" Now
you'd think Simpson would have sensed a trap; there had to be a reason I
keyed in on this time. But, no, he kept rolling out his alibi.

The only trap was the bull shit question pegged to demanidng that Simpson state
that he knew where he was at EXACTLY 5:56. It was a way for lawyers to catch
witnesses in an apparent "lie." How could he possibly know where he was at an
exact point in time when he had not looked at his watch and timed his movements
when they occurred. It's a purely bull shit trap to get Simpson to auithentica
the phony record or open himself up to phony charges of lying if he claims he
doesn;t recall. It's the old "when did you stop beating your wife question,"
which has built into it the false premise that you are beating your wife. You
are obviously too dumb to catchy on.

Pure nonsense lawyer tricks. Means absolutely nothing except that a sharp
juror would simply dismiss the case any lawyer was trying to make using such
cheap theatrics. That layers would even dare use it is only proof they don;t
face many sharp jurors.
.

"I believe I came back home, and I was trying to make those calls again,
and Kato came in and we were talking,"
I asked if he recognized a phone number. It was his home phone on June
12, 1994. "It may have been one of my numbers," he said. He was
equivocating about his own home phone. I showed him the computer printout,

Bull shit. The number was to his message manager, not his home phone number.

Simpson looked quizzical. He had created his alibi to cover all the
known physical evidence and by this time must have been comforted by the
assumption that nothing new would appear. But the piece of paper he held
in his hand was genuinely new, and I watched as he scanned the rows of
numbers and tried to take it all in.

Get this straight. The time of this call is not physicaol evidence of ANYTHING
related to the murders. Simps0on needs no alibi for anything he did at 6:56,
because he was charged with no criminal activity that was committed at that
time.

Petrocelli is just dazzling the dimwits with fool's gold. He sure hooked you,
August.

"So," I asked, "does that help you remember the 6:56 P.M., from your
home phone number, you called and picked up a five minute message?
Simpson denied the undeniable, "No, I didn't pick up any message."
"The records, then, are incorrect?"
"I don't know about the records. I know I was at home. I know I checked
my home message machine. And I know Kato came in, and Kato and I was
talking.

Exactly. Can you point to the exact words Simpson used to pin down the time of
those activities. I asked you this before, but you obviously can't do it.

Can anyone else spot those allegedly incriminating words being used by Simpson?

Now try to understand this, Prien.

I do. You're a complet jackass.

Prien

John Griffin

2003-09-12 06:56:37 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/10/2003 11:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Eliot writes, "He arrived at the guest house, stretched out
on the floor to give his back a rest, and flipped the TV on
with the remote. A few minutes passed, before he heard O.J.
once again calling his name. Kato got up and saw O.J.
through the screen door, waving him into the main house."
"Once in the main house, O.J. asked who won the basketball
game and Kato asked O.J. how the recital went."

At least you're learning about who is right.
But your quotes kill you tale. REcall that Kato testifies
that he did not see Simpson until AFTER the game ended. I
already posted the times involved. Since Elliott writes
that Simpson waved to him, Kato then went to Simpson and
Simpson asked him about how the game went, this all had to
occur after the game ended, which could not be one second
earlier than 6:48, but actually had to be much later.
NOw Since Simpson also asked about how the game went, he
must have known the game was over by then, or he would have
turned on TV and could see how IT WAS GOING. Simpson being
a spoirts freak, he would have known when could expect the
game to have been over. If he was really interested in how
the game went, and he wasn;t already sure it was over, he
would not have needed kato to tell him.
Simpson's question about the game establishes that it was
well past seven when this happened. The call he allegedly
made before 7 inside his house is completely phony.

You dumb asshole, why are you disagreeing with O.J. "The Real
Killer" Simpson's assertion that he was standing in his kitchen
talking to Kaelin before 7 PM? Are you just fucking stupid?
(Hint: Yes.) Why are you trying to dispute all the evidence
that shows he was there at 6:56? (Hint: See preceding
question.)

Post by Prien
The rest of what you write is irrelevant, as it is already
addressed above.

You flatter yourself way too much, idiotic little gasbag.

John Junot

2003-09-12 22:42:56 UTC

***@aol.com (Prien) wrote in message news:<***@mb-

[snip]

Post by Prien
Simpson's question about the game establishes that it was well past seven when
this happened. The call he allegedly made before 7 inside his house is
completely phony.

No. If the telephone records show that a call had been made, then a
call WAS made. HOWEVER, all the phone company records CAN show is
that a call was made from Rockingham, NOT WHO MADE THE CALL.

I am aware of a number of times that OJ denied making calls that phone
company records prove were made from Rockingham. Now, who else was at
Rockingham at the time? Hint: the initials of the person who really
made the phone calls are BGK.

Post by Prien
The rest of what you write is irrelevant, as it is already addressed above.
Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-13 00:36:24 UTC

Post by John Junot
[snip]

Post by Prien
Simpson's question about the game establishes that it was well past seven when
this happened. The call he allegedly made before 7 inside his house is
completely phony.

No. If the telephone records show that a call had been made, then a
call WAS made. HOWEVER, all the phone company records CAN show is
that a call was made from Rockingham, NOT WHO MADE THE CALL.
I am aware of a number of times that OJ denied making calls that phone
company records prove were made from Rockingham. Now, who else was at
Rockingham at the time? Hint: the initials of the person who really
made the phone calls are BGK.

Post by Prien
The rest of what you write is irrelevant, as it is already addressed above.
Prien

John, the 6:56 phone call made from Simpson's house was to his cell
phone message manager. Paula Barbieri had left a long message on
Simpson's cell phone.

Simpson admitted he was in his house at 6:56 when that call was made.
Barbieri testified that she believed that Simpson received her message
based on the message he left her. Dr. Lenore Walker was a defense expert
who interviewed Simpson in jail. Simpson told her that he made that call
and got Paula's message. He even told her what the message said. Walker
wrote about it in her notes as she was interviewing him.

Simpson said Kaelin came over to his house after he had checked his
messages. Kaelin was in his room watching the end of the basketball game
when that call was made. Forget your fantasy about Kaelin, John. It's a
miserable failure.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-13 02:30:23 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/12/2003 6:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
No. If the telephone records show that a call had been made, then a
call WAS made. HOWEVER, all the phone company records CAN show is
that a call was made from Rockingham, NOT WHO MADE THE CALL.

This is absolutely wrong. In fact, there was a story in LA Times around that
time of a computer hacker who had, I believe been working for the feds, who
said that he had been able to make calls and have it appear they were made on
anotehr phone. the telephone company refused to comment.

I once checked with phone company about precisley this point, and the
saleperson seeling call forarding and other systems informed it was was
possible to have remote call forwarding done to have call forwarding plugged in
so call would be rputed through a number to another number. the call would
then appear on the records for the phone fropm which it had been forwarded.

Finally, from personal experience, my spouse was billed on out phone for calls
that allegedly aoriginated from out phone that we never made, and that the
phone company. The phone company promptly removed the charges.

The notion that when there is a record that a call originated from a phone, the
call must have originated from that phone belongs to ancient history when they
used rotary phones, and before they split the voice transmission from the
entirely data transmission line which identifies the source and target phone to
switch the calls through the propewr relays.

This is just like the silly notion that the phone company in 1994 lacked the
capability and did not have a record of local calls, a lie L&V propagate in
their book, as did Clark at the trial. The fact is the phone company then had
that capability, and they had a record of every call made to and from a phone.

Such a record of calls is called a phone dump.

Several NYPD officers (up to a captain) have confirmed this for me.

It is simply ludicrous for the police to have claimed they did not have such
phone dumps of the phones for each victim and person related to the case (such
as Mezzaluna). They had it for Nicole. Getting a phone dump of a homicide
victim's phone is one of the first steps in a murder investigation, especially
of a murder in the victim's home, because it tells when the person might last
have talked on the phone (and was still alive) and furnishes leads on who the
person talked to leading up to the time of the murders (which in fact is
exactly why Ratcliffe sought that information in her report, and confirmed it
to ensure it was accurate when she wrote Nicole was talking to her mother at 11
pm).

It would have confirmed all the alleged calls purportedly made about the
glasses, and everything else.

The only reason the police failed to produce such information is because it
would have destroyed their case. You can rest assured, however, they had it.

When I once asked an NYPD captain if a detective would know how to get a phone
dump, his answer answer was "a patrolman would know how to do it."

Get over, it John. Mere records do not absolutely PROVE that a call was made
from a particular phone.

There is no proof whatever that Simpson or anyone else actually made a call
from Rockingham around 7 pm as August alleges.

In fact, because two witnesses (Denise and Garvey) testified that he was stioll
at the recital at por past 7 pm, his presence there absolutely precludes the
possibility that he could also have been present at Rockingham to make any
calls within that time frame.

Prien

Prien

2003-09-11 01:22:15 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/10/2003 3:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Q. By the way, what was Mr. Simpson wearing at the time of that
conversation, at about 6:30, 7 o'clock?
A. I thought it was a sharp-looking sweatsuit, dark, white zipper.
Q. What do you mean by a sweatsuit?
A. Like a jogging outfit.
Have you seen the picture of Mr. Simpson that Ron Fishman took at the
recital?
Miss Marple

Why bother showing him a picture. The man is blind to anything but Simpson did
it.

Prien

missmarple8

2003-09-11 07:46:06 UTC

Why bother showing him a picture. The man is blind to anything but Simpson did
it.
Prien

I know. The funny thing about this testimony from Kaelin is that it
totally ruins bobaugust's theory. He is comitted to a scenario where
O.J.'s rage is growing, he is out of control with rage after the
recital. Then Gigi calls and asks for the evening off and this call
sets O.J. off. He sees a window of opportunity where he can go and
kill Nicole without anybody knowing that he was not at home. He
changes into a blue/black sweat suit for his murderous pursuit. Then
he decides to have a hamburger first. The whole thing makes
bobaugust's assumption rather silly.

Miss Marple

John Griffin

2003-09-11 09:04:50 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/10/2003 3:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Q. By the way, what was Mr. Simpson wearing at the time
of that conversation, at about 6:30, 7 o'clock?
A. I thought it was a sharp-looking sweatsuit, dark,
white zipper.
Q. What do you mean by a sweatsuit?
A. Like a jogging outfit.
Have you seen the picture of Mr. Simpson that Ron Fishman
took at the recital?
Miss Marple

Why bother showing him a picture. The man is blind to
anything but Simpson did it.
Prien

I know. The funny thing about this testimony from Kaelin
is that it totally ruins bobaugust's theory. He is
comitted to a scenario where O.J.'s rage is growing, he is
out of control with rage after the recital. Then Gigi
calls and asks for the evening off and this call sets O.J.
off. He sees a window of opportunity where he can go and
kill Nicole without anybody knowing that he was not at
home. He changes into a blue/black sweat suit for his
murderous pursuit. Then he decides to have a hamburger
first. The whole thing makes bobaugust's assumption
rather silly.
Miss Marple

Thanks for saying that. A while ago, I said we'd soon be seeing
another iteration of that idiotic "demeanor evidence" bullshit.
I knew you wouldn't let my prediction fail.

None of your conjectures about how murderers behave has any
relationship to the 100% of the evidence that points
unwaveringly to O.J. "The Real Killer" Simpson. First, the
choice of clothes, then the hamburger, and now we'll soon hear
how he wasn't acting the murderers do on the flights to and from
Chicago. The only thing that insignificant nonsense makes look
silly is the person who says it.

************* The alt.fan.oj-simpson FAQ ***********
Q1: Did The Real Killer walk away from the carcasses
at Bundy with O.J. Simpson's blood dripping from a
cut on his left hand?
Q1: Yes
****************************************************

bobaugust

2003-09-11 09:45:33 UTC

Why bother showing him a picture. The man is blind to anything but Simpson did
it.
Prien

Not really Miss Marple. Kaelin doesn't ruin my theory. I am not
committed to a theory that "Simpson's rage is growing and he is out of
control with rage after the recital." That may be what you think I mean,
but you would be wrong.

Simpson was, if you like, a victim of circumstances. Unexpected
circumstances. Sure, he was pissed at Nicole after the recital. That was
nothing new. Didn't you read any of the things Kaelin said he and
Simpson talked about? He was pissed at how Nicole dressed, and acted. He
was pissed at Nicole believing that she was keeping him from seeing his
kids.

But this time became different. Simpson received Gigi's unexpected
telephone call that made it different. Simpson would be alone in his
house for several hours before leaving town. That was unusual.

We don't know what Simpson was thinking, no one does. Did Simpson plan
to actually kill Nicole? Probably not, but he sure did plan to do
something.

He changed into dark clothing, and he went to Bundy with a dark colored
knit hat, gloves, and a knife. Before he left he made a point of being
seen by Kato Kaelin. Simpson did things he never did before that night.
Going to Kaelin's room twice and then to McDonalds.

Yes, I have theorized that Simpson did not change into his sweat suit
until after he talked to Gigi. Kaelin's testimony does not contradict
that. Kaelin had no reason to remember what Simpson was wearing through
out the day. All Kaelin remembered was that Simpson was wearing a dark
colored sweat suit.

Kaelin remembered Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat suit at about
7:00, at 9:00, and after 11:00. We know Kaelin was mistaken about the
after 11:00 time, and he was most likely mistaken about the 7:00 time.

Kaelin remembers that Simpson was wearing the sweat suit about 7:00 when
he met with him in his kitchen. Simpson probably didn't get home from
the recital much before 7:00. He most likely was still wearing the
clothes he wore to the recital when he called for Kaelin.

Simpson himself tells us that he didn't change his clothes until
sometime between 7:30 and 9:00. Telephone records put Simpson in his
house calling his message center at 6:56. It's very possible Simpson
made his calls before he called out to Kaelin to come over.

The only thing that sounds silly here are your assumptions Miss Marple,
not mine.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-12 03:33:31 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/11/2003 5:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Not really Miss Marple. Kaelin doesn't ruin my theory. I am not
committed to a theory that "Simpson's rage is growing and he is out of
control with rage after the recital." That may be what you think I mean,
but you would be wrong.

No, but you afre committd to the absured thoery that he became enraged. Now,
as it was putin the movie "Twelve Angry Men," at what point does this rage
start and when does it stop? What makes it start and stop? How could he have
been enraged enough to act like a mad slasher, but controlled enough to get rid
of almost all the evidence, and then dumb enough to leave just enough to finger
himself?

It makes no sense. If it makes no sense, you must believe the defense.

Simpson was, if you like, a victim of circumstances. Unexpected
circumstances. Sure, he was pissed at Nicole after the recital. That was
nothing new. Didn't you read any of the things Kaelin said he and
Simpson talked about? He was pissed at how Nicole dressed, and acted. He
was pissed at Nicole believing that she was keeping him from seeing his
kids.
But this time became different. Simpson received Gigi's unexpected
telephone call that made it different. Simpson would be alone in his
house for several hours before leaving town. That was unusual.

[MOre excellent thought from August. Simpson, of course, had never before been
alone after being angry with Nicole. But this time, it all came together.

Especially after Kato made clear he was not at all angry when he saw him right
after the recital. And the viedo taken of him with the family after recital
shows him to be quite friendly.

August's scenario would not be believed in the twilight zone.

We don't know

what Simpson was thinking, no one does. Did Simpson plan

to actually kill Nicole? Probably not, but he sure did plan to do
something.
He changed into dark clothing, and he went to Bundy with a dark colored
knit hat, gloves, and a knife. Before he left he made a point of being
seen by Kato Kaelin. Simpson did things he never did before that night.
Going to Kaelin's room twice and then to McDonalds.

[There was another ewxplanation for all that. Simpson wanted kato out of the
house, and he was making it difficult for him by hassling him about the little
things.

Yes, I have theorized that Simpson did not change into his sweat suit
until after he talked to Gigi. Kaelin's testimony does not contradict
that. Kaelin had no reason to remember what Simpson was wearing through
out the day. All Kaelin remembered was that Simpson was wearing a dark
colored sweat suit.
Kaelin remembered Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat suit at about
7:00, at 9:00, and after 11:00. We know Kaelin was mistaken about the
after 11:00 time, and he was most likely mistaken about the 7:00 time.

WEll,m I guess when he is right only one of the three times, what does August
go with? The one time when it fits his theory.

If he was wrong twice, the MOST REASONABLE explantion is that he was also wrong
the third time, which then points to innocent, the finding the jury must adopt.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-12 05:50:58 UTC

No, but you afre committd to the absured thoery that he became enraged. Now,
as it was putin the movie "Twelve Angry Men," at what point does this rage
start and when does it stop? What makes it start and stop? How could he have
been enraged enough to act like a mad slasher, but controlled enough to get rid
of almost all the evidence, and then dumb enough to leave just enough to finger
himself?
It makes no sense. If it makes no sense, you must believe the defense.

Prien, I am committed to a theory that sometime that evening Simpson
lost control. That sometime was when Ron Goldman surprised him.

[MOre excellent thought from August. Simpson, of course, had never before been
alone after being angry with Nicole. But this time, it all came together.
Especially after Kato made clear he was not at all angry when he saw him right
after the recital. And the viedo taken of him with the family after recital
shows him to be quite friendly.
August's scenario would not be believed in the twilight zone.

Simpson's housekeeper was a live in housekeeper. She normally would be
there to help Simpson get ready for his flights. She went away for that
weekend and planned to be back Sunday. Up until 8:00 that evening
Simpson was expecting her return. In that 8:00 phone call, Simpson gave
her permission to stay until the morning. Simpson then had almost three
hours alone before he had to leave for his flight.

Kaelin told what Simpson said to him about Nicole. Besides criticizing
her he told Kaelin she was playing "hardball" with his kids.

Of course Simpson looked friendly in the video, he was outside, in
public view.

We don't know

what Simpson was thinking, no one does. Did Simpson plan

[There was another ewxplanation for all that. Simpson wanted kato out of the
house, and he was making it difficult for him by hassling him about the little
things.

I see, you say Simpson wanted Kato out of the house? Kato wasn't in his
house. Simpson went to Kaelin's room. And how does that explain Simpson
changing into dark clothing, and going to Bundy with a dark colored
knit hat, gloves, and a knife?

WEll,m I guess when he is right only one of the three times, what does August
go with? The one time when it fits his theory.
If he was wrong twice, the MOST REASONABLE explantion is that he was also wrong
the third time, which then points to innocent, the finding the jury must adopt.

I see, since Kaelin did not remember any of the other clothing Simpson
was wearing that night except a dark colored sweat suit, then your logic
tells you that it's reasonable to conclude that Simpson was NEVER
wearing a dark colored sweat suit at all that night. Is that right? Good
one, Prien.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-12 22:23:55 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/12/2003 1:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time
I see, since Kaelin did not remember any of the other clothing Simpson
was wearing that night except a dark colored sweat suit, then your logic
tells you that it's reasonable to conclude that Simpson was NEVER
wearing a dark colored sweat suit at all that night. Is that right? Good
one, Prien.

Well, if the witness is dead wrong twice about when the man was wearing, which
is the reasonable explanation: after getting it wrong twice, he just happened
to get the third one right, maybe, pointing to guilt; or he had the third one
just was wrong as the other two, thereby pointing to innocence.

That he had the third one just wrong is as the other two is eminently
reasonable. It is in fact most reasonable. That he had the third right after
getting the other two wrong is actually unreasonable.

Jury has no choice. Must pick the reasonable over the unreasnable, thereby
directly pointing to Simpson's innocence.

Now there is also nothing whatsoever to show that Simpson ever wore dark
clothes, and the alleged fiber connections are utter bull shit.

It's so nice to address evidence issues with the jury instructions available as
a template for measuring the probative value of the testimony.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-13 00:34:15 UTC

Well, if the witness is dead wrong twice about when the man was wearing, which
is the reasonable explanation: after getting it wrong twice, he just happened
to get the third one right, maybe, pointing to guilt; or he had the third one
just was wrong as the other two, thereby pointing to innocence.
That he had the third one just wrong is as the other two is eminently
reasonable. It is in fact most reasonable. That he had the third right after
getting the other two wrong is actually unreasonable.
Jury has no choice. Must pick the reasonable over the unreasnable, thereby
directly pointing to Simpson's innocence.
Now there is also nothing whatsoever to show that Simpson ever wore dark
clothes, and the alleged fiber connections are utter bull shit.
It's so nice to address evidence issues with the jury instructions available as
a template for measuring the probative value of the testimony.
Prien

Prien, your reasoning makes absolutely no sense.

Kaelin only remembered Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat suit that day.

For you to reason that since that was the only clothing Kaelin
remembered Simpson wearing means that the jury should have disregarded
it, is completely asinine.

But that's the dummy Prien, keep up the good work.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-12 03:21:44 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/11/2003 3:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time

not

Prien

2003-09-12 03:23:51 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/11/2003 3:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
I know. The funny thing about this testimony from Kaelin is that it
totally ruins bobaugust's theory. He is comitted to a scenario where
O.J.'s rage is growing, he is out of control with rage after the
recital. Then Gigi calls and asks for the evening off and this call
sets O.J. off. He sees a window of opportunity where he can go and
kill Nicole without anybody knowing that he was not at home. He
changes into a blue/black sweat suit for his murderous pursuit. Then
he decides to have a hamburger first. The whole thing makes
bobaugust's assumption rather silly.
Miss Marple

I realize you are trying to be kind to poor August. When you put the events
together as they had to have happened in his scenario, absurd is not too strong
a word.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-12 03:42:58 UTC

I realize you are trying to be kind to poor August. When you put the events
together as they had to have happened in his scenario, absurd is not too strong
a word.
Prien

Prien, I guess you didn't read my reply to MIss Marple. I agree, what
she wrote is absurd. The scenario I believe in is a supported scenario.
Supported by the evidence and the witnesses. You know, the truth.

bobaugust

Ketchall 1

2003-09-11 23:14:45 UTC

Post by bobaugust
You believe his lies, don't you Miss
Marple? Funny.

I would enjoy reading your theory on who you think murdered Nicole and Ron.

John Griffin

2003-09-07 01:38:24 UTC

Post by missmarple8
Maybe they didn't find the shoes and the sweat suit because
they looked in all the wrong places.

Duuuhhh....ya think?!

2003-09-05 14:05:56 UTC

If you buy what the prosecution said OJ had on. A ski cap in sumer and
gloves, etc. then you have to buy that the murder was premiditatd and if
you think that then the rest of the prosecution case goes down the
drain.

And you have to buy that OJ was an idiot and dressed up in the same
costume which was used in his latest movie. If he wanted to be caught
that bad then he would have pleaded guilty. The whole thing is just
silly when you look at it this way.

JEAN

bobaugust

2003-09-05 19:26:47 UTC

Post by je
If you buy what the prosecution said OJ had on. A ski cap in sumer and
gloves, etc. then you have to buy that the murder was premiditatd and if
you think that then the rest of the prosecution case goes down the
drain.
And you have to buy that OJ was an idiot and dressed up in the same
costume which was used in his latest movie. If he wanted to be caught
that bad then he would have pleaded guilty. The whole thing is just
silly when you look at it this way.

Silly OJ, for him to think that wearing all dark clothing at night would
make it hard for anyone to see him sneaking around. Silly OJ, for him to
think that wearing a dark colored knit hat on his head at night would
make it harder for anyone to identify him. Silly OJ, for him to think
that wearing gloves would prevent him from leaving his finger prints
anywhere.

Silly OJ to dress like that in the summer. Didn't he know it gets hot in
the summer. Maybe he should have worn a bathing suit, right Jean?

Silly OJ, for him not to realize that if he dressed in all dark clothing
at night for concealment, he would be caught. Silly OJ should have just
pleaded guilty so people like you, Jean, would not be so befuddled and
confused about what he did.

You sure do make a lot of sense, Jean. About as much sense as any other
handicapped pro-j. Funny.

bobaugust

John Griffin

2003-09-06 11:21:38 UTC

Post by je
If you buy what the prosecution said OJ had on. A ski cap
in sumer and gloves, etc. then you have to buy that the
murder was premiditatd and if you think that then the rest
of the prosecution case goes down the drain.
And you have to buy that OJ was an idiot and dressed up in
the same costume which was used in his latest movie. If he
wanted to be caught that bad then he would have pleaded
guilty. The whole thing is just silly when you look at it
this way.

Silly OJ, for him to think that wearing all dark clothing
at night would make it hard for anyone to see him sneaking
around. Silly OJ, for him to think that wearing a dark
colored knit hat on his head at night would make it harder
for anyone to identify him. Silly OJ, for him to think that
wearing gloves would prevent him from leaving his finger
prints anywhere.
Silly OJ to dress like that in the summer. Didn't he know
it gets hot in the summer. Maybe he should have worn a
bathing suit, right Jean?
Silly OJ, for him not to realize that if he dressed in all
dark clothing at night for concealment, he would be caught.
Silly OJ should have just pleaded guilty so people like
you, Jean, would not be so befuddled and confused about
what he did.
You sure do make a lot of sense, Jean. About as much sense
as any other handicapped pro-j. Funny.
bobaugust

Jean wasn't really thinking of all that stuff. She was only
considering the "fact" that all people behave exactly the same
way all the time. Look for her to say something like "demeanor
evidence" in a few days.

Prien

2003-09-06 00:57:05 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/5/2003 10:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time
If you buy what the prosecution said OJ had on. A ski cap in sumer and
gloves, etc. then you have to buy that the murder was premiditatd and if
you think that then the rest of the prosecution case goes down the
drain.
And you have to buy that OJ was an idiot and dressed up in the same
costume which was used in his latest movie. If he wanted to be caught
that bad then he would have pleaded guilty. The whole thing is just
silly when you look at it this way.
JEAN

Exactly. He carefully plans everything to avoid being caught, then
thoughtfully leaves a trail of evidence right to his front door.

It's that carefully laid trail that is the simple and most obnvioous reason it
is all plantged evidence.

BUt what it absolutely cnclusive is that the discovery of the Rockingham gloves
is not listed in then chronoliguical murder book that the investigators are
required to keep of all evidendc they find (as Vannatter admitted), nor is its
discovery recorded in a single note the detectives wrote which they are also
requiired to keep to documenjt what they find.

The glove was plantged evidcence.

Fuhrmans saying that the case is bye-bye without him and the glove revealed a
truth and a secret. The glove allegedly included a cocktail of trace evidence
that [urportedl;y locked Simpson to the crime scene. That was supposed to be
the centerpiece of the case. The prosecution, however, must have gotten cold
feet about relying only on that because the trouble with it was that the trace
evidence consisted of only one or two pieces. It was both too much and too
liit.

If it was real, there should have been more, but if it wasn't, then there was
vastly too much because there should not have been any.

Hallmark of a fraud.

So they later started sprinkling blood all over to strengthen their case.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-06 01:50:46 UTC

Exactly. He carefully plans everything to avoid being caught, then
thoughtfully leaves a trail of evidence right to his front door.
It's that carefully laid trail that is the simple and most obnvioous reason it
is all plantged evidence.
BUt what it absolutely cnclusive is that the discovery of the Rockingham gloves
is not listed in then chronoliguical murder book that the investigators are
required to keep of all evidendc they find (as Vannatter admitted), nor is its
discovery recorded in a single note the detectives wrote which they are also
requiired to keep to documenjt what they find.
The glove was plantged evidcence.
Fuhrmans saying that the case is bye-bye without him and the glove revealed a
truth and a secret. The glove allegedly included a cocktail of trace evidence
that [urportedl;y locked Simpson to the crime scene. That was supposed to be
the centerpiece of the case. The prosecution, however, must have gotten cold
feet about relying only on that because the trouble with it was that the trace
evidence consisted of only one or two pieces. It was both too much and too
liit.
If it was real, there should have been more, but if it wasn't, then there was
vastly too much because there should not have been any.
Hallmark of a fraud.
So they later started sprinkling blood all over to strengthen their case.
Prien

Prien's ridiculous fantasies again. Go back to sleep Prien where your
dumb opinions mean something. Simpson did not plan to get caught.
Simpson may not even had planned to murder anyone. But after his rage
killing of Goldman, he had no choice but to kill Nicole. He couldn't
leave a living witness to his killing. From then on he bumbled his way
through everything, leaving evidence whenever he encountered unexpected
situations as he tried to get back home.

That's the reality of this crime.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-06 20:44:23 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/5/2003 9:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time
But after his rage
killing of Goldman, he had no choice but to kill Nicole. He couldn't
leave a living witness to his killing. From then on he bumbled his way
through everything, leaving evidence whenever he encountered unexpected
situations as he tried to get back home.
That's the reality of this crime.
bobaugust

You're on something, right August, or you forgot to take your medicne. You
obviously must have been in some drug induced halluciation when you cobbled
these idiocies together.

Rage induced killing? That's a good one. Simpson the maniacal slasher stabs
Goldman in the neck twice, ince cuts his jugula vein, hits the SCM muscele both
times, with the carotid sheath encasing the carotid artery and jugular vein
just beneath that muscel, yet once he entirely misses both of the critical
blood vessels , and once he only hits the jugular vein.

Now I am going to let you all in on a little secret about why the SCM muscle
was the target in both victims.

It's the place where the undetaker makes his incisions for embalming a body.
The blood is drained trhough one vessle, and embalming fluid injected through
the other. The other two places where such incisions are made are the clavicle
and the thigh.

Gee, and Goldman also had injuries at both of those locations.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-06 21:46:34 UTC

You're on something, right August, or you forgot to take your medicne. You
obviously must have been in some drug induced halluciation when you cobbled
these idiocies together.
Rage induced killing? That's a good one. Simpson the maniacal slasher stabs
Goldman in the neck twice, ince cuts his jugula vein, hits the SCM muscele both
times, with the carotid sheath encasing the carotid artery and jugular vein
just beneath that muscel, yet once he entirely misses both of the critical
blood vessels , and once he only hits the jugular vein.
Now I am going to let you all in on a little secret about why the SCM muscle
was the target in both victims.
It's the place where the undetaker makes his incisions for embalming a body.
The blood is drained trhough one vessle, and embalming fluid injected through
the other. The other two places where such incisions are made are the clavicle
and the thigh.
Gee, and Goldman also had injuries at both of those locations.
Prien

Doctor Prien creates fantasies from looking at wounds, just as english
expert Prien creates fantasies from looking at words. Funny.

Listen weirdo. Simpson stabbed and cut Goldman over thirty times before
dropping him to the ground where he bled to death. If you don't like the
word rage killing, pick your own name to describe Simpson's actions.

The killing wound happened early in the struggle, a stab to Goldman's
left flank, cutting his aorta. Goldman weakened immediately as Simpson
continued to stab and cut him.

Fortunately for us, Goldman, in the fight for his life, did manage to
pull his killer's hat and left hand glove off. Simpson was not a
professional killer. He learned that real people don't die like they do
in the movies. From that point on our bumbling hero left his blood and
trace evidence everywhere. All he could think of was to get back home as
fast as he could to make his flight out of town.

And that is what he did. Every time our hero encountered an unexpected
situation that night he left evidence that pointed back to him.

Your paranoid fantasies only show us how out of touch with reality you
really are, weirdo.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-07 05:36:42 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/6/2003 5:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Listen weirdo. Simpson stabbed and cut Goldman over thirty times before
dropping him to the ground where he bled to death. If you don't like the
word rage killing, pick your own name to describe Simpson's actions.

You're suggest a bewsotted fool that calling you a liar is not even sporting.

Read the autopsy, dumb bell. goldman did not ssustain over 30 STAB WOUNDS.

Most of his injuries were, in fact, superficial INCISE WOUNDS, more like PAPER
CUTS.

Some rage killing that was. Well, maybe it was a strange version of the
Chinese death from a thousand cuts torture. But then, again, poor simpson
didn;t have the time needed for that. And it doesn;t fit a rage killing
either.

Keep on diddling on yourself, August.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-07 12:04:57 UTC

You're suggest a bewsotted fool that calling you a liar is not even sporting.
Read the autopsy, dumb bell. goldman did not ssustain over 30 STAB WOUNDS.
Most of his injuries were, in fact, superficial INCISE WOUNDS, more like PAPER
CUTS.
Some rage killing that was. Well, maybe it was a strange version of the
Chinese death from a thousand cuts torture. But then, again, poor simpson
didn;t have the time needed for that. And it doesn;t fit a rage killing
either.
Keep on diddling on yourself, August.
Prien

Prien, read my posting again. This time put your glasses on. Did I say
Simpson stabbed Goldman over thirty times? No. Your responses are all
the same, everything you believe is based on misinformation. fantasies
or your inability to understand the english language. Funny.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-07 19:42:58 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/7/2003 8:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Prien, read my posting again. This time put your glasses on. Did I say
Simpson stabbed Goldman over thirty times?

Damn, August, you're right. You did say stabbed and cut.

I take back half of what I say. The cuts were still paper cuts, and nothing
like what any rage killed would do. So the other half stands.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-07 23:59:32 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/7/2003 8:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Prien, read my posting again. This time put your glasses on. Did I say
Simpson stabbed Goldman over thirty times?

Damn, August, you're right. You did say stabbed and cut.
I take back half of what I say. The cuts were still paper cuts, and nothing
like what any rage killed would do. So the other half stands.
Prien

Prien, you are as out of touch with reality when it comes to
understanding this case as you are about your inability to understand
the english language.

Paper cuts. Now that's funny.

Dr. Spitz, the real expert as opposed to the delusional Prien, told us.

"He said Ron Goldman died of blood loss, as had Nicole. He grouped Ron's
wounds: various superficial, defensive type wounds to both sides of the
body, including a wide and gaping cut on his left thigh; a stab wound to
his internal jugular vein; two penetrations in the right side of the
chest and the lung; and a wound in the back of the left flank.

"There's movement. Sometimes the victim presents the right side and
sometimes presents the left side." Spitz turned one way and another,
arms protecting himself as warding off an attacker, as he described how
Ron received the superficial wounds. The effect was painful. "That's how
it started."

Paper cuts. Unbelievable.

bobaugust

Deep Fish out of Korea

2003-09-08 01:16:11 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/7/2003 8:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Prien, read my posting again. This time put your glasses on. Did I say
Simpson stabbed Goldman over thirty times?

Damn, August, you're right. You did say stabbed and cut.
I take back half of what I say. The cuts were still paper cuts, and nothing
like what any rage killed would do. So the other half stands.
Prien

Prien, you are as out of touch with reality when it comes to
understanding this case as you are about your inability to understand
the english language.
Paper cuts. Now that's funny.
Dr. Spitz, the real expert as opposed to the delusional Prien, told us.
"He said Ron Goldman died of blood loss, as had Nicole. He grouped Ron's
wounds: various superficial, defensive type wounds to both sides of the
body, including a wide and gaping cut on his left thigh; a stab wound to
his internal jugular vein; two penetrations in the right side of the
chest and the lung; and a wound in the back of the left flank.
"There's movement. Sometimes the victim presents the right side and
sometimes presents the left side." Spitz turned one way and another,
arms protecting himself as warding off an attacker, as he described how
Ron received the superficial wounds. The effect was painful. "That's how
it started."
Paper cuts. Unbelievable.

Hmmmm... Prien may be on to something though. These putative paper cuts MAY
have come from th ediscarded envelope!

Or perhaps this paper allegedly used to slice and dice may have contained a
copy of the elusive thumb print said to have been found inside Nicole's
skull.

DFook

Post by bobaugust
bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-08 02:50:55 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/7/2003 7:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time
"He said Ron Goldman died of blood loss, as had Nicole. He grouped Ron's
wounds: various superficial, defensive type wounds to both sides of the
body,

So it's "superficial, defensive type wounds."

To claim a victim sustained such votes makes him into a fool or a liar.

There are no such things as superficial, defemnsive type wopunds. Have you
ever seen autopsy photos of what are described in all forensic pathology and
criminalist texts as defensive wounds? How could you have and still
approvingly quote Spitz.

Do youn have idea what are defensive wounds? Nah. So let me help you out,
here.

They are wounds a victim sustains wihile trying to grasp or ward off with his
bare hands or arms a knife thrust at him with the force intending toim inflict
severe injury. And you actually imagine such wounds are superficial?

Now instead of quoting the dissembler spitz abhout Goldman's wounds, let's go
to the autopsy, where Golden states in part:

"There is a group of 5 SUPERFICIAL incise wounds on the right side of the face.
. . . They are superficial, involving the skin ONLY, associated with a SMALL
AMOUNT of cutaneous hemorrhage."

Notice that the cut injured ONLY the skin, and there was little bleeding.

Just as I said. A PAPER cut, and since there is little bleeding, most probably
made after he was dead.

Then we read that "there are numerous SUPERFICIAL INCISED WOUNDS or cuts. . .
involving the SKIN of the right cheek. . . .The longest is 3 inch (sic) long,.
. .various other SUPERFICIAL wound (sic) vary from 1/2 tom 1 inch."

More what? PAPER CUTS.

THEN, OF COURSE, THERE ARE THE SUPERFICIAL INCISE WOUNDS ON THE NECK, with
small amount of bleeding.

To explain to you what a liar Spitz is, there are no such things as
SUPERFICIAL, defensive type wounds of the NECK. No one tries to ward off a
blow from a knife with his NECK.

I take that back. August, the man of practically, is the definite exception.

To make it clear to you August, SUPERFICIAL INCISE WOUNDS that cut ONLY THE
SKIN are PAPER CUTS.

THEY ARE DEFINITELY NOT MADE BY AN enraged slasher.

Prien

John Griffin

2003-09-08 03:45:45 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/7/2003 7:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time
"He said Ron Goldman died of blood loss, as had Nicole. He
grouped Ron's wounds: various superficial, defensive type
wounds to both sides of the body,

So it's "superficial, defensive type wounds."

Your brain died one cell at a time, idiot.

bobaugust

2003-09-08 12:53:56 UTC

So it's "superficial, defensive type wounds."
To claim a victim sustained such votes makes him into a fool or a liar.
There are no such things as superficial, defemnsive type wopunds. Have you
ever seen autopsy photos of what are described in all forensic pathology and
criminalist texts as defensive wounds? How could you have and still
approvingly quote Spitz.
Do youn have idea what are defensive wounds? Nah. So let me help you out,
here.
They are wounds a victim sustains wihile trying to grasp or ward off with his
bare hands or arms a knife thrust at him with the force intending toim inflict
severe injury. And you actually imagine such wounds are superficial?
Now instead of quoting the dissembler spitz abhout Goldman's wounds, let's go
"There is a group of 5 SUPERFICIAL incise wounds on the right side of the face.
. . . They are superficial, involving the skin ONLY, associated with a SMALL
AMOUNT of cutaneous hemorrhage."
Notice that the cut injured ONLY the skin, and there was little bleeding.
Just as I said. A PAPER cut, and since there is little bleeding, most probably
made after he was dead.
Then we read that "there are numerous SUPERFICIAL INCISED WOUNDS or cuts. . .
involving the SKIN of the right cheek. . . .The longest is 3 inch (sic) long,.
. .various other SUPERFICIAL wound (sic) vary from 1/2 tom 1 inch."
More what? PAPER CUTS.
THEN, OF COURSE, THERE ARE THE SUPERFICIAL INCISE WOUNDS ON THE NECK, with
small amount of bleeding.
To explain to you what a liar Spitz is, there are no such things as
SUPERFICIAL, defensive type wounds of the NECK. No one tries to ward off a
blow from a knife with his NECK.
I take that back. August, the man of practically, is the definite exception.
To make it clear to you August, SUPERFICIAL INCISE WOUNDS that cut ONLY THE
SKIN are PAPER CUTS.
THEY ARE DEFINITELY NOT MADE BY AN enraged slasher.
Prien

Paper cuts, made with a knife. You are an imbecile.

bobaugust

John Griffin

2003-09-07 13:27:38 UTC

The retarded cretin who thinks the bruise inside Nicole's skull

Post by Prien
Most of his injuries were, in fact, superficial INCISE
WOUNDS, more like PAPER CUTS.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Prien, you are so fucking stupid, it's incredible that you
haven't accidentally killed yourself by now.

tjab

2003-09-07 14:00:19 UTC

Post by Prien
Read the autopsy, dumb bell. goldman did not ssustain over 30 STAB WOUNDS.
Most of his injuries were, in fact, superficial INCISE WOUNDS, more like PAPER
CUTS.

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Or maybe it's the other way around.

John Griffin

2003-09-06 03:51:57 UTC

ROTMFFLMMFAO!

No one gives a rusty fuck what those incompetent boobs said.
Exactly 100% of the evidence says that your guy is a murderer.

Post by je
And you have to buy that OJ was an idiot and dressed up in
the same costume which was used in his latest movie. If he
wanted to be caught that bad then he would have pleaded
guilty. The whole thing is just silly when you look at it
this way.

Any way you look at anything is bound to be "silly,"
euphemistically speaking.

*************The alt.fan.oj-simpson FAQ**************
Q1: Did The Real Killer walk away from the carcasses
at Bundy with O.J. Simpson's blood dripping out of a
cut on his left hand?
A1: Yes
*****************************************************

David Emerling

2003-09-05 22:53:08 UTC

What kind of question is this?

When did he change into the dark blue sweat suit?
ANSWER: When he returned home from the recittal. What's so hard about?
Why do you think that was not possible?

Where did he change into the darkblue seat suit?
ANSWER: At home. Why not?

Why did he change into the bruno magli shoes and dress socks?
ANSWER: Why does anybody planning to commit a crime and get away with it do
what they do? Obviously, the THEME for the evening was to wear dark
clothing. And he obviously didn't want to wear what he was wearing at the
recittal.

Is this supposed to be a profound observation on your part?

You might as well ask "Why was Hinckley trying to impress Jodie Foster?"
Hell - I don't know!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Ketchall 1

2003-09-10 12:45:16 UTC

Post by David Emerling
And he obviously didn't want to wear what he was wearing at the
recittal.
Is this supposed to be a profound observation on your part?

A profound observation? NO, but it stirred up 29 threads.

Prien

2003-09-19 00:50:00 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/17/2003 10:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Prien, you have a real comprehension problem. Of course Simpson's
testimony does not prove he made the call at 6:56, he lied. Dr. Walker's
notes and Paula Barbieri prove that Simpson made that 6:56 phone call.
They prove that Simpson lied.

Thank you. It is you who originally alleged that Simpson's rtestimony proves
when he made the call. Now you at least admit there is no such testimony.

Prien is right again.

As for your claim that Simpson lied, proive it. Walkers unsubstantiated hearsy
is proof of nothing. It certainl;y does not prove Simpson lied, because at no
popint in her notes does she put a time to any of the eents she described in
the statements you posted.

Barbieri could not possiboly testify as to when Simpson ALLEGEDLY called HIS
message manager. She was not on the other end of the call, was she?

So you have no proof whatsoever that Simpson lied when he denied making the
call. None.

There is a lot more proof that the police lied about seeing blood on the rear
gate on the morning of June 13, especially when both Mazzola and Fung declare
they nbever saw it, and when none of them expressly affirmed they saw it. The
LIED.

I have vastl;y more prooif mto back up that statement than you have for
blabberintg that Simpson lied.

A telephone call was made from Simpson's house at 6:56, a call forward
to his message manager.

First, you have no proof of this except an alleged, unauthenticated telephone
record that pruports to identify a call from a number. Now prove from that
record that Simpson was actually the person calling. Not claim, allege,
hallucinatge, image, blabber, but PROOF THAT SIMPSON IN FACT AND TRUTH WAS
MAKING THE CALL.

Second, as I recall, he is alleged to have directly called his message manager,
which is the number Petrocelli pointed out to him, Why is this direct call
being call forwarded? From WHERE is it call forwarded?

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-19 04:35:06 UTC

Thank you. It is you who originally alleged that Simpson's rtestimony proves
when he made the call. Now you at least admit there is no such testimony.
Prien is right again.
As for your claim that Simpson lied, proive it. Walkers unsubstantiated hearsy
is proof of nothing. It certainl;y does not prove Simpson lied, because at no
popint in her notes does she put a time to any of the eents she described in
the statements you posted.
Barbieri could not possiboly testify as to when Simpson ALLEGEDLY called HIS
message manager. She was not on the other end of the call, was she?
So you have no proof whatsoever that Simpson lied when he denied making the
call. None.
There is a lot more proof that the police lied about seeing blood on the rear
gate on the morning of June 13, especially when both Mazzola and Fung declare
they nbever saw it, and when none of them expressly affirmed they saw it. The
LIED.
I have vastl;y more prooif mto back up that statement than you have for
blabberintg that Simpson lied.

A telephone call was made from Simpson's house at 6:56, a call forward
to his message manager.

First, you have no proof of this except an alleged, unauthenticated telephone
record that pruports to identify a call from a number. Now prove from that
record that Simpson was actually the person calling. Not claim, allege,
hallucinatge, image, blabber, but PROOF THAT SIMPSON IN FACT AND TRUTH WAS
MAKING THE CALL.
Second, as I recall, he is alleged to have directly called his message manager,
which is the number Petrocelli pointed out to him, Why is this direct call
being call forwarded? From WHERE is it call forwarded?
Prien

Prien, I did not say that Simpson's testimony proved he made that 6:56
call, you are confused again. I said Simpson's testimony proved that he
was in his house before 7:00. And it does.

Simpson never denied that he was in his house before 7:00 And you Prien,
have never posted testimony or anything to support your claim that
Simpson did not get home from his daughters recital until AFTER 7:00.

Prien, you are dead wrong about Dr. Walker's notes. The notes are not
hearsay. Dr. Walker made contemporaneous notes of her sessions with
Simpson in February 1995. Her notes are what Simpson told her about a
telephone call he made and message he heard when he got home from his
daughter's recital.

I have posted what Kaelin said. I posted what Simpson said. I posted Dr.
Walker's notes. If you still can't understand how those notes made in
February 1995 impeach Simpson's lie in 1996 you will have to ask someone
else to explain it to you. Maybe you can ask someone to translate it
into Hungarian. It's obvious you sure can't understand english.

You say, "Barbieri could not possiboly testify as to when Simpson
ALLEGEDLY called HIS message manager. She was not on the other end of
the call, was she?"

No, she wasn't Prien, and neither I or anyone else has ever said that
she was. Paula testified that Simpson left three messages on her
answering machine that day, responding to her message that she was
ending their relationship. Paula never told Simpson she was going to Las
Vegas. She told him about Las Vegas in the message she left on his cell
phone.

So now Prien questions the authenticity of the telephone records
presented in the civil trial. You argue just to argue. I bet you think
this is all part of the same GTE conspiracy as the telephone records in
the criminal trial, right?

The only similarity between Simpson's denial about not getting Paula's
message and Simpson's blood that was seen and photographed on the rear
gate at Bundy is your consistency, Prien, in not knowing what you are
talking about.

You say, "he is alleged to have directly called his message manager,
which is the number Petrocelli pointed out to him, Why is this direct
call being call forwarded? From WHERE is it call forwarded?"

Your questions only tell us how much you do not understand what you are
arguing about.

The telephone records show a call from Simpson's home telephone number
to his message manager telephone number. Next to the telephone number
was a "CF". That means call forwarding.

Simpson used his home phone to call his message center to call forward a
message that was left on his cell phone.

Simpson denied Paula dumped him, and denied that he picked up her
message. The truth is that Paula ended their relationship, in the
telephone message she left on Simpson's cell phone, early in the morning
the day of the murders.

The truth is that Simpson heard that telephone message at 6:56 P.M. and
again at 8:55 P.M. listening to it on his home telephone.

The truth is that Simpson got home from his daughter's recital before
7:00 that evening.

Your argument, Prien, that Simpson did not get home from his daughter's
recital until AFTER 7:00 is false. Unsupported and contradicted. You
have been proven wrong again just like you are always proven wrong. And
the only one who doesn't know it, is you.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-23 03:48:21 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/19/2003 12:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Prien, I did not say that Simpson's testimony proved he made that 6:56
call, you are confused again. I said Simpson's testimony proved that he
was in his house before 7:00. And it does.

You kept saying you had proof after I kept pointing out you lacked any.

Now you prove Prien is right again. You admit you have none.

But you take a novel stab with your proclamation that Simpson's FAILURE TO DENY
he was home before 7:00 can somehow be aken as a positive admission on his part
that he was.

Simpson never denied that he was in his house before 7:00 And you Prien,
have never posted testimony or anything to support your claim that
Simpson did not get home from his daughters recital until AFTER 7:00.

Only an admission can be taken as an admission.

And you statement is a complete lie. I have repeatedly posted and referred to
the testimony of TWO prosecution witnesses who declared and affirmed that the
recital was not over until AFTER 7:00 and that Simpson was then still there.
The witnesses are Denise and Garvey.

Next, I have cited Simpson's statements to Lange when he affirmed that he got
home after 7, around that time, but he also mentioned the possibility of being
home early, while making clear it was merely a ball park estimate, meaning it
could be off by a lot.

then I have cited Kato's trestimony that he did not see Simpson until the
Rockets game was over, that the game ended 2:42 after the open bell, the
BROADCAST for the game started at 4:00 p.m. PST, and would almost certainly
have run past 7:00.

So your claim that I never cited anything to back up my claim is a total
falsehood.

But exactly what one would expct from a NoJ who is propagating pure falsehoods
medrely by imagining Simpson committed the murders.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-23 12:36:34 UTC

You kept saying you had proof after I kept pointing out you lacked any.
Now you prove Prien is right again. You admit you have none.
But you take a novel stab with your proclamation that Simpson's FAILURE TO DENY
he was home before 7:00 can somehow be aken as a positive admission on his part
that he was.

Only an admission can be taken as an admission.
And you statement is a complete lie. I have repeatedly posted and referred to
the testimony of TWO prosecution witnesses who declared and affirmed that the
recital was not over until AFTER 7:00 and that Simpson was then still there.
The witnesses are Denise and Garvey.
Next, I have cited Simpson's statements to Lange when he affirmed that he got
home after 7, around that time, but he also mentioned the possibility of being
home early, while making clear it was merely a ball park estimate, meaning it
could be off by a lot.
then I have cited Kato's trestimony that he did not see Simpson until the
Rockets game was over, that the game ended 2:42 after the open bell, the
BROADCAST for the game started at 4:00 p.m. PST, and would almost certainly
have run past 7:00.
So your claim that I never cited anything to back up my claim is a total
falsehood.
But exactly what one would expct from a NoJ who is propagating pure falsehoods
medrely by imagining Simpson committed the murders.
Prien

Like I said, Prien, you have been proven wrong and you are the only one
who doesn't know it.

You are very confused about what you claim you are right about. You
haven't been right about one thing yet in your false claim and failed
argument.

Both Denise Brown and Candice Garvey estimated different times they
thought the recital ended. Both were mistaken. How do we know that? We
know that because Orenthal James Simpson, Kato Kaelin, Karen Crawford
and Tia Gaven contradict them.

Simpson never said he got home AFTER 7:00. If you think that he said
that, post it now. You can't.

You say the basketball game did not end until after 7:00. That has never
been said by Kaelin or any witness in this case. If you think someone
said that, post it now. You can't.

And what difference would that make anyway, Prien? Simpson told us he
was in his house checking his messages after he got home from the
recital, before Kaelin came over. Simpson even told Dr. Walker that when
he was in his house he saw Kaelin walk by. That was when Kaelin was
going to his room to watch the end of the basketball game. Your argument
makes no sense.

I will post these excerpts again, so everyone can see how dense you
really are, Prien, if they don't already know by now. You have posted
nothing.

June 13, 1994

Vannatter: Where was the dance recital?
Simpson: Paul Revere High School.
Vannatter: And was that for one of your children?
Simpson: Yeah, for my daughter Sydney.
Vannatter: And what time was that yesterday?
Simpson: It ended about 6:30, quarter to seven, something like that, you
know, in the ballpark, right in that area. And they took off.

January 24, 1996 Simpson

Q: What time is it now when you arrived at the house?
A: I don't recall.
Q: What's your best estimate of the time?
A: 7:00 o'clock maybe. I could be wrong. Could be 6:00 o'clock.
Whatever length of time it took for the affair to end, and I was
three or four minutes away from my house.
Q: No stops in between?
A: No.

November 26, 1996 Simpson

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You see 18:56, sir, right there?
A. Yes.
Q. That's 6:56?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. 476-4619?
A. Yes.
Q. Message 999. That's to your message manager?
A. I believe 999 would have been numbers to my message manager.
Q. So does that help you remember that at 6:56 p.m. from your home phone
number
476-4619, you called and picked up a five-minute message?
A. No, I didn't pick up any message.
Q. The records than are incorrect?
A. I don't know about the records. I know I was at home. I know I
checked my home message machine. And I know Kato came in, and Kato and
I was talking.

March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

Q OKAY. AND WHEN YOU GOT BACK, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I TALKED TO O.J.
Q WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU TALKED TO HIM?
A IN THE KITCHEN NOOK.
Q AND WHAT TIME WAS IT THEN?
A IT WAS ABOUT 6:30, 7:00.

Kato Kaelin "The Whole Truth"

"He (Kaelin) arrived at the guest house, stretched out on the floor to
give his back a rest, and flipped the TV on with the remote. A few
minutes passed before he heard O.J. once again calling his name. Kato
got up and saw O.J. through the screen door, waving him into the main
house."

Dr. Walker's notes February 25, 1995

"'Called Paula, not home, Call forward on car phone message from Paula,
Whole long message about golf, Don't see you. He's not sure if in
Arizona or Las Vegas, or if angry with him. He listens to message. Kato
goes by house.'"

December 14, 1995 Paula Barbieri

Q. So you as you sit here
today, do you have any knowledge that
you informed Mr. Simpson that you were
going, on June 12, 1994, to Las Vegas on
that day?
A. No.

Q. So it's your belief that he had picked up your earlier message of
7 o'clock (A.M.). Correct?
A. I assume.
Q. That's your belief?
A. Yes, sir.

Just to keep the record straight, especially for dense Prien:

Simpson arrived home from his daughters recital sometime before 7:00
Simpson checked his messages.
Simpson called his message center at 6:56, call forwarded and listened
to a message Paula Barbieri left on his cell phone.
Simpson saw Kaelin return home.
Kaelin went to his room and started watching the end of the Knick's
basketball game.
Simpson called Kaelin to come over to his house.
Kaelin went to Simpson house and spoke with him about the recital.

Prien, you are a sick masochist. If you want to continue to embarrass
yourself, just keep making your false claims. None of your fantasies
make any sense.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-24 03:09:35 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/23/2003 8:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Both Denise Brown and Candice Garvey estimated different times they
thought the recital ended. Both were mistaken. How do we know that? We
know that because Orenthal James Simpson, Kato Kaelin, Karen Crawford
and Tia Gaven contradict them.

What proof do you have that they were4 right, and the other two were wrong?
Absolutely nothing. And while they gave different time estimates for the
events they described, they BOTH AGREED the recital ended on or after seven. If
I remember correctly, Garvey's 7:15 time was for when she thought she saw
Simpson AFTER the recital.

Simpson never said he got home AFTER 7:00. If you think that he said
that, post it now. You can't.
You say the basketball game did not end until after 7:00. That has never
been said by Kaelin or any witness in this case. If you think someone
said that, post it now. You can't.

I never said someone said it. I based it on records of when the game ended,
and Kato's terstimony that he first encountered Simpson AFTER he watched the
game to the end, which fixes the time of those events.

And what difference would that make anyway, Prien? Simpson told us he
was in his house checking his messages after he got home from the
recital, before Kaelin came over. Simpson even told Dr. Walker that when
he was in his house he saw Kaelin walk by. That was when Kaelin was
going to his room to watch the end of the basketball game. Your argument
makes no sense.

Yeah, but those were the messages on his home telephone, stupid. He didn't
have to call anybody to check those messages.

I will post these excerpts again, so everyone can see how dense you
really are, Prien, if they don't already know by now. You have posted
nothing.

Thank you.

June 13, 1994
Vannatter: Where was the dance recital?
Simpson: Paul Revere High School.
Vannatter: And was that for one of your children?
Simpson: Yeah, for my daughter Sydney.
Vannatter: And what time was that yesterday?
Simpson: It ended about 6:30, quarter to seven, something like that, you
know, in the ballpark, right in that area. And they took off.

Well, August, I guess you forgot the following from the interview as cited in
L&V, p. 71:

VANNATTER: So what time do you think you got back home, actualy physically got
home?

SIMPSON: SEVEN-SOMETHING.

Get it idiot. SEVEN-SOMETHING. That means seven o'clock PLUS AN UNKNOWN
NUMBER OF MINUTES. Since its some minutes MORE THAN SEVEN, Simpson clearly
declares that he physically got home AFTER SEVEN.

You're right. Now everyone can see what a moron and liar you are.

Prien was again 100% right. As always.

Thanks so much for helping me prove it yet again.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-24 05:16:07 UTC

Yeah, but those were the messages on his home telephone, stupid. He didn't
have to call anybody to check those messages.

I will post these excerpts again, so everyone can see how dense you
really are, Prien, if they don't already know by now. You have posted
nothing.

Thank you.

Well, August, I guess you forgot the following from the interview as cited in
VANNATTER: So what time do you think you got back home, actualy physically got
home?
SIMPSON: SEVEN-SOMETHING.
Get it idiot. SEVEN-SOMETHING. That means seven o'clock PLUS AN UNKNOWN
NUMBER OF MINUTES. Since its some minutes MORE THAN SEVEN, Simpson clearly
declares that he physically got home AFTER SEVEN.
You're right. Now everyone can see what a moron and liar you are.
Prien was again 100% right. As always.
Thanks so much for helping me prove it yet again.
Prien

Here we go again, Prien. I have to once again explain the english
language to you. What a pain you are, start taking english lessons or
something, will you please? Then again don't. You would cease to be
amusing if you understood what you read.

You ask what proof do I have that Denise Brown and Candice Garvey were
wrong about their estimated times? The testimony from Simpson and the
other witnesses who were with Simpson and the Browns, that's the proof.

Simpson himself said he got home from his daughter's recital three or
four minutes after it ended, and when the Browns left for their dinner
reservations.

Simpson: It ended about 6:30, quarter to seven, something like that, you
know, in the ballpark, right in that area. And they took off.

Kaelin testified what time he went to Simpson's house to talk to him
after he had been home for a while watching the end of the basketball game.

Kaelin:
Q AND WHAT TIME WAS IT THEN?
A IT WAS ABOUT 6:30, 7:00.

Karen Crawford and Tia Gaven worked at the Mezzaluna Restaurant.
Crawford was managing the restaurant that night and Gaven served the
Browns that night. Both testified that the Brown party arrived for their
reservations before 7:00.

Karen Crawford July 1. 1994:
Q And did you see Nicole brown there?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall what time she arrived?
A Her party arrived between 6:30 and 7:00 that evening.

Tia Gaven February 7, 1995:
Q NOW, DID YOU HAPPEN TO SEE NICOLE BROWN AND HER PARTY ARRIVE THAT NIGHT?
A YES.
Q ABOUT WHAT TIME DID THEY GET THERE?
A THEY WERE LATE FOR THEIR RESERVATION ABOUT 15 OR 20 MINUTES. SO I'D
SAY 6:45 OR 6:50.

Two against four Prien, do you understand that?

Prien, the fact that Kaelin testified that when he went to Simpson's
house after the basketball game had ended is meaningless to the time
that Simpson got home. Simpson was home before Kaelin got home to even
watch the end of the basketball game. Understand?

You say, "Yeah, but those were the messages on his home telephone,
stupid. He didn't have to call anybody to check those messages."

Simpson checked the messages on his answering machine. No, he did not
have to call anyone to check those messages. But he had to call his
message center to check for any messages that were left on his cell
phone. And that is what he did.

As to your idiotic interpretation of "SEVEN-SOMETHING", I'm sorry but
this is where you fail english again, Prien. You get another "F", funny.
Learn to read complete sentences. End of lesson.

Simpson: It ended about 6:30, quarter to seven, something like that, you
know, in the ballpark, right in that area. And they took off.

Notice the comma before the word "something". "Something like that"
refers to the 6:30, quarter to seven estimate that Simpson gave, Prien.
It does not mean "SEVEN-SOMETHING" as in "seven o'clock PLUS AN UNKNOWN
NUMBER OF MINUTES"

It's funny when you show us your english ignorance, Prien. This is even
better than "'how do we know someone saw something when they were shown
it' even though that someone later showed it to someone else." And with
"'about that time' could mean about fifteen minutes later."

Keep them coming Prien, that is if you aren't embarrassed enough yet.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-25 03:18:20 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/24/2003 1:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
You ask what proof do I have that Denise Brown and Candice Garvey were
wrong about their estimated times? The testimony from Simpson and the
other witnesses who were with Simpson and the Browns, that's the proof.

It's not proof that they were wrong. It's onoly proof that BOTH groups of
witnesses CANNOT be right. It does not estabish which of the two IS right.
Your citing of their testimony at best points to CONFLICT in the evidence as to
which is correct.

Now before we went over Ito's instructions. If you can rmember that far, Ito
instrucred the jurors that if there are two interpretations, and one points to
innocence the other to guilt, the jury MUST pick the one the points to
innocence.

Your posting testimony that directly conflicts with testimony of where the
Browns were at a specific point in time that is a foundation for drawing
inferences about when Nicole could last have been talking to her mother based
on the earliest time when the Browns could have reached home to make the phone
call to the Mezzaluna. The later arrival time destroys the foundation for
drawing inferecnes necessary to establish Simpson's guilty, and point instead
to his innocence.

Therefore, the mere CONFLICT in the testimony you harp on destroys it as
evidence substantiating your illusion that Simpson did it.

Now, if you have some actual real proof that establishes the Mezzaluna
witnesses HAD TO BE RIGHT, and the others were NECESSARILY wrong, then you have
something.

But their mere testimony that conflicts with the other witnesses is NOT SUCH
PROOF.

In actual fact, the Mezzaluna witnesses confirm the testimony of others because
they gave a range for when the Browns arrived. That range was from about 6:30
to 7:00.
The end point is, in fact, close to the time the other witnesses stated when
Simpson was still at the recital.

You strike out again, dummy.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-25 06:23:33 UTC

It's not proof that they were wrong. It's onoly proof that BOTH groups of
witnesses CANNOT be right. It does not estabish which of the two IS right.
Your citing of their testimony at best points to CONFLICT in the evidence as to
which is correct.
Now before we went over Ito's instructions. If you can rmember that far, Ito
instrucred the jurors that if there are two interpretations, and one points to
innocence the other to guilt, the jury MUST pick the one the points to
innocence.
Your posting testimony that directly conflicts with testimony of where the
Browns were at a specific point in time that is a foundation for drawing
inferences about when Nicole could last have been talking to her mother based
on the earliest time when the Browns could have reached home to make the phone
call to the Mezzaluna. The later arrival time destroys the foundation for
drawing inferecnes necessary to establish Simpson's guilty, and point instead
to his innocence.
Therefore, the mere CONFLICT in the testimony you harp on destroys it as
evidence substantiating your illusion that Simpson did it.
Now, if you have some actual real proof that establishes the Mezzaluna
witnesses HAD TO BE RIGHT, and the others were NECESSARILY wrong, then you have
something.
But their mere testimony that conflicts with the other witnesses is NOT SUCH
PROOF.
In actual fact, the Mezzaluna witnesses confirm the testimony of others because
they gave a range for when the Browns arrived. That range was from about 6:30
to 7:00.
The end point is, in fact, close to the time the other witnesses stated when
Simpson was still at the recital.
You strike out again, dummy.
Prien

Yes Prien, my posting of testimony from four witnesses who were involved
in events after the recital ended contradicted two other witnesses with
different time estimations. That is how we know Denise Brown and Candice
Garvey were wrong about what time they thought the recital ended.

Simpson tells us what time the recital ended, several times, and when he
and the Browns left.

Simpson tells us when and what he did when he got home. Telephone
records, Kato Kaelin, Dr. Lenore Walker's notes, and Paula Barbieri
confirm what Simpson did after he arrived home.

Employees of the Mezzaluna Restaurant where the Brown's had dinner
reservations tell us the time the Brown's arrived at the restaurant.

*

The recital ended sometime after 6:30.
Simpson and the Browns said their good byes outside and then left.

Simpson drove home, only about a three to four minute drive.
Simpson arrived home and checked his answering machine messages. There
was no message on it from Paula. Simpson called his message center (at
6:56) and call forwarded his cell phone messages. He listened to Paula's
message.

The Browns drove directly to the Mezzaluna Restaurant, arriving about
fifteen to twenty minutes late for their 7:30 reservations.
The Browns finished their dinner and started their drive back home about
8:30.
As soon as they arrived home, Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna
Restaurant (at 9:37) inquiring about her missing eyeglasses.
Juditha Brown then called her daughter Nicole, telling her about the
eyeglasses.
Nicole then called the Mezzaluna Restaurant and spoke with Ron Goldman.

Those are the facts. No matter how desperately you want them to be
different, they aren't. The testimony from the witnesses who were
involved in these events tell us when the events happened. Telephone
records confirm and support the witnesses testimony.

Ito's instructions do not cover your warped thinking process, Prien.
Isn't it funny how the reality of what happened always contradicts your
fantasies, every step along the way.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-25 03:33:17 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/24/2003 1:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Simpson: It ended about 6:30, quarter to seven, something like that, you
know, in the ballpark, right in that area. And they took off.
Notice the comma before the word "something". "Something like that"
refers to the 6:30, quarter to seven estimate that Simpson gave, Prien.

Now you have revealed yourself to be a complete moron and deliberate liar.

I exporessly cited the entire question and answer that is coimpletely separate
from the one you cite.

Now, to show what a liar you are, anyone who cares to check the truth of the
matter will find that the statement you cite appears ast page 69 in the L&V
hard cover edition. The first line of the answer appears on page 69, the last
two lines appear on p. 70. This questioning beging with Vannatter asking

V "Where was the dance recital?"

S Paul Revere Middle School.

[Q&A snipped]

V And what time was that yesterday?

S It ended abhout 6:30, quarter to sefven, you know, something like that. . .
"

Now, the portion of the interview I cited appears on page 71, and just so
edveryone has it readily at hand, it went like this:

V So what time do you think you got back home, actually physically got home.

S Seven-something.

V Seven-something?

S Yeah.

Okay, youy lying piece of NoJ shit. Where in that interchange does the comma
you blabh about appear? Could you point it out, stupid?

Vannatter even REPEATS the statement as a question, and Simpson expressly
confirms that "seven=something" is correct.

Simpson therefore, in fact not once but TWICE affirms that he arrived home some
minutes AFTER seven, exactly as I said.

I don't bother with idiocy lessons from lying scum bags who comprehend nothing
and spout only lies.

Take some snap courses in truth telling before you pretend to counsel others on
the meaning of anything.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-25 06:23:36 UTC

Now you have revealed yourself to be a complete moron and deliberate liar.
I exporessly cited the entire question and answer that is coimpletely separate
from the one you cite.
Now, to show what a liar you are, anyone who cares to check the truth of the
matter will find that the statement you cite appears ast page 69 in the L&V
hard cover edition. The first line of the answer appears on page 69, the last
two lines appear on p. 70. This questioning beging with Vannatter asking
V "Where was the dance recital?"
S Paul Revere Middle School.
[Q&A snipped]
V And what time was that yesterday?
S It ended abhout 6:30, quarter to sefven, you know, something like that. . .
"
Now, the portion of the interview I cited appears on page 71, and just so
V So what time do you think you got back home, actually physically got home.
S Seven-something.
V Seven-something?
S Yeah.
Okay, youy lying piece of NoJ shit. Where in that interchange does the comma
you blabh about appear? Could you point it out, stupid?
Vannatter even REPEATS the statement as a question, and Simpson expressly
confirms that "seven=something" is correct.
Simpson therefore, in fact not once but TWICE affirms that he arrived home some
minutes AFTER seven, exactly as I said.
I don't bother with idiocy lessons from lying scum bags who comprehend nothing
and spout only lies.
Take some snap courses in truth telling before you pretend to counsel others on
the meaning of anything.
Prien

Maybe after you wrote this you read my follow up posting about it to
you. Yes, I was mistaken about the testimony you were referring to.

That is why I posted the actual testimony in my follow up posting. You
are mistaken as to what you think that testimony meant because you did
not understand that Simpson was confused when he said it.

This wasn't the only time Simpson contradicted himself in that
interview. Some of his answers were truthful and some were lies. Simpson
got confused especially when he was telling lies.

Just in case you missed it.

Vannatter: So what time do you think you got back home, actually
physically got home?
Simpson: Seven-something.
Vannatter: Seven-something? And then you left, and...
Simpson: Yeah, I'm trying to think, did I leave? You know, I'm always
...I had to run and get my daughter some flowers. I was actually doing
the recital, so I rushed and got her some flowers, and I came home, and
then I called Paula as I was going to her house, and Paula wasn't home.

Simpson is confused, he even questions himself. His seven something time
is based on combining two different trips. He says he left the recital
and rushed to get flowers, then came home, and called Paula. That is not
what happened. Simpson did leave the recital to get flowers but then he
returned to the recital. Later when the recital ended Simpson left and
went right home.

A little later Simpson corrected himself when Lange asked,

Lange: What time was the recital?
Simpson: Over at about 6:30. Like I said, I came home, I got my car, I
was going to see my girlfriend. I was calling her and she wasn't around.

*

Simpson left the recital. When he got home the first thing he did was
check his answering machine messages. There was no message on it from
Paula. Simpson then called his message center (at 6:56) and call
forwarded his cell phone messages. He listened to Paula's message.

Simpson saw Kaelin walk by his house on the way to his room. After
Simpson listened to Paula's long message he waved to Kaelin to come over
to the house.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-26 00:30:04 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/25/2003 2:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Yes, I was mistaken about the testimony you were referring to.
Yes, I was mistaken about the testimony you were referring to.

But that didn't prevent you from jumping to asinine conclusions and pretending
to lecture mean about the meaning of English.

It's you who is totally unable to comprehend simple English.

You
are mistaken as to what you think that testimony meant because you did
not understand that Simpson was confused when he said it.

What part of "seven-something" don't you uderstand.

It's simple enough.

But you're assessment of it also reveals your congenital prejudices about this
case. Because this statement by Simpson destroys the authenticity of the
alleged cell phojne call, Simpson is confused. But because Simpson's comment
that he might have been home earlier, which pruportedly supports your hero's
fraud, proves Simpson's clarity of mind.

The only thing your conclusions prove about your intellectual capacity is the
density of your skull that is entirely impentrable to logic or reason.

I ahve said it before, and I will say ot for the last time. >You

are mistaken as to what you think that testimony meant because you did
not understand that Simpson was confused when he said it.

Simpson had no idea of the time. He was merely guessing what it might have
been, and basing it on a faulty foundation of when his daughter's piece was
included in the recital program. >You

are mistaken as to what you think that testimony meant because you did
not understand that Simpson was confused when he said it.

Since it's almost certain the school would present the performance with the
ypungest going earliest, his daughter would have performed earlier in the
program during previos years. Simpson was most likely estimating the time
based on when his daiughter would previosuly have finished her act on the
program, which would have been sooner than it in fact happened.

If Simpson was confused about anything, that was it.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-26 03:36:28 UTC

But that didn't prevent you from jumping to asinine conclusions and pretending
to lecture mean about the meaning of English.
It's you who is totally unable to comprehend simple English.

You
are mistaken as to what you think that testimony meant because you did
not understand that Simpson was confused when he said it.

What part of "seven-something" don't you uderstand.
It's simple enough.
But you're assessment of it also reveals your congenital prejudices about this
case. Because this statement by Simpson destroys the authenticity of the
alleged cell phojne call, Simpson is confused. But because Simpson's comment
that he might have been home earlier, which pruportedly supports your hero's
fraud, proves Simpson's clarity of mind.
The only thing your conclusions prove about your intellectual capacity is the
density of your skull that is entirely impentrable to logic or reason.
I ahve said it before, and I will say ot for the last time. >You

are mistaken as to what you think that testimony meant because you did
not understand that Simpson was confused when he said it.

Simpson had no idea of the time. He was merely guessing what it might have
been, and basing it on a faulty foundation of when his daughter's piece was
included in the recital program. >You

are mistaken as to what you think that testimony meant because you did
not understand that Simpson was confused when he said it.

Since it's almost certain the school would present the performance with the
ypungest going earliest, his daughter would have performed earlier in the
program during previos years. Simpson was most likely estimating the time
based on when his daiughter would previosuly have finished her act on the
program, which would have been sooner than it in fact happened.
If Simpson was confused about anything, that was it.
Prien

Don't get too carried away Prien. Yes I made a mistake thinking you were
referring to the testimony that I posted. But you have the same problems
you always have in not understanding what witnesses are saying. Simpson
made a mistake.

I asked you to post any testimony where Simpson said he got home from
his daughter's recital AFTER 7:00. And that is what you posted. One line
where Simpson thought the time he got home was "seven-something". Fine.
I agree that is what he said.

But it has nothing to do with your fantasy of what you think happened.

It has nothing to do with when Simpson and the Browns left the recital.
It has nothing to do with when the Browns arrived at the restaurant.
It has nothing to do with when the Browns left the restaurant.
It has nothing to do with Juditha Brown's telephone call to the restaurant.
It has nothing to do with Juditha Brown's telephone call to Nicole.
It has nothing to do with Nicole's telephone call to Ron Goldman.

One line out of context where you failed to read Simpson's explanation.
Simpson even corrected his mistake a couple of questions later.

In the civil trial, Simpson never denied that he was home when that 6:56
phone call was made from his house. Why? Because he had already said he
was home at that time.

So he just denied that he ever made the 6:56 phone call to his message
manager and he denied he ever made the 8:55 phone call to his message
manager. Simpson outright lied. That was nothing knew for him. He spent
a lot of time fabricating his story for the civil trial, but he never
knew about his telephone records.

Simpson knew he was lying, sticking to his story, no matter what
contradicted it. Everyone in the courtroom knew he was lying, but Prien
doesn't know Simpson lied, right Prien?

Your personal opinion about how you think Simpson might have been
confused is completely meaningless. But it was funny.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-26 22:52:35 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/25/2003 11:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time
I asked you to post any testimony where Simpson said he got home from
his daughter's recital AFTER 7:00. And that is what you posted. One line
where Simpson thought the time he got home was "seven-something". Fine.
I agree that is what he said.

And Prien was RIGHT AGAIN. As AWLAYS.

You dared me to present what you imagined wasn't there so you could call me a
liar about my comment about Simpson having said it.

The coyote thought he had the road runner trapped again.

Beep. Beep.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-27 00:54:07 UTC

And Prien was RIGHT AGAIN. As AWLAYS.
You dared me to present what you imagined wasn't there so you could call me a
liar about my comment about Simpson having said it.
The coyote thought he had the road runner trapped again.
Beep. Beep.
Prien

Wow, are you screwed up, beep, beep. I already said you were right about
Simpson saying "seven-something." But you did not and probably still do
not understand what Simpson said was a mistake.

Simpson knew when he said "seven-something" it was wrong. He questioned
it at the time he said it and then corrected himself a couple of
questions later.

But Prien doesn't care about that, right? All of your fantasies are
based on mistakes that witness made, or your own mistakes in not
understanding what the witnesses said.

There is not one shred of legitimate proof to support any of your
fantasy claims, Prien. From telephone calls that you imagined were made,
to telephone records documenting telephone calls you do not want to
believe were made.

And of course your own personal experiences, and the things you simply
just make up. All of these things are what you base your idiotic
fantasies on. That's what makes the Andy and Jean show so funny. Neither
of you know the facts.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-28 04:08:06 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/26/2003 8:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time
There is not one shred of legitimate proof to support any of your
fantasy claims, Prien. From telephone calls that you imagined were made,
to telephone records documenting telephone calls you do not want to
believe were made.

Let's at least get some facts straight. I first notes that Simpson was
obviously unsure about the time because he gave various times for when he got
home. I also then specifically noted that he indicated at one point he said he
came home after seven.

You denied it, alleging that at NO TIME had Simpson said anything like it.

I cited the testimony.

You dunderhead then proceed to take me to task for failing to udnerstand
English by posting completely different testimony where simpson indicates he
came home early.

I repost all the testimony to prove what an idiot you are.

And now you proclaim to KNOW that Simpson KNEW he was wrong.

Post where Simpson in nfact affirmed that he was wrong to have said he got home
at seven-something. Prove it.

There is actualy testimony that you cited that proves Simpson didn't get home
until seven. That was when Simpson allegedly asked Kato about the outcome of
the Rockets basketball game.

The fact is that if Simpson was at all interested (and he evendiently was
interested in all kinds of sports, and would certainly have watched NBC sports
broadcats, since he worked for them), then the first thing he would ahve done
is turn on his TV which was probably set to the channel since Simpson was most
likely watching the start of the game (which began at 4:00 p.m. PDT, and the
recital was only at 5:00).

So when Simpson turned on the TV, if he then didn;t know of the score or
outcome of the game, it had to be after the game and wrap up was completel;y
finsihed and NBC was already broadcasting the rest of its schedule.

Damn, that certainly puts the time as after 7:00.

And you're wrong again, dummy.

Beep, beep goes the roadrunner.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-28 13:55:46 UTC

Let's at least get some facts straight. I first notes that Simpson was
obviously unsure about the time because he gave various times for when he got
home. I also then specifically noted that he indicated at one point he said he
came home after seven.
You denied it, alleging that at NO TIME had Simpson said anything like it.
I cited the testimony.
You dunderhead then proceed to take me to task for failing to udnerstand
English by posting completely different testimony where simpson indicates he
came home early.
I repost all the testimony to prove what an idiot you are.
And now you proclaim to KNOW that Simpson KNEW he was wrong.
Post where Simpson in nfact affirmed that he was wrong to have said he got home
at seven-something. Prove it.
There is actualy testimony that you cited that proves Simpson didn't get home
until seven. That was when Simpson allegedly asked Kato about the outcome of
the Rockets basketball game.
The fact is that if Simpson was at all interested (and he evendiently was
interested in all kinds of sports, and would certainly have watched NBC sports
broadcats, since he worked for them), then the first thing he would ahve done
is turn on his TV which was probably set to the channel since Simpson was most
likely watching the start of the game (which began at 4:00 p.m. PDT, and the
recital was only at 5:00).
So when Simpson turned on the TV, if he then didn;t know of the score or
outcome of the game, it had to be after the game and wrap up was completel;y
finsihed and NBC was already broadcasting the rest of its schedule.
Damn, that certainly puts the time as after 7:00.
And you're wrong again, dummy.
Beep, beep goes the roadrunner.
Prien

Yes, lets get the facts straight. Simpson was completely consistent with
what time he thought the recital ended. From his initial statement, to
his deposition, to his testimony.

He only made one mistake about this one time, when he said
seven-something. He questioned it at the time he said it and he
corrected it a short time later.

I have already posted and proved to you that when Simpson said
seven-something, it was a mistake. I can not help you with your handicap
of not being capable of understanding what is said.

I explained to you that Simpson was confused when he said
seven-something and even questioned himself trying to remember what he
did before he went home from the recital. He said,

Simpson: Yeah, I'm trying to think, did I leave? You know, I'm always
...I had to run and get my daughter some flowers. I was actually doing
the recital, so I rushed and got her some flowers, and I came home, and
then I called Paula as I was going to her house, and Paula wasn't home.

Simpson did not get flowers when he left the recital to go home. A
couple of questions later, Simpson tried corrected himself and yet he
was still confused, talking about calling Paula.

Lange: What time was the recital?
Simpson: Over at about 6:30. Like I said, I came home, I got my car, I
was going to see my girlfriend. I was calling her and she wasn't around.
Lange: So you drove the...you came home in the Rolls, and then you got
in the Bronco...
Simpson: In the Bronco, 'cause my phone was in the Bronco. And because
it's a Bronco. It's a Bronco, it's what I drive, you know. I'd rather
drive it than any other car. And, you know, as I was going over there, I
called her a couple of times and she wasn't there, and I left a message,
and then I checked my messages, and there were no new messages. She
wasn't there, and she may have to leave town. Then I came back and ended
up sitting with Kato.

Once again Simpson mixed up what he did that day. He cleared it up in
his deposition. The calls to Paula he is referring to, from his Bronco
were made earlier in the day when he was returning home from playing golf.

As to proving Simpson was in his house before seven, yes it was proven.
You just aren't capable of understanding the proof. Your handicap is too
great.

Simpson deposition
January 24, 1996

Q: When you left there (the recital), you drove in your Bentley straight
to Rockingham?
A: Yeah.

Q: What time is it now when you arrived at the house?
A: I don't recall.
Q: What's your best estimate of the time?
A: 7:00 o'clock maybe. I could be wrong. Could be 6:00 o'clock.
Whatever length of time it took for the affair to end, and I was
three or four minutes away from my house.
Q: No stops in between?
A: No.

Whatever length of time it took for the affair to end? 6:30 is the time
Simpson continually said it ended.

And then there was Simpson's testimony in the civil trial where he
denies making the 6:56 phone call but admits he was home at that time.

Simpson Civil Trial
November 26, 1996

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You see 18:56, sir, right there?
A. Yes.
Q. That's 6:56?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. 476-4619?
A. Yes.
Q. Message 999. That's to your message manager?
A. I believe 999 would have been numbers to my message manager.
Q. So does that help you remember that at 6:56 p.m. from your home phone
number
476-4619, you called and picked up a five-minute message?
A. No, I didn't pick up any message.
Q. The records than are incorrect?
A. I don't know about the records. I know I was at home. I know I
checked my home message machine. And I know Kato came in, and Kato and
I was talking.

Simpson says "I know I was at home." The time they are talking about is
6:56. Simpson says, "And I know Kato came in, and Kato and I was
talking," Simpson saw Kato walk by his house when Kato arrived home to
go to his room to watch the basketball game. Kato did not go to Simpson
house until a little later, after Simpson checked his messages and made
the 6:56 telephone call to his message center. How do we know that?
Because that is what Simpson told Dr. Lenore Walker.

Dr. Walker's notes tell us what Simpson told her. He did make that
telephone call, and told her Paula might have been in Las Vegas, that
Paula was angry with him, and that he saw Kato when Kato arrived home
and went to his room.

Dr. Walker's notes February 25, 1995

"'Called Paula, not home, Call forward on car phone message from Paula,
Whole long message about golf, Don't see you. He's not sure if in
Arizona or Las Vegas, or if angry with him. He listens to message. Kato
goes by house.'"

Kato Kaelin tells us that after he got to his room he watched the end of
the basketball game before he went to Simpson's house to talk to him.

Kato Kaelin "The Whole Truth"

"He (Kaelin) arrived at the guest house, stretched out on the floor to
give his back a rest, and flipped the TV on with the remote. A few
minutes passed before he heard O.J. once again calling his name. Kato
got up and saw O.J. through the screen door, waving him into the main
house."

Paula Barbieri testified that she believed the messages left by Simpson
later that day were in response to the message she had left on his cell
phone at 7:00 in the morning. She also testified that she never told
Simpson she was going to Las Vegas. She only told him that in the
message Simpson claimed he never heard.

December 14, 1995 Paula Barbieri

Q. So you as you sit here
today, do you have any knowledge that
you informed Mr. Simpson that you were
going, on June 12, 1994, to Las Vegas on
that day?
A. No.

Q. So it's your belief that he had picked up your earlier message of
7 o'clock (A.M.). Correct?
A. I assume.
Q. That's your belief?
A. Yes, sir.

I have put this all together for you, Prien. If you are still not
capable of understanding the significance and the reality of how all
these witnesses contradict and impeach Simpson, then the only thing you
have proved is that you aren't smart enough to understand proof or
reality. You are hopelessly and completely lost in fantasy.

But we all already know that. Like when you try to tell us how Simpson
most likely was watching the start of the basketball game on his
television. Pure fantasy. Simpson said he was napping and woke up right
before it was time to go to the recital. Just Prien, making things up
again, right Andy?

bobaugust

2003-09-26 04:13:25 UTC

Andy you are exactly right. Since it was custom for the parents to leave
after thier child performed then they would have gotten home earlier on
previous occassions.

This is the whole timeing problem for the murderers. Nicole made
reservations and was late thinking of previous times.

No body was running on time as for as the murderers where concerned,
therefore all the lying about times that tried to show the murders
happening earlier than they actually occurred.

They always have the younger ones first and older ones last. Little kids
get antsy, sleepy, and mess up their costums and hair dos if they have
to wait too long. So their performance is later and later each year.

All the times where screwed up because Nicole thought the dance was gto
be over sooner than it did.

JEAN

bobaugust

2003-09-26 05:09:53 UTC

Post by je
Andy you are exactly right. Since it was custom for the parents to leave
after thier child performed then they would have gotten home earlier on
previous occassions.
This is the whole timeing problem for the murderers. Nicole made
reservations and was late thinking of previous times.
No body was running on time as for as the murderers where concerned,
therefore all the lying about times that tried to show the murders
happening earlier than they actually occurred.
They always have the younger ones first and older ones last. Little kids
get antsy, sleepy, and mess up their costums and hair dos if they have
to wait too long. So their performance is later and later each year.
All the times where screwed up because Nicole thought the dance was gto
be over sooner than it did.

No Jean, you just don't understand the facts in this case. The only
times that are screwed up are the times you imagine. Learn the facts.

bobaugust

John Griffin

2003-09-27 08:28:05 UTC

Post by je
Andy you are exactly right. Since it was custom for the
parents to leave after thier child performed then they
would have gotten home earlier on previous occassions.
This is the whole timeing problem for the murderers. Nicole
made reservations and was late thinking of previous times.
No body was running on time as for as the murderers where
concerned, therefore all the lying about times that tried
to show the murders happening earlier than they actually
occurred.
They always have the younger ones first and older ones
last. Little kids get antsy, sleepy, and mess up their
costums and hair dos if they have to wait too long. So
their performance is later and later each year.
All the times where screwed up because Nicole thought the
dance was gto be over sooner than it did.

However enthusiastically and stupidly you and that idiotic
little gasbag try to change it, the fact will always remain that
there is no fucking doubt that Simpson was standing in his
kitchen talking to Kaelin before 7:00. I'm not criticizing your
efforts. They're funny as hell. When the brain damaged little
wanker plays "connect the dots," he just draws lines randomly
and then puts dots on them. He's dumber than a brick, as you
know.

bobaugust

2003-09-24 09:29:43 UTC

Post by Prien
Well, August, I guess you forgot the following from the interview as cited in
VANNATTER: So what time do you think you got back home, actualy physically got
home?
SIMPSON: SEVEN-SOMETHING.
Get it idiot. SEVEN-SOMETHING. That means seven o'clock PLUS AN UNKNOWN
NUMBER OF MINUTES. Since its some minutes MORE THAN SEVEN, Simpson clearly
declares that he physically got home AFTER SEVEN.

Prien, Lets keep the record straight.

During his initial interview with Vannatter and Lange, Simpson got a
little confused sometimes. Simpson was first questioned about the last
time he saw Nicole.

Vannatter: Yeah. When was the last time you saw Nicole?
Simpson: We were leaving a dance recital. She took off and I was talking
to her parents.
Vannatter: Where was the dance recital?
Simpson: Paul Revere High School.
Vannatter: And was that for one of your children?
Simpson: Yeah, for my daughter Sydney.
Vannatter: And what time was that yesterday?
Simpson: It ended about 6:30, quarter to seven, something like that, you
know, in the ballpark, right in that area. And they took off.

Simpson was questioned about his Bronco and asked,

Lange: When did you last drive it?
Simpson: Yesterday
Vannatter: What time yesterday?
Simpson: In the morning, in the afternoon.
Vannatter: OK, you left her, you're saying, about 6:30 or 7, or she left
the recital?
Simpson: Yeah.

A little later Vannatter asked,

Vannatter: OK, what time did you leave the recital?
Simpson: Right about that time. We were all leaving. We were all leaving
then. Her mother said something about me joining them for dinner, and I
said no thanks.

A little later Vannatter asked.

Vannatter: So what time do you think you got back home, actually
physically got home?
Simpson: Seven-something.
Vannatter: Seven-something? And then you left, and...
Simpson: Yeah, I'm trying to think, did I leave? You know, I'm always
...I had to run and get my daughter some flowers. I was actually doing
the recital, so I rushed and got her some flowers, and I came home, and
then I called Paula as I was going to her house, and Paula wasn't home.

Simpson is confused. His seven something time is based on combining two
different trips. He says he left the recital and rushed to get flowers,
then came home, and called Paula. That is not what happened. Simpson did
leave the recital to get flowers but then he returned to the recital.
When the recital ended Simpson left and went right home.

A little later Lange asked,

Lange: What time was the recital?
Simpson: Over at about 6:30. Like I said, I came home, I got my car, I
was going to see my girlfriend. I was calling her and she wasn't around.

Simpson corrected his previous statement.

When Simpson left the recital, he tried calling Paula, she wasn't
answering, so he went home. When he got home the first thing he did was
check his answering machine messages. There was no message on it from
Paula. Simpson then called his message center (at 6:56) and call
forwarded his cell phone messages. He listened to Paula's message.

Simpson saw Kaelin walk by his house on the way to his room. After
Simpson listened to Paula's long message he waved to Kaelin to come over
to the house.

The Browns left the recital about the same time that Simpson did and
arrived at the Mezzaluna Restaurant about the same time Simpson got
home. The Browns were about fifteen to twenty minutes late for their
7:30 reservations.

It seems, Prien, this time your SEVEN-SOMETHING had nothing to do with
your problem of not understanding english. You just didn't understand
that Simpson was mistaken when he said seven something. Have you got it
straight now, Prien?

bobaugust

2003-09-26 03:52:04 UTC

Obviously OJ was not paying attention to time with his vague guess. But
Garvey was as she had gone home during the recital and had a new baby at
home. Denise probably was also since she was with children who she was
concerned about getting home because of their bed time.
It was impossible for the waitress to be telling the truth. Impossible
for that many different dance groups to have performed and had an
intermission and gotten out of there to get to the resturant in the time
whe said they got there.
I have been to a lot of recitals Therefore know that they could not have
gotten out of there before 7 ish.

JEAN

bobaugust

2003-09-26 05:09:26 UTC

Post by je
Obviously OJ was not paying attention to time with his vague guess. But
Garvey was as she had gone home during the recital and had a new baby at
home. Denise probably was also since she was with children who she was
concerned about getting home because of their bed time.
It was impossible for the waitress to be telling the truth. Impossible
for that many different dance groups to have performed and had an
intermission and gotten out of there to get to the resturant in the time
whe said they got there.
I have been to a lot of recitals Therefore know that they could not have
gotten out of there before 7 ish.

Obviously you weren't at this recital, Jean. Simpson told us several
times that the recital ended about 6:30. He said his good byes to the
Brown family outside and then he went directly home.

After their good byes the Browns drove directly to the Mezzaluna
Restaurant arriving about fifteen to twenty minutes late for their 6:30
dinner reservations.

Both Denise Brown and Candice Garvey guessed at what time they thought
the recital ended. Each guessed a different time. Simpson tells us when
he and the Browns left. Restaurant employees tell us what time the
Browns arrived for their reservations. Simpson and his telephone records
tell us what time Simpson was home.

Just like Prien, your personal opinion about recitals is completely
meaningless to the Simpson case. But both you and Andy are funny.

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-26 22:48:09 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/25/2003 11:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Obviously OJ was not paying attention to time with his vague guess. But
Garvey was as she had gone home during the recital and had a new baby at
home. Denise probably was also since she was with children who she was
concerned about getting home because of their bed time.
It was impossible for the waitress to be telling the truth. Impossible
for that many different dance groups to have performed and had an
intermission and gotten out of there to get to the resturant in the time
whe said they got there.
I have been to a lot of recitals Therefore know that they could not have
gotten out of there before 7 ish.
JEAN

You nailed this all down firmly. Both of the recital witnesses had reason to
know the time, espeically Denise who expressly noted when asked about the
recital that it just went on and on. She was obviously bored to tears and was
aching to get out of there. What does someone do when under such torture?

The person KEEPS LOOKING AT HIS OR HER WATCH to see how soon it will be over.

Denise, therefore had efvery reason to know exactly when the torture session
ended. None of the Mezzaluna witnesses had any reason at all to know the time
when the Browns showed up.

Their testimony about the time lacks all credibility.

The testimony of the recital witnesses is fully credible and accurate.

It is the times stated by those CREDIBLE witnesses that refute the truth of the
Mezzaluna witnesses.

You lose again August. As always.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-27 00:53:59 UTC

You nailed this all down firmly. Both of the recital witnesses had reason to
know the time, espeically Denise who expressly noted when asked about the
recital that it just went on and on. She was obviously bored to tears and was
aching to get out of there. What does someone do when under such torture?
The person KEEPS LOOKING AT HIS OR HER WATCH to see how soon it will be over.
Denise, therefore had efvery reason to know exactly when the torture session
ended. None of the Mezzaluna witnesses had any reason at all to know the time
when the Browns showed up.
Their testimony about the time lacks all credibility.
The testimony of the recital witnesses is fully credible and accurate.
It is the times stated by those CREDIBLE witnesses that refute the truth of the
Mezzaluna witnesses.
You lose again August. As always.
Prien

Your personal opinion thinking Denise Brown and Candice Garvey were
checking their watches while watching the recital is as meaningless as
all of your fantasies.

The fact is that you are wrong, Prien. The fact is that Denise Brown and
Candice Garvey simply guessed wrong. They did not say they looked at
their watches, they only estimated the time they thought the recital was
over and both estimated different times.

Simpson was consistent with his time estimates as to when the recital
ended.

The two employees of the restaurant, the manager and the server, did not
know anything about the recital. All they knew was that the Brown party
did not show up for their 6:30 dinner reservations on time. They showed
up fifteen to twenty minutes late. The restaurant employees did have
reasons to check the time, they were doing business.

That is how we know Denise Brown and Candice Garvey's time estimates
were incorrect. From these two independent witnesses. But you can't
understand that, can you?

bobaugust

Prien

2003-09-28 03:57:38 UTC

Subject: Re: OJ'S ATTIRE - NOT LOGICAL
Date: 9/26/2003 8:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time
That is how we know Denise Brown and Candice Garvey's time estimates
were incorrect. From these two independent witnesses. But you can't
understand that, can you?

You know NOTHING. Prove that the Mezzaliuna witnesses KNEW what time it was.
POST THE EVIDENDE WHERE THEY WERE ASKED AND AFFIRMED HOW THEY KNEW THEIR TIME
ESTIMATES WERE CORRECT.

Prien

bobaugust

2003-09-28 13:55:37 UTC