Victor another interesting webpage with a lot of questions...
Do you have any answers or counterpoints for any of these questions and points from this link.
cyberramp.net
1. According to one of his sources (someone who attended the grand jury) the grand jury was only going to "consider" indicting OJS on MANSLAUGHTER, didn't believe OJS could do everything he was accused of in the short time allowed, and an indictment likely would not have happened.
2. The prosecution did not use Jill Shively because she was allegedly a "felony probationer" with a history of filing lawsuits. She was not considered any more credible than Mary Ann Gerchas, and her story was not believed. (Marcia Clark also recounted the story about Jill Shively in her book.)
3. The LAPD had a log showing that at 2:58 a.m., June 13, "OJS" was the "suspect" in a "double homicide at 875 South Bundy." The cops went to OJ's estate around 5 am-- now I ask you, Vannatter and Lange, how do you explain that? And YOU DIDN'T SUSPECT OJS?
4. Dr. Lenore Walker was going to testify in the criminal trial that OJS does not fit the model of a chronic batterer found in studies of domestic violence. And that there was no evidence there was any violence (battering) other than five years previously (1989), no evidence of escalating incidents of violence. The plaintiffs did not provide any such evidence either, instead they had several witnesses whose testimony had errors or was so unbelievable or inadmissible that the LADA had not been interested in using it.
***
Here's a list of valid UNANSWERED questions about the murders in general (discussed to date ad nauseum by posters on the Pathfinder OJS Board), a lot of it also collected in Bosco's book:
1. Who was the anonymous female who called the LAPD at 10:30 p.m. on June 12, 1994, and asked about a double homicide on the Westside? (Before the bodies were discovered.)
2. Who opened the gate for Ron (it had to be opened by hand)? THIS IS A POINT THE CIVIL JURY EITHER DID NOT CONSIDER OR DID NOT UNDERSTAND. One of the female jurors stated she didn't have a problem with how one killer could have killed two young strong adults, because it only made sense to her that he killed Nicole before Ron came in. Well, since the gate had to be opened by hand, how did Ron get in if Nicole was already dead or unconscious? This point proves Nicole let him in and THEY WERE ATTACKED TOGETHER. So, the civil jury made a TREMENDOUS MISTAKE in their assumptions on this. HOW COULD A SINGLE KILLER STRUGGLE WITH AND KILL THESE TWO IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME--TWO AGAINST ONE? Both with different degrees of training in self-defense/karate? Give us a break.... You must read Joe Bosco's thoughts on this scenario.
3. If OJS came in from the back, tennis court, area to the pathway beside the garage as the civil jury apparently decided (after re-reading A.C. Cowlings' testimony), why was the SPIDER WEB beyond the air conditioner unit UNDISTURBED, per Mark Fuhrman in his book)?
4. Is it possible to bang hard three times into a solid air conditioner unit without even a scratch or a bruise? (Challenge: NO-Js, go out and try it. Please.) And if you hit it once, are you going back for more?
5. For that matter, why were there no bruises or other evidence of a terrible struggle with Ron on OJS's body? Dr. Baden testified that the bruise on Ron's knuckle was caused by punching someone very hard--not from hitting a fence or tree. Per Bosco, the lack of damage to OJS has bothered Dr. Henry Lee from the beginning. Dr. Lee believed if there were just one killer, he should have exhibited a lot more physical damage. The blood spatter evidence, the position of other evidence such as keys, beeper, etc., indicated a fierce struggle took place. "In 6,000 homicides Dr. Lee has never seen such a thing, a violent struggle, two on one, and no damage to the killer." Dr. Lee stated, "HAVE TO BE SOME KIND MARTIAL-ART SUPERHERO DO THAT."
6. Where did the killer dispose of the bloody clothes and knife? The LAPD and helpers searched everywhere in Brentwood, in Chicago, and at both airports. And to think that OJS is supposed to have done this in approximately 7-10 minutes, on his way back to Rockingham. (Before or after banging his brains out?)
7. Why did the photographer, Rokahr, take a photo of Fuhrman pointing at the glove at Bundy (when there were none of anybody pointing at ANY other evidence)? What significance did the glove have for Mark Fuhrman?
8. Why were there TWO photos of Fuhrman pointing at the glove--one at 4:00 a.m. in the dark, and another at 7:00 a.m. in the daylight? Why did Fuhrman testify only to the SECOND photo? Why did the prosecution fail to turn over the contact sheets showing these shots to the defense until the very last minute after the defense went to Judge Ito to get them?
9. Why did the plaintiffs in the civil case try so hard to explain this photo situation, and why did Rokahr CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY in the civil trial? BECAUSE: It shows Fuhrman was in the crime scene area contrary to his testimony, and after Rokahr walked away, Fuhrman was there alone (per Rokahr there were no other officers in there) with opportunity to do whatever he wanted. (Just like he had 15 minutes alone at Bundy to plant it wherever he wanted, and after Kato told him about the "noise" he knew just the place....)
10. Why didn't Fuhrman document his (brief) interview with Rosa Lopez? Why did he only interview this one neighbor? (Did it have anything to do with the footsteps and men's voices she heard somewhere around 2:00 and 3:00 a.m.? Could that have been Fuhrman and some other cop entering and walking around OJ's estate?)
11. Why did Fuhrman and Roberts (per Fuhrman's book) find the Rockingham gate unlocked, when it was locked at the time OJS left for the airport and Kato closed it? Who opened it?
12. Who went into O. J.'s house AFTER he left for the airport and AFTER Kato set the alarm, and LEFT THE ALARM OFF? (All four detectives, and Kato swore that Arnelle led them into the house the next morning through the BACK DOOR. Arnelle testified at the civil trial that she took them around to the FRONT DOOR so she could shut off the alarm. The other five say it was the back door and no alarm went off.) Someone was obviously in the house during the night, but it wasn't Arnelle. Who?
13. WHY DOESN'T DETECTIVE BRAD ROBERTS, FUHRMAN'S PARTNER, APPEAR IN ANY REPORT BY ANY OFFICER AT THE SCENE, NOR DID HE MAKE ANY REPORT HIMSELF, although Fuhrman reports in his book that Roberts was present when he found ALL the important evidence at Bundy and Rockingham other than the glove. In fact, Fuhrman questions why Clark didn't call Roberts to confirm it all! (You figure it out.)
14. Why did the LAPD refuse to give the defense the records of cell-phone calls between Phillips, Roberts and Fuhrman, and instead give them a "sanitized" records with some calls blacked out?
15. Why was the Bundy crime scene shut down so quickly, considering that the criminalists and coroners got there so long after the murders? Why shut it down and wash it down within hours? Much was probably lost as a result. Why? Because the LAPD was CERTAIN at that time even that OJS was the killer?
16. Why did the DA refuse the offer by Dr. Baden and Dr.Lee of their assistance in the case, even though they were retained by the defense? Why were they not allowed normal and reasonable access to the evidence in accordance usual practices?
17. Is it a coincidence that two of Ron Goldman's restaurant acquaintances were also murdered, one a year after Ron and Nicole, in exactly the same way?
***
Some more UNANSWERED QUESTIONS pertaining to the Civil Trial:
1. Why is Nicole's recent history of friends and activities, including drug use, not relevant to the murders? Standard procedure is to check out the victims' backgrounds and circle of friends and routines. But Nicole's was "off limits." Why?
2. Why wasn't Fuhrman's taped testimony in the criminal trial admitted in his absence at the civil trial? As the person who found some of the most incriminating evidence, and because of the implications of planting evidence, why was his testimony not critical to the civil trial as well? Leaving out this testimony and the associated impeachment tapes and witnesses deprived the jury of the "whole" story and OJS of a fair trial.
3. Why did the plaintiff lawyers and Judge Fujisaki edit Dr. Lee's videotaped testimony to the extreme in the civil trial? His testimony was limited to only a few points, nothing near all the information and demonstrations he provided in the criminal trial. He was the major witness for the defense in that trial, yet barely noticed in the civil trial. The civil jurors really "didn't get it" as far as Dr. Lee and the importance of his findings in this case, because they were not presented to the jury. As Bosco stated, Dr. Lee is the Grand Master of the scenario game, the most pre-eminent criminalist in the world, and most of the states' criminalists at some time or other were "educated" by Dr. Lee because of all the textbooks he has authored. Some of the criminal trial jurors have cited Dr. Lee's testimony as reason for their finding of reasonable doubt--and THE CIVIL JURORS MISSED THIS SOMEHOW.
4. Why did the prosecutors in the criminal case withhold around 10,000 pages of discovery material they are REQUIRED BY LAW to provide to the defense?
5. Why did the LAPD/LADA turn over every bit of evidence to the plaintiffs' lawyers in the civil case, YET THE DEFENSE HAD TO FIGHT INCH BY INCH TO RECEIVE THE SAME MATERIALS, and was unsuccessful in getting much of it.
6. Why did major witnesses like Kato Kaelin, Allan Park, Dennis Fung, Andrea Mazzola, Colin Yamauchi, Sgt. Kelly Muldorfer, Nurse Thano Peratis, and photographer Rokahr, CHANGE THEIR TESTIMONY SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE CIVIL TRIAL from that in the Grand Jury, Preliminary Hearings (if applicable), and the Criminal Trial? How can one's memory of what happened be sharper two and a half years later? Why is this not considered perjury, even in a civil trial? Why is it the media doesn't care and report this?
7. Why did the plaintiffs' lawyers "spring" the Flammer photos on the defense, without allowing them the required opportunity to review them and have them validated? Why did Flammer's lawyers refuse any contact by the defense about these photographs?
8. Why did these photographers wait two and a half years to "remember" they had these photos? Is this credible to ANYONE?
9. Why did the plaintiffs never introduce original photos used by the Buffalo Bills in their newspaper, just a rather illegible copy of the publication?
10. Why did the CIVIL JURY OVERLOOK THE FACT OF FBI Agent Richards' admission that EVEN HE COULD NOT TELL DEFINITIVELY whether a photograph had been altered by current high tech methods if done well? Does this statement not effectively rebut all his earlier testimony that he WOULD be able to tell if the photos had been altered?
11. Did the CIVIL JURY OVERLOOK Mr. Scull's statement that HE didn't alter the photograph, but HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HIS AGENT did with it?
12. Why didn't the AGENT, who represented both Scull and Flammer, testify since he was so intimately involved with the whole scenario on these photos? This agent who owned a photographic business and was perfectly capable of making such alterations or having them done--maybe in LONDON?
13. How could the plaintiffs' lawyers maintain the sweat suit OJS wore in the workout video matched the fibers found at the crime scene WHEN THESE WERE NEVER ANALYZED TO DETERMINE A MATCH. HOW could the civil jury "buy" this?
14. Why did the plaintiffs refuse to let OJS try on the glove again? Didn't this jury have the right to all "evidence" submitted to the criminal trial jury? And the GLOVE DID NOT FIT! But this jury didn't get to find that out.
***
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BLOOD EVIDENCE:
1. Why didn't the LAPD type the blood on the bloody car keys Ron had? (Or did they?)
2. Why are there unidentifiable bloody fingerprints on the envelope with the glasses? WHY WAS THERE A BLOODY FINGERPRINT ON THE LENSES INSIDE THE ENVELOPE? Did the killer think Ron had something else in that envelope? Money? Drugs?
3. Even better: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BLOODY LENS? The LAPD "lost" it.... Ever wonder why?
4. Why were there 17 unidentified fingerprints and one "missing" bloody fingerprint on the back gate handle, and one missing bloody fingerprint on the "missing" bloody lens, yet NONE of OJS's fingerprints were found at Bundy? (Considering that he "lost" one glove.) Who did those bloody fingerprints belong to? Does the LAPD know?
5. Why is the blood on the Bundy walkway much more degraded and with significantly less DNA than that on the back gate (found three weeks later), and that found at Rockingham, including that on the socks and glove? It should all be the same, unless the drops had been there for some time BEFORE the murders, which wouldn't be all that strange considering OJS was over there often. One of the drops was also a different color, much darker and harder to "lift." Why?
6. Why did the bloody fingerprint Mark Fuhrman and Brad Roberts claim to have seen on the back gate go unnoticed by every other cop and uncollected by Fung? Why wouldn't an experienced detective grab a photographer to take a picture of it, or grab his boss and point it out to him? Come on Mark, you can fool some of the people some of the time, etc.
7. Isn't it strange that the lens with the bloody fingerprint was lost by the LAPD, AND Fuhrman's alleged bloody fingerprint on the back gate also was "lost" somehow? The LAPD also lost some of the samples from one of the Bundy blood drops...at least that's what they told the defense when they asked for it. The most important blood evidence other than DNA was disappearing? Why? Was it exculpatory for OJS?
8. Why didn't the photographer and the criminalists collecting the blood see the blood drops on the back gate? Maybe Fung is incompetent, but what about the photographer who was taking pictures? Why didn't a detective tell him to check it? After all, the killer obviously left that way.
9. Why did the tow truck driver, John Maraz, who was in the Broco at Viertels Tow Yard, testify he DIDN'T see any blood in the Bronco? Why did Officer Kelly Mulldorfer also state in the criminal trial she didn't recall seeing any blood when she investigated a theft involving the Bronco? Why did she change her testimony in the civil trial?
10. Why didn't the experienced criminalists and lab people at the LAPD see the blood on the socks when they examined them on June 14, 1994? This was also put on the report of their evaluation. Why didn't Dr. Baden, world-renowned forensic pathologist, see it on June 22, 1994? After all, Gary Simms and the JURY were able to see it clearly. Dr. Lee later was able to see it when he held it up to the light. Is it possible it wasn't there on June 14, 1994?
11. Why didn't the socks show up in the 4:15 p.m. videotape taken by police photographer Ford, when Fung testified they were collected around 4:30 - 4:40?
12. Why did the LAPD leak information to news reporter Tracie Savage that Nicole's blood was on the socks--BEFORE THEY WERE EVEN SENT TO THE LAB FOR DNA TESTING? How did they know? Why was the fact that this happened found NOT RELEVANT to the criminal trial by Judge Ito (or to the civil trial)?
13. How did Nicole's blood get onto Ron's shoes in a pattern that shows he was upright on his feet while she was bleeding from a spot ABOVE his shoes? As well as a mixture of Ron's and Nicole's blood on Ron's shoes, indicating they were BOTH bleeding while standing at the same time? And how could this be if there was ONLY ONE KILLER, and Nicole was KILLED FIRST, and the entire murder took only 2-5 minutes? (CIVIL JURY: Explain all/any of this if Nicole was killed first!)
14. Why is there one Bruno Magli shoe print going east and one going west (Bodziak could not explain it)?
15. Why doesn't the blood drop trail on the left of the first Bruno Magli shoe print trail follow those steps inward toward the garden bed (when the killer supposedly ducked into the bushes)? And why doesn't the blood drop trail accompany the identical shoe prints that parallel the "first" trail away from the scene? (There were two parallel trails leaving the scene.) Why were there two?
16. Why did Bodziak (and the prosecution) find it necessary to try to discredit Dr. Lee's finding-- that there were "parallel marks" on the cement which could have been another partial bloody shoe print--by misrepresenting Dr. Lee's testimony to the jury by saying Dr. Lee was describing ANOTHER, different, shoe print which was cemented in when the walk was poured? Both sides KNEW these were two DIFFERENT things entirely.
17. If Bodziak did account for those Bruno Magli shoes sold in the U.S., who bought them and why wasn't the list provided to the defense? Why wasn't OJS identified as one of them? (OJS never said he DIDN'T own any, he said he didn't REMEMBER buying any, and didn't think he would have because they were ugly-assed, not his style.)
18. Why are there no blood drops in the shrubbery area the killer "ducked" into, if he/she was bleeding at the time?
19. Why are those blood drops just five widely separated blood drops? How could that be if the killer was bleeding profusely? Why are some of those drops perfectly circular (per Dr. Lee, blood spatter expert) when the killer was moving, and apparently dropped from a close range around two feet? Makes no sense at all.
20. Why did Dr. Huizenga and Dr. Baden agree that the cut on OJS's middle finger was more likely from a glass than a knife? Neither of these men would sacrifice their integrity and reputations in order to lie for OJS.
21. Why didn't Vannatter, Lange and Peratis see other cuts on OJS's fingers on June 13, while Dr. Spitz in the CIVIL TRIAL insisted that abrasions which were found after that date were fingernail scrapes incurred during the murders? DOES EVERYBODY WITH THE LAPD HAVE FAULTY VISION? (Guys, get some eye exams. Please!)
22. AND FINALLY: Why is O.J. Simpson not entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty? Why is it that American citizens are not OUTRAGED that a person's rights can be so blatantly violated by an establishment that is so OBVIOUSLY POLITICALLY motivated?
*** |
