|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 1, 2020 10:14:59 GMT -6
Stories. Stories. Stories. You do know OJ spent millions upon millions upon millions on his defense. Right? That kind of money pays for a lot of stories. Funny thing is, it didn't pay for one, single, solitary shred of EVIDENCE. Funny, you know? Not funny, like, the Italian Army. Funny, like, "nobody" knew Jimmy Saville and Bill Cosby were serial rapists. A lot of money got spread around by those guys and their handlers, too. All the Michael Jackson victims got paid off. Nobody disputes that.
I'm not denying there are a million stories being told. I'm only asking for one, single, solitary shred of evidence that backs just one of them up. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, don't you think it's suspicious that the police don't have one single, solitary shred of evidence that my client is innocent?" Blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah.
And yes, LAPD and the DA's office, et al, shot THEMSELVES in the foot 10,000 times. I know. I watched them do it, day after day after day after day. Funny, that. If they were out to "frame" OJ, then why did THEY spend a million man-hours undermining their own frame? I'll admit, if I were on the jury, I might not have voted "guilty," just on the principle of "You gotta be a whole lot less sloppy than this, people." But that doesn't mean I've seen one single, solitary shred of EVIDENCE that ANYONE else committed, or even helped commit, these two murders.
On the OTHER hand, claiming that a fingerprint found at the Tate house proves Tex Watson murdered Leno LaBianca...See the difference? Not just "you," Jack. Everyone? See the difference? Because that's what THIS whole, entire shebang is about. It's not about retelling the same old ghost stories. It's about looking for EVIDENCE that ANY of them are true. We have some, in some cases. But not JFK, and not OJ. I'll be the first person to publicize said evidence, IF it's ever found.
There is a truckload of imaginary "evidence" that "proves" Oswald "didn't" shoot JFK. And all this imaginary evidence somehow proves--well it WOULD prove, IF anyone could actually SEE it--the real evidence that he DID shoot JFK is all "fake." There is a truckload of imaginary "evidence" that "proves" Darlie Routier did not murder her own children. And all this imaginary evidence somehow proves--well it WOULD prove, IF anyone could actually SEE it--the real evidence that she DID kill her kids is all "fake."
Great, great, GREAT stories. But stories that don't lead us to EVIDENCE are completely and entirely useless to me, this website, and The Stones Unturned Podcast. Except to use as examples of how NOT to "reinvestigate" a case. Hearsay, no matter WHO says it, is not evidence of anything. It might be a LEAD to evidence, but it's not evidence. And not one of these stories about JFK or OJ has ever led to any actual evidence. And unlike the Manson blah, blah, blah, I don't see much reason to waste a lot of time looking for it, for the simple procedural reason that THE EVIDENCE SHOWS OSWALD AND OJ AND ROUTIER ARE GUILTY. But Manson, Berkowitz, Steve Crawford, these guys have been convicted, etc, on what turns out to be NO (or almost no) evidence. THOSE are the cases that ARE turning up the REAL evidence. And even more specifically, the authorities DID have all this "undiscovered" evidence, all along. And then lied about it. And even more importantly, I--the one with his legal neck stuck out--can PROVE they had it all along, AND lied about it.
PS I hate to burst your bubble, but OJ's OWN LAWYER Neufeld claimed, in the actual trial, "that Mazzola had mishandled that evidence by questioning her about her statement that she did not see anything wrong with the glasses at the time that she collected the bloody envelope from the crime scene. In fact, he said, the glasses were missing at least one lens at the time, and Neufeld suggested that Mazzola had overlooked that obvious fact." So, OJ's own lawyer claimed the lens was "missing" BEFORE LPAD removed the glasses from the scene, let alone were back "at the facility." I guess he lied about that? Because, according to the DEFENSE, someone at the scene had to "know" that that "bloody lens" would "exonerate" OJ, and swiped it. That person never turned it over to OJ's lawyer, or anyone else, for love, or money. That's too bad, because THAT might be "evidence." Of SOMETHING.
By all means, try again. That's what this whole shebang is all about.
|
|
|
Post by sierra on Dec 1, 2020 12:08:06 GMT -6
I think OJ did it.
When I saw the prosecution team (Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden) I knew the case was rigged to fail. Both of those clowns were either buffoons or very good actors portraying buffoons. Judge Ito was the cherry on the cake.
Here is a youtube video where some guy claims OJ's son killed Brown and Goldman.
I am not presenting this as evidence that OJ did not do it, since I think he did do it. It is just someone else's claim - probably to sell a book. But I am open to other views if later on there is real evidence that proves OJ is innocent. It reminds me of all the claims of people who know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.
.
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Dec 1, 2020 12:42:27 GMT -6
Stories. Stories. Stories. You do know OJ spent millions upon millions upon millions on his defense. Right? That kind of money pays for a lot of stories. Funny thing is, it didn't pay for one, single, solitary shred of EVIDENCE. Funny, you know? Not funny, like, the Italian Army. Funny, like, "nobody" knew Jimmy Saville and Bill Cosby were serial rapists. A lot of money got spread around by those guys and their handlers, too. All the Michael Jackson victims got paid off. Nobody disputes that. I'm not denying there are a million stories being told. I'm only asking for one, single, solitary shred of evidence that backs just one of them up. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, don't you think it's suspicious that the police don't have one single, solitary shred of evidence that my client is innocent?" Blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah. And yes, LAPD and the DA's office, et al, shot THEMSELVES in the foot 10,000 times. I know. I watched them do it, day after day after day after day. Funny, that. If they were out to "frame" OJ, then why did THEY spend a million man-hours undermining their own frame? I'll admit, if I were on the jury, I might not have voted "guilty," just on the principle of "You gotta be a whole lot less sloppy than this, people." But that doesn't mean I've seen one single, solitary shred of EVIDENCE that ANYONE else committed, or even helped commit, these two murders. On the OTHER hand, claiming that a fingerprint found at the Tate house proves Tex Watson murdered Leno LaBianca...See the difference? Not just "you," Jack. Everyone? See the difference? Because that's what THIS whole, entire shebang is about. It's not about retelling the same old ghost stories. It's about looking for EVIDENCE that ANY of them are true. We have some, in some cases. But not JFK, and not OJ. I'll be the first person to publicize said evidence, IF it's ever found. There is a truckload of imaginary "evidence" that "proves" Oswald "didn't" shoot JFK. And all this imaginary evidence somehow proves--well it WOULD prove, IF anyone could actually SEE it--the real evidence that he DID shoot JFK is all "fake." There is a truckload of imaginary "evidence" that "proves" Darlie Routier did not murder her own children. And all this imaginary evidence somehow proves--well it WOULD prove, IF anyone could actually SEE it--the real evidence that she DID kill her kids is all "fake." Great, great, GREAT stories. But stories that don't lead us to EVIDENCE are completely and entirely useless to me, this website, and The Stones Unturned Podcast. Except to use as examples of how NOT to "reinvestigate" a case. Hearsay, no matter WHO says it, is not evidence of anything. It might be a LEAD to evidence, but it's not evidence. And not one of these stories about JFK or OJ has ever led to any actual evidence. And unlike the Manson blah, blah, blah, I don't see much reason to waste a lot of time looking for it, for the simple procedural reason that THE EVIDENCE SHOWS OSWALD AND OJ AND ROUTIER ARE GUILTY. But Manson, Berkowitz, Steve Crawford, these guys have been convicted, etc, on what turns out to be NO (or almost no) evidence. THOSE are the cases that ARE turning up the REAL evidence. And even more specifically, the authorities DID have all this "undiscovered" evidence, all along. And then lied about it. And even more importantly, I--the one with his legal neck stuck out--can PROVE they had it all along, AND lied about it. PS I hate to burst your bubble, but OJ's OWN LAWYER Neufeld claimed, in the actual trial, "that Mazzola had mishandled that evidence by questioning her about her statement that she did not see anything wrong with the glasses at the time that she collected the bloody envelope from the crime scene. In fact, he said, the glasses were missing at least one lens at the time, and Neufeld suggested that Mazzola had overlooked that obvious fact." So, OJ's own lawyer claimed the lens was "missing" BEFORE LPAD removed the glasses from the scene, let alone were back "at the facility." I guess he lied about that? Because, according to the DEFENSE, someone at the scene had to "know" that that "bloody lens" would "exonerate" OJ, and swiped it. That person never turned it over to OJ's lawyer, or anyone else, for love, or money. That's too bad, because THAT might be "evidence." Of SOMETHING. By all means, try again. That's what this whole shebang is all about. It's not a story. Witness testimony revealed that unauthorized personnel were allowed into the Simpson Bronco on more than one occasion. Now that can be perjury but it was stated under oath at trial. As far as the missing glasses lens there is an official LAPD picture of it that clearly shows a fingerprint smear; and according to Barry Sheck (in court) the defense didnt find out about blood smeared lens until February 1995 and by then it was gone so they couldn't examine it. By the way Sheck and Nufeld gave a great interview to Charlie Rose in 1996. Charlie still as bamboozled as the rest of those brainwashed by the media just cannot get past his irrational belief that Simpson was the killer. I saw the LAPD picture of fingerprint smeared lens; so they did take it from the crime scene and booked it as evidence. I could find it again in one of these Barry Sheck (sp?) witness examinations youtube videos. The LAPD never denied losing the evidence(bloody fingerprint/lens) so whatever you are talking about doesnt connect with the known facts.
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Dec 1, 2020 12:47:05 GMT -6
I think OJ did it. When I saw the prosecution team (Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden) I knew the case was rigged to fail. Both of those clowns were either buffoons or very good actors portraying buffoons. Judge Ito was the cherry on the cake. Here is a youtube video where some guy claims OJ's son killed Brown and Goldman. I am not presenting this as evidence that OJ did not do it, since I think he did do it. It is just someone else's claim - probably to sell a book. But I am open to other views if later on there is real evidence that proves OJ is innocent. It reminds me of all the claims of people who know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. Darden and Clark are most definitely buffoons but so what. They were buffoons before the OJ trial and after the OJ Trial. The fact is there is no evidence that Simpson slasher murdered those two people. In fact I say the trial and all the massive media was the means used to cover up for the real killers of the Manson/Hollywood variety. If you recall Simpson was acquitted in less that 4 hours. The jurors who were not subjected to the media barrage said "the prosecutions mountain of evidence turned out to be a mountain of nothing". Smart woman and the best description of the Simpson case. .
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Dec 1, 2020 13:17:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 1, 2020 17:27:09 GMT -6
Knock yourself out. But I want to make it clear to readers that I don't go in for that kind of wishful thinking/self delusion just to get fans and ratings. I don't care what color the elephants are in your sky. But thanks for failing to prove any of these horsheshit claims. That proves my point even better than I did.
"It's not a story. Witness testimony..." Witness testimony IS a story. And that's ALL it is. And when millions upon millions are being spent, not only by the defendant, but everybody else, one has to ask for someone corroborating evidence. Did these "witnesses" REPORT these clear violations AT THE TIME? Or did they suddenly remember on the witness stand? Did they have excuses for not doing THEIR jobs? You say they wouldn't dare commit perjury? They're admitting to doing something just as bad. How does all that add up to "credibility?" That doesn't require some corroborating evidence?
"As far as the missing glasses lens there is an official LAPD picture of it..." WHERE? And why is it taking this many posts to even get to the point that I have to ask for it? Because, it's all I ask. I specifically asked for PD files, crime scene photos, etc. If this photo EXISTS, then WHERE is it? I can't find it. I've been asking for SOME kind of proof of ANY of this nonsense. That's ALL I've asked for. What I've gotten is a circle jerk.
Ask anybody. The louder I spout off, the louder I apologize--WHEN I'm "wrong." I'm not calling YOU a liar. I'm asking you to SHOW me why I should believe what you say you believe.
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Dec 1, 2020 18:30:30 GMT -6
Knock yourself out. But I want to make it clear to readers that I don't go in for that kind of wishful thinking/self delusion just to get fans and ratings. I don't care what color the elephants are in your sky. But thanks for failing to prove any of these horsheshit claims. That proves my point even better than I did. "It's not a story. Witness testimony..." Witness testimony IS a story. And that's ALL it is. And when millions upon millions are being spent, not only by the defendant, but everybody else, one has to ask for someone corroborating evidence. Did these "witnesses" REPORT these clear violations AT THE TIME? Or did they suddenly remember on the witness stand? Did they have excuses for not doing THEIR jobs? You say they wouldn't dare commit perjury? They're admitting to doing something just as bad. How does all that add up to "credibility?" That doesn't require some corroborating evidence? "As far as the missing glasses lens there is an official LAPD picture of it..." WHERE? And why is it taking this many posts to even get to the point that I have to ask for it? Because, it's all I ask. I specifically asked for PD files, crime scene photos, etc. If this photo EXISTS, then WHERE is it? I can't find it. I've been asking for SOME kind of proof of ANY of this nonsense. That's ALL I've asked for. What I've gotten is a circle jerk. Ask anybody. The louder I spout off, the louder I apologize--WHEN I'm "wrong." I'm not calling YOU a liar. I'm asking you to SHOW me why I should believe what you say you believe. Witness testimony is just a story and that's all it is? Wow, why have a trial and why enforce perjury laws. Look the employees at the LA impound lot testified that unauthorized persons had access to OJ Simpson's Bronco. Now think this through. Had they been telling a "story" just made up as you imply you dont think the prosecution lawyers, the DA would not have jumped them? You're absolutely daffy. Furthermore I saw LAPD evidence photos of the bloody lens (with fingerprint)-- do you understand what this means? -- they got OJ dead to right or maybe not. The lens was probably the most important piece of physical evidence because they could determine if that bloody fingerprint print belonged to OJ Simpson's or someone else. So what happens, the lens disappears from LAPD property room. IMPOSSIBLE. And why are you placing blame on the impound lot employees. They were called to testify and they did. If some LAPD detective comes in and goes into Simpson's Bronco are they supposed to call Simpson's defense team or the media and report it? But what we learned was for the first two months LAPD had the SUV impounded there was no blood found in the Bronco and then suddenly they find these tiny spots. If you read some of the facts of the case the total amount of Simpson blood could fit on a pin head. And why would I be responsible for producing a picture of the bloody lens. It exists as it was shown via national TV during the trial and it exist in a youtube video but I sure as hell am not going to go look and sit through all the Barry Scheck direct and cross examination waiting to see if I have the correct video. But your demand of me to find the lens picture proves you know little about the case.
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Dec 1, 2020 18:47:19 GMT -6
This is the best I can do Professor. It is a doozy. Talk about reasonable doubt.
MR. SCHECK: Now, we can tell, as Dr. Lee pointed out, on this lens
there are smears of blood, trace evidence. There could have been
fingerprints from the perpetrator who was going into that envelope. On
June 22nd Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf got an opportunity just to look, just
to look at the evidence, not touch or examine or test, just to look, and
they saw two lens there, made a note of them. February 16th, think about
it, that is the first time we got a chance to inspect and just even
handle the evidence. You are already sitting here February 16th. There
is something wrong. When we look at it, that lens is gone. There is no
report, no record, no investigation of its disappearance. Nobody comes
in and tells you what happened. Now, that tells you a lot. Did somebody
take this from the laboratory as a souvenir? Did somebody walk off with
this? How can that be? This is critical evidence in a case? How can that
be? It just vanished down this black hole?
Now they are going to say we are Fort Knox. Nobody could get to the
evidence in this case with our evidence tracking system. I should just
tell you in passing, I'm sure you caught it, that even when it is booked
into the evidence control unit and it is supposedly being tracked, they
didn't say their computer tracking system is a chain of custody system.
It isn't. They have all the evidence items in boxes, like the sock and
the blood drops, and they will put them in the serology freezer and they
are in a box there and then somebody will hit the computer and they can
go in and then they can take any item they want out of that box. It is
not tracked by specific items. There is no good security in this system.
There is plenty of access if you want to tamper with evidence if you are
authorized personnel, if you are a lead detective, if you are somebody
there. It can happen. And the missing lens is you all you need to know.
What is going on here?
And if they come back and say, well, maybe Dr. Baden and Wolf are wrong,
there was no lens to begin with, well, that is even weirder, isn't it?
What kind of killer takes a souvenir like this? How does that fit in with their theory?
The missing lens is a serious problem in this case. Now, the black hole
symbolizes something else. You know, science is not better than the methods
employed and the people who employ it. DNA is a sophisticated technology.
It is a wonderful technology. But there is a right way to do it and a wrong way
to do it. The issue in this case is not is DNA good or bad DNA technology. The
issue is right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sierra on Dec 1, 2020 19:28:52 GMT -6
I think OJ did it. When I saw the prosecution team (Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden) I knew the case was rigged to fail. Both of those clowns were either buffoons or very good actors portraying buffoons. Judge Ito was the cherry on the cake. Here is a youtube video where some guy claims OJ's son killed Brown and Goldman. I am not presenting this as evidence that OJ did not do it, since I think he did do it. It is just someone else's claim - probably to sell a book. But I am open to other views if later on there is real evidence that proves OJ is innocent. It reminds me of all the claims of people who know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. .Darden and Clark are most definitely buffoons but so what. They were buffoons before the OJ trial and after the OJ Trial. The fact is there is no evidence that Simpson slasher murdered those two people. In fact I say the trial and all the massive media was the means used to cover up for the real killers of the Manson/Hollywood variety. If you recall Simpson was acquitted in less that 4 hours. The jurors who were not subjected to the media barrage said "the prosecutions mountain of evidence turned out to be a mountain of nothing". Smart woman and the best description of the Simpson case.
Around here (San Francisco Bay Area) the media portrayed the trial as another lynching of a poor innocent black slave by a racist white supremacist nazi oppressor, not a trial between OJ and the State of California (or the County or City). The actual crime never bothered me: It was just another day as usual in the State of California or the USA. What bothered me was the media circus.
I don't think the jurors cared whether or not OJ committed the crime. I think they just wanted to punch the bully government in the nose. I have been on a jury in California. There are a lot of Social Justice Warriors who want clearly guilty people to go free and innocent people punished. The judges around here are also very corrupt.
Jack, Have you watch the video I posted claiming that OJ's son was the murderer? What do you think: Did his son kill Brown and Goldman?
.
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Dec 2, 2020 7:00:39 GMT -6
Around here (San Francisco Bay Area) the media portrayed the trial as another lynching of a poor innocent black slave by a racist white supremacist nazi oppressor, not a trial between OJ and the State of California (or the County or City). The actual crime never bothered me: It was just another day as usual in the State of California or the USA. What bothered me was the media circus.
I don't think the jurors cared whether or not OJ committed the crime. I think they just wanted to punch the bully government in the nose. I have been on a jury in California. There are a lot of Social Justice Warriors who want clearly guilty people to go free and innocent people punished. The judges around here are also very corrupt.
Jack, Have you watch the video I posted claiming that OJ's son was the murderer? What do you think: Did his son kill Brown and Goldman?
.
No I havent watched the video espousing "Jason did it" and I will tell you why. OJ Simpson defended himself , always denying any guilt in the double homicide. Therefore once he was acquitted his son Jason is fair game for LAPD. The only way Simpson could cover for his son was to confess and plead guilty and go to prison. Otherwise his son is at much at risk. So this theory is bogus just like the hundreds of not thousands of JFK conspiracy theories and they're always promoted for the same reason to obfuscate the truth. And your characterization of the jury is way off. These men and women took the job serious and as they all said at the end of the day (for them 1 year) they didnt think the prosecution had much in terms of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Now what I think about the Simpson case has nothing to do with race, payback, spousal abuse, celebrity etcc. It was a basic cover up of Hollywood by the LAPD, Mayor and the dirty district attorney. Hollywood is satanic, all of it. Who supported Charles Manson, well a bunch of wealthy hollywood perverts that's who. In the Simpson case for example the prosecution played the trial out so long that they were down to one alternate juror after some of the jurors got themselves removed (see your juror payback claim is media driven because most of the jurors wanted off the jury). Simpson's dream team said they would accept a verdict from less than 12 while the prosecution said they would not. It got down to the prosecution shooting for a mistrial. In the end that was their best bet and they did best to lose more jurors by dragging out the case. Had they got their mistrial they would have been able to keep Simpson locked away in county for another 2 years before they had to decide whether to retry him. Think about that if you're Simpson. OJ was already guilty, charged by a "fake news" industry that itself is a part of the Hollywood satanic apparatus. But the trial and all the media exposure was the cover up of the murder, who committed it and why. And if you think about it OJ Simpson was no longer a national celebrity especially to the people under 30; while his victims were truly nobodies. To blow this case up into a daily soap opera should give you enough insight to the point that you should have grave doubts as to what is really going on. And "fake news" always called the victims "Ron and Nicole" as if they were family to the zombie viewers who once again allowed their brains to be manipulated to the point that they'd repeat whatever the media told them "A Mountain of evidence" is exemplary of this kind of brainwashing, when there was not even a mole hill of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 3, 2020 8:12:50 GMT -6
What happened to the PHOTOS of this mythical lens? I've heard all the stories. I never said no one told any stories. But, I was promised PHOTOS. Where are they? "And your characterization of the jury is way off." No, it isn't. "Witness testimony is just a story and that's all it is?" Without corroborating evidence, it's Just. A. Story. For example, YOUR story: "I saw the LAPD picture of fingerprint smeared lens;" is just a story. When I asked to SEE this imaginary photo, what I got was two more pages of horseshit. But no photo. A witness told police she saw OJ leaving the scene in his Bronco, about the time of the murders. DNA tests confirmed that BLOOD found at the scene matched OJ. That evidence CORROBORATES her STORY that OJ was at the scene. Understand? Do you understand the difference between a CORROBORATED story, and an UN-corroborated story? I never, ever disputed your claim that OJ's billion dollar legal defense fund--not to mention all his show business friends who had millions and millions of dollars at stake in maintaining his image--CLAIMED that aaaaaaaaallllll the evidence against their client was faked, and tampered with, and blah, blah, blah. I merely pointed out that NONE of these "people" could produce--not in 25 years--one, single, solitary shred of actual proof. Not even this imaginary "photo" of this imaginary lens. Just more and more and more more stories about more and more and more stories. It's hilarious. People think that LA's lack of "security" in and around their evidence storage PROVES that someone DEFINITELY tampered with the evidence in the OJ case, but when I point out that it was equally easy for someone to tamper with the evidence in the Paul Stine murder, everybody screams "No it wasn't possible! No it wasn't possible!" The difference is, I use the ACTUAL, OFFICIAL SF County evidence room photos of the ACTUAL shirt and pieces mailed to the Chronicle to SHOW you that those three extra pieces of shirt were torn off AFTER the body was removed from the cab. I do NOT present STORIES of evidence tampering. I present EVIDENCE of evidence tampering. And by evidence, I mean, LE's OWN photographs of their OWN evidence, PLUS their OWN reports about WHO handled that evidence, WHEN. Do you understand the difference AT ALL? My brother SAID he saw our mother kissing Santa Claus. But I don't present that as evidence that Santa Claus really exists. I claim to have photos of your mother kissing the milkman. But that doesn't prove Santa Claus is real. 25 years of horseshit stories. ZERO actual evidence of any kind. I'll try AGAIN. When I say that the LA county DA's office LIED to the jury in the first Bobby B trial, I SHOW the pages from the LASO investigation that PROVE they lied about their own case. So, where is the PROOF that ANY piece of evidence, let alone ALL of it, was "tampered" with in the OJ case? This website and this podcast are about SEPARATING the chicken shit, from the chicken salad. Not selling chickenshit AS chicken salad. And about teaching people how to tell the difference for THEMSELVES. Not to stroke people's fantasies. BTW, just exactly WHO claimed that "at least (boy, talk about precise testimony!) two unauthorized people" entered the Bronco while in police impound? How did they know? Watch the entire OJ trial and preliminary hearings here: www.youtube.com/channel/UCM0S2Fsr5Xp8UhNGRSFKC2Q
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Dec 3, 2020 10:18:41 GMT -6
Re reading Scheck's final summation it occured to me that he may be showing a picture of the envelope and blood smeared lens to the jury. If you read the way he is discussing this missing piece of evidence it seems he is showing the jury a picture of it's previous existence in the property room. And how you can keep referring to the lens as mythical or imaginary is mind boggling unless you believe Judyth Brown wore glasses with out lenses. But there is a solution to your doubts. Just go to Barry's closing argument and bingo you'll see the same photo I saw. Unfortunately the actual lense like the murder weapon, the Bruno Magli shoe along with an eye witness will not be available in this trial. So just trust our story. My only interest in this case was I picked up early on with the Scientology kooks and Ex Manson prosecutors that were all over this case from the beginning. Note Schecks words "we can tell" and "on this lens". To me this suggests a photo of the missing evidence is being shown (perhaps for a second and final time) to the Jurors.
MR. SCHECK: Now, we can tell, as Dr. Lee pointed out, on this lens
there are smears of blood, trace evidence. There could have been
fingerprints from the perpetrator who was going into that envelop
|
|
|
Post by elantric on Dec 3, 2020 13:03:38 GMT -6
google shows this
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Dec 4, 2020 8:31:33 GMT -6
Thanks Elantric. I think Sheck shows a face on photo of the envelope, eye frames and bloody lens during his summation. My recollection is you could make out a thumb smear/print. This was the lens that went missing from LAPD property room. Now this lens of course is much better than a bloody glove because it allows you to identify the person at Bundy. And again I am not sure why the Professor is mocking the eye lens. Unless Mrs Judytha Brown wore glasses without lenses then there is no mystery lens.
I never thought of this case as did OJ do it? Or a case about pay back and race. I saw it as another Manson , Cotton Club styled murder in Hollywood by the satanic elite (which Simpson could also be a part of).
The prosecution was glad with the outcome because it killed the clock from 6/12/94 to 10/3/95 on pursuit of the real killers. In fact it got preposterous. If the defense proved there was nothing happening at Bundy at 10:15 pm to 10:30 pm they just commenced the murders at 10:35 pm never realizing how ridiculous their case was becoming. Now we know the limo driver made contact with Simpson at 10:54 pm so now he has 19 minutes to kill (for the first time we assume) and dispose of the murder weapon the bloody shoes, etc. but oopps he drops two gloves and a stocking hat. How can you not drop the knife which youre holding in gloved hands but you drop the gloves and drop one at each location the murder scene and your house. In the final analysis that is the best they could come up with--create this goofy blood and harmless evidence like gloves and a hat from Bundy to Rockingham. Take over Simpson's house on the pretext it's a crime scene and drop tiny blood drops.That in effect was the prosecutions entire case. They also got much help from FAKE NEWS as our President calls them.
But police and the DA were covering up another satanic Hollywood killing.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 4, 2020 9:46:05 GMT -6
I don't see any second "lens." I see a broken pair of glasses with one lens MISSING.
"...on this lens [the one surviving lens] still there are smears of blood, trace evidence. There could have been fingerprints from the perpetrator who was going into that envelope. On June 22nd Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf [PAID DEFENSE WITNESSES] got an opportunity just to look, just to look at the evidence, not touch or examine or test, just to look, and [they SAY] they saw two lens there, made a note of them."
So, no, he's NOT pointing to any imaginary second lens in that photo. The imaginary second lens is NOT seen in ANY extant photos. Just a STORY about an imaginary time when there "were" two lenses. Just a story. A story that was paid for. And those guys don't tell cheap stories, either.
Speaking of testimony, again, Simpson defense attorney Peter Neufeld "tried to suggest that Mazzola had mishandled that evidence by questioning her about her statement that she did not see anything wrong with the glasses at the time that she collected the bloody envelope from the crime scene. In fact, he said, the glasses were missing at least one lens at the time, and Neufeld suggested that Mazzola had overlooked that obvious fact." I guess dream team lawyer Barry Sheck forgot what his own "witness" (pudding-guts "Judge" Lance Ito constantly, constantly warned defense lawyers to STOP "testifying" instead of asking questions, and they constantly ignored him and did it anyway.) Neufeld had claimed when he (Sheck) made that claim in his summation.
You do know the restaurant staff found those glasses in the GUTTER, right? Not on a table.
"They [impound lot employees] were called to testify and they did. If some LAPD detective comes in and goes into Simpson's Bronco are they supposed to call Simpson's defense team [no] or the media [no.] and report it? No. They're supposed to call POLICE and report it. Or at least their fucking supervisor. Not to mention, they're supposed to STOP "un" authorized people from wandering around their lot, no matter WHICH fucking vehicle they're nosing around. Not to mention, they're supposed to LOG ANY SUCH OBSERVATIONS. That's their fucking JOB. That's what they were getting PAID to do. Don't take my word for it. Go to a tow truck impound lot and try to get in and break into some cars while the employees watch. See what happens. We'll wait.
Did they do ANY of those things? Nope. They just told a very expensive story that couldn't possibly be "dis"proven.
It's aaaaaaaaallllll stories. But ZERO evidence. If something is "true," it can be proven.
Now, let's rehash your claims about the "evidence" that OJ was framed:
1. Two minimum wage parking lot employees, on behalf of the most expensive criminal defense ever, claimed they saw "at least" two (I guess they couldn't count to three) "unauthorized" visitors to the Bronco who, even though they didn't sign in, were allowed to just walk on into the lot and do whatever they fuck they wanted to do to whatever fucking vehicle, with NO employees trying to stop them, or reporting this to police, or to their own supervisor, or even making a note on the log. Talk about a credible story! Um, you do know the defense team REMODELED OJ's house to make it look like he lived like a "black" person, and not an Uncle Tom, right? You do know THEY trampled all over the house, before the jury got there, right? What other evidence they THEY tamper with?
2. Official LAPD crime lab photos show a second lens from the broken sunglasses of Mrs Brown that somehow goes "missing."
3. Police never found the murder weapon, let alone the murder weapon with OJ's fingerprints on it. (What tickles me is, prosecutors didn't find a murder weapon, therefore, OJ is "innocent," but prosecutors didn't find any murder weapons they could link to Charles Ng, either, so therefore, he is "guilty.")
And this is it. This is your "evidence" that OJ was framed. But, the problem is, #2 has been debunked. By that actual photo, and by the "testimony" of the LAWYER [in his summation argument. That's NOT testimony] not the witness, the LAWYER'S testimony, that it was once "seen" by two other PAID defense "experts," supposedly in the possession of the LAPD crime lab. "'Testimony" that, along with the testimony of Neufeld himself, shows that even the "witnesses" do NOT see any mythical second lens in that photo. That, literally, is a STORY. Not to mention, it's a misquoted story. It is NOT "testimony."
And that's all you have. Two stories that can and never will be corroborated, and a missing murder weapon. Against the mountain of evidence that he's guilty. And if I don't "believe" you, not without some kind of evidence, I'm an asshole. Well, for the record, I AM an asshole. And, I don't believe OJ was "framed." Because I've never seen one, single, solitary, shred of EVIDENCE that he was.
Whereas, for example, we can SEE that Bugliosi, et al LIED to the jury about their OWN cases against the Manson Family. And we can SEE that they had virtually no evidence they were guilty. THAT is what THIS website and podcast are all about. The difference between chicken shit, and chicken salad. The difference between stories, and evidence. And WHY it matters. Look at what we have accomplished this year. And we didn't do it by repeating stories. We did it by separating the stories from the evidence. Separating the chicken shit from the chicken salad. And following the EVIDENCE, the chicken salad, INSTEAD of the stories, we have made some important discoveries.
|
|