jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Dec 4, 2020 13:29:47 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. So Professor when I get the Sheck footage with the lens then what? Imaginary . So you guess criminalist Henry Lee and medical examiner Michael Baden gave perjured testimony? And your BS about Nuefeld makes no sense and you dont provide the transcript of his cross you just tell a story. And this BS about an imaginary lens. I'll say it again it's only imaginary if Judyth Brown wore her glasses with one or both lenses missing otherwise there was two lens and one turned up missing. The missing lens was described in detail by Lee and Baden , and in summation (this is from my memory) Sheck had a photo of the bloody len. It's clear HE IS DESCRIBING THIS BLOODY LENS to the jury while showing them the photo of it. You have to be daffy not to read the transcript the same way. And why would Clark and Darden not object. They stayed silent as a little mouse because they knew it was true. As far as your description about two minimum wage impound lot employees ---well how in the world did the Dream Team find these guys to learn there was no security around the Simpson Bronco? The city employees had to have been contacted by Dream Team. Here is what I cant figure out why would two Los Angeles city employees lie about the goings on around Simpson's car? It makes no sense to me unless they are telling the truth.That people went in and out of the Bronco. You have well known criminalist "sum sing wrong", Henry Lee and medical examiner Michael Baden giving perjured testimony so why not add more to the party ( I am sure perjured testimony would do wonders for their career as professional experts and witnesses),) so what the hell why not include the two minimum wage (as you call em) impound lot employees. I am sure these city employees are so sophisticated that they have no fear of the courts, district attorney or LAPD, they just lie with no fear of repercussion, and after all they are probably OJ fans He was soooo famous in 1994 you know. And I am not including the missing lens as my case nor did the defense team. What you fail to understand is the prosecution failed the overcome the hurdle of beyond a reasonable doubt.The jury was clear about this in their interviews in the aftermath of their not guilty verdict. A verdict which took 240 minutes! . And as far as I know Clark, Darden, Hodgeman, Garcetti brought no perjury charges against any of the defense witnesses for their "stories". And in this game if you want to see evidence that's the sole responsibility of the prosecution. The defense has only to interject "reasonable doubt" which in this case was done successfully. And you make Simpson out to have spent more money on his defense than any human alive but fail to consider the opposition , and what assets the state deployed against the defendant in their attempt to get a guilty verdict; where they failed miserably. Shapiro was asked later by media if he would defend Simpson in the Civil Trial he answered "No he still owes me for his criminal case". So much for millions spent professor. Now of course that's just a story--I WANNA SEE EVIDENCE!!!!
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Dec 4, 2020 16:00:08 GMT -6
16 minute mark Scheck shows the single lens and discusses the missing lens. Watch Darden and Clark they make no objection, they say nothing. Is this a reasonable response when your opposing counsel "lies" the the jury especially when this defense attorney is implying criminal behavior on the part of the prosecution and police? Now the professor calls this a "story" and when he makes this bit of tom foolery he then has to explain why the authorities didnt file charges against Baden, Lee and Scheck. They could charge subornation of perjury with Sheck's direct examination of Baden and Lee and they could charge Scheck for lying to the jurors in his closing argument but if you watch the video Marsha Clark doesnt even object. Somewhere there is a record of the second lens and that prevents the prosecution from taking appropriate measures against these lying defense team members. And by the way Henry Lee claimed $150K fee for his expertise in the Simpson defense. If he offers perjured testimony he would not be making these huge sums of money for very long.
Enjoy Professor and remember "it's just a story" it's not real and no one is afraid of going to prison for lying! That's nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 5, 2020 10:52:34 GMT -6
You're just proving over and over that there is NO evidence that ANY lens went "missing" AFTER being taken into police custody. That's all you're proving. Because this photo that is being zoomed in on, shows ONE lens. Only one lens. Not two lenses. Not, a photo of two lenses, then a later photo of one lens. No inventory sheet with two lenses mentioned. Just one photo, of one lens, consistent with Neufeld's badgering Mazzola about NOT noticing that there was ONLY ONE LENS IN THE ENVELOPE when she picked it up from the scene. In other words, YOUR "evidence" that there were once TWO lenses in police custody, actually PROVES Neufeld's claim that there were NEVER two lenses in police custody. Well done. Help yourself to a pumpkin sticker.
And, again, Barry Sheck is trying to use IMAGINARY evidence to "prove" that OJ was railroaded by LAPD, during his CLOSING ARGUMENTS. NOTHING about a "lens going missing from the lab" was EVER brought out in direct, or cross, examination of ANY witness. Only a hypothesis about a hypothetical piece of hypothetical evidence never collected at the scene by police in the first place. The hilarious thing is, your theory goes like this: "Some flatfoot found a loose lens from a pair of sunglasses at the scene, and somehow realized, Oh! My God! This piece of evidence clearly proves OJ is innocent! I must put it in my pocket and get rid of it!" Or whatever. Because I'll say it again--Neufeld, one of those super-duper honest million dollar lawyers, "proved" that police NEVER FOUND IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. And BTW, restaurant staff found those sunglasses IN THE GUTTER. Where they were already broken. The "missing" lens was swept up by the street cleaner. I suppose that was all part of the plan to frame OJ. "Troops, we face a difficult task. I have a hunch that some drug dealers murdered OJ Simpson's wife and her boy toy. We MUST do WHATEVER it takes to frame OJ. I'm counting on each and every one of you to do their part in this holy cause. Because anyone who doesn't pitch in and frame OJ will be fired from their minimum wage job. So pay no attention to how much money OJ and his lawyers and his friends in the media offer you to testify that OJ is innocent." Blah, blah, blah.
"Why didn't the prosecution object to this argument being made during closing ARGUMENTS?" Because, it's NOT objectionable to present arguments during arguments. It's only against the rules of procedure to "argue" during examination of witnesses. An objection that was sustained a 1000 times by "Judge" Ito, and about which he admonished the defense lawyers a 100 times. They kept doing it, anyway, because Ito had the spine of a jellyfish with its spine removed.
"He was paid $150,000 dollars (about $300,000.00 in today's money) therefore, he had no incentive to risk..." I see. The more money "testimony" costs, the LESS likely it is to be biased. You know, like the lady who was paid a fraction of that amount--AFTER she told police that she saw OJ drive away from the scene of the crime in his Bronco--by a tabloid for her story. She wasn't paid by the police for her story. She already told them what she saw before she was offered money by a tabloid. But, that's way, way, WAY less honest than being PAID to testify a certain way in court. Way less honest. I'll have to remember that in future investigations.
Sheck himself says it better than I could: "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." Yeah. It tells me this is all horseshit.
PS where is the SWORN TESTIMONY of "Doctors" Baden and Wolf about "seeing" two lenses in the police lab? AFTER Mazzola supposedly failed to notice a lens was MISSING? In fact, Sheck is claiming--and this is the truly hilarious part--that LAPD not only got rid of that lens RECENTLY, but AFTER THEY ALREADY SHOWED IT TO THE DEFENSE EXPERTS. Now, THAT's what I call a humdinger of a story! THAT'S what I call a conspiracy theory! And again, this was supposedly the lens that was found AFTER Mazzola picked up the envelope and took it back to the lab with only ONE lens in it? And, AGAIN, Sheck is using their "testimony" as "evidence" to "prove" that his own co-counsel, Neufeld, LIED about there being only ONE lens in the envelope when it was picked up from the scene. Where is that "sworn million dollar testimony" you think is somehow more reliable than the actual physical evidence? Because, I hope, for your sake, they DID testify to that under oath. I hope it's not some hearsay (again, we're talking closing arguments, theories, NOT direct witness testimony) Sheck is trying to peddle as "evidence." In fact, I hope it's as good as THIS clip. Know what I mean?
There is a difference between evidence, and STORIES about imaginary "evidence." And it's all the difference in the world.
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Dec 8, 2020 16:05:30 GMT -6
Prof you're an idiot. Are you saying Mrs Brown walked around with glasses that had a single lens. You're an idiot! The court system was created to keep stories as you claim, from winning the day. That's the purpose of a defense team and a prosecution team. Each side torments the other until the truth is revealed. You keep claiming a second lens is imaginary. You're an idiot, what pair of glasses has a single lens!!!!
No objection from the Clark / Darden team... nothing. You're claiming Lee and Baden offered perjured testimony and that's crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 8, 2020 21:01:21 GMT -6
"Are you saying Mrs Brown walked around with glasses that had a single lens." No. Where did I say that? I said, her glasses were found IN THE GUTTER. Where they had been DROPPED. So, the missing lens was probably IN THE GUTTER in front of the restaurant. Try READING the posts BEFORE you comment on them. See if that helps.
"You're claiming Lee and Baden offered perjured testimony..." WHAT "testimony?" Where is it? I asked for it in the post you're "commenting" on. Again, try READING the posts BEFORE you reply. And, you're still trying to ignore the fact that Neufeld himself lectured Mazzola on the fact that LAPD never picked up the "missing" lens in the first place.
Do you even read your OWN posts? You just keep repeating yourself. "No objection from the Clark / Darden team" Like I ALREADY explained, this is Shecks' closing argument. You CAN'T object to the prosecution presenting their closing argument. You can only object when they try to sneak argument into "questions."
So, this is the sum total "case" you make that OJ was somehow framed or railroaded by the prosecution withholding evidence. Supposedly:
1. LAPD found both lenses to Mrs Brown's sunglasses that Mezzaluna employees found in the gutter, and Ron Goldman delivered to Nicole's house. Not on a table; dropped in the gutter. 2. LAPD took the frame and both lenses back to the crime lab. 3. LAPD found evidence of at least one other killer on one of the lenses. 4. LAPD showed BOTH lenses to defense experts AFTER the trial started. 5. LAPD then got rid of the lens that had the magic evidence on it, because they were involved in some convoluted conspiracy to "frame" OJ, and this lens would blow their whole case wide open. But, they waited until AFTER the trial started to SHOW it to TWO defense "experts," THEN got rid of it. This is your theory.
Your evidence is, A. Barry Sheck CLAIMED, in his closing arguments, that two defense experts, Baden and Lee, told him about #4. B. And that the evidence photo of the broken frame with ONE lens somehow proves #5. But, the problem is, that photo only proves that LAPD only ever found and stored ONE lens. There is no photo, and no page of any report, of finding TWO lenses. Which is exactly what ANOTHER defense lawyer, Neufeld, forced Mazzola to admit when he cross-examined her. You DON"T have ANY evidence of ANY kind to back up Sheck's CLAIM about a magic "second lens," and you're trying to ignore the fact that his OWN co-counsel PROVED that this mythical "second lens" was NEVER picked up by LAPD in the first place. So, according to his own co-counsel, Sheck's claim is IMPOSSIBLE. How could LAPD "get rid of" a second lens they never found in the first place? HOW could LAPD show Baden and Lee a "second lens" that Neufeld proved THEY NEVER FOUND IN THE FIRST PLACE? Unless you're claiming Neufeld lied, and got Mazzola to agree to a lie?
I don't understand your "logic" at all. I don't even see any logic. I just see you arguing yourself in circles.
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Dec 9, 2020 12:17:55 GMT -6
This should put an end to this nonsense of glasses with a single lens. Dr Michael Baden's testimony (under oath by the way) as to the number oe eye lens he examined from Judytha Browns glasses.You'll notice not a single objection and if you read Baden's entire direct examination you'd see the prosecution objected on multiple occassion during his 8/28/95 direct examination.
DR. BADEN: We were able to look at the socks. We were not able to touch or move the socks.
MR. SHAPIRO: Were the socks put on some type of surface for your observation?
DR. BADEN: In my recollection it was put on some paper to keep it clean and all for examination, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: A type of white butcher paper?
DR. BADEN: Something.
MR. SHAPIRO: Butcher type paper?
DR. BADEN: Butcher paper, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And did you observe the socks?
DR. BADEN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you observe any blood on the socks?
DR. BADEN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you see a frame of glasses?
DR. BADEN: Yes, I saw the eyeglasses that were in an envelope.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you see any lenses that were associated with those eyeglasses?
DR. BADEN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: How many lenses did you see?
DR. BADEN: Umm, the frames were intact, but the lenses were loose. They had come out of the--the frame, so I saw two intact lenses together with the intact frames, but they were--the lenses were separate in the same envelope.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you examine and observe the frame of the glasses?
DR. BADEN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you see any blood on the frame?
DR. BADEN: There was what appeared--maroon material that suggested that there was blood that was on--dried on one of the frames.
MR. SHAPIRO: For the purposes of your testimony today, in reviewing the crime scene, in reviewing the findings of the medical examiner, and offering your opinions to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do you feel that you need to have the photographs of the autopsy to give your conclusions?
DR. BADEN: No, I can--
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 9, 2020 20:59:06 GMT -6
It sure does. Except, when Neufeld PROVES that LAPD was NEVER in possession of this so-called "second lens." Except for that. If it weren't for that, we might be fooled by this lawyer's trick.
So, we have one defense lawyer claiming that LAPD never found the second lens, and another defense lawyer claiming that they DID find it, showed it to a bunch of people AFTER the trial started, and then got rid of it.
Hmmmmm....which lawyer is more "believable......." Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.....Which lawyer has corroborating evidence to back up his story? Hmmmmmmmm....and this magical disappearing and reappearing and disappearing lens, this incredible story, somehow proves that all the evidence concretely linking OJ to the murder is somehow "fake." But this imaginary second lens--the one the DEFENSE previously PROVED never existed for Baden and Lee to look at it--is real.
Got it. I thought you had half a brain. My mistake. BTW, my favorite part of your "theory" is that Baden and Lee were paid $150,000 (that's over $300,000 in today's "money") for this story, and therefore, it MUST be true, because a story that costs $150,000 can't possibly be false. Not to mention, OJ didn't even get a photo of this magic "lens" for his $150,000. Just this bullshit story. That was proven false by OJ's other lawyer.
That's my favorite part. And your whole entire theory rests on it. Just this story that OJ paid $150,000 for. That's all you have. And all I have is all the evidence that it's a bullshit story. Do you understand the difference between an excuse for NOT having evidence, and evidence? Can you grasp that at all?
IF there were a photo of this second lens, if there were a LAPD evidence inventory sheet that mentioned two lenses somewhere, if ANY evidence of this second lens existed, that might be interesting. But just believing in the Easter Bunny because somebody paid $150,000 for two "scientists" to SAY the Easter Bunny is real, is not the same thing as evidence that the Easter Bunny is real. You do see the local TV weatherman put on his "Santa's Sleigh on Radar" show every year, right? Does that prove that Santa and his sleigh are real?
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Dec 20, 2020 11:03:44 GMT -6
It sure does. Except, when Neufeld PROVES that LAPD was NEVER in possession of this so-called "second lens." Except for that. If it weren't for that, we might be fooled by this lawyer's trick. So, we have one defense lawyer claiming that LAPD never found the second lens, and another defense lawyer claiming that they DID find it, showed it to a bunch of people AFTER the trial started, and then got rid of it. Hmmmmm....which lawyer is more "believable......." Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.....Which lawyer has corroborating evidence to back up his story? Hmmmmmmmm....and this magical disappearing and reappearing and disappearing lens, this incredible story, somehow proves that all the evidence concretely linking OJ to the murder is somehow "fake." But this imaginary second lens--the one the DEFENSE previously PROVED never existed for Baden and Lee to look at it--is real. Got it. I thought you had half a brain. My mistake. BTW, my favorite part of your "theory" is that Baden and Lee were paid $150,000 (that's over $300,000 in today's "money") for this story, and therefore, it MUST be true, because a story that costs $150,000 can't possibly be false. Not to mention, OJ didn't even get a photo of this magic "lens" for his $150,000. Just this bullshit story. That was proven false by OJ's other lawyer. That's my favorite part. And your whole entire theory rests on it. Just this story that OJ paid $150,000 for. That's all you have. And all I have is all the evidence that it's a bullshit story. Do you understand the difference between an excuse for NOT having evidence, and evidence? Can you grasp that at all? IF there were a photo of this second lens, if there were a LAPD evidence inventory sheet that mentioned two lenses somewhere, if ANY evidence of this second lens existed, that might be interesting. But just believing in the Easter Bunny because somebody paid $150,000 for two "scientists" to SAY the Easter Bunny is real, is not the same thing as evidence that the Easter Bunny is real. You do see the local TV weatherman put on his "Santa's Sleigh on Radar" show every year, right? Does that prove that Santa and his sleigh are real? Professor-- ya think Nuefeld and Scheck were on the same page? Or do you think Neufeld sends Baden and Shapiro to suborn perjury? Lets look at a little more testimony from Baden during his direct by Robert Shapiro. Watch prosecutor Kelberg object MR. SHAPIRO: Did you come with any other expert witness? DR. BADEN: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: Who did you come with? DR. BADEN: Dr. Henry Lee. MR. SHAPIRO: And were your services offered to the Los Angeles Police Department to aid them in their investigation? MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, as irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. BADEN: That is my understanding, yes. MR. KELBERG: I will move to strike as calling for speculation.
THE COURT: The answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard it. MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, may I approach the witness, please? We have a copy of a letter that was sent to Detective Vannatter. MR. KELBERG: Y our Honor, I would ask to approach on this with the court reporter. THE COURT: All right. With the reporter, please. MR. KELBERG: I would ask for a copy of the document as well. MR. SHAPIRO: We provided copies of this to the District Attorney in discovery early on But then he has nothing to say when Baden testifies to seeing and examining two lens? Hmmm,,,, Professor you daffy and please get us that Nuefeld proof that LAPD never had both lens to the eye glasses. That would be a doozy. Betcha cant do it though. Now lets look at some more Baden testimony during this same direct by Shapiro. DR. BADEN: On June 22nd, 1994, I was authorized to visit with Dr. Barbara Wolf, Dr. Lakshmanan in the Coroner's office, and he graciously made all of the information that he had available, available for us to review, which included not only the photographs, but also, umm, the tissue sample that had been retained from the autopsy, which is normally done in--when autopsy is done, some tissue is retained from the different organs for possible further study under the microscope and these are kept in formaldehyde type solution. We were able to review those tissues that were saved in formaldehyde and we were able to review all of the fluids and tissues that were saved for possible toxicological examination and for examination for drugs. Umm-- MR. SHAPIRO: Let me interrupt you for a second here and get right to the point. Did you find any evidence regarding any injury to the head area of Nicole Brown Simpson that was not previously recorded or found by the Los Angeles County Coroner's office? DR. BADEN: Yes. MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. I will move to strike, calling for speculation and compound as to the term "Found" versus "Recorded."
THE COURT: Sustained. I'll be damned but Kelberg makes another objection! And this time it's sustained by the court. Next we see Baden goes from the Coroner's office to the LAPD property room. You'll se that once again he was in the company of Dr. Barbara Wolf as well as the following people. In other words Baden is not alone when he views the two lenses or if he is perjuring himself then the state has ample witnesses to the perjury. Read on Professor MR. SHAPIRO: You mentioned that in addition to visiting the Coroner's office in Los Angeles, you also visited the Los Angeles Police Department evidence collection room? DR. BADEN: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: Did you visit that room on June the 24th of 1994? DR. BADEN: Yes, we did. MR. SHAPIRO: Would you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you were allowed and not allowed to do during that examination. DR. BADEN: Yes. We were authorized--you had obtained authorization for Dr. Wolf and I to review the evidence that had been collected up to that point by the Los Angeles Police Department and, umm, we were allowed to look at the evidence, but not to touch or photograph it, and in the presence of I think Miss Kestler, Detective Vannatter and othersAnd for the kill punch we get this series of questions and answers. Remember Baden is being watched by a Miss Kestler, Dr. Barbara Wolf, Simpson blood vile carrier Detective Vannatter and others. Here is what Dr. Baden swears to under oath and threat of perjury. MR. SHAPIRO: Did you see a frame of glasses? DR. BADEN: Yes, I saw the eyeglasses that were in an envelope. (by the way in the famous "How bout that Mr. Fung, you can see Fung p/u the envelope w/glasses) MR. SHAPIRO: Did you see any lenses that were associated with those eyeglasses? DR. BADEN: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: How many lenses did you see? DR. BADEN: Umm, the frames were intact, but the lenses were loose. They had come out of the--the frame, s o I saw two intact lenses together with the intact frames, but they were--the lenses were separate in the same envelope.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you examine and observe the frame of the glasses? DR. BADEN: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: Did you see any blood on the frame? DR. BADEN: There was what appeared--maroon material that suggested that there was blood that was on--dried on one of the frames Professor you dont know what your talking about. The same prosecutor Kelberg who made many objections during Shapiro's examination of Dr. Baden remains silent as Baden commits perjury . Hmmm.... are you actually protecting the killer cults? And this prosecutor has vile carrying Vannatter and a Miss Kestler who were there when Baden examined the envelope with the glasses. Get me your so called Nuefeld cross I want to see that. If you cant produce it then admit youre wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 21, 2020 8:58:00 GMT -6
I'm going to explain this one more fucking time, and you are going to get it through your thick fucking skull whether you like it or not: Counsel are NOT ALLOWED TO OBJECT DURING CLOSING ARGUMENTS. Period. The judge explains to the jury before they start, "Nothing you are about to hear is evidence. Counsel have to the right to present you with their opinions and conclusions about the the evidence you have have heard, but you must form your own conclusions." Blah, blah, blah. Soooooooo, the fact that "prosecutors did not object to defense's closing arguments" means less than nothing, because OBJECTIONS DURING CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED, Shit For Brains.
I don't care if Baden earned $150,000.00 for saying he "saw" two lenses. I want to see a PHOTOGRAPH of two lenses. I want to see a REPORT mentioning two lenses. Period. "The prosecution did not object to this claim during closing arguments" means NOTHING. Period. They are NOT ALLOWED TO OBJECT, BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAS ALREADY EXPLAINED TO THE JURY THAT WHAT THEY ARE ABOUT TO HEAR IS NOT EVIDENCE.
Just being stubborn in your ignorance is not the same thing as proving that LAPD found two lenses and then got rid of one of them. Period. And again, again, again, another defense "lawyer" already proved that LAPD did NOT find two lenses, and that there was ONLY ONE LENS in that envelope.
That's it. Aaaaaaalllllll you have to "prove" OJ was "framed" is a $150,000.00 story about "I saw two lenses," wooden-headed ignorance about courtroom procedure, and NOTHING ELSE. And this "evidence" of yours was proven wrong by the defense's own co-counsel. That adds up to one thing: Shit. For. Brains. The most hilarious part of your "theory" is, you claim LAPD "suddenly" found out AFTER the trial started that this non-existent "second lens" had the fingerprints, DNA, blood, hair, and God know what else of dozens of other suspects, so they threw it away, altered or destroyed page after page of police reports, AND somehow got Neufeld involved in a conspiracy to prove they never found a second lens in the first place. I can't stop laughing.
This is the last comment by you on this thread. I'm not wasting any more space on this horseshit. If you find a photo, or police report, or ANYTHING that PROVES police found a "second lens," then PM me. Otherwise, this is your last comment on this thread.
|
|