The OJ Simpson Case--June 14th, 1994---Witness hiding.........

When I found out about The Murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, and that was on June 14th, 1994, I started my Own Investigation into Their Murders, on the Premise of OJ Simpson being Not Guilty.

I said to myself:
"Rocky (being Rocky Bateman) had told me that there were people that had a plot to steal OJ Simpson's money. I've got to look into this."
On another blog I will talk about "The Hood Gang" plotting to steal OJ Simpson's money.

I have been asked:
"if Rocky Bateman can be so bad for OJ's cause, why didn't the prosecution in BOTH trials use him?"

Well, , the MAIN Reason The Prosecution in both The OJ Simpson Case Criminal Trial and Civil Trial couldn't USE Rocky Bateman, is because it would have Opened the Door to DETECTIVE RONALD Y. ITO. And it wasn't a Matter of The Prosecution Using Rocky. In the Criminal trial, The Defense Tried to Hide Rocky in Oklahoma. Rocky would have been a Hostile Witness for The Prosecution.

On January 26th, 1995, Marcia Clark said this in court:

" "WHY DIDN'T THE PEOPLE TELL YOU ABOUT THIS WITNESS? WHY DIDN'T THE PEOPLE TELL YOU ABOUT THAT WITNESS?" THERE'S A REAL SIMPLE ANSWER FOR THAT. THEY HID THOSE WITNESSES. HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TELL THE JURY ABOUT WITNESSES THEY NEVER TOLD US ABOUT, WITNESSES THAT THE COURT ORDERED THEM TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO DIVULGE AND WILLFULLY THEY TOLD THIS COURT THEY HAD NO SUCH WITNESSES. SEVEN MONTHS OLD THESE STATEMENTS ARE. SEVEN MONTHS OLD THESE NAMES ARE. AND ONLY ON THE VERY DAY OF HIS STATEMENT TO THE JURY DO WE FIND THEM OUT AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE DAY NO LESS. MR. DARDEN WILL ADDRESS THAT FURTHER. I AM GOING TO ADDRESS THE COURT SOLELY ON ONE ASPECT AT THIS POINT, AND THAT IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO ASK THE COURT AT FIRST BLUSH, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS ARE RESUMED, TO ADMONISH THE JURY, TO TELL THE JURY THAT THEY ARE TO DISREGARD THE STATEMENTS MADE NOT BY MR. COCHRAN CONCERNING THE WITNESSES THAT WERE NOT -- THAT WERE IMPROPERLY WITHHELD FROM THE PROSECUTION AND TO ADMONISH THE JURY IN EFFECT THAT THE WITHHOLDING OF THAT INFORMATION WAS MISCONDUCT, WAS IN VIOLATION OF A COURT ORDER AND IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW THAT REQUIRES BOTH SIDES TO EXCHANGE THEIR WITNESSES AND THEIR STATEMENTS. THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT, YOUR HONOR, I KNOW THE DEFENSE IS ARGUING, "WELL, WE GAVE THEM THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES." YES. THEY GAVE US NO ADDRESS, THEY GAVE US NO PHONE NUMBER AND THEY GAVE US NO STATEMENT."

To be continued........................

MarioGeorgeNitrini111
mariogeorgenitrini111
__________
The OJ Simpson Case