NOTE: COMPILED BY JACKMARLO @ REDDIT UPDATED NOVEMBER 1, 2024 In response to the posting about the testing of the envelope and the prosecution’s failure to disclose their findings, the NoJ’s naturally hollered that these were negligible matters since the prosecution had their witnesses identify and verify that evidence (namely the glasses and the envelope).Really? Okay, folks, here is what actually happened and what that tells you about the authenticity of the prosecution/plaintiff evidence in this case. Remember it was Clark who insisted she be able to present the envelope to the jury and have her witness identify it. Having triumphed over the defense’s attempts to stipulate that Karen Crawford can identify the envelope, Clark can proceed to realize her wish and have Crawford identify it (references are to trial transcripts of February 7, 1995 -all emphasis added). To fully appreciate Clark’s triumph over the defense, it is necessary to backup to the following exchange that almost immediately preceded the battle about the stipulation. It is at this point that Clark first asks Crawford to describe what she did with the glasses after finding them, and to identify the envelope she put them into: Q OKAY. AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THEM [the glasses]? A I BROUGHT THEM BACK IN AND I SPOKE TO MRS. BROWN AND TOLD HER I HAD FOUND THEM. I PUT THEM IN AN ENVELOPE. Q WHAT KIND OF ENVELOPE DID YOU PUT THEM IN? A I PUT IT IN A WHITE BUSINESS- SIZED ENVELOPE. Q OKAY. DID YOU WRITE ANYTHING ON IT? A YES. I WROTE “NICOLE SIMPSON PRESCRIPTION GLASSES.” Q DID YOU SEAL IT? A YES. Clark then proceeds as follows to reap the fruits of her victory over the defense (NOTE: the following exchange comes about two transcript pages after the above testimony about what Crawford had written on the envelope): Q BY MS. CLARK: MISS CRAWFORD, SHOWING WHAT YOU HAS (sic) BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE’S 32, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE HANDWRITING ON THE FRONT OF THIS ENVELOPE? A YEAH, THAT IS MY HANDWRITING. Q IS THIS HANDWRITING THAT YOU PUT ON THIS ENVELOPE ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994? A YES. Q AND IT SAYS, “PRESCRIPTION GLASSES, NICOLE SIMPSON WILL PICK UP MONDAY”? (I kid you not folks!) A YES. Let’s back this up to Crawford’s previous testimony. During both of her previous appearances (grand jury and preliminary hearing), and just a few moments before at the trial, Crawford testified, and Clark had indicated by her questions, that Crawford had written on the envelope, “Nicole Simpson,” and underneath that the words, “Prescription glasses”. As the actual envelope is finally presented for the first time at trial, however, the order of the words is suddenly reversed, and the additional words “will pick up Monday” magically appear when there had previously been no hint whatever what Juditha had specifically wanted done with the glasses! (As an aside, just think about this. If it specifically said on the envelope that Nicole would pick them up Monday, why would Ron agree to make a rush delivery that very night, especially when he had hot plans to go on the town.) Now do you see why the police don’t have a photograph of the envelope at the crime scene showing the side with the writing on it? If, as during her previous testimony, Crawford had written on the Mezzaluna envelope, “Nicole Simpson,” and underneath that “Prescription Glasses,” and at the trial she confirms that on the envelope then presented to her there appear the words: “Prescription glasses. Nicole Simpson will pick up Monday,” the only possible inferences to be drawn from all this testimony is that the envelope she identified from the pictures and by what she had allegedly written on it as avowed during her previous appearances and the envelope she was presented for identification at the trial cannot possibly be one and the same or Crawford lied about what she had written on the envelope when she previously testified about it. But before concluding whether Crawford lied, it is necessary to recall that when Clark had asked Crawford about this, Clark in her questioning had affirmed(testified, actually) that Crawford had written on the envelope “Nicole Simpson”, and underneath that, “Prescription glasses,” just as Crawford had testified. Since the actual envelope was in the prosecution’s possession, and Clark had every opportunity to view it to determine what, in fact had been written on it the night of the murder, and since Crawford had no legitimate opportunity to revise the text after the envelope was seized as evidence by the police, the amended version of what was written on that envelope by itself demolishes its authenticity. And that, folks, by itself destroys the case against Simpson by establishing that a critical piece of evidence that allegedly accounts for the events of that evening MUST BE A FORGERY. If this evidence is false, then NOTHING CAN BE COUNTED ON TO BE AUTHENTIC. Does anyone now still have a problem figuring out why the police and prosecution thoughtfully neglected to share with the court, the jury and the public what tests they conducted on the envelope and what physical evidence they found on it that would link it to the people who actually handled it? But the identification of evidence becomes ever so much more interesting when it comes to the glasses themselves. Clark’s only attempt to identify the glasses during the trial occurs during the following exchange while she questions Crawford, who found the glasses: Q NOW, LOOKING INSIDE THE ENVELOPE, CAN YOU SEE THE GLASSES THAT ARE INSIDE? A YES. Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THOSE? A YES. Q HOW DO YOU RECOGNIZE THEM? A WELL, THEY LOOK LIKE THE GLASSES I PICKED UP OFF THE STREET. How is that for an unequivocal and definitive affirmation of identity? Actually, it falls a bit short of that. In fact, since Clark actually asked How Crawford could identify the glasses, by her answer, any pair of glasses ever made would also “look like the glasses” she had picked up that night, which is, in fact, all that Crawford thereby affirmed. And NoJ’s imagine there is a mountain of real evidence that tied Simpson to the crime, but the witness who finds the key piece of evidence to establish that Goldman’s trip was the workings of a series of accidents and coincidences can’t even definitely identify the glasses she allegedly picked up that night. (NOTE: As Mazzola later confirms, there are no lenses in the frames that are in the envelope, and one of the lenses is actually missing. But these anomalies evidently escaped Crawford’s notice, although this might be one reason she said the glasses merely looked like the ones she found. But then, who knows? She was never asked by anybody about the lenses.) The effort to identify the glasses turns surreal when Juditha gets a crack at it during the civil trial during the following exchange initiated by John Kelly, “their” lawyer:”Q (By Mr. Kelly) I ask you to look at these. And do you recognize those, Ms. Brown?”A. I guess.”Q. Those appear to be your glasses from that night?”A. They possibly are. I don’t remember anymore, I’m sure they are.” How can anyone doubt that Juditha has thereby positively and definitively affirmed that the glasses she was shown were in fact glasses she had ever owned and worn? She guesses she can recognize them? They possibly are the glasses from that night? She can’t remember anymore, but is sure they are? Who could possibly be unable to identify a pair of glasses they had owned and worn? This story is too absurd even beyond the outer reaches of the Twilight Zone. Note particularly how cleverly Kelly phrased the question to elicit the identification – do the glasses appear to be the ones that belonged to her from that night. Taken strictly as phrased, the question only focuses on whether those glasses were hers from that night – not whether they were ever hers on any other day or night, but only as of that night. As put, the question actually asks only if the glasses then being shown to her were the ones from that night which had been attributed as belonging to her. She could truthfully give an affirmative answer without her ever having owned or possessed those glasses before that night. No wonder she was groping for the right answer if she had never before seen them. Clark concluded her envelope identification adventure with the following exchange that was evidently intended to reaffirm that the envelope at the Mezzaluna and the one found at Bundy were one and the same: Q AND THIS IS THE ENVELOPE THAT YOU PLACED BEHIND THE BAR? A YES. How could she possibly tell when she can’t even get straight what she wrote on it. And come to think of it, that could also be a truthful answer without that envelope ever having found its way to Bundy. You see, there could be two envelopes – the one she put behind the bar and the one they found at Bundy. That’s how it would also be easy to have two versions of what was written on the envelope. And that certainly explains the apparent absence of fingerprints on the Bundy envelope or the failure to even test for them or to announce the results of any tests that were done. And to imagine there are some who actually imagine the prosecution and the cops mishandled this case. The English language simply lacks the words Clark needs to repair the fracture in the case that was produced by the divergent wording that Crawford testified to having written on the envelope into which she claimed to have put the glasses that no one could positively identify, and that she placed behind the bar and gave to Goldman, but which came with not a single physical sign or clue that would have tied the envelope to anyone. And the NoJ’s actually imagine they have a mountain of evidence against Simpson? The stuff they have doesn’t even rise to the level of a putrefied dung heap. In responding to the posting about identifying the glasses and the envelope, “Also, how Juditha and Lou Brown arrived home to coincide with the time they allegedly had a telephone conversation with Nicole. It was simply impossible to arrive that distance in that time period if they left at the testified time and they spoke on the phone with Nicole at the testified time.” You’re absolutely right on all counts. If anyone bothers to read the account of the two lead detectives in the case, they note that they decided to notify the Browns by phone about the murder of their their daughter rather than to do it in person because they “lived at least 90 minutes from Brentwood.” As long time LA cops, and having personally made the trip themselves by car on at least two occasions, the two lead detectives should know how long the trip would take. Moreover, Juditha and Lou Brown (along with Denies) regularly made the trip to visit Nicole. And when Denise was asked during her deposition when they left the home for the drive to Brentwood for the recital, she indicated they left around 3P.M. to make a 5:00 pm. Start time, obviously leaving themselves two hours to make the drive. Now the recital (according to three prosecution witnesses) lasted until at least 7 pm. (since it started at 5:00 pm., there was a 15 minute intermission, according to Denise), and there were 34 acts on the program(according to Brown attorney John Kelly during the Denise deposition), there is no chance in this universe that the recital was over a second before 7:00 pm. As attested to by all the prosecution witnesses. Since this was also the end of the school year, Sydney’s performance was the next to last number (I believe), the time to change out of her costume, to say good bye to her friends, have her picture with OJ taken by Fishman and have OJ present her the flowers, have the Browns get their two cars loaded up and leave the area that must have been congested, it is impossible to believe they arrived at the Mezzaluna much earlier than 7:30 even though testimony has them get there between 6:30 to 7:00 pm. (which is clearly impossible and totally false. Although some of the testimony of Mezzaluna witnesses have the Browns leaving at 8:30, Clark and other Mezzaluna witnesses several times indicate they left around 9:00 pm. Of particular note is Crawford’s testimony before the grand jury (I believe, but could be preliminary hearing), indicating the call from Juditha came “shortly” after they left, which would make sense if she meant9:00 pm. As Clark had indeed indicated when questioning Crawford about the call. Even an 8:30 pm. Departure time makes it absurd for them to make a 90 minute trip so they could arrive home by 9:37 –the NoJ’s can do the math, but it won’t at up even beyond the Twilight Zone. Of course, any delay in the departure time makes ever more ridiculously absurd an arrival time that enables Juditha to make a 9:37 pm. Call. The key is whether the 90 minute time to make the trip seems real. Well, according to all accounts that mention it, the Browns lived about 74 miles from the restaurant. If they traveled by the most direct route, they had to negotiate at least 22 major expressway interchanges. I’d say 90 minutes is a conservative estimate unless Dominique, the driver that night, was qualified to drive in the Indy 500. There you have it. It’s impossible for the Browns to have driven from the Mezzaluna to their home in time for Juditha to be making a 9:37 pm Phone call. If it’s impossible for her to be making the call, that also establishes beyond question that it’s impossible for there to be an authentic record of her having made such a call. If there is any record of a call being made at that time by her from her home (they had no cell phone in the car and they didn’t stop to make a call), that record is either a fabrication or some else made the call (Nicole’s younger sister Tanya is a possibility). Either possibility destroys the scenario that has been presented to account for the events of that night as anything but a fabrication. That also leaves only one other possible conclusion. If the scenario of the glasses has been fabricated, it could only have been done to provide a false account of the events to lay a false trail about the true motives behind the murders. The tale then also had to have been contrived as part and parcel of the murder plot. There are no other possibilities, unless someone can establish with real evidence that not only was it possible to make a 90 minute drive in 67 minutes, but that the Browns in fact did so that night. Go to it NoJ’s. But don’t bother unless you have real evidence. Good luck. You’ll need it. A hint about why. Both the prosecution and plaintiffs stayed light years away from the issue of establishing the times for the Brown family movements that evening which involved an uninterrupted sequence of timed events, starting when they left their home for the recital until they reached home again that night, with not one second of slack time between when one event ends and another one begins so that the time of an event can be shifted to make it plausible. The problem of no slack time is that it’s impossible to shift the time of one event forward or backward to make it more plausible without shortening the time available for another event of a known duration. I was not aware the group had that discussion, but based on the clear evidence on this issue, there is simply no time for the events to have happened as described. That’s why the tale of the glasses is, indeed, one of the critical keys to this case. The fabrication of this tale is the certain proof that not a single piece of evidence against OJ in this case can possibly be genuine. A number of NoJs sought strenuously to refute my posting about the impossible trip home. Rather than separately addressing each of their various objections, here is my response to what those objections add up to. First, since Risch obviously has some unspecified problems with the points made in my posting about the impossible trip home by the Browns, perhaps he can make some real contribution to clarifying some issues involving this case by showing how the NoJ's can plant their evidence mountain on the solid foundation of his hallucinations about the evidence in this case. Such as, for example, his illusion of the window to be found above the door on Simpson's garage. Or the obvious illusions he must harbor about how the victims were murdered since he recently had to plead for someone to explain the medical findings in the autopsy report. Or perhaps...oh, what's the use. That's about all his objections amounted to, and they merit no further response. The NoJ's and their indestructible, unassailable, and incontestable evidence heap always turn into formless, quivering blubber the instant any of it is subjected to an honest and thorough analysis that takes into account all the relevant and available evidence rather than only the individual bits and pieces they want to look at in complete isolation and then raise to the level of the whole truth and only truth that matters. Yes folks, its possible to assert that Juditha made a phone call at 9:37 pm. on some night. It's also possible to produce a piece of paper allegedly generated by a computer that purportedly reflected the making of that call. There is, however, a context to this call. It begins when the Browns left that afternoon to drive up to LA for the recital, continues through the time they spent at the recital, the earliest they could have left the recital to get to the restaurant, the earliest they could then have arrived at the restaurant to have dinner, the time it took them to finish, and the earliest they could then have started on their 74 mile trip home. And it was an about 74 mile trip(According to Toobin, Arnelle told Lange the Browns lived about 75 miles away; according to map readings, the distance from the Mezzaluna to Dana Point is68.5 miles counting the mileage shown on the map plus 5.5 miles scaled from the map for a total distance of 74 miles). Once all these elements are taken into account, it is not possible for the Browns to complete the trip in time for Juditha to be making her 9:37 pm. call to the Mezzaluna, even assuming they left as early as alleged by the Mezzaluna employees. It is absurd even to imagine they could have made the trip if they left at the later times that Mezzaluna employees also gave as their possible departure time. Second, along comes Wagner with his list of witnesses to show how much testimonial evidence was generated to establish the Browns left at 8:30 pm. to substantiate a time frame for the Mezzaluna portion of the Brown itinerary that purportedly made it seem plausible for the Browns to have made the trip in time to enable Juditha to make her 9:37 pm. call to the Mezzaluna. The most interesting thing about his witnesses list is not those who are on it to establish the Mezzaluna time frame, but the two glaring omissions of persons who provided testimony at the criminal trial and directly participated in all the relevant activities involving the Browns that afternoon and evening up to the time of Juditha's calls about the glasses. These two witnesses would have been in the best position to have had first had knowledge and experience of the events that would have enabled them to provide complete and accurate testimony about the time of all the activities involving the Browns during the relevant time frame and to confirm the authenticity of the time line the prosecution needed to make its case. Anyone who carefully examines Wagner's list should instantly spot the critical omissions. The missing witnesses are none other than Denise and Juditha Brown. Is it possible that Wagner simply messed up and inadvertently left two such critical witnesses off his list? Actually, Wagner did not mess up. You see, Juditha and Denise were simply never asked about when they left the restaurant or when they arrived home. Imagine that. The two witnesses in a position to provide the best evidence on the issue of when they did certain things are not even asked about them. The Brown departure from the restaurant is only one of the most critical time points in the entire time line for the events of that night to enable the prosecution to establish authoritatively that, as they claimed, Juditha's call triggered the events about the lost glasses at 9:37 pm. What, however, does the prosecution do to establish when that critical departure time was? They rely on the Mezzaluna employees who could not possibly have kept close track of the Brown movements at the restaurant that evening, and who could have only roughly approximated, at best, when the Browns left. Those employees could not, after all, have known that it was important to note the relevant times because Nicole and Ron were going to be murdered, could they? The prosecution, however, completely ignores having the two members of the dinner party tell when they departed, the two witnesses who were most likely to have kept track of the time when various events happened which would enable them to provide the most accurate information about the times involved. Here instead is all Darden was interested in when he questioned Denise about the events at the Mezzaluna: Q[by Darden]. "Did you have dinner?A. "Yes, we did. Q. "What did you do after dinner was over?A. "We got up and -- We got up and we walked out, and Nicole was going to get some ice cream with the kids. And we kissed each other good bye. The last thing I told her was that I loved her."I'm sorry." [This is when Denise began bawling.] That's all she had to say about the event that became the explanation for the prosecution’s claim that Goldman went to Bundy on an unplanned trip? Denise participated in the event that purportedly became the prelude for at least one of the murders, and she talks about it as though nothing had happened that fit those events into the murders that flowed from it? During her deposition on May 2, 1996 in the civil case, Denise Brown finally was asked by Simpson's lawyer when the Browns had left the Mezzaluna to start their return trip to their Monarch Bay home. Denise responded, "I think it was around 9:00 o'clock, 8:30 -- 8:30." When asked a follow-up question if she could be more specific about the time, she replied, "You know what, it was closer to 8:30, because I told the kids to lay down and go to sleep in the back. They had school the next day." While she quickly backtracked, Denise initially blurted out a most revealing answer - 9:00 o'clock. Only after momentarily considering it does she come up with what was supposed to be the "right" answer - 8:30 pm., which gives the family the maximum available time to drive home, an answer she then reinforces after a pause for emphasis. What makes her initial answer so revealing was that their departure from the restaurant that night was directly linked to the traumatic event that was to follow shortly thereafter. The last time Denise saw Nicole was when they departed from the restaurant that night. The drama surrounding that parting must have burned the time into her memory. It was the event that even started one of her bawling spells at the trial. That departure time could not possibly have been anything she would have to think about, and the question about it wasn't raised unexpectedly since it was brought up amid two questions related to their activities at the dinner. The truthful answer must be the one she gave reflexively, which was her initial answer of 9:00 pm. That was, of course, before she quickly realized the"correct" answer she was supposed to give. She promptly amends herself, and repeated the correction as if to convince herself and her listeners. She is, however, unable to fix the time more precisely when asked a follow-up question,except to give an amusingly revealing explanation of why the amended time should be considered correct. Naturally enough, she realized it must have been the earlier departure time because it prompted her to tell the kids to go to sleep in the back due to the apparent lateness of the hour. She may well have done that, but it is something she would have been far more likely to have done because of the later, rather than the earlier departure time. During her civil trial deposition, Denise was also finally asked when the family arrived home that night. She then gave the following answer: "8:30,9:30, figure around 10:00 o'clock. No. 9:30, quarter to 10:00." Now does anyone really imagine that their arrival time at home that night, which plays such a pivotal role in the story, could, at the time of the deposition on May 2, 1996, still have been like guessing the answer to a multiple choice quiz? Is it really possible to imagine that she had never before thought of it, or been asked by the police to fix the time of Juditha's calls, especially when she and Darden must have laboriously gone over those events to prepare for her testimony, replete with touching details like having on the ear rings that Nicole wore on the night of the murders so Darden could ask her about them? That having been asked about when they got home, she never had concluded and then remembered when that was? That she would not have known exactly how long the trip must have taken after the family had driven the same route in the other direction about six hours before? When she had, in fact, made that same trip to Brentwood and back numerous times to visit Nicole with their parents and sister Dominique? Denise actually comes up with four distinctly different times for when they arrived home, one that she mentions twice. None of her guesses can possibly be correct, however. It cannot be 8:30 since they had not even left the Mezzaluna by then! How could she have even guessed that time? If it is 9:30, it means they made the 74 mile trip in one hour, or drove it at an average speed of 74miles per hour. While that feat might be easily accomplished on the open road in Montana or Wyoming, it's hardly likely through the center of Los Angeles during the early evening hours on a Sunday. If at 10:00, then the call to the Mezzaluna must have been made after Goldman's 9:50 pm. departure from the restaurant, which would be before the glasses he took to Bundy had been found(at least according to the prosecution's story). If at a quarter to ten, it is after Juditha had made all her calls. Denise's multiple answers and hesitations are undoubtedly the product of uncertainty about what the "right" answer is because she is unsure about when the calls were made, and she must, therefore, quickly calculate the correct arrival time based on what she recalls to be the relevant time frame for the events. Yet all her answers are still wrong and make it impossible for Juditha to be making her call at the stipulated time. Juditha also remains deadly silent in her criminal trial stipulated testimony about their departure or arrival times. During the civil trial, Juditha was finally "kind of" asked about their Mezzaluna departure by Kelly, "their" lawyer, during the following exchange: Q. [By Kelly]Now, did you get in the car, then, and head down towards your house? A. Yes. I -- we looked for my glasses, still, I know, because I didn't have the glasses in the restaurant. So we looked in the jeep and we didn't see them. And it was 8:30 by that time and the children had to go to bed, so we said, well,let's go; I'll call. Q. And did you get in the car and head down to Orange County? A. We drove home. As touching and illuminating as her answers are about how she lost and looked for the glasses, they are actually unresponsive to the questions. Note,therefore, that without having been directly asked about when any of various departure time activities she describes happened, she simply blurts out that she noted it was 8:30 at some unspecified point during the events she describes (except to relate it to their having looked for the glasses in the jeep). How is that for firmly pinning down when anything happened. Cleverly,however, Kelly did not ask, nor did Juditha bring up, when they eventually arrived at home, which would have pinned her down to a specific time interval for making the trip. She therefore gives a time for the drive home that relates to only one of the two end points of the trip, leaving the time frame for the entire trip completely open-ended. This is another shop worn trick for lying with the truth. Omit half the answer when the truthfulness of any part of the answer can be tested only by knowing the whole answer. It should, of course, be obvious that since a trip involves a closed-end time frame, the truthfulness about whether the Browns could complete the trip within any alleged time related to the trip can be tested only if they specify the time at each end of the trip. By testifying only about their approximate departure time, Juditha avoids pinning herself down to a fixed time interval for the entire trip home that would instantly have shown whether the alleged time frame that made it possible for her to call was, in fact, plausible based on her experiences of having made that trip numerous times. By studiously avoiding having their key witness on this point pin down a fixed time frame for making the trip, the plaintiff attorneys confess they are incapable of providing a time frame that makes the Brown trip possible in time for Juditha to be calling the Mezzaluna at 9:37 pm. Third, Marla chipped in with her comments purportedly proving how easily the Browns could have made the drive in time for Juditha to make the call by claiming she has made the drip from Brentwood to Dana point in 1 hour and ten minutes. Marla may thereby have imagined she proved the impossible happened. She, of course, proved the exact opposite. For starters, she strikes out with her 70 minute time frame for making the trip. The Browns, at most, had 67 minutes. Next, were her claim true, she has declared and branded the two lead detectives, Lange and Vannatter, as liars for claiming that the Browns lived a minimum of 90 minutes from Brentwood. Now the lead detectives had to have based their estimates on personal experience from making the trip themselves on June 22, 1994 (L and V, p. 208) and with Clark on December 18, 1994 (Clark, p. 236). Since Marla has bested what they claim is a minimum time by 20 minutes, she has definitely succeeded in shattering their credibility about anything else they could have said about this case. Thank you Marla for thereby flushing almost all of the prosecution's evidence and their entire case down the toilet. But of course, the Browns did not have 70 minutes to make the trip. They did not even have 67 minutes to make the trip. They actually had less than one hour, if any of the Mezzaluna employee testimony is to be given the slightest credence. The reason is obvious and simple. The Mezzaluna employees all testified to when they saw the Browns leave. Since the employees were all working inside the restaurant when they witnessed that departure, but the Browns left from somewhere outside the restaurant, the employees could not possibly have seen when the Browns actually started on their way home. Whatever they saw and when had to be events occurring inside the restaurant. The Brown departure from the restaurant at 8:30 pm. cannot, therefore be the time when they started their return journey, which must have happened some time after that. By the same token, the time of Juditha's call is not the time the Browns ended their trip home, but when Juditha's line was connected to the Mezzaluna telephone after she initiated the call. This event would have occurred sometime after they had gotten home from the trip. The 67 minute time span between their restaurant departure time and the time of the call does not represent the two end points of the time interval available for the Browns to make the trip. Several minutes must, instead be subtracted from the time at each end of the trip for activities that had to occur before they actually started out and after they actually arrived home. How much would have to be chopped from the 67 minute absolute time interval within which the Browns have to fit their trip home? At the departure end, they have to walk out of the restaurant, the dinner party splits apart and says its good byes as the party of six (4 adults, 2 children)head for Dana point, and the party of 4 (1 adult -- Nicole -- and her party of three children) first head for Ben and Jerry's and then to Bundy; the Browns then have to walk to, or a valet brings them, their car; they have to load up(and first look for the glasses if Juditha is to be believed); and then start out. Elapsed time for these activities is not one New York microsecond less than 5 minutes, but most likely 10 minutes. At the other end, the Browns have to unload the Jeep; say their good byes to Dominique and her son who apparently were going on to her place; get into the house; Juditha has run to the phone, look up the number for the restaurant,which would involve a long distance information call (unless she had the number written on her wrist or otherwise had the number handy for which there is not a shred of evidence), and then dial the number. Elapsed time for all this is again not one New York microsecond less than 5 minutes, but 10 is again more likely. That means at least 10, but most likely 20 minutes have to be chopped from the67 time interval that has as its end points the longer time span from their departure from the restaurant to then making of the call, leaving the Browns not a New York microsecond longer than 57 minutes to make their trip. In reality, however, 47 minutes is the more likely actual time they have for making the drive based on the state of the prosecution's evidence and testimony.. So even if it took Marla only 70 minutes to make the trip from "Brentwood to Dana Point," she thereby proves the Browns could not possibly have done it in the 57 minutes they actually had for driving time. That absolutely maximum 57minutes available for making the trip must have been the foundation for Denise guessing they arrived home at 9:30 pm., which allowed them one hour for the drive. But she promptly corrected that to the later, quarter to ten, arrival time, knowing full well from long experience that it's impossible to complete the trip within an hour. The fact that the criminal trial testimony established time points for the Brown movements that gave the Browns an absurdly short time to make the drive points to why the the plaintiff lawyers tried in the civil trial to fudge the time frame by having Juditha blurt out that at 8:30 they were already outside,rather than still INSIDE the restaurant and about to start their trip home rather than the time they left the restaurant. The plaintiffs thereby tried to create evidence that made the trip scenario slightly more plausible that the criminal trial testimony allowed. That one hour is the time Petrocelli claims in his book was the time they had established at the trial as the time it took the Browns to make the drive from the Mezzaluna to Dana Point. The claim is nonsense because they established nothing to fix the closed-end interval within which the Browns made the drivehome. Finally, we reach the credibility killing revelation about Juditha's call that totally demolishes any shred of authenticity that the story of the glasses ever had. That revelation came during her deposition when by her description of the events she indicated that although the loss of the glasses must have been uppermost in Juditha's mind if she rushed into the house immediately upon their arrival even to have a chance to make her call to the Mezzaluna by 9:37 pm.,according to Denise, the family did not discuss the loss of the glasses during the trip home nor what Juditha would do to locate them after they had come home. That the loss of the glasses was allegedly uppermost in Juditha's mind after they left the restaurant is established by Juditha's assertion when she testified on December 6, 1996 at the civil trial that: "And on the way home, a terrible depression came over me, something I have never experienced. My whole body got really heavy. And I haven't had it before and I haven't had it afterwards. It was -- it was a whole feeling. And as we arrived at home, I shook myself, and I thought, "God, I have to buy a pair of new glasses again." And I went on the phone and I called Mezzaluna. Pretty upsetting stuff, this loss of the glasses. But luckily for Juditha, of course, the lost glasses were promptly found. The huge burden she had felt,this horrible feeling that overcame her, must then have been completely dissipated by the wonderful news she learned after talking to Crawford. And what does Juditha do next? According to Denise, she apparently did nothing at all. Kept the wonderful news a total secret as Denise also affirmed she was not aware of, and her mother did not tell her on the evening of June 12, that she had called Nicole or the restaurant about the glasses, or that the glasses had been found. Denise, instead, claims she just put her son to bed and went to sleep. Denise,therefore, claims she does not even have a direct present recollection of the calls having been made, much less the time of the calls, that the glasses were found or whatever arrangements had been made for their return. Denise's revelations about her present knowledge of the critical times relating to the story of the glasses establishes as a certainty that:Denise's lack of direct, present knowledge of the calls explains her uncertainty about picking the Monarch Bay arrival time that would be "right"for when the calls were made. Without direct knowledge of the events, she obviously would have a hard time fitting them into the real time for events that she was aware of and that also had to be fitted into the prosecution’s time line. How easy it is to be tripped up by details when the truth not be told. Denise's lack of present knowledge that the glasses had been found means Juditha could not possibly have discussed that subject that night with anyone. Keep in mind that Juditha claims the loss had upset her for the entire return drive and that she went straight to the phone to make her call; that within two, at most three minutes of calling, she learns the lost glasses are found;and she makes a quick call to Nicole to arrange for their return. AND SHE TELLS NOBODY THE GOOD NEWS THAT THE PROBLEM THAT HAD BEEN GENERATING THIS TERRIBLE DEPRESSION DURING THE ENTIRE DRIVE HOME HAD BEEN MIRACULOUSLY SOLVED! If the tale of the lost glasses had the tiniest foothold in reality, the VERY FIRST thing that Juditha, or anyone else, would have done on learning that her precious LOST glasses HAD BEEN FOUND is immediately to tell everyone the good news that suddenly liberated her from her terrible depression. If this story were real, there is simply no way that Juditha would have kept it a secret that her glasses had been found. Since Juditha must have learned the news that the glasses had been found while everyone was still up and around after just getting home, it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR DENISE NOT TO HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT WHEN IT HAPPENED IF THIS EVENT EVER ACTUALLY OCCURRED. That Denise claims she did not know the glasses had been found IMMEDIATELY AFTER Juditha first learned of it within minutes after getting into the house upon the family's return home is absolutely certain proof the event NEVER HAPPENED as it HAS BEEN CLAIMED to account for Goldman's innocent and accidental appearance at the Bundy murder scene. Is there anyone with any active brain cells who now still has the slightest trouble figuring out why the prosecution failed to produce any physical evidence that linked the envelope to the people who purportedly handled it? Or that the two lenses had been removed from the frame? That one of the lenses had been missing? That the lens that was left and apparently never been tested to confirm that its prescription matched one that had been prescribed for Juditha? This is j