General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

I don't think 2L8 used any "statistics" to form an opinion about a poster. I think she is basing her opinions on the posts of said poster.

Thank you to someone who uses her common sense!

:beer:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by rayraytwo

2l8 4a

Fortunately for me , there are many people in this company that are very please to do work. this affords me the option of doing as much as i want to do or nothing at all.

i do have a lovely lady.

:rolleyes: Uh, what happened to the wife? No, don't answer that please!

JMO and MOO!!

[tazzybaby]

rayray,

You have to remember that Nicole was 17 when they met. Yes, you're right she should have realized that once a cheat always a cheat. There are so many people in this world who don't realize that. Especially the younger they are. She wasn't even an adult when they met. Everyone thinks differently about life when they're 17 versus when they are 27. She grew up with OJ. She knew no other life.

Nicole WAS dependent on OJ. He took care of her. Once she realized that he wasn't going to change (the man always says I won't do it again...blah blah blah) I think she realized she needed to leave. But, by this time she had no other life or career. He could manipulate her easier because she had no means to take care of herself.

Women stay in abused relationships because they feel they have no way out. Because they have the man in their face telling them that they will kill them, they can't make it on their own, no one would have them or they couldn't do it anyway.

Have you read ALL the depositions in the civil trial? You really should. There is way more evidence of abuse than you are taking into consideration. OJ DEFINATELY was a batterer.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Dr Lenora Walker, who founded " Battered Women Symdrome" seems to think Nicole wasn't!

Netta,

Actually, that is untrue. Lenore Walker's handwritten notes from when she interviewed OJ in the criminal trial were entered into evidence in the civil trial. Her notes stated that she found Nicole to be a battered spouse.

Please research before posting anything further on this topic, unless you simply care not to be educated.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by nettathirty



There was NO of DV in their marriage, period!! How hard is this for you to understand, NO EVIDENCE of DV exist!!

The facts unfortuantely show otherwise Netta.

People who testified to witnessing and knowing of abuse in the Simpson marriage:

India Allen
Albert Aguilera
Wayne Hughes
Alfred Acosta

Lenore Walker's notes entered into evidence stated that OJ was indeed a batterer and Nicole was a battered spouse.

Nicole was clearly beaten in 1989, and since OJ testified that he "felt responsible" for all of her injuries even though he lied and said he never hit her, we know that he is indeed the one who beat her that night.

Domestic violence is a very serious issue. Close to four million women are battered each year, and people ignore it. I'm sorry if you don't believe the worst about OJ Simpson, but the facts lay it out there on the line.

Regardless of it he killed her, he did beat her. That should be undisputed.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


wukong

i never streatched out the "she was living on his dime " to mean all you have added to it. that was a streatch imo.

however, IF OJ WAS still paying the bills for her, it seems that a little common sense would have been in order for nicole especially if she knew he had a explosive personality. if that is true.
if she was of the opinion of the hell with him, i can do what i want
to do in his face and he has to take it. i don;t think that was a wise decision on her part.

why take the cash and rub it in ojs face. why not be a little discreat about her activities. many people that break up decide that it is best to wait for the final divoice to before spreading their wings, so to speak in public. this may have been a better course for nicole to take than the one it apperas she did take.
imo

Her divorce was finalized in 1992. All of the actions you have spoken of began taking place after that.

Nicole was awarded money in their divorce, that is what happens when people seperate who are in a sitaution where one party is the breadwinner. Are you telling me that you believe that Nicole should have still had to negotiate her life with the man she divorced?

Where do you see that she took the cash and rubbed it in his face? Please provide an example for me to understand what you mean.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The Black Community, what is that? Didn't you recognize it? That was the pictures of people cheering and happy that were shown on TV when OJ was acquitted --

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Trial 102, if she could have damaged OJ the prosecution would have put her on. The prosecution didn't need to call the defense paid and biased witness -- they had their own much more recognized and experienced expert. Actually, they had more than one -- all who testified that Nicole was indeed battered by OJ.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Doing a little spinning are we:

Dr Walker, actually said this:

It was her opinion that although Simpson had battered Nicole at one time, he did not fit the pattern of a batterer who goes on to kill his victim.. The defense doctor was using the 'one time' event because that's all OJ would own up to.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


you can take my comment any way you like. since you asked, yes she does and she admits it. it is not said nor does she takle it in a hateful way as you seem to have concluded.

:seeya: The defense jury expert when profiling prospective jurors for the criminal trial, told the Dream Team that black women were sympathetic to OJ (felt protective of him) and said in their questionnaires that some physical violence in a family is okay. Remember the picture of the battered women's shelter showing the residents cheering his acquittal? Man oh man.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i am trying to avoid a argumment with you. so i will make my response to you short and you can translate it as you please.

some peole that get divoiced remain angry with each other for some time and feel the need to SHOW him or her who the winner was . so to speak.

others evaluate the situation more closely and decide to use descrition in their activities so as to avoid further conflict with the other party.

those that use the second example loose nothing . no conflict is always better than conflict.

ray

This is a classic response from you when you have no good answer.

I asked you specifically for an example of how she rubbed the cash in his face and you cannot provide me with one. Instead you come up with this response and tell me to translate it how I wish.

So I translate it as you have no idea how she rubbed cash in his face.

Thank you, you've told me all I needed to know.

[weezer]

*Snipped * Originally posted by nettathirty
IMO - DV wasn't their problem! Then for goodness sakes tell us what their was.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
The defense doctor was using the 'one time' event because that's all OJ would own up to.

Lenore Walker did not mean only one event when she referred to OJ as being a batterer at one time. She meant that at one time in his life. For example, at one point in someone's life could be their entire teenage years.


fbgweezer, I know you already know this, I just quoted your post because it was the shortest for me to be able to quote and respond to.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Trial 102, if she could have damaged OJ the prosecution would have put her on.

Lenore Walker could damage Simpson, and the prosecution in the civil trial did take her deposition and did use here handwritten notes in the trial.

Lenore Walker's notes did damage Simpson very much in the civil trial.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by nettathirty
Blaming the jury is getting old too, that would be like saying Alien thinks OJ is guilty because she was a victim of DV.. The jury is who set the murderer free so of course they are to blame. They were an uneducated, biased group that accepted domestic violence as a way of life in a relationship and could not grasp the forensic evidence. IMO

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


alien
you have supported one of my previous post, that all women/men
should develope themselves professionally work wise so as to be financially independant of another. i made this comment in relations to nicole allowing herself to be completely dependant on oj financially. not a good idea.

my other point is that when a couple has a fight or argument the man is accused as the abuser. i have said that i don't hit and if i ever see a minor argument escalating into what may be out of controll behavior by either party, i remove myself from the enviroment.

some women that stay in abusive relationships do so because there is some kind of trade off with the abuser. i pay the bills and you allow me to control you or you have a good life style so you allow me to controll you. if oj was abusing nicole on a regular basis i think it was her personally responsibility to leave. she had her family and her friends for support.

if oj was having all these outside affairs and she knew it for a fact, then she had a responsibility to move on in the beginning.

what i don;t agree with is the notion that a abused person becomes helpless in doing anything about it. in nicoles situaiton i think she enjoyed the life style she and oj had and she was willing to accept this behavior by oj to continue to enjoy this life style.

now some women may be predisposed to be abused. maby because they are not secure in themselves and maby because they make the wrong choice in evaluating the person that they decide to be with. (looking at the "things" they get from the relationship and not the person)

some people have more explosive personalities than others.
i think tazzy said maby nicole had become jealous of these extra women.

when nicole met oj he was married. yet she allowed him to set her up in a apartment near his home so that she could be the other woman and she was willing to hold this position until oj got his divoice from his wife.

now she should have known that if he set me up as the other woman , this guy would more than likely have other women if i hooked up with him. but i looks like she overlooked this issue for the lifestyle she saw in front of her. whose fault was that?

when people make the wrong decisions about their mate, who is responsible?
again i see no reason that any person should hit another, I don't know any other way to say this except to say -- you are an idiot. No wonder you talk about your wife the way you do --

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


wukong

i never streatched out the "she was living on his dime " to mean all you have added to it. that was a streatch imo.

however, IF OJ WAS still paying the bills for her, it seems that a little common sense would have been in order for nicole especially if she knew he had a explosive personality. if that is true.
if she was of the opinion of the hell with him, i can do what i want
to do in his face and he has to take it. i don;t think that was a wise decision on her part.

why take the cash and rub it in ojs face. why not be a little discreat about her activities. many people that break up decide that it is best to wait for the final divoice to before spreading their wings, so to speak in public. this may have been a better course for nicole to take than the one it apperas she did take.
imo Do you and rayray never tire of trashing and blaming Nicole? Anything she did or did not do does not excuse OJ butchering her. Quit defending the murderer.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by rayraytwo
i am not saying that oj did not hit her. i don't know how often
or who caused these fights.

i had personal experience with with a family member, female, that when she was 16-18 she had two guys that hit her. it was not until we had been able to ger her to understand that it was she that had made the wrong choices of a boyfriend

i don't know where MR Brown was when his 17 year old daughter was living in a married mans apartment playing the role of the other woman. Ignorant post.

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Lenore Walker did not mean only one event when she referred to OJ as being a batterer at one time. She meant that at one time in his life. For example, at one point in someone's life could be their entire teenage years.


fbgweezer, I know you already know this, I just quoted your post because it was the shortest for me to be able to quote and respond to. Not a problem. I sometimes try to breakdown my posts to the two NGs to its simplest forms so that they might grasp the meaning -- I know, I know -- dumb of me to try.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


So true. They say "OJ might have hit her, but she could have/should have done bla bla bla" & go on for 5 paragraphs. They brush right past his heinous behavior. They suggest that she could have left. She did & look how it turned out. Pitiful. Did you ever get around to reading Petrocelli's book? I enjoyed it. I am reading Darden's now.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Did you ever get around to reading Petrocelli's book? I enjoyed it. I am reading Darden's now.

Hi fbg,

I am reading Petrocelli's book right now. I'm almost half way done with it. I like his approach to telling the story. Darden's is alright. His insight OJ disappearing is interesting.

:read:

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I'm about 1/2 way through Petrocelli's & I enjoy it also. Very easy to read. I laugh when I read when he talks about OJ's facial expressions (who me? nah) & noises. How do you like Darden's so far? Some parts of it were so perfect in description -- OJ big ole head wagging. LOL

I have just finished Toobin's and he was pretty tough on Darden (and all prosecutors) so I didn't know what to expect but after reading the first couple of chapters, I think it may be pretty good. Reading the history of where he was raised and his family dynamics puts him in a different light. I didn't feel one way or the other about him during the trial except I thought he acted really immature when it came to dealing with Cochran and I wasn't exactly in awe of his examination skills. I do believe though that he gave a very good closing when he talked about domestic abuse.

[weezer]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Hi fbg,

I am reading Petrocelli's book right now. I'm almost half way done with it. I like his approach to telling the story. Darden's is alright. His insight OJ disappearing is interesting.

:read: Like I said, I enjoyed Petrocelli's book and found some facts that I had not realized/registered before. The end is quite poignant.

Reading the first of Darden's book where he writes as though he is OJ outside of Nicole's is spookey..........Wonder how close to the mark it came? I think it may have hit the target -- especially when he talked about his obsession with Nicole -- HIS possession.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I'm about 1/2 way through Petrocelli's & I enjoy it also. Very easy to read. I laugh when I read when he talks about OJ's facial expressions (who me? nah) & noises. How do you like Darden's so far? Toobin wrote that you could always tell when the truth was too close for OJ's comfort -- he would start mouthing and reacting.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I just got a visual of a big old monkey at the zoo :tongue: LOL -- I don't remember what it was in but I saw a picture of him recently and thought what a fat, old man he was.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


those were students at Howard University, but i can see how it looked like the black community to you. At any rate, I was angry when the black community cheered the acquittal of their double murderer but then I thought about it and realized why wouldn't they cheer? They weren't afraid of him. They knew he wouldn't be living among them or dating/marrying their sisters or daughters.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


you may be able to force others to give you answers exactly and specifically the way uou want them BUT NOT ME.
:flamemad: ROFLMAO --- uuuuuuuu---oooooooo----you tell her rayray! hahahahahaha

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Problem- To Much Television and News

Solution- More interaction outside the OLD COMFORT ZONE Can't be -- remember, I'm the one that reads.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



RR2 and I aren't making excuses for OJ.. We're defending our position on his guilt or innocense, that's why this board was created...:seeya: Let's quit arguing over this.

netta, I understood you to say in an earlier post that you believed Fuhrman and Vannatter purposely played a part in protecting OJ but you never went further with your thoughts. I would like to hear them if you want to share.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty
I worked with a guy and met his family he was nice to me, but after the verdict he STOPPED speaking to me.. The day the verdict was read my entire department was so stunned they went outside to vent... All of them came back into the work area and for the entire day didn't speak to me!!

I took off the rest of the week and came back on Monday, some of them came around alot of them appeared to be ashamed for the way they reacted to me.. This one guy from that day to this one hasn't spoken a word to me.. NOT THAT I CARE!!

But you don't see me clumping the entire race into the same category as this 1 group of people!!! Sorry, but you do clump people into one category. I worked with a young black woman during the trial. Since we worked in a very busy department at a health science center, we didn't have time or resources to listen to the trial as it was happening and nothing much about it was ever said. On the day of the verdict, a group of us listened to the verdict read and the only comment made was from this one young woman: "I knew that n****r didn't kill that white girl."

As God is my witness I have just told the truth. I don't want to jump to conclusions but you didn't happen to react with glee when you heard the verdict did you?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
fbg

look
if nicole had not been killed by someone, and her lifestyle had come to light as it has now, YOU would be the first to call her a tramp. IMO

It's okay for OJ to be a man-wh*re, but it's not okay for Nicole to be a tramp? Why doesn't this surprise me coming from a man?

JMO and MOO!!

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


don't think this one would ever venture to a place where the people did not look like her. LOL

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


so what the hell are you worring about OJ AIN'T MOVING ON YOUR BLOCK. hahahahaha LOL

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
fbg

look
if nicole had not been killed by someone, and her lifestyle had come to light as it has now, YOU would be the first to call her a tramp. IMO You are wrong. There was no reason to call her a tramp. You are vile little man to continue trashing her.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


so what the hell are you worring about OJ AIN'T MOVING ON YOUR BLOCK. hahahahaha LOL -- he'd live on my block before he would yours. LOL

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
FBG

your words.

"DARDEN"

"I wasn't exactly in awe of his examination skills. I do believe though that he gave a very good closing when he talked about domestic abuse."

would you be so kind as to informe me whick law school you attended where you were taught proper examination skills LOL

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
alien


Originally posted by alien


. Again, I say, the jury was giving the finger to the white community.

not to the white community. that is the hateful stuff bob august pushes.

it may have to the lying cops and the fancy footed m clarke. but not all white people. how would that be possible. many white people thought oj was not guilty including the two that were on the jury. as always, the ill informed rayray is wrong.

[weezer]

netta,

I was serious when I asked about your theory of the case. I've never heard anything like it and would really like to hear what your thoughts are on it.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


-------------------------
I have not grouped anybody into 1 category, please review all my post..

I believed OJ was guilty, and so I didn't follow the trial in the beginning... In 2001 surfing the web I ran across Bob August website and his version of events, and i was thinking something isn't adding up.. I later went on to read Wagner site and he was able to explain some things that Bob's site completely ignored (IMO).. However, Wagners theory was a bit more than I could swallow.. However Wagner site did clear up the domestic violence for me, and that is what made me think that DV had nothing to do with OJ and Nicole's marriage.... why though? What about the DV makes you think it didn't play a part in the murder?

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


It was not there and there was NO escalation of violence.. you continue to take that stand even though all testimony and evidence -- including OJ himself -- show that there was violence?

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I know what you mean. Kinda like potato chips. Not really good for you, yet you pick up the bag anyway. :D

Hey, "Chick" :D

I opened the darn bag of chips again. Here I go to post some answers.

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


you can take my comment any way you like. since you asked, yes she does and she admits it. it is not said nor does she takle it in a hateful way as you seem to have concluded.

:seeya:

I have never hit my lady and she has a nice size trap on her (mouth)

RAY

I copied what you said. I took it to be disrespectful. I didn't use the word hateful. I said disrespectful. Mr Alien and I joke around and say things to each other, but we know from the git go, that it is joking around. It never gets out of hand. We say these things to each other. If I ever found out that he said something like you said to someone else, I would be upset and feel that he wasn't being respectful of me.

[alien]

Originally posted by nettathirty



This is a GENERALIZATION of what is perceived by a handful from something seen on television.

example:

Radical Minority makes a statement: Somehow this person speaks and represents the entire race. How is that?

I am not trying to start an argument with you. However, you and rayray have admitted to being Black and it is your comments that I was thinking about. Also, you said "something seen on television". If you are talking about what I saw after the verdict was read and saw Black people celebrating and cheering, what else would I think. Mark Furhman was shown to be a racist and the whole "color" (not trying to be a smarty pants here) of the trial changed.

Suddenly it wasn't about murder, it was about racism and the color of OJ's skin. IMO, MF was a small portion of the trial. It seems that after that, nothing else was going to matter. I do think that television distorted things after that whole MF debacle. Television started playing the race game. But, you know what, I never fell into that trap thinking it was White against Black. You only know me from this board, but my real life is about acceptance. I don't give a rat's a** about race, creed, origin etc. I watched the trial because I was interested at first. A famous person on trial for the murder of their ex-wife and some poor Joe that just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I watched the trial and read everthing I could get my hands on. That is what made me think OJ was guilty. I never thought of him as a Black man. Just OJ, who the public knew because of his football career, his commercials and his movies. I even thought he was a hotty.

When I saw the cheering on television by Black people, I was dumbfounded. How could anyone cheer that a murderer was set free. It boggled my mind. Then when I heard some of the comments by jurors, I was double dumbfounded. What happened to justice.

I could go on and on, but I hope you see what I am saying here.

[alien]

rayray, you addressed a long post to me and I want to address your points out of courtesy. However, I am going for my nap because I have to work an overnight shift.

I copied your post and will reply tonight when I am at work.

However, I really would like to see you do some research on DV. You mentioned in another post about a Family member being hit by boyfriends. Was she just hit or did she go through the entire gamit of what DV is all about? Believe me there is a huge huge difference.

Have a good weekend.

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


alien

that may very well be how you would take that comment and i see nothing wrong with you taking it that way.
but that is you. not my lady. her self esteeme and confidence is much to high and she is much too successful in her professional life for a comment like that to bother her at all. It was actually a small joke that i make the mistake of including in my post as it gave some the opportunity to try get personal with me. sorry.

Okay rayray, then we will drop the subject. However, don't ever think that I don't have self esteem and self confidence. I myself have am very succesful in my profession. I am a supervisor for a nation wide call center. I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Good for you and your lady.

If I took what you said at face value, from my way of thinking, it was disrespectful. If your lady doesn't think that way, that is cool. I just would never want my husband to say something to somebody who didn't know me from Adam to get a false impression of me. Does that make sense?

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


read my post. she made the wrong choices of two boyfriends and was abused by both by both hitting her for various b.s. ( short period of time) i put a stop to that in both instances.

however we felt that she needed some education on how to make choices, ( boys)which she got and was helped by it.

what i was trying to say is that some women/men continue to make these kind of wrong choices throughout their lives about their mates and this is one reason why abuse follows them.
and in some instances

Good for her that she had a family to help her out and educate her. However, DV is such a complex thing and that is what I will address to you. The other points you made.

[alien]

Originally posted by alien


Okay rayray, then we will drop the subject. However, don't ever think that I don't have self esteem and self confidence. I myself have am very succesful in my profession. I am a supervisor for a nation wide call center. I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Good for you and your lady.

If I took what you said at face value, from my way of thinking, it was disrespectful. If your lady doesn't think that way, that is cool. I just would never want my husband to say something to somebody who didn't know me from Adam to get a false impression of me. Does that make sense?

Let me add to this post. One of the reasons that I have the self esteem and self confidence in myself is that I took 7 years to find out who Alien really was. I learned to take care of myself and make all the decisions in my life. When that happened, I was ready for a good relationship. When Mr Alien came around, I was ready to make good choices. My Son (who has since passed away) introduced me to this wonderful man. I figured if my very protective Son saw something good in him, there was no way I could lose. We were both right. He is a wonderful husband and life companion. I pray you have the same relationship with your lady.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by rayraytwo

ok
i understand.. the ex califgirl, the volunteer night time play cop that rides around helping the cops bust her neighbors.

:lol:

At least Califgirl was doing something constructive with her down time which is more than you can say about what you do with your down time!

JMO and MOO!!

:rolleyes:

[limakey]

Wukong,

IMO, there has always been and always will be a double standard when it comes to a man cheating on his wife. It doesn't matter what race the man is, it doesn't matter if if he is rich or poor. Men are still able to get away with cheating because as we all know, "boys will be boys", "come on, she came on to me, what was I suppose to do?!" and my all time favorite, "it didn't mean anything, it was just sex!".

I also believe that there are men and yes, women who can separate sex and love. However, a woman does pay a price for this attitude and ability where I don't believe that men do.

In your example, you mentioned that Nicole was playing "hardball" about the kids. Now, how can she play the game without the ball? What Nicole meant by this statement never made any sense to me. She had no grounds to keep the kids away from OJ, in fact, it appears to me that she thought it was very important for her kids to have a relationship with their father. On the night of the murders, OJ and Nicole weren't speaking, he asked to speak to Sydney and she handed the phone over to her daughter. IMO, if she was playing "hardball", she would have said she was sleeping or just hung up on him.

Was Nicole statement about "hardball" really along the lines of no more picking them up late and no more dropping them off early. No more picking them up early and no more keeping them late? No more switching weekends----if you have a business meeting and need to be out of town or whatever, they you take care of the daycare arrangements, etc.

Nicole simply had no grounds to keep the kids away from OJ.

[limakey]

Taz,

Again, what did the inside of the house have to do with the actual evidence? What did the pictures of his family and friends have do with where the socks were found? What did it have do where the glove was found?

Isn't it fair to say that both sides do their best in every single trial to sway the jury to their side? From day one, the DA's and the LAPD went on offensive to taint the jury the pool, why else was the 911 taped released? What about the leaks that could have only come from the police?

And how is a defense team to counter them? It goes both ways. I think it is fair to say is that both sides want to win and they will seek and do their best to ensure that they take advantage of each and every opportunity to do this. IMO.

[limakey]

Wukong,

I have never met a person who has been through a divorce that did not have feelings of guilt and in some cases, a deep sense of failure. I know how I feel about mine and I am reminded of this everytime I look at my child.

When a woman is married to a man who was never faithful to his first wife, I don't understand how she can so shattered that he is now unfaithful to her. Did she really think that things would be different with her? A woman only has two choices in situations like these, either she turns a blind eye to it or she gets a divorce because of it. I give Nicole a lot of credit for her divorce--she finally understood what she felt for a long a time, that she could not and would not put up with the cheating. You can love someone with every fiber of your being, but if you can't trust that person to be faithful, how can you have a marriage?

OJ Simpson saw Nicole in a very intimate position with another man, what did he do? He rang the door bell and walked a way. The next day, he confronted Nicole and her date and what did he do? He shook the other guy's hand, said that his concern was that anyone could have seen them and that his kids were in the house. I don't know about you, and you may call me petty and immature, but if I saw my ex in the same situation, I would have ruined that Kodac moment in heartbeat. I never would have left until I knew they knew that I was there and I saw them. Again, you can call me petty, immature and even a vandalizer, because I'm pretty sure the cops would have been called after I threw a brick at the window, but I still would take satisfaction knowing that I at least interupted their mood.

You are also forgetting that Cora went to OJ and told him that Nicole was in trouble, that he needed to get away from Bundy. He didn't listen. How could he not feel guilty about that?

Also, it seems to me that Nicole did use OJ as a sounding board during their breakups, I believe he did warn her about her new circle of friends, that they were going to bring her down. Apparently, he didn't make his case strong enough because he believes that it was this circle of friends that got her killed.

Wukong, have you ever said a disrespectful thing to the mother of your children? Have you ever hung up on a girlfriend? Have you ever said anything that you later regretted and did you have the courage to say you are sorry?

OJ and Nicole Simpson were human, they had 17 years together and not every day was perfect, but then again, who does have a perfect marriage? Who can honestly say that they never have said or did anything to their spouse or significant other that were later ashamed of themselves?

I remember thinking about the 1993 incident and when it was played over and over again and how to many people, this was all they need to hear to know, actually know that OJ killed Nicole. My response is, how many times on that same night and that very same minute that this same type of scene was being played across thousands of homes in our country and around the world but the cops were never called?

My point is, if you are a perfect human being, a perfect husband or wife, then by all means, post away about the Simpson's marriage. However, if you have done some of the same things that they have done to each other, I think your comments should be limited. IMO.

[limakey]

Kate,

Trying to figure out someone else's thought process can go both ways. It can be fun but it also can be so far off of the mark. For instance, in one of your posts, you defended Nicole's use of force against OJ Simpson because he was bigger than she was. Now, I could come back and say what an ignorant and arrogant thing to post but there is nothing in your past posts that leads me to believe that you are arrogant or ignorant.

However, and I'm sure you are very well aware of just how dangerous and ignorant your post can be taken. For someone who is not educated, they could easily interpet your thought process to be that domestic violence only counts against the person who is bigger. That it only counts or is only serious if a bruise or a mark is left on the victim. Or if, lets say a man takes a swing at his wife and misses, then it doesn't count.

You raise your hand against another human being, regardless of your sex or size, you are intending to inflict injury. Just because it didn't hurt, didn't leave a mark or the person didn't get a good shot at another person, doesn't mean that domestic violence didn't take place.

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


she knows no one on this message board and sometines wonder why i spend my time posting here. since she knows that i always respect her opinions and what she does, she has no reason to think otherwise.

i have never spoken about your self esteem as i would have no idea about that subject.:)

That's cool then.

[limakey]

Ray,

IMO, OJ and Nicole did push each other's buttons (which is another reason why I don't believe he killed her) but I don't think that was the case with the kids.

They both had ample opportunity to turn their personal war into an all out war that included Sydney and Justin and I don't think there is any evidence to support that.

In fact, I think one of the most interesting aspects of Paula Barberi in this mix is that she was just plain tired of being second to Nicole and the children. Paula played a tough game and she won a few of the battles but she knew she would never win the war.

[limakey]

SoCal,

In reading several of the posts, it does appear to me that anything that OJ ever said or did to Nicole is just more evidence of his guilt. Yet, the examples used are very common in many marriages and in many divorces.

And every single that Nicole ever did or said to OJ or to Michelle or whoever else pissed her off, is clearly within her right to do so. That simply is not how it works nor is it fair to the people that Nicole did hurt, including the maid. I think it was in American Tragedy that in a couple of the focus groups, Nicole's treatment of the household staff did not go over well. And that was before they knew that she actually slapped a maid. Nicole's violence toward people is just as bad as OJ's violence. Because she is a female is no reason to justify her actions and words.

I do agree with you, that Nicole's "hardball" could have meant nothing more then ensuring that he kept on schedule when it came to visitation with the kids. However, some people have turned this into another motive for OJ Simpson.

[limakey]

Ray and Netta,

From what I remember, Nicole wanted to separate. OJ didn't want to separate and he gave Nicole a choice, if she really wanted a separation, then it would end in a divorce. Nicole did file for separation and I think it was OJ who filed for divorce.

Apparently OJ was very happy with Paula when Nicole approached OJ with a reconcilliation offer. I think they agreeded to try it out and in a year, they would either re-marry or break up again.

I don't think people ignore that it was Nicole who wanted to get back together again, I think they ignore the pattern of behavior and some very significant points. Nicole was a devout Catholic, she ensured her children were raised Catholic and she was truly a devoted mother. She really wanted things to work out and wanted to have a two parent home for her children. There is nothing wrong with that.

People also ignore that while OJ was complete dog when it came to other women, he didn't like the fact that he was divorced for a second time either.

I think Nicole and OJ both knew how to push each other's buttons and I also believe that OJ Simpson had no reason or motive to kill Nicole.

IMO, he always believed that he and Nicole would end up together and I think Nicole felt the same way. Just at this point in their lives, it just wasn't working out.

I have not seen any evidence to even suggest that Nicole and OJ's last break up was different from all the others. I haven't seen any evidence where Nicole just sucked up OJ's cheating and somehow this time it was different. There wasn't enough time.

What is interesting is that in Faye's book, she keeps saying that OJ said that if Nicole started seeing someone before August, before he left for New York for the football season, he would kill Nicole. That never made any sense, yet it is often repeated in her book. First, stalkers don't leave nor do they say that they will only kill before a certain date but after that date, the person is safe. Makes no sense. I still think Faye is the key to this case. IMO.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey
Kate,

Trying to figure out someone else's thought process can go both ways. It can be fun but it also can be so far off of the mark. For instance, in one of your posts, you defended Nicole's use of force against OJ Simpson because he was bigger than she was. Now, I could come back and say what an ignorant and arrogant thing to post but there is nothing in your past posts that leads me to believe that you are arrogant or ignorant.

However, and I'm sure you are very well aware of just how dangerous and ignorant your post can be taken. For someone who is not educated, they could easily interpet your thought process to be that domestic violence only counts against the person who is bigger. That it only counts or is only serious if a bruise or a mark is left on the victim. Or if, lets say a man takes a swing at his wife and misses, then it doesn't count.

You raise your hand against another human being, regardless of your sex or size, you are intending to inflict injury. Just because it didn't hurt, didn't leave a mark or the person didn't get a good shot at another person, doesn't mean that domestic violence didn't take place.

limakey,

I think you may have missed the point in that post. rayraytwo was pointing ut that Nicole could hold her own against OJ in a fight. I found that offensive and was responding with exactly why she wouldn't be able to hold her own. I'm not certain how you interpreted that to mean that I was defending violence of any sort?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey

And every single that Nicole ever did or said to OJ or to Michelle or whoever else pissed her off, is clearly within her right to do so. That simply is not how it works nor is it fair to the people that Nicole did hurt, including the maid. I think it was in American Tragedy that in a couple of the focus groups, Nicole's treatment of the household staff did not go over well. And that was before they knew that she actually slapped a maid. Nicole's violence toward people is just as bad as OJ's violence. Because she is a female is no reason to justify her actions and words.


I'm stunned.

I do believe you have much to research on domestic violence, or at the very least should read some of the things I posted in regard to this very idea some pages back.

Any person that you contact that works in the field of domestic violence will be able to explain to you far better than I that there is a very large difference between an instance of battery and being a batterer.

In general, the majority of what you post reagrding domestic violence seems to have a very limited view and knowledge. I would go as far as to say that the actual batterers that I have met with would even tell you as much.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo

Some people just want to ignore the instances where nicole wanted to get back with oj and he said NO. I don't think oj faught the divoice.

Sometimes I truly don't think you read this board, but rather just post when you have something you want to say.

No one has ever ignored that Nicole wanted to reconcile and that OJ at first said no. As a matter of fact, I myself have posted greatly on this topic and not too long again.

What is it about you and netta that ignore such things, since she agreed that everyone ignores this topic?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,

Again, what did the inside of the house have to do with the actual evidence? What did the pictures of his family and friends have do with where the socks were found? What did it have do where the glove was found?

Isn't it fair to say that both sides do their best in every single trial to sway the jury to their side? From day one, the DA's and the LAPD went on offensive to taint the jury the pool, why else was the 911 taped released? What about the leaks that could have only come from the police?

And how is a defense team to counter them? It goes both ways. I think it is fair to say is that both sides want to win and they will seek and do their best to ensure that they take advantage of each and every opportunity to do this. IMO.

Limakey,

Exactly!! What did the inside of the house have to do with the evidence???? Why were they exposed to this? Why did they change it???? Why did they change it??? WHY did they change it? And, why would Ito let them walk THRU the house? And, especially thru the trophy room? It was an orchastrated manipulation. That's not how the house looked on the night in question. I believe that was the worst type of manipulation. Using race. They played on this jurys emotions to win. To get off of a murder charge.

Yes, it is fair to say that both sides do their best to sway the jury. However, if a man is innocent I don't feel they have to create an illusion. It is funny that you blame the LAPD for all of this media manipulation since Johnny Cochran and team had daily conferences to dog the LAPD and prosecution. They accused them of all types of misconduct. In public.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


are you sure?
i guess in your mind he would see you and say to himself WOW i want a house next to fbg, i could mack her.:) :confused:

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*

People also ignore that while OJ was complete dog when it came to other women, he didn't like the fact that he was divorced for a second time either.

I think Nicole and OJ both knew how to push each other's buttons and I also believe that OJ Simpson had no reason or motive to kill Nicole.

IMO, he always believed that he and Nicole would end up together and I think Nicole felt the same way. Just at this point in their lives, it just wasn't working out.

I have not seen any evidence to even suggest that Nicole and OJ's last break up was different from all the others. I haven't seen any evidence where Nicole just sucked up OJ's cheating and somehow this time it was different. There wasn't enough time.

*snip*First, stalkers don't leave nor do they say that they will only kill before a certain date but after that date, the person is safe. Makes no sense. I still think Faye is the key to this case. IMO.

Limakey,

I don't think any one ignores that OJ didn't want to be divorced or didn't like it. I agree with that. I agree that he WANTED to be with Nicole. But, he didn't want to be with her enough to stop cheating. No one, not even him, can expect someone to stay under those circumstances.

I also believe that both OJ and Nicole pushed each others buttons. I believe Nicole tried to stand up for herself. I believe she tried to "not put up with" his mistreatment. However, that is a fight she could never win. He was much better at it all. He could take away friends, money and threatened to take away the kids.

I think you are completely wrong about OJ thinking that they would get back together this time. She found out that he was still seeing Paula during their reconciliation. He could always manipulate her with money. That's why he sent the IRS letter. But, it wasn't working this time. She was actually going to move instead of giving in to him. She returned a very expensive gift. She wasn't going to be bought this time. Things were definately different this time. She was trying to stand on her own two feet. She was going to move out of the area. That had never happened before. OJ left messages stating that for the first time IN HIS LIFE he was completely single. Please don't ignore that. He WAS upset because he was divorced, wasn't going to have the kids back in the house and Nicole was "playing hardball" with the kids.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by rayraytwo
it is a sad situaiton for a "weak" person to find themselves in.
however i do believe that there is always a way out. people just have to reject what ever trade off they have made and get out. You obviously do NOT understand DV........Just like the murders, you continue to blame the victim. Pathetic.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The jury hasn't never said, the MF issue was a deciding factor, where are you getting this? Juror Carrie Bess after the verdict, "We take care of our own." I've forgotten the black male jurors name but you'll know the one -- he gave OJ the black power salute after the verdict.

[weezer]

*Snipped *Originally posted by limakey
In your example, you mentioned that Nicole was playing "hardball" about the kids. Now, how can she play the game without the ball? What Nicole meant by this statement never made any sense to me. She had no grounds to keep the kids away from OJ, in fact, it appears to me that she thought it was very important for her kids to have a relationship with their father. On the night of the murders, OJ and Nicole weren't speaking, he asked to speak to Sydney and she handed the phone over to her daughter. IMO, if she was playing "hardball", she would have said she was sleeping or just hung up on him.
The hardball statement was made by OJ to Kato after the recital when OJ was whining about how Nicole was dressed, etc.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
And how is a defense team to counter them? It goes both ways. I think it is fair to say is that both sides want to win and they will seek and do their best to ensure that they take advantage of each and every opportunity to do this. IMO. I think the difference is that the defense is allowed to denigrate/bash/trash victims and even witnesses to further their arguments. In this trial, the dream team told such blatant and ourlandish lies/theories and were never made to prove any of it up. The jury wanted to let OJ go and the dream team threw out enough garbage to allow that to happen. MOO

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
Wukong, have you ever said a disrespectful thing to the mother of your children? Have you ever hung up on a girlfriend? Have you ever said anything that you later regretted and did you have the courage to say you are sorry? However OJ and Nicole interacted could have possibly been like millions of couples with a couple of huge differences: There are pictures, police reports, the 911 call, battered women's shelter call log and Nicole's diary that show the abuse over many years AND she was brutally murdered with ONLY three people's blood and DNA at the crime scene -- OJ, Nicole, Ron.

[weezer]

Originally posted by limakey
Kate,

Trying to figure out someone else's thought process can go both ways. It can be fun but it also can be so far off of the mark. For instance, in one of your posts, you defended Nicole's use of force against OJ Simpson because he was bigger than she was. Now, I could come back and say what an ignorant and arrogant thing to post but there is nothing in your past posts that leads me to believe that you are arrogant or ignorant.

However, and I'm sure you are very well aware of just how dangerous and ignorant your post can be taken. For someone who is not educated, they could easily interpet your thought process to be that domestic violence only counts against the person who is bigger. That it only counts or is only serious if a bruise or a mark is left on the victim. Or if, lets say a man takes a swing at his wife and misses, then it doesn't count.

You raise your hand against another human being, regardless of your sex or size, you are intending to inflict injury. Just because it didn't hurt, didn't leave a mark or the person didn't get a good shot at another person, doesn't mean that domestic violence didn't take place. I've never interpreted anything Kate has posted to infer that it was okay for ANY abuse in the Simpson marriage. I understood her post to be that OJ was so much larger than Nicole AND Nicole was the one bruised and cut -- that for him to float his story about how Nicole abused him is ridiculous. MOO

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


kate

i have never read that you knew oj or nicole or were ever in their presance. so i don't know if you are able to evaluate the physical abilities it either.
ojs doctor testified that he was in not in very good shape. " if you put him on a chair and asked him to jump off he could not do it"

because he was a professional football player some years ago does not mean that he was in the same shape at the time of the murders as he was when he played ball. as a matter of fact most exfootball players suffer from all kinds of physical problems after retirement and many have their careers shortened because of these problems.

some of nicoles friends have said that she gave as good as she got or something very close to that because she was in great physical shape. this does not mean that for sure she could give oj a goos lick or two and it does not mean that oj could have his way with her in every confrontation.

additonally maby you should consider not talking others post here as a personal affront to yourself.

If nothing else, you have given me a laugh this morning. You obviously do not understand that you do not need to "know" two people in order to comprehend the very simple fact that a man at 200 and some pounds will always be able to overtake a woman at 135 unless some type of special martial arts was involved, which we all know wasn't.

Furthermore, we know that he could and did over take her that night. How? He didn't have a lump while she was clearly beaten.

Please come back and post to me when you can interpret something logically and lay off the games.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I've never interpreted anything Kate has posted to infer that it was okay for ANY abuse in the Simpson marriage. I understood her post to be that OJ was so much larger than Nicole AND Nicole was the one bruised and cut -- that for him to float his story about how Nicole abused him is ridiculous. MOO

Thank you for understanding my post.

I'm not quite certain how it was interpreted any other way.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
i think ac was a stand up guy for nicole and oj.

the kind of guy one would like for a fox hole buddy.
ray Yes, I can see that you would admire him. If I were an abuser and muderer, I'd like my very own lackey too. I could send him to the house to get the bag of stash I'd hid in the neighbor's trash can. I could let him take the wife I'd beat up to the hospital while I went to the Rose Bowl. I could call him over to my hotel in the middle of the night so I could berate my wife in front of him and then have him go down to the parking lot to pick up her clothes. Geez, there's any number of things my 'fox hole buddy' could help me out with.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
alien

i under dv quite well. low self esteem in the abuser and the abused, need to control another person, mean streak, loneliness,
manipulative behavior, and many other negative traits and attitudes. the victim of abuse over a long time seem to tell herself that she is traped and there is no way to recover to a good relationship.

it is a sad situaiton for a "weak" person to find themselves in.
however i do believe that there is always a way out. people just have to reject what ever trade off they have made and get out.

Not all women who end up in abusive relationships start out weak or lacking self confidence. The dynamic is that they are eventually broken down and disciplined that way.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
And every single that Nicole ever did or said to OJ or to Michelle or whoever else pissed her off, is clearly within her right to do so. That simply is not how it works nor is it fair to the people that Nicole did hurt, including the maid. I think it was in American Tragedy that in a couple of the focus groups, Nicole's treatment of the household staff did not go over well. And that was before they knew that she actually slapped a maid. Nicole's violence toward people is just as bad as OJ's violence. Because she is a female is no reason to justify her actions and words.
Since you said earlier that had you caught your husband cheating on you that 'the police would have been called' because of the reaction you would have had. I wonder what you would have done when you found the housekeeper was hiding his *****s in her bedroom to keep you from finding them? IIRC, the maid never did testify to the slapping.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


fbg

maby you need to read the law as it relates to the responsibilities of defense council as it relates to defending their clients.

Perhaps we all should because I find it interesting that Alan Derschowitz (one of OJ's defense attorneys) stated in an interview that at times during the trial he was uncertain how he could sleep at night and had to question himself on whether or not he was defending a client within the legal moral guidelines.

Interesting.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


maby you should post answers to your own quesitons this way you will be guaranteed to get the answers you agree with.:)

This is your vintage response when you know that you've been made to look like a fool, so thank you for another laugh.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by rayraytwo
ojs doctor testified that he was in not in very good shape. " if you put him on a chair and asked him to jump off he could not do it"

because he was a professional football player some years ago does not mean that he was in the same shape at the time of the murders as he was when he played ball. as a matter of fact most exfootball players suffer from all kinds of physical problems after retirement and many have their careers shortened because of these problems.

additonally maby you should consider not talking others post here as a personal affront to yourself. Wrong, AGAIN. You need to read the doctor's cross-examination testimony -- OJ was not crippled and was more than capable of committing the murders........obviously. Did you not see the infomercial workout video he was filming -- certainly looked fit to me. Do you not realize that he was also filming the Frogmen movie that required him to be physically fit?

You advising other posters not to take things personal is laughable.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by rayraytwo
the pros leaked dna results before some test were even done.
Please post a link to this statement.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


tazzy
i am sure you know that both sides did damage control for thier sides in the case.
the pros leaked dna results before some test were even done.
talked to the media all the time. no defense will just keep their mouths closed and they should do as much damage control as required on bahalf of their client.

it is my personal opinion that the trip through the throphy room did little to sway the jury one way or the other. imo.

Hi rayray,

Yes, I know that both sides did damage control. However, I believe that the defense went way too far. The defense made up allegations. They lied. The prosecution leaked true information. And, I also don't think it was the prosecution who did it on purpose. Most of the time it was people not directly involved in the investigation/prosecution.

I disagree with you that the trophy room had no effect. I don't think it was any kind of deciding factor. I believe that it helped the jury continue to believe that he could not have killed her. No way could this rich, famous and super athlete kill his wife. It was unjust prejudice.

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Thank you for understanding my post.

I'm not quite certain how it was interpreted any other way. I get the feeling sometimes that misunderstandings are needed for some posters to expound on their ignorance of this case. MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


fbg

maby you need to read the law as it relates to the responsibilities of defense council as it relates to defending their clients. I'll read the law when you read the transcripts of this case.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
the winner or one that stands his own ground or is able to defend himself/herself in a physical altercation is not determined by weight of the two people. it is determined by who gets in the best and some times the first blow. jason made statements about how much nicole had seemed to have bulked up of late. i guess from weight lifting, so she may have been in better shape
than some 135 lb women.

but if oj did go to bundy and nicole had placed the large knife on the table because of some noise she may have heard outside, wouldnt she have taken the knife to the door when she opened it.

It is a proven fact that no matter how conditioned a woman is, she will rarely be as strong as her male counterpart.

Why do you think that men and women take two seperate physical tests when they are trying to become a firefighter? Because women (most) are unable to pass the same physical test that a man can.

It doesn't matter how rosey you attempt to paint the picture.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
the winner or one that stands his own ground or is able to defend himself/herself in a physical altercation is not determined by weight of the two people. it is determined by who gets in the best and some times the first blow. jason made statements about how much nicole had seemed to have bulked up of late. i guess from weight lifting, so she may have been in better shape
than some 135 lb women.

but if oj did go to bundy and nicole had placed the large knife on the table because of some noise she may have heard outside, wouldnt she have taken the knife to the door when she opened it. You mean the winner wouldn't have any marks but the loser would? Kinda like the marks on OJ and Nicole had that night? Oh, that's right -- OJ didn't have any injuries.

Since there is undisputable proof that OJ did go to bundy that night and that OJ did murder Nicole and Ron, I assume your remark about why she wouldn't have taken the knife to the door is for?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i will try to set you straight one more time.
the issue is not strength of either party. as we are not talking about a wrestling match where strength is important.

the issue is, who can fight the best in a tussle and who can defend him/herself best when attacked. kicking, slinging arms and fist included. it has nothing to do with weight or strength. but you may not understand this because i doubt that you have ever been in a fight with a man or a active woman.

You have failed to set me straight, but I appreciate your attempts.

Why is it that you doubt that I've ever been in a fight?

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


defense attorneys are required to use everything in their power to create reasonable doubt , by law. Wrong

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


maby you should post answers to your own quesitons this way you will be guaranteed to get the answers you agree with.:) Kate, he may have a point here. We know that the debates would be much more intelligent than you have with some posters on this board.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by rayraytwo
i will try to set you straight one more time.
the issue is not strength of either party. as we are not talking about a wrestling match where strength is important. But, but, OJ said they were 'wrassling' --

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


well is was said that ron had defensive wounds on this hands.
i think the prosecution tried to say ther were not defensive wounds. but oj had none on his body. so who did ron hit with his fist. every expert agreed that ron put up a big fight for his life. did he not hit oj at all? You are correct -- they did all say that Ron fought for his life. They also all agreed that he was trapped between the iron fence and the tree and that his flailing probably resulted him hitting the tree instead of his attacker (OJ). How do you think OJ's cap and glove were found at Ron's feet? How do you think OJ's hair got on Ron's shirt?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


just a assumption from your post. as you seem to be against violence in any shape or form at any time. but i could be wrong.

so have you been in a fight with a man or woman, if so who won?

You are correct that I have never once been in a physical altercation. You are also correct that I am against violence in any form, though let the record show that I would not hesitate to defend myself if attacked.

[tazzybaby]

Something that I find odd....

Allen Park was the one who picked up Paula Barbieri after the murders and took her to Rockingham. That is wild to me. Especially since his boss had to know that the would be a witness in the trial. It just seems wierd to me. I wonder if OJ requested it so he could talk to Allen Park?

:read:

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


if kate would post her own answers to her quesitons, there would be no debate as she would always get responses that she agree with. there would be no debate. but debate is why we are here i think.

you may want to consider answering yourself also, this way i am sure you will become less frustrated and angry at the person giving you the response.:) LOL -- do you even pay attention to what you post?

[tazzybaby]

Hi rayray,

We are just going to have to disagree on the changing of the house for the jurors. I believe it was wrong. I believe that pictures that they took down and replaced was wrong. And, if OJ was truly innocent he wouldn't have to go thru such theatrics.

[weezer]

Originally posted by tazzybaby
Something that I find odd....

Allen Park was the one who picked up Paula Barbieri after the murders and took her to Rockingham. That is wild to me. Especially since his boss had to know that the would be a witness in the trial. It just seems wierd to me. I wonder if OJ requested it so he could talk to Allen Park?

:read: My guess is that this is the car service that for years had catered to OJ so that's who OJ trusted. Besides, who thought OJ was guilty those first days? Certainly not me.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


if kate would post her own answers to her quesitons, there would be no debate as she would always get responses that she agree with. there would be no debate. but debate is why we are here i think.

you may want to consider answering yourself also, this way i am sure you will become less frustrated and angry at the person giving you the response.:)

rayraytwo,

I very much enjoy debating ... when it is done with a level of intelligence, information, and a willing to be wrong at times. It seems to me as though you are never willing to be wrong.

I'm not afraid to give you credit where credit is due. For example, you pointed out something several pages back that was right on target regarding victims of violence. You made the statement that some women who have been in such a position continue to make choices with other partners that are unwise and allow the same scenario to continue on. That is very true, and that is how the cycle of violence continues.

I once met with a woman who was abused in her five year long relationship. After that relationship was over she ended up being in three more relationships in which she was either physically or emotionally abused. It was her own doing after her initial relationship ended that the cycle of violence continued for her.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
tazzy

just because nicole was moving did not mean that oj would not be able to see his kids on the schedule dictated by the family court. it may mean that he/she may have had to drive further for the meetings but no way would she be able to keep him from seeing his kids on a regular basis. nor do i think she would want to do this.

i have always thought that ojs refusal to participate in the irs scam( he was advised by his lawyer not to expose himself in nicoles plan) was a message to nicole. "ok we are now seperated for good. you go your way and i go mine. no reason for me to participate in this scam. you will have to make due with the payments i give every month. how you arrange your finances is your business not mine. no more extra help from me"
i see nothing wrong with him talking this position. she was saying it is over. he was saying it is over. I don't think Nicole was playing hardball with OJ's visitation, etc. It's not as though he was a hand-on dad anyway. Between his work, golf and girlfriend schedules, he just didn't have time for the kids on a regular basis.

I believe Nicole made it clear to OJ that she was not returning to him and that is when the escalation started. The IRS threat, the expensive jewelry and even his acceptance of her smoking (the lighter he gave as a gift) were not enough to change her mind.

[weezer]

I was reading trial books this weekend and found where altough the defense touted Dr Lenore Walker saying that OJ did not fit the profile of a batterer, she had, before she was hired by the defense, given a speech at USC where she said OJ did fit the classic profile of a batterer. Also, the national domestic violence association came out after her statements about OJ not fitting the batterer profile and said how she came up with that was a 'mystery' to them since OJ was by all accounts, by all experts, a perfect pattern to an abuser/batterer. Wonder why the defense 'leaked' Walker's statements instead of calling her to the stand to testify?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I was reading trial books this weekend and found where altough the defense touted Dr Lenore Walker saying that OJ did not fit the profile of a batterer, she had, before she was hired by the defense, given a speech at USC where she said OJ did fit the classic profile of a batterer. Also, the national domestic violence association came out after her statements about OJ not fitting the batterer profile and said how she came up with that was a 'mystery' to them since OJ was by all accounts, by all experts, a perfect pattern to an abuser/batterer. Wonder why the defense 'leaked' Walker's statements instead of calling her to the stand to testify?

Very interesting find, fbgweezer.

In Walker's notes that were turned over to the prosecution in the civil trial she stated that OJ did fit the definition of a batterer and that Nicole did fit the definition of a battered spouse. These notes were taken by Walkler when the criminal trial was going on, so no one can say that she just changed her testimony to fit the civil trial.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


as god is my witness i don't belive your last paragraph. you know you KNEW oj was guilty of murdering nicole on 6/11.:) Kiss my azz rayray. If you have nothing to add to a post except your ignorant remarks, just pass. Go do something else. Hey, I've got it! Read the trial transcripts.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



They all knew on this date... LOL:beer: And you and rayray knew he hadn't -- Isn't it funny how that works?

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



She first said OJ fit the description based on what she heard in the media.. Then after she examined the Football Great she realized OJ wasn't a batterer!!!

Simple as that You can't twist this one -- she made the statement before the defense hired her and then also wrote it in her notes after interviewing OJ...........Even OJ said he abused Nicole, why won't you accept that?

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kayleighjo


Considering that he refers to his wife as having a big trap one might assume that he's lacking a little in some necessary areas of his marriage that require some upkeeping from outside individuals, if ya know what I mean.;) :lol:

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


nope on 6/13 when the news hit i thought , why oj. did you do this? on 6/17 i thought and asked my lady do you think he did this did?

after the trial started i knew oj did not kill anyone but maby a squirrel with a golf ball on the 18th hole.:) You are the person OJ and the dream team prayed for and got...... LOL

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


kay
from your post it seems that you do have more experience in the area of cheating and AZZ kicking husbands than most on this thread. it may be your nasty mouth that caused you to receive those black eyes and broken arms from your many husbands.:) you pitiful little man...........how dare you attack someone so maliciously. I think you have gone too far and need to be reported.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kayleighjo
[B]

Your ignorance :


Granted we're on different teams, and from time to time we will have to disagree, but I give you my promise not to result to insults... I'm going to be sorely disappointed in you if you back rayray in his malicious attack on kay........We are always telling each other that we're ignorant about some subject or the other but his remarks went beyond the line.

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kayleighjo


The funny thing fbg is that rayray has finally showed his true colors. We now know why he goes to such lengths to protect OJ, because he obviously condones battering.

Don't worry hun, it doesn't bother me. In fact, I'm glad he posted it so that we all can see just how much like OJ Simpson rayray truly is, though I'm guessing without the cash and many other women on the side. ;) I guess you are right about rayray showing what he is but there is still no place on this board for his vicisiouness..........no reason to attack you personally.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


kay
from your post it seems that you do have more experience in the area of cheating and AZZ kicking husbands than most on this thread. it may be your nasty mouth that caused you to receive those black eyes and broken arms from your many husbands.:)

I am almost speechless in response to what I have read above.

Your character has shown through, and what it is showing is something that only the most vile and disgusting type of individual would dream of posting to another person.

Your message has been recieved loud and clear rayraytwo, and it's a message that is unfortunate to any abused woman in this country and in this world. You have made it clear that violence and condoning such violence will never cease as long as individuals such as yourself continue to exist.

How disgusting.

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I am almost speechless in response to what I have read above.

Your character has shown through, and what it is showing is something that only the most vile and disgusting type of individual would dream of posting to another person.

Your message has been recieved loud and clear rayraytwo, and it's a message that is unfortunate to any abused woman in this country and in this world. You have made it clear that violence and condoning such violence will never cease as long as individuals such as yourself continue to exist.

How disgusting. :beer:

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


my post is to kay for the filthy post she made to me. so you can just shut up. Are you telling me to shut my 'big trap'? :no:

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


since you call my post vile. obviously you did not read the comments about my lady by kay to fbg which caused my post to be what it was. There is nothing in that post that could possibly justify your malicious and hateful attack on kay. The others are right -- you have shown yourself for what you are.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


fbg
BIG TRAP is your way of putting it not mine.
you never told me the size of the azz you told me to kiss so how would i know if you have a BIG trap or not? You just don't get it do you?

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


kay
would you mind explaining exactly what you meant by your above post. in plain english if you can.
ray why don't you go first? Explain to her just exactly what your hateful, malicious post meant. You know, the one where you say she deserves broken arms and black eyes. Go ahead rayray, tell us all.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty




Here's a suggestion, can we get back to the reason this thread was created.. OJ :beer:

[limakey]

Taz,

Don't know how closely you followed the Jackson trial but the judge imposed a gag order on all parties. Right before the trial started I think a reporter got a hold of the grand jury transcripts or something like that. The judge then gave an order that Michael Jackson could make a statement regarding this but it had to be within the guidelines he set.

The point is, that much of the media spin on this case started long before Johnnie Cochran came on the case. And those leaks could have only come from the police and the DA's office.

I do believe that both sides are media savy enough to know that you may lose the case the court of law, but it is a whole different story with the court of public opinon. Neither side has a monopoly on ethics when it comes to this, IMO.

While I'm sure that Mr. Simpson's home was impressive, even with out any changes, I'm sure the jurors were more baffled about how the glove got back there, why there was no evidence leading to it or from it and the carpet was white, where is all the blood? And what about Bundy? That hurt the DA's case more then Rockingham did. The area was so much smaller, with the condo cleaned out, it was difficult to understand how no one heard anything.

It goes both ways.

[limakey]

Taz,

Define hardball. The only hardball Nicole could play was to ensure that OJ maintained or kept to the parental visitation schedule. There is no evidence to suggest that Nicole wanted to keep the kids aways from OJ, there is no evidence to suggest that OJ ever threatened Nicole with the kids.

OJ and Nicole both knew each other's weak points and it happened to be their genuine love for one another. They weren't perfect, but they knew deep down inside that each other were the loves of their life. However, there are many people who have had a love of their life and haven't been able to make a go of a relationship or a marriage. It does happen.

I also firmly believe there are people in this world you can't stand so much that borders on hate, yet you can respect that person for their job performance or ethics. I also believe that you can love a person dearly but not trust or respect them. I think that is where Nicole was with OJ. She could never ever trust him and I don't blame her.

In one of the letters that Nicole writes to OJ she talks about him taking about the "30 thing", and I have seen many friends of both sexes go through pretty radical changes during this age. I truly believe in "mid life crisis" and I don't think it is anything to laugh at or make fun of. They do happen and OJ may have thought that Nicole needed to get some things of things out of her system, to try things she felt that she missed because she was with him for so long and that when everything was said and done, they would be together in their villa in Mexico, like they talked about for years.

Have you ever had a friend who has broken up with someone or divorced someone but when you talk to that person, they tell you how the other person keeps calling them and acting like they are still together or that it is like they broke up yesterday instead of 5 years ago? IMO, OJ and Nicole had some many break ups and makes up, that I think each felt comfortable knowing that if they really wanted the other back, it would happen, all they needed was time because still at the end of the day, they still loved each other.

While I no longer have any feelings for my ex, I still say my prayers at night and thank God for him because without him, I wouldn't have my son.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

It was getting a little off track, I hope HOTWATER doesn't shut us down!!

Excuse me, but what's up with the "holier than thou" attitude all of a sudden? GMAFB!

[tazzybaby]

Hi Limakey,

So, you believe the note that Nicole sent to OJ? You believe the things that she said, right? Well, that should mean that you also believe the diary. There was A LOT of evidence that OJ was controlling, abusive and down right mean. And, you should ask what OJ meant by "hardball". He's the one who said it. If it wasn't a big deal then why did he even say it?

This was not a "normal" relationship. I understand that everyone fights. I understand that people can get nasty when they go through a divorce. This went beyond that. All the proof of his abuse proves that. Also, remember that Nicoles friends couldn't testify to everything that Nicole said due to the hear say rules. That doesn't mean it wasn't said. Keith testified to OJ's threats. This is when they weren't together that he followed Nicole and intimidated anyone she was with. This is at the same time that he was seeing Paula.

When OJ bullied his way into Nicoles house on Gretna Green, he was pissed off. He was talking to her on the phone and she wouldn't talk to him anymore, she hung up on him. She didn't want to fight. What did OJ do? He went over there. She was going to listen to him no matter what. He forced his way in and continued to scare and harass her. I don't care what his reason was or if anyone feels he was justified to be upset. No one has a right to bully their way into someone's house where they are not wanted at the time. She was genuinely scared. She called 911.

Have you ever read her diary entries? Don't you find it odd that she would put things in her lockbox relating to abuse? She told one of her friends that she was afraid that the next time OJ freaked out he would kill her. That was three days before she was murdered. She made notes in the margins of a book about abuse. She talked to her mother about it. She told her..."mom, this is me". She told many of her friends that she was moving. She was moving away from OJ. She had never done that before. She wasn't giving in to him this time.

It is so sad to me that so many people think it means nothing. She knew that this would happen. She knew that he would get away with it. She knew that he would kill her. She knew that no one would believe he did it or believe her. She could feel it coming. She knew if she made the complete break from him he would kill her. But, she had made up her mind to make that final break.

I believe Nicole! I believe the messages and proof she left behind.

[weezer]

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,

Don't know how closely you followed the Jackson trial but the judge imposed a gag order on all parties. Right before the trial started I think a reporter got a hold of the grand jury transcripts or something like that. The judge then gave an order that Michael Jackson could make a statement regarding this but it had to be within the guidelines he set.

The point is, that much of the media spin on this case started long before Johnnie Cochran came on the case. And those leaks could have only come from the police and the DA's office.

I do believe that both sides are media savy enough to know that you may lose the case the court of law, but it is a whole different story with the court of public opinon. Neither side has a monopoly on ethics when it comes to this, IMO.

While I'm sure that Mr. Simpson's home was impressive, even with out any changes, I'm sure the jurors were more baffled about how the glove got back there, why there was no evidence leading to it or from it and the carpet was white, where is all the blood? And what about Bundy? That hurt the DA's case more then Rockingham did. The area was so much smaller, with the condo cleaned out, it was difficult to understand how no one heard anything.

It goes both ways. The LE and prosecutors were put under a gag order by their own department and I don't think anyone is pointing at Cochran as the sole person to leak information/misinformation to the media - Robert Shapiro did a fine job all on his own.

It isn't the fact that OJ's home was impressive or not compared to Bundy. It is about the defense staging the site -- making it appear to be different thus reflecting the murderer differently. I don't know about you, but once I am inside my home at night, eating dinner, watching tv, showering, etc., There was never a contention that the attack was 'noisey'. In fact, even the witnesses that we know had to have been outside and/or passing at close to or the exact time of the murders heard nothing or in Heidstra's case only two voices -- only one of which he could understand the words of, "Hey. Hey. Hey." I don't hear a lot that goes on outside. I found out one morning that our neighbor had been rushed to the hospital and although the ambulance had sat at the end of the drive with lights flashing and left with siren screaming, I never knew it happened. One of the points of your post is right on though -- the size of the attack area. It is the prosecution (and many others) opinion that the area is what enabled OJ to trap Ron.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
OJ and Nicole both knew each other's weak points and it happened to be their genuine love for one another. They weren't perfect, but they knew deep down inside that each other were the loves of their life. However, there are many people who have had a love of their life and haven't been able to make a go of a relationship or a marriage. It does happen. I think OJ was obsessed with Nicole. I think Nicole was afraid of OJ and did what she had to do to keep him appeased. That's not to say that there wasn't love at some point or that she could have even still felt something for him. But when I look at the evidence of abuse and listen to his explanations of the relationship I don't buy that there was any great love between them. OJ has been proven to be an abuser and a wh*re -- I don't believe Nicole could have loved that. MOO

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by tazzybaby
I believe Nicole! I believe the messages and proof she left behind. Your post is perfect! :beer:

[alien]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The jury hasn't never said, the MF issue was a deciding factor, where are you getting this?

Should have said JMO, but I keep thinking I read it some where. Can't promise that I can find it, but I will look.

It's been a couple of busy nights at work so I didn't get to post much.

Have a great one.

[weezer]

Originally posted by alien


Should have said JMO, but I keep thinking I read it some where. Can't promise that I can find it, but I will look.

It's been a couple of busy nights at work so I didn't get to post much.

Have a great one. I'll also look since I remember at least one of the jurors remarking that she knew he was evil the minute he walked in and took the stand. Everyone knows that the race card was in the deck and it was, as Shapiro said. ". . . played off the bottom. . ." The Gs have continued to insist that the jury did not consider race in their decision which is of course ludicrous. Had they have considered the overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt, he would be in prison now. They did not. My belief is that race was the first factor in their decision to acquit and ignorance was the second. MOO

[alien]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I'll also look since I remember at least one of the jurors remarking that she knew he was evil the minute he walked in and took the stand. Everyone knows that the race card was in the deck and it was, as Shapiro said. ". . . played off the bottom. . ." The Gs have continued to insist that the jury did not consider race in their decision which is of course ludicrous. Had they have considered the overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt, he would be in prison now. They did not. My belief is that race was the first factor in their decision to acquit and ignorance was the second. MOO

I am still searching for the information. I wonder what the outcome would have been if there had been no Mark Furhman?

Then IMO there would never have been any reason to bring up racism in this trial.

[alien]

WHOA!!!!

rayray really went to far IMO. Did anyone report him?

[weezer]

Originally posted by alien


I am still searching for the information. I wonder what the outcome would have been if there had been no Mark Furhman?

Then IMO there would never have been any reason to bring up racism in this trial. There would have been racism in the trial without Fuhrman because that was the only thing they had to defend the murderer with. If you recall, racism was there before anyone even knew about Fuhrman and his history. The shame is, the jury could have had a video of the murders (they had everything but a video) and they were not going to find Orenthal guilty. I forget how many 1 in whatever billions the DNA match was to OJ's blood at the scene -- blood that was found and collected BEFORE OJ had returned from Chicago -- just that should have been enough for a conviction. Nope. That jury and that community was not going to convict one of their own. MOO

[weezer]

netta, you've never told us your theory on why Fuhrman and Vannatter would have covered for OJ. I'm still interested in hearing it.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


He did didn't he? I don't know if anyone reported. I did notice a new registered nic yesterday & was lurking. He might be arming himself with a spare ;) I don't know why he even posts on this board. I cannot think of one incident where he added anything that was relevant. He's very good at screwing with the facts but he has yet to offer anything tangible or factual to support any of his fantasies. MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I agree. All the defense could possibly come up with was police conspiracy, because otherwise everything pointed to Simpson.

I think Petrocelli did a much better job of trying this case, but he had the benefit of more time to prepare & the information that was already gleened from the first trial. I think the civil judge did a much better job also. But, in the end I don't think any of that would have mattered with the first jury. They were going to set their man free. Period. imo Listened to this guy on TV the other expounding on the "Curse of OJ" -- seems he thinks Cochran, Kardashian and Shapiro have already suffered it.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I've often thought about that myself....I wonder who's next, Bailey? My understanding is he's been killing himself for years with alcohol. Sure hope I'm alive when it's AC's and Orenthal's turn.

[weezer]

I read in Darden's book that Cochran made his reputation and money by suing LAPD. I don't remember knowing (LOL) that Cochran was Reginald Denny's attorney and sued the cops for not protecting Denny from the rioters who tried to kill him. In fact, I'm not sure that it was ever settled. Looks like if Cochran couldn't make his hate money off of the blacks he had no problem with twisting the argument to support getting hate money off of whites. He really was a pariah among humans. MOO

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
The LE and prosecutors were put under a gag order by their own department and I don't think anyone is pointing at Cochran as the sole person to leak information/misinformation to the media - Robert Shapiro did a fine job all on his own.

It isn't the fact that OJ's home was impressive or not compared to Bundy. It is about the defense staging the site -- making it appear to be different thus reflecting the murderer differently. I don't know about you, but once I am inside my home at night, eating dinner, watching tv, showering, etc., There was never a contention that the attack was 'noisey'. In fact, even the witnesses that we know had to have been outside and/or passing at close to or the exact time of the murders heard nothing or in Heidstra's case only two voices -- only one of which he could understand the words of, "Hey. Hey. Hey." I don't hear a lot that goes on outside. I found out one morning that our neighbor had been rushed to the hospital and although the ambulance had sat at the end of the drive with lights flashing and left with siren screaming, I never knew it happened. One of the points of your post is right on though -- the size of the attack area. It is the prosecution (and many others) opinion that the area is what enabled OJ to trap Ron.

Thanks fbgweezer. Great Post. Only a couple of things to add.

Yes, the defense had many, many news conferences spewing malicious and incorrect information in an attempt to sway public opinion. The difference between the prosecution and defense is that fact. The defense had to manipulate, lie and use smoke and mirros to get their client off. I was trying to say that the prosecution did have a leak but they didn't know who it was. They did leak certain information. However, they didn't hold daily conferences trashing the defendant.

And, you're so right about the noise. Limakey thinks that the kids heard the murders. I COMPLETELY disagree. They were very far from the murder scene in their beds with their doors closed. When they were awoken they didn't know what had happened. Sydney kept calling her house to try and talk to her mother. If they heard the murder she wouldn't have done that. I believe she would have went down stairs and looked for her mom if she heard the murders. Thank God she didn't.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Your post is perfect! :beer:

Thanks fbgweezer!

[tazzybaby]

Thanks Kay!!

For Nicole...

:rose:

We believe.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by tazzybaby
Limakey thinks that the kids heard the murders. I COMPLETELY disagree. I agree with you. Besides, I keep thinking of Nicole's 911 call where she tried to keep her voice down and kept trying to get Orenthal to be quiet because the kids were sleeping. I too believe he would have murdered his children had they walked in on his murderous attacks. MOO

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by socaldiva


He did didn't he? I don't know if anyone reported. I did notice a new registered nic yesterday & was lurking. He might be arming himself with a spare ;)



socaldiva, I think you may be right. rayraytwo may not be back using that name.

bobaugust

[weezer]

About three quarters of the way through Darden's book. Not sure how I would critique it except to say it does give a glimpse of him and his thought processes. I'm not sure how I feel about him -- he certainly has a chip on his shoulder. You would think he'd say his prayers daily that he was able to become what he has. MOO

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I think he'll be pretty easy to spot. It will only take a couple of posts. :D

Looks like his posts on this thread went poof :shrug:

I thought I was loosing it, because it seemed that there weren't as many pages as yesterday.

Too bad that it had to get so nasty on rayray's end. I mean we all have opinions and it gets heated some times, but a personal attack like that is totally unacceptable. As my Daughter says to her kids, totally unacceptable behaviour. I was so taken aback when I read it.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I think that trial affected him deeply & hopefully some of the chip has fallen away, but when he spoke on Oprah about the case, he still seemed bitter. I think I would feel the same way. I do too but not for the reasons I'd originally thought. Have you read his book? Anyone?

[alien]

Originally posted by Kayleighjo


Mine went poof too, but I'm still kicking around.

He probably feels like a fool, as he should:)

Why did your's go poof. I don't remember you posting anything that was completely offensive.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I do too but not for the reasons I'd originally thought. Have you read his book? Anyone?

I read Darden's book. I really think Cochran did him wrong. And, if I were Darden, I would not have had anything to do with him after that. However, I also think the DA's did him wrong after the fact. I do believe he has a chip on his shoulder. But, I do believe it is somewhat understandable. I have always deeply admired him for standing up for what he believed in even though he was ostracized for it. The image of him comforting Kim Goldman is burnt in my brain. I believe he truly cared, truly wanted justice and believed he was doing the right thing.

Darden's book was okay. Nothing really new. I did enjoy the part regarding the bronco chase. I never knew the details that he gave. I believe he talks more fondly of Marcia than she of him. I think they liked each other the same. Maybe she was trying to squash the rumors of romance.

[weezer]

Originally posted by tazzybaby
I read Darden's book. I really think Cochran did him wrong. And, if I were Darden, I would not have had anything to do with him after that. However, I also think the DA's did him wrong after the fact. I do believe he has a chip on his shoulder. But, I do believe it is somewhat understandable. I have always deeply admired him for standing up for what he believed in even though he was ostracized for it. The image of him comforting Kim Goldman is burnt in my brain. I believe he truly cared, truly wanted justice and believed he was doing the right thing.

Darden's book was okay. Nothing really new. I did enjoy the part regarding the bronco chase. I never knew the details that he gave. I believe he talks more fondly of Marcia than she of him. I think they liked each other the same. Maybe she was trying to squash the rumors of romance. I got the impression that he was hurt by the way Cochran treated him because he was a 'brother'. What makes you feel the DA's did him wrong?

There was so much in the earlier chapters about his life that as a poor person growing up in the south, I could relate to and I'm not black. Now, before someone says how much worse I would have had it had I been black also, let me tell you that my truth is my truth -- being poor and white is very, very hard.

I've found tidbits through out the book that have added something to the facts as I've understood them. I do believe he cared about the Goldmans and the Browns. His description of the murder night as seen through OJ's eyes is scarey.......it's as though he read the murderer's mind. MOO

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I got the impression that he was hurt by the way Cochran treated him because he was a 'brother'. What makes you feel the DA's did him wrong?

There was so much in the earlier chapters about his life that as a poor person growing up in the south, I could relate to and I'm not black. Now, before someone says how much worse I would have had it had I been black also, let me tell you that my truth is my truth -- being poor and white is very, very hard.

I've found tidbits through out the book that have added something to the facts as I've understood them. I do believe he cared about the Goldmans and the Browns. His description of the murder night as seen through OJ's eyes is scarey.......it's as though he read the murderer's mind. MOO

Yes, I got the impression that he was hurt by Cochran too. Cochran made snide comments all the time though. He made it worse for him.

The DA's let him go after the trial. He just didn't have a job there any more. That's when he went into defense. He felt so hurt by that.

I agree that his description of the murder night was eerie. I do not get the impression that he tried to add/change/alter anything when telling his story. Although I did get the impression he was trying to win back the black community.

I did have somewhat of a different vision of him after reading all of their books though. Marcia told a different story of Darden's dealings with Fuhrman. Not sure which is accurate.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


1st. The prosecution played the race when they brought in Chris Darden to appeal to a majority black jury..

2nd. The prosecution nor MF prepared themselve for the race question, why? (This supports my theory, MF was used to secure OJs not guilty verdict)

3rd. Darden when questioning Heidstra, wanted Heidstra to say the 2nd voice of the " hey hey hey" exchange was that of a black man.. Heidstra wouldn't play along.. More evidence of the prosecution playing the "Race Card"..

Defense never played the race card, JC in his closing made a dramatic attempt, the jurors were not impressed according to 1 juror... Oh ye of little faith.

1. The race card was played from the day Orenthal secured Shapiro as his attorney and was solidified when he let Cochran take over as lead. Since Cochran was on the case before Darden, then using your logic we can say that removing Shapiro (white) and installing Cochrah (black) was the first race card played -- Orenthal surrounding himself with black.

2. I don't know of a thing that anyone could have done to make Fuhrman look any better -- he was what he was. With that said, if you take away every piece of evidence that Furhman had a part of, you still have to find Orenthal as the murderer.

3. Heidstra is the one who described one of the voices as 'black.' It was Cochran who argued to keep that description out.

The defense was nothing but about race. If it was not, give me a plausible, reasonable explanation for OJ's blood, cap, glove, hair, bronco carpet fibers at the murder scene?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by nettathirty



1st. The prosecution played the race when they brought in Chris Darden to appeal to a majority black jury..

2nd. The prosecution nor MF prepared themselve for the race question, why? (This supports my theory, MF was used to secure OJs not guilty verdict)

3rd. Darden when questioning Heidstra, wanted Heidstra to say the 2nd voice of the " hey hey hey" exchange was that of a black man.. Heidstra wouldn't play along.. More evidence of the prosecution playing the "Race Card"..

Defense never played the race card, JC in his closing made a dramatic attempt, the jurors were not impressed according to 1 juror...

Hi netta,

1st - not sure that I could actually disagree with you on your first point. Although I believe Marcia had a hand in that and she truly believed in Darden's capability. So, I don't believe necessarily that was the reason.

2nd - They did try and prepare for the race question. They say that Fuhrman said he didn't use that word.

3rd - Heidstra is the one who originally used the description of it being of a black man. They weren't trying to play the race card. You are totally blowing that out of proportion.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you for the opportunity to explain my position, your Honor. Your Honor, in the discovery we just provided the Defense, and in a statement Patricia Baret gave to Detective Tom Lange, she told Detective Lange that Heidstra told her that he heard what sounded to him to be a young man hollering, "Hey, hey, hey." Heidstra had then stated that he heard the very angry screaming of an older man who sounded black. And that is a good faith basis upon which I am asking these questions, your Honor.

The defense totally played the race card. Even the defense knows it. Ask Shapiro.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by nettathirty
MF wasn't the racist media portrayed him(IMO), the thing with MF was the prosecution didn't try to defend him... He didn't defend himself either during the trial, he just kinda went along...

I do agree with that. I do not know why Fuhrman didn't at least try to defend himself. And, I agree that the prosecution didn't try to defend him either. They just wanted to wash their hands of him. I think they were really mad at him.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Shapiro made this claim after the trial, in attempt to get in good with the majority... He profited in a major way, along with many others, however the backlash for his actions were not anticipated (imo)...


Darden implied that Heidstra made that statement, Heidstra flat denied he identified anyone by race...


I believe Shapiro made that claim out of disgust. I do not believe he profited in any way. What makes you believe this? Not just because you feel it....what makes you believe this?

But, Darden wasn't the one who made the statement. Patricia Beret was the one who told officers what Heidstra said. That's also not the only thing that Heidstra said. He also didn't admit to other statements he made until persistent questioning.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Shapiro made this claim after the trial, in attempt to get in good with the majority... He profited in a major way, along with many others, however the backlash for his actions were not anticipated (imo)...


Darden implied that Heidstra made that statement, Heidstra flat denied he identified anyone by race...


nettathirty, Darden didn't insinuate that Heidstra said the voice he heard was that of a black man, he asked Heidstra if the voice sounded like the voice of a black man.

Darden was relying on a statement Patricia Baret gave to Detective Lange. She told Lange that Heidstra told her he heard the very angry screaming of an older man who sounded black. Heidstra denied that he told Baret that the voice sound black, only older than the first voice.

bobaugust

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by nettathirty




I think the DA along with MF knew OJ visited the crime scene but wasn't the murderer.. I think MF as a willing participant sacrificed himself to assure OJ wouldn't be convicted...


Prosecutions Jury Consultant, maybe MC did listen to her consultant and she did take the consultants advice? just a thought

Hi netta,

I keep hearing bits and pieces of your "vision" of how this went down and what you believe. Please, give me details. Why exactly do you think that MF was a willing participant to free OJ? I mean, lay out what you have.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty
MF wasn't the racist media portrayed him(IMO), the thing with MF was the prosecution didn't try to defend him... He didn't defend himself either during the trial, he just kinda went along... I don't know whether or not Fuhrman was truely a racist or if he hated the bad guys he fought during the time that he tried to get disability. There is no defense for the stuff he said and I don't think anyone should try to defend it. But that doesn't mean that he's not entitled to feel however it is he feels. It's only when those feelings affect your interaction and there has been no proof before or after that he did anything to dishonor his uniform. There is absolutely no proof that he planted evidence.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by nettathirty

Darden implied that Heidstra made that statement, Heidstra flat denied he identified anyone by race... Not true -- there is a transcript of the argument made by Cochran in front of Ito where he fought tooth and nail to keep that description by Heidstra away from the jury.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty




I think the DA along with MF knew OJ visited the crime scene but wasn't the murderer.. I think MF as a willing participant sacrificed himself to assure OJ wouldn't be convicted...


Prosecutions Jury Consultant, maybe MC did listen to her consultant and she did take the consultants advice? just a thought But why? Why would he do that?

[weezer]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, Darden didn't insinuate that Heidstra said the voice he heard was that of a black man, he asked Heidstra if the voice sounded like the voice of a black man.

Darden was relying on a statement Patricia Baret gave to Detective Lange. She told Lange that Heidstra told her he heard the very angry screaming of an older man who sounded black. Heidstra denied that he told Baret that the voice sound black, only older than the first voice.

bobaugust I could swear I remember there being a big argument in front of Ito about someone being able to say a voice sounded 'black' -- Darden argued that blacks have their own dialect.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Yeah, I agree.. The fact that he claimed he could know longer do his job because of his views, probably wasn't his true feelings.. He probably thought he could truly get disability that way!! imo Actually, he probably did feel that way -- but I don't think it was necessarily because of the color of the people -- I think it could have been anyone, any color and he would have burned out the same way. He said he had seen too much. To a much lesser degree, I'm sure there are people on this board who have burned out on jobs and friends......your whole attitude changes and you can't wait to get away.....you have to get away to survive. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say I think he was probably more there than just trying to get disability. MOO

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

I think he'll be pretty easy to spot. It will only take a couple of posts. :D

Looks like his posts on this thread went poof :shrug:

Well at least he will be easy to spot. All of a sudden we will start seeing a new nic posting! If he's smart, he'll never come back.

:beer:

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by alien
....I wonder what the outcome would have been if there had been no Mark Furhman?

Then IMO there would never have been any reason to bring up racism in this trial. If Fuhrman had gone home when the case was assigned to downtown Robbery Homicide (which meant it was turned over to Vannatter and Lange), there would have been no second glove, no questions of planting, no McKinney tapes, none of it. And without Fuhrman, all the nasty things in his past would never have been brought before the court. The race-bias charge was directed at no one but Fuhrman, after all, so it would never have been a part of the case.

Honestly, I wish it had happened that way. There would still be plenty of reasons to justify reasonable doubt. And a jury verdict absent "the Fuhrman problem" would probably have been more widely accepted.

I think OJ would have been free regardless, due to the many other evidence problems that surfaced at trial. But I think a lot more people would have at least tolerated the not-guilty verdict and moved on.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I could swear I remember there being a big argument in front of Ito about someone being able to say a voice sounded 'black' -- Darden argued that blacks have their own dialect.



fbgweezer, yes you remember right.

After Darden asked that question, Cochran objected and they went to side bar. Darden argued that he was basing his question on a statement Baret gave Lange. Cochran argued it was a racist statement. Darden accused Cochran of making racist statements about him. Ito called a halt to the discussion and held both Darden and Cochran in contempt.

After a recess Darden continued his questioning and again asked Heidstra if it was true that the told Baret that the second voice was an older voice and sounded black. Heidstra denied it and Darden asked to approach. At side bar Darden agreed that Cochran could also ask questions about the statement Heidstra made and questioning continued.

Here's the first side bar.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you for the opportunity to explain my position, your Honor. Your Honor, in the discovery we just provided the Defense, and in a statement Patricia Baret gave to Detective Tom Lange, she told Detective Lange that Heidstra told her that he heard what sounded to him to be a young man hollering, "Hey, hey, hey." Heidstra had then stated that he heard the very angry screaming of an older man who sounded black. And that is a good faith basis upon which I am asking these questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: First of all, we have never seen that statement and I resent--the reason I stood before--I resent that statement. You can't tell by somebody's voice whether they sounded black. I don't know who made that statement, Baret or Lange, and I resent that is a racist statement. I don't think you can tell whether somebody is a young--you can tell if it is a child or not--but I resent that entire area and I think it is entirely inappropriate. And we have never seen any statement in that regard. He walked over and handed Mr. Douglas a purported report from Miss Baret, but this statement about whether he sounds black or white is racist and I resent it and that is why I stood and objected. And I think it is totally improper in America at this time in 1995 we have to hear this and endure this.
MR. DARDEN: I didn't make the statement, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, the Court--may I say one thing, your Honor? When I had a question about how Mr. Darden conducted himself on that morning, I approached the bench before I asked it in front of the jury because I think dignity and integrity require that, but to ask that question in front of the jury I think is totally, totally improper. And we have said back in chambers when this case started, when there was a questionable area we had promised you that we would approach the bench on those things. Didn't we not do that?
THE COURT: We did.
MR. COCHRAN: We have kept that word and they violated it again, so I resent that.
MR. DARDEN: I have always considered the question of race in this case, your Honor, to be questionable. If this is the witness' statement, then he is the racist and not me, but that is what you are suggesting.
MR. COCHRAN: I didn't say that.
THE COURT: Wait, wait.
MR. DARDEN: That is what has created a lot of problems for myself and my family, statements that you make about me and race, Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. I'm going to take a recess right now because I am so mad at both of you guys I'm about to hold both of you in contempt. We will take 15. If I see this conduct again from either of you two--
MR. DARDEN: I apologize, your Honor.
THE COURT: It will take more than that.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty
It was alledged OJ dropped Shapiro from advice he'd gotten in jail from either Lyle or Eric Menedez(sp).. Shapiro had handled the Brando manslaughter charge and was known as a plea bargainer and OJ wasn't about to plea a deal..

Shapiro's book advancement was more than 2 million dollars, I would say that's a good enough reason to sit at the defense table and go along...

I didn't think that I would ever agree with you Netta, but "yes" it is a known fact throughout the L.A. legal community that Shapiro would only take a case that he could plea bargain. Going to trial was not his cup of tea.

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

Could it be, i've matured!

Me thinks that you just don't want to go the way of RR2 and have finally come to your senses about being the Captain of a sinking ship.

JMO and MOO!!

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
About three quarters of the way through Darden's book. Not sure how I would critique it except to say it does give a glimpse of him and his thought processes. I'm not sure how I feel about him -- he certainly has a chip on his shoulder. You would think he'd say his prayers daily that he was able to become what he has. MOO I found his book interesting. That intro that doesn't fit the rest - the "temper tantrum" stuff - I have that pegged for an editor's add-on. But the part that's really Darden had much more depth than I'd expected. Obviously, he was conflicted about taking the case. His family was concerned. He knew there was going to be trouble for him in the courtroom. It wasn't what he wanted to do, but then he wasn't completely sure he wanted out, either.

When Darden appeared on Oprah earlier this year, he talked about that - how he wishes now he hadn't even showed up for the trial. That was pretty much consistent with what I remember of the book.

[Wukong]

I was just reading Simpson's statement to the Police when he was taken in after returning from Chicago. I read two different versions from Walravens site. One version is the whole statement copied from Star magazine and the other was contained in a motion regarding Yamauchi's statement about OJ's alibi. This is a portion of his statement but is an official copy from LAPD, not Star magazine. I found the differences astounding and wonder why they are different and which is correct:

From complete statement from Star magazine:

Lange: So you drove the...you came home in the Rolls, and then you got in the Bronco...

Simpson: In the Bronco, 'cause my phone was in the Bronco. And because it's a Bronco. It's a Bronco, it's what I drive, you know. I'd rather drive it than any other car. And, you know, as I was going over there, I called her a couple of times and she wasn't there, and I left a message, and then I checked my messages, and there were no new messages. She wasn't there, and she may have to leave town. Then I came back and ended up sitting with Kato.

Lange: OK, what time was this again that you parked the Bronco?

Simpson: Eight-something, maybe.


From Prosecution's counter-motion regarding Yamauchi (includes part of Simpson's statement to LAPD). TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED BY Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office June 1994

Los Angeles, California, Monday, June 13, 1994; 1:35 P.M.

P You got home in the Rolls, in the Rolls --

S Yeah.

P -- and then you got in the Bronco?

S Bronco 'cause my phone was in the Bronco.

P Okay.

S And, uhm -- and 'cause it's the Bronco, it's the Bronco is what I drive.

P Yeah.

S You know, I drive -- rather drive it than any other car.
And I -- you know, and, uh -- and, uh, as I was going over there I called here a couple of times and she wasn't there, and that she had left a message. And then I checked my messages, she had left me a message that she wasn't there, that she had to leave town. And then I came back and, uh, ended up sitting with Kato.

P Okay. And about what time is this again that you parked the Bronco?

S 8:00 something, maybe.

VERY interesting! In this version OJ says he picked up Paula's message! HMMMMM. What are we to think? I know Bob will be interested in this!

I purposely did not put a link to this information. I have everything from Walravens site (now shut down) downloaded on my computer. If you need further explaination or information PM me.

Wukong

[Wukong]

Kay,

Yes, the interview was taped, then later transcribed. Here is the header to the interview portion on the Yamauchi motion:

STATE RECORDED INTERVIEW OF ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, CONDUCTED BY DETECTIVES PHIL VANATTER AND TOM LANGE, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION.

CASE NAME: People v. Orenthal James Simpson
CASE NO.: BA097211
CHARGE: 198 P.C., Murder
DATE OF INTERVIEW: 6/13/94
TIME OF INTERVIEW: 1335 hours
TAPE NO.: 145099 cc #2
DEPUTY D.A.s: William Hodgman & Marcia Clark, Bureau of Central Operations

LEGEND:

P - Det. Vanatter and/or Det. Lange
S - Orenthal James Simpson
*** - Unintelligible

After reading both versions it seems to me that the "Star" version was cleaned up quite a bit. All the "Uhh, Umm, etc.. were removed. The official LAPD transcript seems like the uncut version.

Wukong

[Wukong]

I just noticed that the "Star" version on the Walraven site may even be different than what was in the Star. This is at the top of the interview on Walraven's site:

NOTE: The following statement was uploaded to oj.fan.oj-simpson by cpsidfw@onramp.net (Dave), also known as H.S.S. Dave. Thanks, Dave! ---JW
This transcript was laboriously typed by an anonymous lurker on the news group and emailed to Dave. Thanks, Lurker! ---JW
From November 29, 1994 issue of STAR


It seems this guy "Dave" received this version from someone (Lurker) who "laboriously" typed it. I would be curious to know if "Lurker" was pro-OJ or not. I have to lean towards the official version over a retyped version from Star magazine.

Wukong

[weezer]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
If Fuhrman had gone home when the case was assigned to downtown Robbery Homicide (which meant it was turned over to Vannatter and Lange), there would have been no second glove, no questions of planting, no McKinney tapes, none of it. And without Fuhrman, all the nasty things in his past would never have been brought before the court. The race-bias charge was directed at no one but Fuhrman, after all, so it would never have been a part of the case.

Honestly, I wish it had happened that way. There would still be plenty of reasons to justify reasonable doubt. And a jury verdict absent "the Fuhrman problem" would probably have been more widely accepted.

I think OJ would have been free regardless, due to the many other evidence problems that surfaced at trial. But I think a lot more people would have at least tolerated the not-guilty verdict and moved on. I have to disagree -- this was going to be a race case because that's the only thing they could do. The evidence of Simpson's guilt is overwhelming.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by bobaugust
fbgweezer, yes you remember right. Thankyou bobaugust for the gentle reminder that I was only partly right. I guess I THOUGHT I remembered that part because I believed Heidstra did say it. At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it. LOL

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Bob,

Again thanks, based on this exchange Cochran is doing everything in his power to assure the jury is not bombarded with these type of inneudos (sp) of black and white.. imo Actually, Cochran was doing everything in his power to make sure OJ could not be put at the scene...........MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Could it be, i've matured! :eek: Nah.....

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



I guess it's all how each individual perceives it! I believe it's more about common sense.

[weezer]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


I didn't think that I would ever agree with you Netta, but "yes" it is a known fact throughout the L.A. legal community that Shapiro would only take a case that he could plea bargain. Going to trial was not his cup of tea.

JMO and MOO!! Which makes sense when you understand that he knew OJ was guilty of the murders and thought the only defense could be based on some kind of insanity plea.

[weezer]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
I found his book interesting. That intro that doesn't fit the rest - the "temper tantrum" stuff - I have that pegged for an editor's add-on. But the part that's really Darden had much more depth than I'd expected. Obviously, he was conflicted about taking the case. His family was concerned. He knew there was going to be trouble for him in the courtroom. It wasn't what he wanted to do, but then he wasn't completely sure he wanted out, either.

When Darden appeared on Oprah earlier this year, he talked about that - how he wishes now he hadn't even showed up for the trial. That was pretty much consistent with what I remember of the book. I'm not sure which part you are talking about when you say "temper tantrum" stuff -- you mean like the fit OJ was throwing on the 911 call or the night he threw her clothes out the hotel window? Did you find it interesting that before anything was known about Fuhrman that even Darden's dad said a black jury would never convict Simpson? I think the draw of being on a high profile case was too much for him to resist and I do believe he would have been very disappointed to have been passed over.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Wukong


From complete statement from Star magazine:

Lange: So you drove the...you came home in the Rolls, and then you got in the Bronco...

Simpson: In the Bronco, 'cause my phone was in the Bronco. And because it's a Bronco. It's a Bronco, it's what I drive, you know. I'd rather drive it than any other car. And, you know, as I was going over there, I called her a couple of times and she wasn't there, and I left a message, and then I checked my messages, and there were no new messages. She wasn't there, and she may have to leave town. Then I came back and ended up sitting with Kato.

Lange: OK, what time was this again that you parked the Bronco?

Simpson: Eight-something, maybe.


From Prosecution's counter-motion regarding Yamauchi (includes part of Simpson's statement to LAPD). TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED BY Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office June 1994

Los Angeles, California, Monday, June 13, 1994; 1:35 P.M.

P You got home in the Rolls, in the Rolls --

S Yeah.

P -- and then you got in the Bronco?

S Bronco 'cause my phone was in the Bronco.

P Okay.

S And, uhm -- and 'cause it's the Bronco, it's the Bronco is what I drive.

P Yeah.

S You know, I drive -- rather drive it than any other car.
And I -- you know, and, uh -- and, uh, as I was going over there I called here a couple of times and she wasn't there, and that she had left a message. And then I checked my messages, she had left me a message that she wasn't there, that she had to leave town. And then I came back and, uh, ended up sitting with Kato.

P Okay. And about what time is this again that you parked the Bronco?

S 8:00 something, maybe.


I purposely did not put a link to this information. I have everything from Walravens site (now shut down) downloaded on my computer. If you need further explaination or information PM me.

Wukong



Brian, this isn't the first time we've seen some slightly different versions. Remember the slight differences in the conversation about the limousine drivers.

I like the Walraven version where the questions being asked identify which of the two detectives are asking the questions. But in this case the difference is very incriminating. Either Simpson said there were no new messages or Simpson admits Paula left him a message. Very Interesting.

Where exactly did you find the Prosecutions counter motion regarding Yamauchi? What was the date of that transcript?

Walraven's site isn't shut down.
http://walraven.org/simpson/simpson.html

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Bob,

Here is the link to the Yamauchi motion that includes part of OJ's statement.

http://walraven.org/simpson/alibi-p.html

Here is a link to the actual audio of OJ's statement. I am downloading it now so I have not heard it yet:

http://www.reversespeech.com/ojsimpson.htm

Wukong

[Wukong]

I just listened to the interview. The part about the message starts at around 11 minutes in. It is not easy to hear exactly what OJ says about the message. I'm hoping someone with better hearing than me can decipher exactly what OJ says.

Wukong

[alien]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
? Did you find it interesting that before anything was known about Fuhrman that even Darden's dad said a black jury would never convict Simpson? I think the draw of being on a high profile case was too much for him to resist and I do believe he would have been very disappointed to have been passed over.

So IMO, Fuhrman was a scapegoat for all the racist BS. He was an opportunity thrown at the defense.

IMO, Mark Fuhrman was between a rock and a hard place. If he was honest about his use of the "N" word, he would be burned at the stake. He decided to lie, I think, to help the prosecution, but unfortunately his past came back to bite him in the A**. So then the prosecution burned him at the stake anyway. No way he was going to win. And IMO, Mark Fuhrman just wasn't a totally horrible person. He was a racist from everything we were told about him and I have no tolerance for people who are racist, but I think he may have embellished at lot of the stuff in the one interview. You know, make himself look like a "tough guy". I don't think he ever planted any evidence. And IMO, his involvement in the case was "luck of the draw".

I wonder what he must have thought when he saw that the victim was Nicole, knowing the past history of abuse she endured from OJ. And seeing the horrible way that she died. IMO if he was over-involved it was because he wanted to see justice done for a woman he knew had been abused by her husband. Wasn't he the only LE who took action against OJ.

So the sad thing is that his other actions let the murderer of Nicole go free.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Wukong
I just listened to the interview. The part about the message starts at around 11 minutes in. It is not easy to hear exactly what OJ says about the message. I'm hoping someone with better hearing than me can decipher exactly what OJ says.

Wukong



Brian, I was finally able to download the file and listen to it. You're right the part where Simpson says about the message is not clear. It's like it was cut off or shortened. But it sounds to me like he said there were no new messages.

There are some other very interesting parts on the tape.

A couple of questions later Simpson Lange asks Simpson about the funny angle his Bronco is parked at. In his reply Simpson says he was getting his phone and everything off it, when he just pulled it out the gate there. He says he brought it inside the compound to get his stuff out of it.

A few questions later Lange asked if he recalled bleeding in the truck, And then Simpson lied. He said he recalled bleeding at his house and then he went to his Bronco. He said the last thing he did before he left, when he was rushing, was went and go his phone out of his Bronco.

He had just before said he got his phone out when the Bronco was in the compound and now he says he got it out before he left for the airport. All a lie to somehow account for blood in his Bronco. Later of course when Simpson learned about the 10:03 PM cell phone call to Paula, he changed his story to getting his phone accessories. But the whole think was a lie. In the ten or so minutes before leaving for the airport either Park or Kaelin was with or insight of Simpson. Neither said they saw or heard Simpson go out or come back in the Rockingham gate.

In Simpson's civil trial testimony he tried to fit that fictitious trip in between some of Park's testimony when Park said he saw Simpson go towards the Rockingham gate. But Park said that Simpson only went to pick up his golf clubs and brought them right back. In his interview Simpson had told the police the last thing he did was go to his Bronco. In his testimony Simpson contradicted that saying he went to his Bronco and then went into his house. Kaelin was asked in his deposition if he ever saw Simpson go out to his Bronco, or go to the Rockingham gate, or open the Rockingham gate. Kaelin said no to every question.

Another part of the audio tape is missing from the written version. When Simpson was asked what he was wearing the night of the murders. he said Bugle Boy black pants. But the missing part is Vannatter asked Simpson if that was what he was wore to the recital. Simpson said no and then said he wore a white T-shirt and some slacks.

In his deposition Simpson was asked what he wore to the recital and he said a white shirt, black sweater jacket, and black pants.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



I believe MFs role was more scripted than he a scapegoat... He made the tapes in latter 94 and early 1995... The tapes had been an on-again, off-again project for 10 years which was why Ito ruled that some of the stuff was too far in the past to be relevant to time of murders.

Why would Fuhrman have participated in helping get OJ off?

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by alien
Wasn't he the only LE who took action against OJ.

So the sad thing is that his other actions let the murderer of Nicole go free. I don't believe he was the officer that took the call for the beating incident. IIRC, he was the one that took the call for the baseball bat incident and OJ beating Nicole's (his) car.

The sad thing is that what MF did or didn't do was not what allowed the murderer to go free. The murderer walked free because the jury. The evidence of OJ's guilt is overwhelming -- his defense attorneys believed he committed the murders -- so why would they penalize the families and reward OJ for something that has been proved could not have happened -- there was no planting of evidence.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


tough crowd :rose: LOL

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


MF wasn't a Racist, and thats why he helped OJ! Look I'm sorry but I'm still not following. Why would he have wanted to help OJ? How would he have even known that it was OJ that needed the help?

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



OJs verdict was by default, under any other circumstances someone in that position would have been convicted... MF and Garcetti along with the prosecution team knew OJ visited the crime scene, and knew he wasn't the murderer..

MF by lying as 1 of the lead detectives would guarantee OJ either a mistrial or a not guilty verdict... MF wasn't thrown to the wolves he leaped in with both feet!!

imo

The disability thing only gave mininal but nevertheless probability that MF was a racist. However MF being a racist, by the law standard would not justify OJs Not Guilty, but a lying detective would... The only way your theory works is if MF knew ahead of time that Nicole was going to be murdered. Is that what you are contending?

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



My theory is a little more complicated than that...

What if a murder never took place? What happened to Nicole and Ron if not murder?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Which makes sense when you understand that he knew OJ was guilty of the murders and thought the only defense could be based on some kind of insanity plea.

I agree. I don't think that OJ would ever stoop to any kind of plea bargain. That would be admitting his guilt and he wasn't about to do that. OJ is/was so full of himself that I believe he actually thought that he could get lucky and beat this. He had a 50-50 chance and he did get lucky!

JMO and MOO!!

[weezer]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


I agree. I don't think that OJ would ever stoop to any kind of plea bargain. That would be admitting his guilt and he wasn't about to do that. OJ is/was so full of himself that I believe he actually thought that he could get lucky and beat this. He had a 50-50 chance and he did get lucky!

JMO and MOO!! I've wondered how he must feel about himself to realize that he is capable of not only beating another human but actually butchering them. What self-loathing that must bring. But, then again, I guess when you're capable of the brutality he exhibited toward Nicole in life and death, you probably wouldn't consider yourself less than human like the rest of us do. MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



What if the delay in calling the coroner was done to assure, that everybody in the world witnessed 2 corpses on the steps of the condo? But everyone did see 2 corpses.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



This is only my theory, I was in Dallas, TX at the time so it's what I think might have happened...

I saw what appeared to be 2 bodies covered under a blanket. They didn't show the bodies, or did I miss that part? Are you asking if Ron's body was covered like Nicole's? Lange said they did not cover Ron's body because unlike Nicole, he was not visible from the street.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by alien


So IMO, Fuhrman was a scapegoat for all the racist BS. He was an opportunity thrown at the defense.

IMO, Mark Fuhrman was between a rock and a hard place. If he was honest about his use of the "N" word, he would be burned at the stake. He decided to lie, I think, to help the prosecution, but unfortunately his past came back to bite him in the A**. So then the prosecution burned him at the stake anyway. No way he was going to win. And IMO, Mark Fuhrman just wasn't a totally horrible person. He was a racist from everything we were told about him and I have no tolerance for people who are racist, but I think he may have embellished at lot of the stuff in the one interview. You know, make himself look like a "tough guy". I don't think he ever planted any evidence. And IMO, his involvement in the case was "luck of the draw".

I wonder what he must have thought when he saw that the victim was Nicole, knowing the past history of abuse she endured from OJ. And seeing the horrible way that she died. IMO if he was over-involved it was because he wanted to see justice done for a woman he knew had been abused by her husband. Wasn't he the only LE who took action against OJ.

So the sad thing is that his other actions let the murderer of Nicole go free.

I agree. I don't think for one minute that MF is racist. Who among us hasn't said the "N" word at least once in our lives? If that were true, then everybody in the freaking world would be a racist. I don't think so. MF now has a lucrative career. I don't think that would be so if everyone felt that he was truly a racist. I also don't believe that he planted anything. He's not stupid.

JMO and MOO!!

[weezer]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


I agree. I don't think for one minute that MF is racist. Who among us hasn't said the "N" word at least once in our lives? If that were true, then everybody in the freaking world would be a racist. I don't think so. MF now has a lucrative career. I don't think that would be so if everyone felt that he was truly a racist. I also don't believe that he planted anything. He's not stupid.

JMO and MOO!! I do believe that at some point MF was racist but I don't believe it was against any particular color. I believe it was against the bad guys. But I will continue to say that whatever MF is or was does not acquit OJ. It was OJ's blood, cap, glove, footprints, hair, bronco fiber at the murder scene.

[weezer]

netta, I'm interested in hearing your theory but it's time for me leave for the day.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

What if the delay in calling the coroner was done to assure, that everybody in the world witnessed 2 corpses on the steps of the condo?

Oh man. Next, you'll be telling us that MF went to the morgue and grabbed two dead bodies and brought them to Bundy; threw them on the sidewalk, poured ketchup all over them and then took pictures. God Netta, you are definitely a piece of work!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I do believe that at some point MF was racist but I don't believe it was against any particular color. I believe it was against the bad guys. But I will continue to say that whatever MF is or was does not acquit OJ. It was OJ's blood, cap, glove, footprints, hair, bronco fiber at the murder scene.

Completely agree!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

Whatever happened to Netta's theory that Nicole was killed over a drug dispute & OJ was at the murder scene to cover that fact up? How does that tie into this new "theory" I wonder :confused:

It just ceases to amaze me. God....As the Stomach Turns!

:rolleyes:

[alien]

Originally posted by nettathirty



I believe MFs role was more scripted than he a scapegoat... He made the tapes in latter 94 and early 1995...

Netta, can you explain a little further? Thanks.

[alien]

Originally posted by alien


Netta, can you explain a little further? Thanks.

Netta, can you put your whole theory in a paragraph instead of just throwing out bits and pieces. It sounds like something from the Twilight Zone, but I am willing to listen to what you have to say.

[2L8 4A D8]

Unfortunately, us G's will never get a straight answer from any NG as to why they believe OJ is innocent. All we'll ever get is that it was a conspiracy; OJ was framed; evidence was planted; MF is a racist and had a vendetta against OJ ~ ad nauseum! I am sorry, but I just call it as I see it!

JMO and MOO!!

[limakey]

2Late,

I believe NG's have made their case pretty clear. One of the major differences between NG's and G's is that NG's never said that OJ Simpson wouldn't do this crime, but why we feel he couldn't have done this crime, at least not alone.

We have also made it clear why we don't trust the evidence and why we believe certain police officers lied in this case.

The timeline was and still is a huge issue with me.

Apparently two eyewitnesses of Simpson fleeing the scene were not called to testify and while one may had a credibility problem, the one, to the best my knowledge had no such baggage.

IMO, who ever killed Ron and Nicole were not surprised by Ron's appearance at the scene or that there were two adults there. They either knew the children were there and didn't care or didn't know about the children so that is why at least one of them walked back into the killing cage.

I believe whoever killed them either knew the Simpson's very well or had excellent intelligence (the kind only George Bush could dream about having). One of the main reasons why I believe this is because of the items that were left at the scene and I believe they were left there on purpose. I can't figure out why Simpson would do this.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

I believe NG's have made their case pretty clear. One of the major differences between NG's and G's is that NG's never said that OJ Simpson wouldn't do this crime, but why we feel he couldn't have done this crime, at least not alone.

We have also made it clear why we don't trust the evidence and why we believe certain police officers lied in this case.

The timeline was and still is a huge issue with me.

Apparently two eyewitnesses of Simpson fleeing the scene were not called to testify and while one may had a credibility problem, the one, to the best my knowledge had no such baggage.

IMO, who ever killed Ron and Nicole were not surprised by Ron's appearance at the scene or that there were two adults there. They either knew the children were there and didn't care or didn't know about the children so that is why at least one of them walked back into the killing cage.

I believe whoever killed them either knew the Simpson's very well or had excellent intelligence (the kind only George Bush could dream about having). One of the main reasons why I believe this is because of the items that were left at the scene and I believe they were left there on purpose. I can't figure out why Simpson would do this.


limakey, your fictitious killers not only had excellent intelligence they were invisible and never left a single trace of evidence that they were even at Bundy. And they somehow got hold of Simpson's gloves, Simpson's hat, Simpson's shoes, Simpson's blood, and Simpson's Bronco. Amazing. Have you ever considered that your fictitious killers might be aliens from outer space? There's as much evidence that points to them as there is that points to outer space creatures.
bobaugust

[limakey]

There is evidence to suggest that at least one female called a police force asking about two bodies in that area. In an area where the the only two murders of the year were Ron and Nicole, I find this more then a lucky guess.

There is evidence to suggest that OJ Simpson wasn't even sure if Nicole would be home that night or was going to be going out that night. Why would he kill her knowing that babysitter or a friend was coming over? Why leave her body where she could be seen from the street.

I have expressed my opinon about the dog and his refusal to lead the first person back to the bodies but basically dragged the second couple right to them.

There is no evidence that puts any human being behind Kato's wall. It was a noise and a picture moved, but neither side were able to recreate it. The DA's made it as clear as mud and hoped that jurors wouldn't think to hard about it and just accept the noise as proof of it.

While the police claimed that Simpson was not a suspect, he clearly was and their reasons for going over the wall did not match their actions. Vanatter being sited for "regardless disregard of the truth" really was a huge blow to his credibility as well as the other witnesses in the state's case.

When Mr. Simpson was told that his wife was killed, and Phillips told him that he had to pull himself together for his kids, Simpson's reply was consistent with a person who knew nothing about the killings because he thought she was killed someplace other then Bundy.

While MF's past and his knowledge of Mrs. Simpson, IMO, to understand why he would have planted the glove, doesn't mean that he did it. He is just the best guy for it and since he lied about other things, I don't trust him at all.

I do not believe that there had to be a lot of cops involved in any conspiracy. As I stated before, a police officer may have had the gut feeling the glove was planted, but if he didn't actually see it, is his career worth it? Is his life worth it? Who is he going to call if he needs backup (and know, you can't say, "Ghostbusters!")

OJ and Nicole had a 17 year relationship that was filled with highs and lows but through it all, I do believe they loved each other very much. I also believe that they were at war with each other and it wasn't the first time or even the second. However, it appears to me that even at the worst of times, they never forgot about their children. In fact, both Nicole and OJ made it clear to their boyfriends or girlsfriends that it was not acceptable to bring "dates" to family functions, knowing the other one was going to be there.

OJ Simpson knew that Sydney's friend was sleeping over, never knew that the girl went home.

Faye Resnick lied about her phone conversation with Nicole and she lied a few times about the time of the call. If she had nothing to hide, then why hide her phone records?

I do believe that NG's have been honest and put up with harsh comments and replies when even if Simpson confessed, I still would have no issue with the jury verdict. I can't undrestand why a defendant would lie, but I have a major problem with the police lying when they don't have to. Again, all this is MO.

[limakey]

Didn't Ron Shipp, when asked a question that if OJ didn't do it, then it was a hell of a frame up? Isn't this odd coming from a police officer?

And who would be in a better position or have the knowledge to frame a person? Wouldn't a cop be pretty well schooled in this area?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
There is evidence to suggest that at least one female called a police force asking about two bodies in that area. In an area where the the only two murders of the year were Ron and Nicole, I find this more then a lucky guess.

There is evidence to suggest that OJ Simpson wasn't even sure if Nicole would be home that night or was going to be going out that night. Why would he kill her knowing that babysitter or a friend was coming over? Why leave her body where she could be seen from the street.

I have expressed my opinon about the dog and his refusal to lead the first person back to the bodies but basically dragged the second couple right to them.

There is no evidence that puts any human being behind Kato's wall. It was a noise and a picture moved, but neither side were able to recreate it. The DA's made it as clear as mud and hoped that jurors wouldn't think to hard about it and just accept the noise as proof of it.

While the police claimed that Simpson was not a suspect, he clearly was and their reasons for going over the wall did not match their actions. Vanatter being sited for "regardless disregard of the truth" really was a huge blow to his credibility as well as the other witnesses in the state's case.

When Mr. Simpson was told that his wife was killed, and Phillips told him that he had to pull himself together for his kids, Simpson's reply was consistent with a person who knew nothing about the killings because he thought she was killed someplace other then Bundy.

While MF's past and his knowledge of Mrs. Simpson, IMO, to understand why he would have planted the glove, doesn't mean that he did it. He is just the best guy for it and since he lied about other things, I don't trust him at all.

I do not believe that there had to be a lot of cops involved in any conspiracy. As I stated before, a police officer may have had the gut feeling the glove was planted, but if he didn't actually see it, is his career worth it? Is his life worth it? Who is he going to call if he needs backup (and know, you can't say, "Ghostbusters!")

OJ and Nicole had a 17 year relationship that was filled with highs and lows but through it all, I do believe they loved each other very much. I also believe that they were at war with each other and it wasn't the first time or even the second. However, it appears to me that even at the worst of times, they never forgot about their children. In fact, both Nicole and OJ made it clear to their boyfriends or girlsfriends that it was not acceptable to bring "dates" to family functions, knowing the other one was going to be there.

OJ Simpson knew that Sydney's friend was sleeping over, never knew that the girl went home.

Faye Resnick lied about her phone conversation with Nicole and she lied a few times about the time of the call. If she had nothing to hide, then why hide her phone records?

I do believe that NG's have been honest and put up with harsh comments and replies when even if Simpson confessed, I still would have no issue with the jury verdict. I can't undrestand why a defendant would lie, but I have a major problem with the police lying when they don't have to. Again, all this is MO.



Limakey all of these points have been given reasonable explanations.

The female who called the Wilshire Community Station said she was associated with Channel 4. She didn't call the West LA Division that covers Brentwood. Sergeant Merrin the watch commander for Wilshire testified that they had nothing to do with Brentwood and they receive similar calls several times a day.

Simpson called Nicole's house at about 9:00 that night. He could have easily found out that Nicole would be home alone that night.

Your opinion about the dog is irrelevant.

There is evidence that Simpson scaled his fence and fell against the wall, dropping his glove. The force that was needed to cause a picture on the other side of the wall to tilt. The bent wire consistent with someone scaling the fence. The fresh green leaves near the glove. The fact that Simpson was seen at the same time Kaelin was seen by Allan Park after the noises on Kaelin's wall..

The police were concerned for Simpson and his housekeeper. Simpson was not a suspect at that time. Vannatter's credibility had nothing to do with the facts and evidence.

Simpson put on a act when Phillips notified him. Simpson was putting on an act from the time he came out of his house dressed to go to the airport.

Mark Fuhrman didn't plant any evidence and he told one lie that was not related to the murders. Simpson told numerous lies relating to the murders.

There was only one glove found at Bundy. There is not one single piece of legitimate evidence to support the claim of evidence planing. There was no evidence of a conspiracy.

Paula Barbieri left Simpson a message on his cell phone at 7:00 AM that Sunday morning. Johnnie Cochran lied to the criminal trial jury telling them that Simpson had no reason to kill Nicole because he had Paula at the time of the murders. Simpson lied to the civil trial jury denying he received Paula's message that Sunday. Simpson was impeached by telephone records, Dr. Lenore Walker's notes, and Paula Barbieri's testimony.

Simpson called Nicole's house about 9:00 that night, He could have easily found out that Sydney's friend was going home.

Faye Resnick was irrelevant to these murders.

The police didn't lie. The relevant physical evidence proves Simpson was the killer. Both prosecution and defense witnesses tell us when he killed Ron and Nicole. Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and lie confirm his guilt.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Didn't Ron Shipp, when asked a question that if OJ didn't do it, then it was a hell of a frame up? Isn't this odd coming from a police officer?

And who would be in a better position or have the knowledge to frame a person? Wouldn't a cop be pretty well schooled in this area?



Limakey, if Ron Shipp said that it was a smart a** remark, it wasn't evidence.

A cop would know be pretty well schooled to recognize a frame. In this case it was pretty much impossible for anyone to have framed Simpson. No one knew at the time of the murders that Simpson didn't have an air tight alibi.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Taz,

In the 1993 incident, Nicole called the cops, twice I think. When she started the second conversation, she was pissed as well, listen to her demand that someone be sent over right now. Then, later she did sound scared and if you listen in the backround, you can hear OJ yelling and screaming and it was something about what she did before, etc. I have no doubt that she was scared, but I have no doubt that she knew she pushed a tad too far as well. She did what any one who knew they pushed someone too far did, she called for help, I don't have a problem with that.

However, Nicole was also taped saying that OJ only hit her one time and she had no reason to lie, she had no reason to protect him. I do have problems with Nicole's diary because of the Browns' behavior toward it and I also have problems because it was never, IMO, proved that it was her who actually wrote it.

I have no doubt that OJ was mentally abusive, but so was she. Yes, he did batter her that one time (as in the evidence present in court) and earned the lifetime tag of batterer, but so did Nicole. You hit another adult in anger, regardless of your sex, you get the tag of batterer.

I do not believe anything Faye says because everytime she was confronted with what she wrote in her books, it was always the publisher's fault. That she had no control over what was actually printed. So, is this a "true" book or is this a book that was only going to get published if "it bleeds"? Remember, Nicole's father and sister lost their book deal because they refused to trash their sister and also trash OJ Simpson. Yes, Denise hates him with a passion and believes that he killed her sister but she wasn't going to write things about her sister and OJ just to make the publisher's happy.

While I think Nicole was very strong in some ways, in other ways I think she was weak. I think she never realized that with the new crowd she was hanging with were way, way out of her league.

Couples do grow up, they do grow apart and if they are luckey, they are able to grow up but not apart. I think OJ Simpson was a total dog for cheating on her and I feel the same way about Prince Charles. But do I think they killed their ex's over it? No.

Had Nicole and OJ been broken up longer and there wasn't such a similar theme to their behavior, then I think you have a case but I just don't see where this break up was that much different nor do I see where the other said anything or did anything that the other one could not ignore.

As for OJ saying that he was going to kill her and get away with it, that makes no sense when he clearly never laid a hand on her after the 1989 incident. Where he was told point blank that if he ever hit her again, he was going to jail, no questions asked, don't collect your $200.00, you go straight to the can. He got the message loud and clear.

And lets face it, OJ did have the cards, Nicole might had 1 or 2, that was it. He had no reason to kill her. He had the money, he was leaving for New York, he was making plans to move to Florida and was moving on with his life. Did you ever think that maybe Nicole was just as pissed off that OJ was going to move to Florida? That he was again leaving for New York and she would be with the kids 24/7? And if Nicole said that they would stick to their parental agreement, who can blame her but to kill her over it? Sorry Taz, I just don't see it.

[limakey]

Bob,

They knew where OJ Simpson was, they knew when he left the area and they knew that he saw Nicole that evening. They knew that someone called at 10:30 p.m. about the bodies and they waited several hours to see if anyone else came forward. Unless you had nothing to do with the murder and had no dog in the fight, why wouldn't you come forward?

Speaking of which, what about the woman that the second couple saw when they found the bodies---wasn't she just standing there? Was she ever questioned?

And what I saw about the dog is not irrevelvant because the beast was used the primetime witness for the timeline. I thought it was insane that anyone would believe the dog was wailing over Nicole's death. I thought what idiot would believe that and of course, there were several who believed the dog.

That's cool, but when presented with the other evidence of the dog's behavior, the dog then became just a dumb dog and was thristy. (He was given water by the way, so he wasn't thirsty.)

If that woman was a reporter, then why didn't she come forward? Why didn't she testify and you are wrong, while they may get several phone calls like that night, they didn't prove that to be the case nor did they say just how rare murders were in that area. How busy it was and depending on which book read, you get different versions of the phone calls. And don't tell me anything about cops because lets face it Bob, the cops could have answered more questions that night and they didn't.

Like the cop who encountered the dog walker and Kato, wasn't he suppose to call animal control or something? Where was he when Steven Swab had a hard time pinning down the time? I'm not saying that he was lying but the cops could have testified to what time they talked. Another piece of the timeline the cops left fuzzy.

[limakey]

Alien,

I think MF was the DA's perfect scapegoat. Remember, they knew about him and they knew their case was in trouble from the very beginning. While everyone focused on one word and that lie,
it took the focus off of the other cops.

There was at least one jury member, the white older lady, who to this day believes OJ Simpson probably killed Nicole and Ron but she also believes that evidence was planted and that it was Vanatter's lies that had more of an impact then Mark Fuhrman's.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

I believe NG's have made their case pretty clear. One of the major differences between NG's and G's is that NG's never said that OJ Simpson wouldn't do this crime, but why we feel he couldn't have done this crime, at least not alone.

We have also made it clear why we don't trust the evidence and why we believe certain police officers lied in this case.

The timeline was and still is a huge issue with me.

Apparently two eyewitnesses of Simpson fleeing the scene were not called to testify and while one may had a credibility problem, the one, to the best my knowledge had no such baggage.

IMO, who ever killed Ron and Nicole were not surprised by Ron's appearance at the scene or that there were two adults there. They either knew the children were there and didn't care or didn't know about the children so that is why at least one of them walked back into the killing cage.

I believe whoever killed them either knew the Simpson's very well or had excellent intelligence (the kind only George Bush could dream about having). One of the main reasons why I believe this is because of the items that were left at the scene and I believe they were left there on purpose. I can't figure out why Simpson would do this.

Limakey: Have you ever murdered someone? Not one, but two people? Don't you think that your mind would be racing and your adrenaline off the charts? Wouldn't you be fearful that someone saw you? If all that isn't bad enough, you also had a plane to catch. The pressure and stress must have been absolutely astronomical. OJ knew that he only had one glove and dropped his hat, but he just didn't have the time to find them. He had to get out of there and get back to Rockingham to leave for his trip to Chicago.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is definitely a duck. Even if you honestly believe that the LAPD was out to frame OJ, how do you possibly explain OJ's blood at the crime scene? Where did they get OJ's blood when, unbeknownst to them, OJ was on a plane to Chicago when they all arrived at the crime scene? Also, who alerted them to the fact that Nicole and Ron were going to be brutally murdered that night so that they could frame OJ? It just doesn't make any (common) sense!

Moreover, how do you discount Kato the dog? What, he just sat there and watched as his mistress and her friend were being slaughtered by his master? GMAB!!

JMO and MOO!!

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,

In the 1993 incident, Nicole called the cops, twice I think. When she started the second conversation, she was pissed as well, listen to her demand that someone be sent over right now. Then, later she did sound scared and if you listen in the backround, you can hear OJ yelling and screaming and it was something about what she did before, etc. I have no doubt that she was scared, but I have no doubt that she knew she pushed a tad too far as well. She did what any one who knew they pushed someone too far did, she called for help, I don't have a problem with that.

However, Nicole was also taped saying that OJ only hit her one time and she had no reason to lie, she had no reason to protect him.
*snip*


Limakey. I like you. I mean no disrespect to you as a person.

But, this is so hard to discuss with you. It's like you have shades on. Let me start by saying this....just because OJ Simpson scared/beat/abused his wife/ex-wife does not mean he killed her.

Okay, now let's analyze this. You said that when she called 911 "the second time" she was pissed and that she "demanded" someone to come over. Please listen to it....

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/suspect/bio/

(it's at the bottom)

She even said please. That's not a demand. She is crying Limakey. You can also tell that her voice is shakey. That is someone who is scared. You twist the facts.

Why is it okay to you that he forced his way in? Do you think she deserved it? You did say that "she knew she went to far". What, did she CAUSE him to break her door down? Is a woman suppose to know not to push her husband's buttons? Just give in to his demands? He was demanding that she do what he said. And, what did she do to push his buttons? Not discuss it with him? Wow! That definately deserves what she got.

I have no doubt that she was scared, but I have no doubt that she knew she pushed a tad too far as well. She did what any one who knew they pushed someone too far did, she called for help, I don't have a problem with that.

I have a REAL issue with this comment. She pushed too far. So, now she must suffer? All she did was hang up on him. Not talk to him. That was NOT pushing too far. She CAUSED this to happen because she pushed too far? I have known many people who have hung up on their spouses/ex-spouses and the spouse/ex-spouse did NOT come over and force themselves in. That is not NORMAL. It goes beyond the normal fights that people have in divorces.

She did have a reason to lie. She had to help protect his image. That's what she did when she went to the hospital. She LIED to protect her abuser. This is common. She didn't tell the truth until AC forced her to.

Your opinion on this matter means nothing to me. You cannot look at this and analyze it fairly. IMO

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,
*snip*
I do have problems with Nicole's diary because of the Browns' behavior toward it and I also have problems because it was never, IMO, proved that it was her who actually wrote it.
*snip*


Okay, so because of the Brown's behavior towards the diary you don't believe it? That is rediculous. They did analyze the handwriting. They matched it up to writings that they knew Nicole wrote. They also verified instances in the diary. If you don't believe that Nicole wrote it, who did? The pictures that were in the lockbox were Nicole. It was Nicole's lockbox. There were clippings of the 89 incident in there. It was definately Nicoles.

She knew that people wouldn't believe it was true. That's why she saved the things that she did. And, even with the things that she saved, you still don't believe her. You still make excuses and justify.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,

*snip*
I do not believe anything Faye says because everytime she was confronted with what she wrote in her books, it was always the publisher's fault. That she had no control over what was actually printed. So, is this a "true" book or is this a book that was only going to get published if "it bleeds"? Remember, Nicole's father and sister lost their book deal because they refused to trash their sister and also trash OJ Simpson. Yes, Denise hates him with a passion and believes that he killed her sister but she wasn't going to write things about her sister and OJ just to make the publisher's happy.

While I think Nicole was very strong in some ways, in other ways I think she was weak. I think she never realized that with the new crowd she was hanging with were way, way out of her league.

Couples do grow up, they do grow apart and if they are luckey, they are able to grow up but not apart. I think OJ Simpson was a total dog for cheating on her and I feel the same way about Prince Charles. But do I think they killed their ex's over it? No.

Had Nicole and OJ been broken up longer and there wasn't such a similar theme to their behavior, then I think you have a case but I just don't see where this break up was that much different nor do I see where the other said anything or did anything that the other one could not ignore.

As for OJ saying that he was going to kill her and get away with it, that makes no sense when he clearly never laid a hand on her after the 1989 incident. Where he was told point blank that if he ever hit her again, he was going to jail, no questions asked, don't collect your $200.00, you go straight to the can. He got the message loud and clear.

*snip*

I believe that Faye also sensationalized. However, I do believe some events that happened. And, I also believe that there is truth underneath the sensationalism. Nicoles other friends told some of the same stories.

I believe that Nicole tried to make herself strong. She was weak when it came to OJ. She loved him and she was scared of him. There were many different things that caused her to stay and caused her to go back to him.

Who was her new crowd? Faye? There wasn't anything that was way out of her league. You keep talking about there was no proof of this and that. However, there is NO PROOF that she was in some crowd that was way out of her league. She was partying and having fun. That is different than going into a deep underground drug ring. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUPPORT THAT. Nothing.

Couples do grow up, they do grow apart and if they are luckey, they are able to grow up but not apart. I think OJ Simpson was a total dog for cheating on her and I feel the same way about Prince Charles. But do I think they killed their ex's over it? No.

What? Kill their spouses because they cheated? No one ever said that. He killed her because he could no longer control her, she was standing up on her own, she wouldn't give in to him, she begged him back then dumped him, she embarassed him in front of her family, she played hardball with the kids, and more. He could always control her with money. He gave her a car one time to get her forgiveness. It didn't work this time. She gave back the diamond bracelet that he gave her. When he tried to ruin her financially (IRS) she just decided to move. The different ways that he was trying to control her weren't working this time.

The difference in this break up is that he was threatening her with IRS action and she didn't give in. She decided to move away from him. She had NEVER done that before. She always stayed close and tried to include him in the childrens lives. This time she was "playing hardball" with the kids. It was completely different this time. She wanted a new life without him.

Just because he didn't lay a hand on her after the 89 incident doesn't mean he didn't abuse her. Remember that after the 89 incident he sucked up to her. He put the clause in the divorce papers. He basically kissed her ***. She said that she couldn't get over what he did to her. And, she said she feared that the next time he would kill her. So, she got the divorce. He got with Paula. She wanted him back and they reconciled. They weren't living together long enough for him to do it again. It was only 9 months before she was murdered that she called 911 yet again. And, they weren't even living together. And, he didn't give a damn that he could have awoken the kids to him screaming and yelling at their mother. She begged him to calm down and not wake up the kids. He didn't care. He kept on going. He didn't care about his kids at that moment. That should prove to you that he was STILL abusing her. He was still trying to FORCE HER to do what he wanted her to do.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,

*snip*

And lets face it, OJ did have the cards, Nicole might had 1 or 2, that was it. He had no reason to kill her. He had the money, he was leaving for New York, he was making plans to move to Florida and was moving on with his life. Did you ever think that maybe Nicole was just as pissed off that OJ was going to move to Florida? That he was again leaving for New York and she would be with the kids 24/7? And if Nicole said that they would stick to their parental agreement, who can blame her but to kill her over it? Sorry Taz, I just don't see it.

LOL! Nicole was pissed because he was moving to Florida? He begged her to go with him. She wouldn't go. That she would be with the kids 24/7???? What, do you think she didn't want to be with her kids???? Not rational analysis.

Yes, OJ did have the cards. He had the money, power and status. But, he couldn't have the girl. He was use to getting whatever he wanted. But, he couldn't force her to do what he wanted this time.

I know you don't see it. Take off those rose colored glasses and you might be able to.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
Apparently two eyewitnesses of Simpson fleeing the scene were not called to testify and while one may had a credibility problem, the one, to the best my knowledge had no such baggage. Heidstra did testify to seeing the white SUV leaving the scene. Jill Shively sold her story to the tabloids (although she did give her statement before any particulars were known about it being OJ and time of night). As far as the other vehicle (Nissan, I believe), maybe someone didn't want to get involved?

[tazzybaby]

Wukong,

I haven't been able to listen to the interview. I will try again later to see if I can get it to play. That is a great find though! And, I wonder why it wasn't played up more?? I am sure that it can be enhanced and clarify what is said.

Thanks!

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
IMO, who ever killed Ron and Nicole were not surprised by Ron's appearance at the scene or that there were two adults there. They either knew the children were there and didn't care or didn't know about the children so that is why at least one of them walked back into the killing cage. I disagree. Based on Heidstra's testimony of hearing a younger male voice saying ,"Hey, hey, hey." Obviously Ron walked into the attack.

OJ knew the children were there but didn't care -- kind of like the 911 call where he was ranting and raving and screaming terrible things about his EX-wife, while he kept a nude picture of HIS girlfriend on his bedside table.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
I believe whoever killed them either knew the Simpson's very well or had excellent intelligence (the kind only George Bush could dream about having). One of the main reasons why I believe this is because of the items that were left at the scene and I believe they were left there on purpose. I can't figure out why Simpson would do this. Simpson knew the Simpson's very well. As far as intelligence -- that's debatable. (Sorry, couldn't resist). The items left at the scene support the theory that Ron walked into the attack. He obviously tried to fight out of the trap and in the struggle OJ lost his cap and one of his gloves. That's how OJ's hair got on Ron's shirt. And finally that's why he left his trail of blood. Trust me -- OJ didn't leave anything there on purpose except two dead bodies.

Figuring out why OJ did it is really easy -- he was obsessed with Nicole. I don't believe he loved her because I don't think you can spend years being brutal and mean to someone you love and you certainly don't slit their throats because they refuse to let it continue.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
There is evidence to suggest that at least one female called a police force asking about two bodies in that area. In an area where the the only two murders of the year were Ron and Nicole, I find this more then a lucky guess. I think you may have made a leap here. IIRC, the police officer testified that it is a common and ongoing incident to receive inquiries about crimes (anybody killed? any major stuff going on?) by reporters, etc., and this is what he chalked it up to being. The NGs are the ones who are reading mystery/conspiracy into it.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
There is evidence to suggest that OJ Simpson wasn't even sure if Nicole would be home that night or was going to be going out that night. Why would he kill her knowing that babysitter or a friend was coming over? Why leave her body where she could be seen from the street. This is a blatant untruth. The evidence PROVES that OJ knew Nicole was home because he called. We have only his version of what the conversation was or was not -- I personally believe he threw another temper tantrum and this was when he threatened her. He did know it was time for the kids to be in bed because in his statement he said he wasn't sure if Sydney would be asleep yet or not. He knew no one was going to be there that night -- he talked to Nicole and knew that it was her with the kids. As far as her body being seen from the street? My God, he'd just slit her throat almost to the spinal cord. Do you really think he cared if someone from the street could see her?

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
There is no evidence that puts any human being behind Kato's wall. It was a noise and a picture moved, but neither side were able to recreate it. The DA's made it as clear as mud and hoped that jurors wouldn't think to hard about it and just accept the noise as proof of it. Just a coincidence that there was a noise? A thud hard enough to shake the wall and move a picture? Common sense tell you that something hit that wall and for it to have been where the glove was found is too much of a coincidence. As far as the jurors thinking about anything, no one needed to worry about that!

[weezer]

Originally posted by limakey
While MF's past and his knowledge of Mrs. Simpson, IMO, to understand why he would have planted the glove, doesn't mean that he did it. He is just the best guy for it and since he lied about other things, I don't trust him at all.

I do not believe that there had to be a lot of cops involved in any conspiracy. As I stated before, a police officer may have had the gut feeling the glove was planted, but if he didn't actually see it, is his career worth it? Is his life worth it? Who is he going to call if he needs backup (and know, you can't say, "Ghostbusters!")
There is no proof or evidence that anything was planted. If you have proof to the contrary, please share.

I think the assassination done on the LAPD and LE was disgraceful. There was no reason for them to frame OJ. You know, Vannatter's assertions in obtaining turned out to be right. It was human blood on the Bronco. There was suppose to be a maid there.

[Wukong]

Originally posted by tazzybaby
Wukong,

I haven't been able to listen to the interview. I will try again later to see if I can get it to play. That is a great find though! And, I wonder why it wasn't played up more?? I am sure that it can be enhanced and clarify what is said.

Thanks!

Hey Tazz,

You need Realplayer to listen to it. It is a little difficult to hear in parts so I downloaded some audio software that can clean up the sound. I am playing with it now and should have a much cleaner version soon. Right now, I'm going to bed (it's after midnight). I'll PM you when I get a clean version and will send it to you if you want. I will also do a new transcript because there are definitely things in the taped interview that did not make it into any of the written transcripts I've seen.

Wukong

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by Wukong


Hey Tazz,

You need Realplayer to listen to it. It is a little difficult to hear in parts so I downloaded some audio software that can clean up the sound. I am playing with it now and should have a much cleaner version soon. Right now, I'm going to bed (it's after midnight). I'll PM you when I get a clean version and will send it to you if you want. I will also do a new transcript because there are definitely things in the taped interview that did not make it into any of the written transcripts I've seen.

Wukong

Thanks so much Wukong!!

:seeya:

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Hi ya Alien :seeya: I think Netta is out of the building at the moment......:D

Hey, Girl.

I am just catching up as I can. I am spending the week with my Granddaughters while their Mom is out of town. I now know why I would not have children at my age. I have done gymnastics and soccer practice, then supper and baths etc. During the day I spend time with Mr Alien. I escape to this thread to catch up.

I am really interested in what Netta has to say.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Bob,

They knew where OJ Simpson was, they knew when he left the area and they knew that he saw Nicole that evening. They knew that someone called at 10:30 p.m. about the bodies and they waited several hours to see if anyone else came forward. Unless you had nothing to do with the murder and had no dog in the fight, why wouldn't you come forward?

And what I saw about the dog is not irrevelvant because the beast was used the primetime witness for the timeline. I thought it was insane that anyone would believe the dog was wailing over Nicole's death. I thought what idiot would believe that and of course, there were several who believed the dog.


Like the cop who encountered the dog walker and Kato, wasn't he suppose to call animal control or something? Where was he when Steven Swab had a hard time pinning down the time? I'm not saying that he was lying but the cops could have testified to what time they talked. Another piece of the timeline the cops left fuzzy.


limakey, you keep making the same claims but you never support your claims.

What evidence do you know of that leads you to believe that the Robbery Homicide detectives or the West LA detectives knew where Simpson was when they were at Bundy? What evidence do you know of that the Robbery Homicide detectives or the West LA detectives knew that someone called the Wilshire community watch commander at 10:30, 10:45 when they were at Bundy?

All we know about the Akita is that at about 10:30 that night it started to bark loudly and strangely and continued to bark for about twenty five minutes on the street in front of Nicole's condo. We also know from it's bloody paw prints that the Akita walked out of Nicole's front gate towards Dorothy street and turned towards the alley. And we know that when Steven Schwab first saw the dog shortly before 11:00 PM that night the dog had blood on it's paws and the underside of it's chest.

Schwab had no problem pinning down the time he found the dog and what time he got home. When he testified he was very specific about his time estimates as to when he left his house and when he returned.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


I believe that Faye also sensationalized. However, I do believe some events that happened. And, I also believe that there is truth underneath the sensationalism. Nicoles other friends told some of the same stories.

I believe that Nicole tried to make herself strong. She was weak when it came to OJ. She loved him and she was scared of him. There were many different things that caused her to stay and caused her to go back to him.

Who was her new crowd? Faye? There wasn't anything that was way out of her league. You keep talking about there was no proof of this and that. However, there is NO PROOF that she was in some crowd that was way out of her league. She was partying and having fun. That is different than going into a deep underground drug ring. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUPPORT THAT. Nothing.

Couples do grow up, they do grow apart and if they are luckey, they are able to grow up but not apart. I think OJ Simpson was a total dog for cheating on her and I feel the same way about Prince Charles. But do I think they killed their ex's over it? No.

What? Kill their spouses because they cheated? No one ever said that. He killed her because he could no longer control her, she was standing up on her own, she wouldn't give in to him, she begged him back then dumped him, she embarassed him in front of her family, she played hardball with the kids, and more. He could always control her with money. He gave her a car one time to get her forgiveness. It didn't work this time. She gave back the diamond bracelet that he gave her. When he tried to ruin her financially (IRS) she just decided to move. The different ways that he was trying to control her weren't working this time.

The difference in this break up is that he was threatening her with IRS action and she didn't give in. She decided to move away from him. She had NEVER done that before. She always stayed close and tried to include him in the childrens lives. This time she was "playing hardball" with the kids. It was completely different this time. She wanted a new life without him.

Just because he didn't lay a hand on her after the 89 incident doesn't mean he didn't abuse her. Remember that after the 89 incident he sucked up to her. He put the clause in the divorce papers. He basically kissed her ***. She said that she couldn't get over what he did to her. And, she said she feared that the next time he would kill her. So, she got the divorce. He got with Paula. She wanted him back and they reconciled. They weren't living together long enough for him to do it again. It was only 9 months before she was murdered that she called 911 yet again. And, they weren't even living together. And, he didn't give a damn that he could have awoken the kids to him screaming and yelling at their mother. She begged him to calm down and not wake up the kids. He didn't care. He kept on going. He didn't care about his kids at that moment. That should prove to you that he was STILL abusing her. He was still trying to FORCE HER to do what he wanted her to do.



tazzybaby, good posting. Very well said. I agree.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,

In the 1993 incident, Nicole called the cops, twice I think. When she started the second conversation, she was pissed as well, listen to her demand that someone be sent over right now. Then, later she did sound scared and if you listen in the backround, you can hear OJ yelling and screaming and it was something about what she did before, etc. I have no doubt that she was scared, but I have no doubt that she knew she pushed a tad too far as well. She did what any one who knew they pushed someone too far did, she called for help, I don't have a problem with that.

However, Nicole was also taped saying that OJ only hit her one time and she had no reason to lie, she had no reason to protect him. I do have problems with Nicole's diary because of the Browns' behavior toward it and I also have problems because it was never, IMO, proved that it was her who actually wrote it.

I have no doubt that OJ was mentally abusive, but so was she. Yes, he did batter her that one time (as in the evidence present in court) and earned the lifetime tag of batterer, but so did Nicole. You hit another adult in anger, regardless of your sex, you get the tag of batterer.

I do not believe anything Faye says because everytime she was confronted with what she wrote in her books, it was always the publisher's fault. That she had no control over what was actually printed. So, is this a "true" book or is this a book that was only going to get published if "it bleeds"? Remember, Nicole's father and sister lost their book deal because they refused to trash their sister and also trash OJ Simpson. Yes, Denise hates him with a passion and believes that he killed her sister but she wasn't going to write things about her sister and OJ just to make the publisher's happy.

While I think Nicole was very strong in some ways, in other ways I think she was weak. I think she never realized that with the new crowd she was hanging with were way, way out of her league.

Couples do grow up, they do grow apart and if they are luckey, they are able to grow up but not apart. I think OJ Simpson was a total dog for cheating on her and I feel the same way about Prince Charles. But do I think they killed their ex's over it? No.

Had Nicole and OJ been broken up longer and there wasn't such a similar theme to their behavior, then I think you have a case but I just don't see where this break up was that much different nor do I see where the other said anything or did anything that the other one could not ignore.

As for OJ saying that he was going to kill her and get away with it, that makes no sense when he clearly never laid a hand on her after the 1989 incident. Where he was told point blank that if he ever hit her again, he was going to jail, no questions asked, don't collect your $200.00, you go straight to the can. He got the message loud and clear.

And lets face it, OJ did have the cards, Nicole might had 1 or 2, that was it. He had no reason to kill her. He had the money, he was leaving for New York, he was making plans to move to Florida and was moving on with his life. Did you ever think that maybe Nicole was just as pissed off that OJ was going to move to Florida? That he was again leaving for New York and she would be with the kids 24/7? And if Nicole said that they would stick to their parental agreement, who can blame her but to kill her over it? Sorry Taz, I just don't see it. My, my, my -- the twists and turns. Oj was moving on with his life BUT he was willing to commit suicide because Nicole was dead? OJ was moving on with his life BUT Paula had dumped him, Nicole shunned him and even the wannabe that Kato tried to set him up with fell through.......yep - he was moving on all right.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey

I have no doubt that she was scared, but I have no doubt that she knew she pushed a tad too far as well. She did what any one who knew they pushed someone too far did, she called for help, I don't have a problem with that.


limakey,

I do not know you personally and have no way of knowing your personal history and if you have ever been abused by a partner.

If you were abused, it is apparent that you have never gotten past the idea that is was somehow your fault because that is what comes across in your postings on this topic. You seem to blame Nicole, you seem to acknowledge that she was scared yet that her fear was all her fault because she pushed him to far. How is that? Where is his responsibility? Should I expect to be threatened if I stand up for myself and draw a firm line?

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
Speaking of which, what about the woman that the second couple saw when they found the bodies---wasn't she just standing there? Was she ever questioned?

Like the cop who encountered the dog walker and Kato, wasn't he suppose to call animal control or something? Where was he when Steven Swab had a hard time pinning down the time? I'm not saying that he was lying but the cops could have testified to what time they talked. Another piece of the timeline the cops left fuzzy. :confused: WTH

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
There was at least one jury member, the white older lady, who to this day believes OJ Simpson probably killed Nicole and Ron but she also believes that evidence was planted and that it was Vanatter's lies that had more of an impact then Mark Fuhrman's. Link please

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey

You hit another adult in anger, regardless of your sex, you get the tag of batterer.


You had not responded to my two postings regarding the above, so I assume that you either skipped over them or chose not to understand them.

Without reposting a third time, suffice it to say that the above comment is not correct by legal or psychological definition.

Kate

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I don't recall this. Why was OJ going to move to Fla prior to the murders? I thought he just decided to go there afterwards in order to avoid the judgement in the civil trial. :confused: I remember something about them moving some place to start over as a family -- could have been Florida.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

I don't recall this. Why was OJ going to move to Fla prior to the murders? I thought he just decided to go there afterwards in order to avoid the judgement in the civil trial. :confused:

You are correct! This is what I understand also. OJ had no intention of relocating to Florida before the murders. What for? However, he sure did have a reason after the verdict in the Civil Trial!

:seeya:

[Wukong]

Originally posted by nettathirty



OJ was in Florida the Friday before the 12th, at a friends who wanted OJ to stay and fly into Chicago from there!!

No, OJ was on Long Island at friends on the Friday before the 12th and they asked him to stay and fly to Chicago from there.

Close though, Florida is Long Island south ( i grew up on LI and "everyone retires to Florida, it's the law" - Jerry Seinfeld joke).

Wukong

[Wukong]

From Paula Barbieri's Book:


"On Sunday, June 12, I didn't pick up my phone until 7 in the morning. By that time, OJ figured to be on the third fairway, with his cell phone back in his car. There would be no one to hear my voice except OJ's computerized answering service. I knew it was a cop-out to say good-bye in a phone message, but I didn't know how else to do it. If I spoke to OJ directly, it would've been a big confrontation. We would have argued for hours. At best, I would miss my flight to Vegas;' at worst, I'd lose my nerve and be back at square one. Our track record, after all, wasn't so great. I had trouble saying no, and OJ wouldn't take it for an answer. This time had to be different from all the other breakups. This one had to stick. I wasn't rushing from his bed in disgust this morning. I was turning the page and closing the book, and wishing him well as he did the same. It was terribly hard to make that call. I slowly punched in the number and uttered a small wish: Please don't pick up, please don't pick up.....After 4 tense rings, I heard OJ's lighthearted recording and then my starting gun, the beep. 'I know you've been trying to work things out', I began, just as I'd rehearsed, 'and I've been trying very hard, too. But between work and golf and the kids and my schedule and your schedule, there isn't enough time to figure out all these things that hurt so much. 'I just couldn't get the answers I needed. There's no one to blame---we're just two people in different worlds. The pain is too much for me. I can't go on sleeping with you and then moving to the couch and crying for hours---the feelings are tearing me apart." I told OJ that I deserved to have a family, but that it couldn't be with him----'You already have two families, and you won't want to start a third, even though you've said you would' Once I got started, I went on for quite awhile, maybe 15 minutes. Toward the end, I remember telling OJ that if he truly loved me, he would let me go. It was painful for me, too, but I thought it for the best. I told him I'd be gone for awhile and that I wouldn't be answering my phone. I closed with the words I hoped OJ would accept and understand, both for what they were and what they weren't: 'I love you.' I was so excited when I hung up that phone, and proud of myself, too, that I'd been able to go through with it. I'd taken back control of my life. It was such a huge thing, and I'd somehow done it the right way. The bad time was over, I thought, as I gathered my luggage. I was flying so high I barely needed a plane."

Wukong

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

OJ was in Florida the Friday before the 12th, at a friends who wanted OJ to stay and fly into Chicago from there!!

And, your point is? Friends wanting OJ to stay and fly to Chicago from there hardly comes close to OJ wanting to move there permanently before the murders.

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

RR2 has come out of hiding it seems :lol:

Yeah, seems like it. Hopefully RR2 has learned his lesson. It's amazing how Netta has straightened up!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

OJ left Buffalo earlier that week and flew to Florida to look at some houses, while there he stayed with a friend.. OJs friend told him to stay in Florida and leave there for Chicago, but Nicole had been getting on him about his travel interferring with his children. Oj flew home to go the recital..

Uh, why didn't you say all of this in your original post? If you had, I wouldn't have responded as I did.

JMO and MOO!!

[Wukong]

OJ was in Connecticut the week before the 12th meeting with the Swiss Army knife people. He then went to Long Island where his friends suggested he stay until his Chicago trip. He was NOT in Florida looking at houses. He couldn't stay because he had "things" to take care of in LA.

Wukong

[Wukong]

Lange: So it was about five days ago you last saw Nicole? Was it at the house?

Simpson: OK, the last time I saw Nicole, physically saw Nicole...I saw her obviously last night. The time before, I'm trying to think...I went to Washington, DC, so I didn't see her, so I'm trying to think...I haven't seen her since I went to Washington -- what's the date today?

Lange: Today's Monday, the 13th of June.

Simpson: OK, I went to Washington on maybe Wednesday. Thursday I think I was in...Thursday I was in Connecticut, then Long Island Thursday afternoon and all of Friday. I got home Friday night, Friday afternoon. I played, you know... Paula picked me up at the airport. I played golf Saturday, and when I came home I think my son was there. So I did something with my son. I don't think I saw Nicole at all then. And then I went to a big affair with Paula Saturday night, and I got up and played golf Sunday which pissed Paula off, and I saw Nicole at...It was about a week before, I saw her at the...

http://simpson.walraven.org/oj-stmnt.html

Wukong

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

Was I really that bad?

Pretty much, dude! It was getting to the point that I didn't know who was worse ~ Talisman, RR2 or you!

JMO and MOO!!

[Wukong]

Netta,

I for one am glad you (and the others NGs) are here. You cannot have a debate, or learn anything, when everyone agrees with one another. It then becomes a mutual admiration society.

I also welcome back Ray...ERRR.. Martin II. I feel he adds to the debate. Just hope he behaves. I know you guys are just as passionate about OJ as the G's, just for different reasons. Lets keep it civil, and that goes for all. I think if we continue to behave we may get the whole board back.

Wukong

[Wukong]

I am surprised there were no comments about this post?


Originally posted by Wukong
From Paula Barbieri's Book:


"On Sunday, June 12, I didn't pick up my phone until 7 in the morning. By that time, OJ figured to be on the third fairway, with his cell phone back in his car. There would be no one to hear my voice except OJ's computerized answering service. I knew it was a cop-out to say good-bye in a phone message, but I didn't know how else to do it. If I spoke to OJ directly, it would've been a big confrontation. We would have argued for hours. At best, I would miss my flight to Vegas;' at worst, I'd lose my nerve and be back at square one. Our track record, after all, wasn't so great. I had trouble saying no, and OJ wouldn't take it for an answer. This time had to be different from all the other breakups. This one had to stick. I wasn't rushing from his bed in disgust this morning. I was turning the page and closing the book, and wishing him well as he did the same. It was terribly hard to make that call. I slowly punched in the number and uttered a small wish: Please don't pick up, please don't pick up.....After 4 tense rings, I heard OJ's lighthearted recording and then my starting gun, the beep. 'I know you've been trying to work things out', I began, just as I'd rehearsed, 'and I've been trying very hard, too. But between work and golf and the kids and my schedule and your schedule, there isn't enough time to figure out all these things that hurt so much. 'I just couldn't get the answers I needed. There's no one to blame---we're just two people in different worlds. The pain is too much for me. I can't go on sleeping with you and then moving to the couch and crying for hours---the feelings are tearing me apart." I told OJ that I deserved to have a family, but that it couldn't be with him----'You already have two families, and you won't want to start a third, even though you've said you would' Once I got started, I went on for quite awhile, maybe 15 minutes. Toward the end, I remember telling OJ that if he truly loved me, he would let me go. It was painful for me, too, but I thought it for the best. I told him I'd be gone for awhile and that I wouldn't be answering my phone. I closed with the words I hoped OJ would accept and understand, both for what they were and what they weren't: 'I love you.' I was so excited when I hung up that phone, and proud of myself, too, that I'd been able to go through with it. I'd taken back control of my life. It was such a huge thing, and I'd somehow done it the right way. The bad time was over, I thought, as I gathered my luggage. I was flying so high I barely needed a plane."

Wukong

[Wukong]

Here is one more bit of proof that OJ heard Paula's message. In OJ's deposition and testimony he said that Paula and him had a great night Saturday and left each other in great spirits, planning a life together, kids running around the house, redecorating ..... He says he never got her message, but then in the police interview piece I posted above he says this:

"And then I went to a big affair with Paula Saturday night, and I got up and played golf Sunday which pissed Paula off"

Now how did he know Paula was pissed off if he never heard her message? He said everything was lovey dovey with Paula the night before.

Wukong

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


RR2 has come out of hiding it seems :lol:

Hey, you found him!!!! BUSTED!! :D

[limakey]

Kate,

I haven't answered your posts because I'm so far behind on my reading. But I will catch up!

[limakey]

2Late,

If you can answer this question, then you will know if a person is seriously race challenged.

Which statement is more offensive?

A. The only good African-American is a dead one.

B. The only good n-word is a dead one.

2Late, which one is more offensive? Which one do you find funny? Which one has anything to do with a sceen play about women on the police force?

And you, like Mr. August just love to leave out the facts regarding Mark Fuhrman, the defense did not have to do a call out or hire anyone to go find some witnesses against Mark Fuhrman.

Several people came forward with their encounters with Mark Fuhrman. They saw him on TV and felt they had to speak up, even believing that OJ Simpson was guilty as hell.

And Mr. August, a little reality check for you, no one ever said that Mark Fuhrman's attitude towards African-Americans had anything to do with the murders. However, his lies, his arrorgance had everything to do with his credibility.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

If you can answer this question, then you will know if a person is seriously race challenged.

Which statement is more offensive?

A. The only good African-American is a dead one.

B. The only good n-word is a dead one.

2Late, which one is more offensive? Which one do you find funny? Which one has anything to do with a sceen play about women on the police force?

And you, like Mr. August just love to leave out the facts regarding Mark Fuhrman, the defense did not have to do a call out or hire anyone to go find some witnesses against Mark Fuhrman.

Several people came forward with their encounters with Mark Fuhrman. They saw him on TV and felt they had to speak up, even believing that OJ Simpson was guilty as hell.

And Mr. August, a little reality check for you, no one ever said that Mark Fuhrman's attitude towards African-Americans had anything to do with the murders. However, his lies, his arrorgance had everything to do with his credibility.

Huh? Where did this come from?

:shrug:

JMO and MOO!!

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by bobaugust




tazzybaby, good posting. Very well said. I agree.

bobaugust

Thanks Bob!

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by socaldiva


hmm....I still don't remember hearing that. Oh well :tongue:

I have heard that from several different places. That OJ wanted Nicole to move with him to Florida. He seemed to think that it would make things better. But, *big sigh*, I will look and find out where I heard it and let you guys know if I'm right or wrong and where it came from.

:seeya:

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by nettathirty



We're just passionate about our belief! However, if I've ever said anything offensive to anyone on this board, I apologize!:rose:


I still believe OJ is innocent and not just because he was found Not Guilty, nor do I believe there was any intent by anyone to frame him!!!

Hi Netta,

I wanted to say something to you also about your new attitude. I noticed it immediately. Even though you are debating you have left out the snide remarks. You seemed to try and provoke and that is gone. It is definately noticable! I, for one, appreciate it! I enjoy a good debate and it does keep me searching and researching.

Thanks Netta!!

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


RR2 has come out of hiding it seems :lol: LOL -- that was my first thought too! The gist of what I was saying stays the same -- MF was "whatever" the descriptive adjective/noun but about the bad guys. My belief also stays the same -- no matter what MF is/was, the evidence PROVES that OJ and only OJ was at the scene of the murder and commited two brutal murders.

[weezer]

Originally posted by Wukong
From Paula Barbieri's Book:


"On Sunday, June 12, I didn't pick up my phone until 7 in the morning. By that time, OJ figured to be on the third fairway, with his cell phone back in his car. There would be no one to hear my voice except OJ's computerized answering service. I knew it was a cop-out to say good-bye in a phone message, but I didn't know how else to do it. If I spoke to OJ directly, it would've been a big confrontation. We would have argued for hours. At best, I would miss my flight to Vegas;' at worst, I'd lose my nerve and be back at square one. Our track record, after all, wasn't so great. I had trouble saying no, and OJ wouldn't take it for an answer. This time had to be different from all the other breakups. This one had to stick. I wasn't rushing from his bed in disgust this morning. I was turning the page and closing the book, and wishing him well as he did the same. It was terribly hard to make that call. I slowly punched in the number and uttered a small wish: Please don't pick up, please don't pick up.....After 4 tense rings, I heard OJ's lighthearted recording and then my starting gun, the beep. 'I know you've been trying to work things out', I began, just as I'd rehearsed, 'and I've been trying very hard, too. But between work and golf and the kids and my schedule and your schedule, there isn't enough time to figure out all these things that hurt so much. 'I just couldn't get the answers I needed. There's no one to blame---we're just two people in different worlds. The pain is too much for me. I can't go on sleeping with you and then moving to the couch and crying for hours---the feelings are tearing me apart." I told OJ that I deserved to have a family, but that it couldn't be with him----'You already have two families, and you won't want to start a third, even though you've said you would' Once I got started, I went on for quite awhile, maybe 15 minutes. Toward the end, I remember telling OJ that if he truly loved me, he would let me go. It was painful for me, too, but I thought it for the best. I told him I'd be gone for awhile and that I wouldn't be answering my phone. I closed with the words I hoped OJ would accept and understand, both for what they were and what they weren't: 'I love you.' I was so excited when I hung up that phone, and proud of myself, too, that I'd been able to go through with it. I'd taken back control of my life. It was such a huge thing, and I'd somehow done it the right way. The bad time was over, I thought, as I gathered my luggage. I was flying so high I barely needed a plane."

Wukong Sounds like Nicole could have written it. Scarey how close the two relationships were:

". . .it would've been a big confrontation. We would have argued for hours."

". . .Our track record, after all, wasn't so great. I had trouble saying no, and OJ wouldn't take it for an answer."

". . .This time had to be different from all the other breakups. This one had to stick. "

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Was I really that bad? Yes

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II


tazzybaby

oj and or oj and nicole had discussed the move to Florida with Cora. According to Cora. She had suggested to nicole and oj that they leave LA and move to Florida.
Florida has many advantages for a person like oj and Cora thought that it would be good to try a fresh start away from LA.
This may be found in Coras testimony.

Thanks Martin!!

That's what I thought. I just couldn't remember where it came from. I will see if I can find it in her testimony and post it here.

:seeya:

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
And Mr. August, a little reality check for you, no one ever said that Mark Fuhrman's attitude towards African-Americans had anything to do with the murders. However, his lies, his arrorgance had everything to do with his credibility. Junping in here --

Then you should ignore all of the evidence and testimony related to Fuhrman. Now, you are left with OJ's blood, footprint, cap, glove, hair and Bronco fiber at the murder scene. How did it get there?

[weezer]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Hi Netta,

I wanted to say something to you also about your new attitude. I noticed it immediately. Even though you are debating you have left out the snide remarks. You seemed to try and provoke and that is gone. It is definately noticable! I, for one, appreciate it! I enjoy a good debate and it does keep me searching and researching.

Thanks Netta!! :beer: go netta, go netta!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey

And you, like Mr. August just love to leave out the facts regarding Mark Fuhrman, the defense did not have to do a call out or hire anyone to go find some witnesses against Mark Fuhrman.

Several people came forward with their encounters with Mark Fuhrman. They saw him on TV and felt they had to speak up, even believing that OJ Simpson was guilty as hell.

And Mr. August, a little reality check for you, no one ever said that Mark Fuhrman's attitude towards African-Americans had anything to do with the murders. However, his lies, his arrorgance had everything to do with his credibility.



limakey, you say no one ever said that Mark Fuhrman's attitude towards African Americans had anything to do with the murders. You did when you accuse Fuhrman of planting evidence when there isn't one single shred of evidence to support that accusation.

Mark Fuhrman only told one lie in this case, not lies. Simpson told lies. What does that do to his credibility? And what does that tell you about his involvement in these murders?

What evidence do you know of that leads you to believe that the Robbery Homicide detectives or the West LA detectives knew where Simpson was when they were at Bundy?

What evidence do you know of that the Robbery Homicide detectives or the West LA detectives knew that someone called the Wilshire community watch commander at 10:30, 10:45 when they were at Bundy?

I believe I've answered every question you've ever asked me, how about reciprocating.

bobaugust