General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD [Archive] - Page 4

limakey

04-29-2006, 01:35 AM

Wukong,

I truly don't understand the importance you place on Paula's message to OJ.

The DA's were desperate for a "trigger" for the murders. I don't remember the Paula Message Debate was brought up in the criminal trial. If I remember correctly, the DA's just played it like OJ was mad at Nicole and when he couldn't get hold of Paula, he figured he had enough time to do the whacko hacko on Nicole (and anybody else for that matter) and make it back in plenty of time for his plane.

And if Paula left a message that she may be going out of town, what does that tell you? Maybe Paula left more then one message.

Think about it, she leaves this long message early in the morning, so early in fact that she knows exactly where OJ should be on the golf course. Now if she knew what fairway he would be on when she made the phone call, what are the chances she knew what time he would be back in his car and get her message?

Do you ever think that maybe Paula was a tad pissed off, that she left another message about going out of town?

And don't you think Paula was tad pissed off that before the love of her life mentioned her in his letter, that he talked about his first wife and his love for Nicole and that Paula was "special"?

And how do you think Paula felt when Gretchen Stockdale testified and when Kato testified about Tracy O'dell? I don't consider myself to be a jealous person, but I do have some pride.

limakey

04-29-2006, 01:46 AM

2Late,

Going with your ducks---now lets put them in a row.

If person talks like a Nazi, looks like a Nazi, walks like a Nazi, acts like a Nazi, then why is everybody upset when he is called a Nazi?

If the blood on the backgate was not collected until weeks later, blood in the Bronco not collected until months later, blood not seen on the socks until months later, then what do we call this type of duck?

limakey

04-29-2006, 02:22 AM

Taz,

Everybody has buttons and while this is sad to say, it is true, the people that can "push" them the best are our closet friends and love ones. No one deserves mental, emotional and/or physical abuse regardless of age, race and sex.

I have never nor would I ever deny that OJ Simpson was abusive to Nicole but she was abusive as well. They both played with each other's heads and hearts. It doesn't matter who started it or who finished it, what does matter is that they were both abusive.

Taz, what if it was Nicole who killed OJ? Would you say because of the 1993 incident, that Nicole was justified in killing him? Would you say that OJ deserved what he got because he pushed her too far?

I read many posts where G's have said that Michelle deserved what she got when Nicole slapped her. That Michelle was helping OJ and for that, she deserved to get slapped. I don't understand that logic.

It appears to me that it doesn't matter what Nicole said or did, she didn't deserve anything she got, but if anyone was on the receiving end of Nicole's slaps or abuse, they deserved what they got because they made her do it or OJ made her slap Michelle.

I don't have shades on Taz, because I have looked at this case and this evidence from both sides, I have read the books from both sides. I even had the opportunity to ask Marcia Clark a question about Nicole being a battered woman and if she killed OJ would she been able to use the 'battered woman's syndrome" as a defense and she said no.

The problem I have with the diary comes from Darden's and Clark's book. While the Browns have been pretty much slammed into the ground, I have always defended them. No matter what they did or said, I believe they loved their daughter and their sister and for whatever reasons, they sold what they did. But when I found out about the diary and how they held it away from the DA's, I have to ask questions about it.

If Nicole was so concerned about OJ's image, because without his image, he couldn't make the money he made and therefore her support payments would be made lower, then why call the police in the first place? Why even mention that one and only time?

Also, you have to remember, the diary was never allowed into evidence because everything that was in it was true, it was allowed into the civil trial to illustrate (not sure that is the right word) Nicole's state of mind.

And AC Cowlings, he loved both Nicole and OJ and he testified to what he knew and what he was told, he didn't always paint Nicole in a positive light. He knew Nicole hit OJ and OJ did nothing but look stupid why trying to protect himself. Did OJ deserve to be hit?

Wukong

04-29-2006, 03:23 AM

Hey Limakey,

I think Paula leaving a message may have just added a little bit more sh*t to and already bad day. OJ was probably more pissed off because he played like sh*t on the gofl course that morning. The main reason I'm posting about Paula's message is mostly about OJ lying and because I have been working on what was really said in the police interview as I have been listening to the audio the past few days.

Wukong

2L8 4A D8

04-29-2006, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

Going with your ducks---now lets put them in a row.

If person talks like a Nazi, looks like a Nazi, walks like a Nazi, acts like a Nazi, then why is everybody upset when he is called a Nazi?

If the blood on the backgate was not collected until weeks later, blood in the Bronco not collected until months later, blood not seen on the socks until months later, then what do we call this type of duck?

You never even answered any questions that I asked of you in my post. You completely blew it off, turned it around and then sent me the above post, which makes no sense at all. You seem to be doing that a lot lately, with other Posters as well.

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

04-29-2006, 05:32 AM

2Late,

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, really. I'm just applying your logic to the facts in this case as I see it.

limakey

04-29-2006, 05:44 AM

Wukong,

My hat is off to you on your research and Mr. August's. (Of course I don't agree with you guys on anything on this case and I think we probably couldn't agree on the color of air, however that is what makes our country great!)

However, don't you find it odd that you two, after years and years of going over this case, have pointed out things that a multi-million dollar state funded trial lawyers and experts never did?

As you know, I never understood why the DA's went with a crime of passion, I thought that was the perfect motive when I head about the murders.

Then I found it odd that they really wanted to make it seem like Ron and Nicole were nothing more then people who had a cup of coffee together and by chance, may have met again at a club.

Then when they went with DV for the motive, it made sense, because clearly Nicole was not a battered woman in the eyes of the law because there was not enough evidence to support it.

They way you and Mr. August relay your thoughts, it like OJ was having a bad day, a real bad day so when his maid called out for the night, he decided to knock off Nicole and he didn't care that the kids were still up, he didn't care that Sydney's friend was sleeping over, he didn't care who saw him coming or going and he just went nuts for a minute and a half, but then pulled his act together so well, he was able to control his bleeding.

As I have said before, women breaking up with OJ was no big deal to him because he was and still is a cocky SOB and he knows that when a woman falls in love with him, he can always get her back.

After reading Paula's book, which I thought was kind of odd thing to do anyway, I realized she is totally one pissed off woman who not only was going to be 3rd in OJ's life, but she was a lot like Nicole. She went after him after he broke with her. Now maybe Paula got a little of her own back.

And I'm sorry Wukong, I saw Paula's TV Book tour and you don't write a book like that and then refuse to say that he is guilty. She kept on saying that she can't even think about a man she loved could do something like that---when in her first TV interview, she said she knew for a fact that OJ didn't do it. That she knew about how sore he was the night before and that everyone knew, including Nicole, you only had to go for his knees and OJ would end up on the ground like a cripple.

Paula was also upset because after OJ got out of jail, he promised her he would go to church with her and then he didn't go. She felt he should have been more greatful.

She may be beautiful, but I truly believe Paula has her own issues and she wanted to save her career. IMO.

Wukong

04-29-2006, 08:00 AM

Limakey,

I think you and I would agree on many things outside this case. I am not a one dimensional person and this case is just entertainment for me, I don't take it too seriously. I do truly feel OJ was responsible for the murders though.

I don't think OJ was just having A bad day, I think he was having a bad life. What did he have going for him at that point in his life? A joke of a movie career, no future in sports commentating (He was awful, it was painful to listen to him trying to speak coherently on Monday night football), Trouble with business (got in way too deep with the wrong people), the women in his life dropping him like a bad habit, reduced to hanging out with Kato (OK, that was a joke). He really had no friends outside golf, no spirituality, glory days long behind him..... I think he was a miserable man. I don't know what he was thinking or feeling during that time and niether does anyone else. But I truly believe he was depressed (evidenced by his completely falling apart after the murders) and pissed at a lot of stuff. He was, and still is, a very angry man inside.

I think Martin points out a very important clue; the man would not go to Church with Paula. Without a belief system people are lost souls. When things went wrong, he had nothing to fall back on. Money, girls, cars? Meaningless when your soul is empty.

My opinion

Wukong

Wukong

04-29-2006, 12:13 PM

Martin,

That was my opinion and my opinion only. I wrote "My opinion" at the end just for this reason. Again, this is my opinion. OK?

Just my opintion,

Wukong

limakey

04-30-2006, 12:37 AM

Wukong,

If there was evidence to support what you said about OJ thinking he had a bad life and/or was basically morally stranded at the time, I think you may have had a point.

OJ Simpson was more then the first and only man to gain 2,000 rushing yards in a 14 game season. While he was always be known for that, people forget the weather he played in and the Bills sucked for years and years. I don't think the Bills had more then 2 winning seasons while he was on their team.

No one could take away what he accomplished on the field and no one could take away what he accomplished off the field. He was the first African American professional player to make a very, very smooth transition not only into the world of endorsements, but also into business as well as in the commentator's booth. While I agree that in the beginning, it was rough going his first season on MNF, however, I think that if you ask many people who was the worst commentator ever on MNF, I think there would be several names that would be said before his. Like, Howard Cosell. He was brilliant man, he wrote an unbelieveable book and yet, he was hated for his commentaries. Dandy Don Merdith, was funny, that was it, I still remember him singing, "The Lights Are Out, The Party Is Over". I think the best voice MNF had ever was Frank Gifford, followed very closely by Al Michaels.

However, no matter what you think of his abilities as a commentators means nothing when you compare it to the number of doors it opened up for other professional athletes, especially African-American athletes.

As for his movie career, he had excellent reviews in some of his films and he also opened the doors to other athletes. He had a successful production company.

In Simpson's "suicide letter" (I don't know what else to call it), he said don't feel sorry for him, he had a great life. He had great friends, family, etc. I don't believe that Simpson ever felt the way about himself. He was too successful to ever look back and brood over the minor set backs he had. Because they were minor in terms of his career.

The night before the murders, he attended a $25,000.00 a plate meal for the First Lady of Israel. He had his picture taken with Presidents while playing golf. He always had a beautiful woman on his arm and while he may have loved Nicole, it was obvious that she did not enjoy and did not want to play the "glamour wife". She simply didn't have the skills, nor did she desire to have the skills of an "Air Kiss-Kiss Wife". Nicole didn't "do lunch" she ate lunch. Nicole was much more content and happy being a stay at home wife and mother. That was no secret.

If OJ Simpson did feel the way you described him, then he should have blown his head off because then I would have say that he learned nothing from his mother.

bobaugust

04-30-2006, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by limakey

OJ Simpson was more then the first and only man to gain 2,000 rushing yards in a 14 game season. While he was always be known for that, people forget the weather he played in and the Bills sucked for years and years. I don't think the Bills had more then 2 winning seasons while he was on their team.

And isn't it ironic that it was at a Buffalo Bills football game on September 26, 1993 where Simpson's 2003 yard run was being celebrated by the Monday Morning Quarterback Club on the anniversary of that date that photographs were taken that show Simpson wearing the shoes that he chose to wear when he committed the murders.

bobaugust

alien

04-30-2006, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by martin II

Many actors do B movies just for the money. OJ must have had some value to NBC, they hired him. i think oj's social life in LA was still in tact. on 6/11 wasn't he a contributor and guest at some big charity benefit dinner in LA. It was testified to that oj had many friends including some in le in LA.

He was constantly traveling around the country for business and pleasure. Does this translate into him being a loner? Remember
he must still have had some value to Hertz on 6/13.

IMO,IMO

OJ probably did have some value to NBC. He was a famous football player, but that didn't make him a good commentator. How many years did he commentate?

Traveling around the country for business and pleasure does not make you an "unlonely" person. If you do that for a living that is what you do. Many a lonely depressed person has continued on with what they do for a living because they have to, not because they want to.

alien

04-30-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

And isn't it ironic that it was at a Buffalo Bills football game on September 26, 1993 where Simpson's 2003 yard run was being celebrated by the Monday Morning Quarterback Club on the anniversary of that date that photographs were taken that show Simpson wearing the shoes that he chose to wear when he committed the murders.

bobaugust

Ah, irony....

I am thinking of a song with the lyrics "....God's gonna getcha for that...". It was his karma. He was found not guilty in the criminal trial and allowed to go on with his life (well kind of), but in the big picture, he was found guilty in the civil trial. He was still allowed to go on with his life, but not the life he had before or probably envisioned for himself. All is MO.

alien

04-30-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Wukong,

While I agree that in the beginning, it was rough going his first season on MNF, however, I think that if you ask many people who was the worst commentator ever on MNF, I think there would be several names that would be said before his. Like, Howard Cosell. He was brilliant man, he wrote an unbelieveable book and yet, he was hated for his commentaries. Dandy Don Merdith, was funny, that was it, I still remember him singing, "The Lights Are Out, The Party Is Over". I think the best voice MNF had ever was Frank Gifford, followed very closely by Al Michaels.

However, no matter what you think of his abilities as a commentators means nothing when you compare it to the number of doors it opened up for other professional athletes, especially African-American athletes.

As for his movie career, he had excellent reviews in some of his films and he also opened the doors to other athletes. He had a successful production company.

In Simpson's "suicide letter" (I don't know what else to call it), he said don't feel sorry for him, he had a great life. He had great friends, family, etc. I don't believe that Simpson ever felt the way about himself. He was too successful to ever look back and brood over the minor set backs he had. Because they were minor in terms of his career.

The night before the murders, he attended a $25,000.00 a plate meal for the First Lady of Israel. He had his picture taken with Presidents while playing golf. He always had a beautiful woman on his arm and while he may have loved Nicole, it was obvious that she did not enjoy and did not want to play the "glamour wife". She simply didn't have the skills, nor did she desire to have the skills of an "Air Kiss-Kiss Wife". Nicole didn't "do lunch" she ate lunch. Nicole was much more content and happy being a stay at home wife and mother. That was no secret.

If OJ Simpson did feel the way you described him, then he should have blown his head off because then I would have say that he learned nothing from his mother.

Dandy Don may be remembered for his humor and singing those goofy songs. Howard Cosell may have been hated for his comments (your opinion), but he was a part of MNF for quite some time and IMO he was actually respected by his colleagues. Neither of those gentlemen will have the cloud of suspicion over their head as to whether they killed their ex-wife. That is OJ's legacy from now on. We may remember back at some of OJ's other accomplishments (we did before the murders), but the big picture is that OJ is mostly remembered for the murders and the never ending saga of "did or didn't he do it?).

So because Nicole wasn't a "glamour wife" does that give OJ the right to have other beautiful women on his arm (or was this after they seperated, seperated, seperated?).

IMO, OJ wouldn't blown his head off, he was too selfish to do that.

Can you explain that thing you said at the end about his Mother. I didn't understand it. Thanks.

Wukong

04-30-2006, 11:40 AM

Limakey,

By 1993 OJ was a has-been. He started out his post playing days as a color comentator for MNF and by 1993 he was reduced to the occasional "Let's go to OJ on the side line". Now they have women in funny hats doing that job. By 1993 athletes were signing multi-million dollar endorsment deals and OJ was representing Swiss Army and being payed to play golf for Hertz, not exactly A list stuff. By 1993 OJ's movie "career" was a series of roles playing the butt of the jokes.

By 1993 who are his friends, his support group? Nicole is gone, Paula is schtuping Michael Bolton. Who are his friends? A bunch of guys he plays golf with? His friends in LE consisted of a few patrolmen who would stop by for autographs and Ron Shipp? He is either out of town or playing golf and spends little time with the kids. Beautiful women on his arm?? Paula was beautiful but she was a ditz. No real woman was going to be seen with that has-been. Maybe some 20 something year old with low self esteem is all he could muster. What substance would there be in that kind of relationship? What kind of moral support? What does he have now? Some ditzy twenty something year old with low self esteem and a drug problem.

I stand by my opinion

Wukong

alien

04-30-2006, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Wukong
Limakey,

By 1993 OJ was a has-been. He started out his post playing days as a color comentator for MNF and by 1993 he was reduced to the occasional "Let's go to OJ on the side line". Now they have women in funny hats doing that job. By 1993 athletes were signing multi-million dollar endorsment deals and OJ was representing Swiss Army and being payed to play golf for Hertz, not exactly A list stuff. By 1993 OJ's movie "career" was a series of roles playing the butt of the jokes.

By 1993 who are his friends, his support group? Nicole is gone, Paula is schtuping Michael Bolton. Who are his friends? A bunch of guys he plays golf with? His friends in LE consisted of a few patrolmen who would stop by for autographs and Ron Shipp? He is either out of town or playing golf and spends little time with the kids. Beautiful women on his arm?? Paula was beautiful but she was a ditz. No real woman was going to be seen with that has-been. Maybe some 20 something year old with low self esteem is all he could muster. What substance would there be in that kind of relationship? What kind of moral support? What does he have now? Some ditzy twenty something year old with low self esteem and a drug problem.

I stand by my opinion

Wukong

I think I stand by your opinion also.

2L8 4A D8

04-30-2006, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by martin II
wukong

would you call a staring role in ROOTS a joke of a acting career??

Maybe not Wukong, but I would! JMO, of course!

Wukong

04-30-2006, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by martin II
wukong
Claims were, that O.J. was too "nice" for the role of the cold endoskeleton cyborg known as the Terminator.

wikipedia

"The Terminator"?

I was going to say something about this one but that would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

I found a good article about this exact issue written by a clinical psychologist. Here is a quote and a link:

"Marguerite and 0.J. Simpson had three children. However, his addictive obsession with stardom led to the neglect of his wife and family. When he divorced in 1979, he proclaimed that his career dictated a different lifestyle, one Marguerite was not suited for. He left his Black woman in a narcissistic search for himself.

Most Black men are made to feel inadequate and seek to prove their worth. 0.J. Simpson is no exception. His movie career ended with him playing the buffoon. Instead of self-acceptance, 0.J. found more confusion, rejection and anger."

http://www.geocities.com/mclane65/krazyluv.html

Wukong

Wukong

04-30-2006, 08:08 PM

Here is what I find the most interesting quote from this article:

"The irony is that in the end he sought to return to the original woman in his life, his mother. Perhaps it was this desire that kept him from physically killing himself. However, 0.J. suffered a spiritual death."

http://www.geocities.com/mclane65/krazyluv.html

Wukong

Wukong

04-30-2006, 09:19 PM

Martin,

It may mean very little to you but I think it speaks to OJs state of mind at the time. His life was not all peaches and cream as you portend. Think about what he was reduced to in the declining years. He was no longer the star athlete, definitly no movie star, reduced to sideline commentary, no endorsment deals to speak of, his businesses at the time were limited to illegal sports betting and pornography........... I could go on and on but I have to catch a plane to Hong Kong. I'll continue later....

Wukong

2L8 4A D8

05-01-2006, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, really. I'm just applying your logic to the facts in this case as I see it.

Limakey ~ I would appreciate it if and when that I post to you that you would answer the questions that I pose to you. It is very frustrating to take the time to post and then you don't answer my questions as they are presented to you!

limakey

05-01-2006, 12:56 AM

Bob,

While domestic violence was an issue that came into the headlines with the Simpson case, Mr. Simpson is not the first or even the most famous to man to abuse his wife. I believe there have been dozens of men, with much more money and power who have beaten their wives and they have gotten away with for years. In fact, several had high government post. Wasn't there secretary of Commerce who's favorite hobby was beating his wife?

While you ignore that Vanatter was impeached on this issue, the stats speak for themselves. The husband or ex-husband, even in cases where domestic violence has not been an issue are the prime suspects. They are looked at first, if only to eliminate them as suspects.

Police officers and detectives throughout our country know what goes on even in the "best of homes". That because you are rich and famous does not make a person incapable of any crime. Fame and fortune is not an automatic buffer between every day problems and issues. Fame and fortune does not ensure you will be as successful in your personal life as your professional life. It isn't a buffer from illness or crimes being committed against your family.

The detectives and the police had every reason to suspect OJ Simpson just based on the stats, but when at least three of the lead detectives on this case knew about prior domestic violence incidents between the Simpsons and the fourth one is told at the scene, how can they testify in court that OJ Simpson was not a suspect? That he was no more of a suspect then OJ's lawyer, Robert Shapiro? Them testifying to that is a crime against battered women every where because they never, ever recovered from that lie.

Vanatter, after being hammered and hammered in the press for his statement about this, then came up with the "potential suspect", which is any person who came in contact with or talked to the victims within 48 hours of their death. Well, how did Vanatter know when OJ last saw Nicole? How did he know that OJ saw his daughter dance that night?

In Shapiro's book, he says that Phillips and Fuhrman called the police station at 2:00 a.m. to find out where OJ was, that they were to ask the children.

Speaking of the children, if what the police said was true, their main concern was for the kids, then why not go right over to OJ's, if he wasn't a suspect, then they should have gotten those kids with their father? Why was Sydney only allowed to call her mother's home, knowing something terrible had happened and then hours later, she suddenly remembered Arnelle's phone number? Are we to believe that the police couldn't locate any family members to come and get the kids until hours later?

The fact that you insist on keeping blinders on this subject is why all your other points are not accepted by NG's. You can't see the reality of their lies and why because of these lies, anything they have to say now means nothing. They lied about issues that, if they were on the up and up, never needed to be said.

I'll give Vanatter credit, he took several hits for the team and he even defended Fuhrman, and what did Fuhrman do, he admitted he committed perjury but he also said he wasn't the only one and that Vanatter was just as guilty as he was, if not more. So what does that tell you about this case?

IMO.

limakey

05-01-2006, 01:14 AM

2Late,

I was responding to your post about not thinking Fuhrman was race challenged. I believe he is seriously race challenged and why I believe this.

You also made a fair statement, I think if all of us go back, we have all used a racial slur or laughed at joke that we knew better then to laugh at. Depending on where we grew up, many racial slurs were part of our up bringing or so common in our surroundings, that a big deal wasn't made of it. However, that clearly was in the past.

Right now, with my son, everything and everybody is "gay". You have no idea how I hate that. I have grounded him, I have grounded his friends who have come into our home and used this expression. I have tried over and over to get it through to them that this expression is not only a slur but it is hurtful in more ways then one---and the problem with that, is you don't know who you are hurting because not everyone is going to say why they feel it is a slur. He doesn't know which of his friends has a gay parent, a gay brother or sister, a gay realitive or even if the friend he is talking with is in fact, gay.

Mark Fuhrman knew exactly what he was saying, he knew exactly who he was hurting and his desires for African Americans and other minorities were not in the norm. His hatered of mixed race couples was open and he did nothing to hide it. While many people may not like seeing blacks and whites dating, there is a big difference between not liking something, keeping your feelings to yourself, then telling strangers that if you had your way, you would gather up members of one race and burn them.

I know I have laughed at things I shouldn't have, I know that I should have spoken up when I head some truly horrible things being said about another race, but never, ever did I ever wish a race be totally wiped off the face of the earth. Never did I ever even think that the only good thing young African Children were good for was for fertililzer for soil.

In fact, I have to laugh about the comments made about OJ Simpson not even knowing his way back to his 'hood. IMO, it is good thing that many of our forefathers didn't know their way back to their 'hoods, because then we wouldn't even be a country. IMO.

limakey

05-01-2006, 01:25 AM

Wukong,

I totally disagree with you about OJ's life. However, there is one very interesting statement in that article from the first Mrs. Simpson.

She clearly says that she was pushed aside by many beautiful women who wanted to get to her husband, but she does not say that they were all white women---she doesn't bring race into it.

Just an interesting point, IMO.

limakey

05-01-2006, 02:07 AM

SoDiva,

It has been my experience, that if a woman wants to meet a man, any man, she doesn't care who or what stands her in way. A wedding ring means nothing to her.

Women can be and often are just as aggressive in their conquests as men are. However, in our society, it is frowned upon.

However, I do agree with you that a man who cheats on his wife has no justification nor does it make it right. Yet, they do seem to get away with it. I'm still waiting for the first really famous and powerful woman to get caught up in a scandal like this. I bet she will not come out of in the same "shape" as men do. IMO.

bobaugust

05-01-2006, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Bob,

While domestic violence was an issue that came into the headlines with the Simpson case, Mr. Simpson is not the first or even the most famous to man to abuse his wife. I believe there have been dozens of men, with much more money and power who have beaten their wives and they have gotten away with for years. In fact, several had high government post. Wasn't there secretary of Commerce who's favorite hobby was beating his wife?

While you ignore that Vanatter was impeached on this issue, the stats speak for themselves. The husband or ex-husband, even in cases where domestic violence has not been an issue are the prime suspects. They are looked at first, if only to eliminate them as suspects.

Police officers and detectives throughout our country know what goes on even in the "best of homes". That because you are rich and famous does not make a person incapable of any crime. Fame and fortune is not an automatic buffer between every day problems and issues. Fame and fortune does not ensure you will be as successful in your personal life as your professional life. It isn't a buffer from illness or crimes being committed against your family.

The detectives and the police had every reason to suspect OJ Simpson just based on the stats, but when at least three of the lead detectives on this case knew about prior domestic violence incidents between the Simpsons and the fourth one is told at the scene, how can they testify in court that OJ Simpson was not a suspect? That he was no more of a suspect then OJ's lawyer, Robert Shapiro? Them testifying to that is a crime against battered women every where because they never, ever recovered from that lie.

Vanatter, after being hammered and hammered in the press for his statement about this, then came up with the "potential suspect", which is any person who came in contact with or talked to the victims within 48 hours of their death. Well, how did Vanatter know when OJ last saw Nicole? How did he know that OJ saw his daughter dance that night?

In Shapiro's book, he says that Phillips and Fuhrman called the police station at 2:00 a.m. to find out where OJ was, that they were to ask the children.

IMO.

Limakey, was it possible that the detectives automatically considered Simpson a potential suspect based on the fact that he was an ex spouse of one of the victims? Yes, but that alone certainty didn't make Simpson an actual suspect unless there was evidence to support that suspicion. They didn't know that the killer's blood was Simpson's blood. They didn't know that the killer's bloody shoe prints were made by Simpson. They didn't know that the killer's hat and glove belonged to Simpson. They didn't know if Simpson didn't have an air tight alibi.

Vannatter didn't know when he arrived at Bundy that Simpson had seen his daughter dance that night. If what Shapiro wrote actually happened it had nothing to do with Vannatter and Lange. If Phillips and Fuhrman called the police station and learned any information that came from the children not only did they never pass it on they never said anything about it after the case and no one every asked them about it. Not the prosecutors and not Simpson's attorneys.

The fact is that Vannatter and Lange were following orders that Commander Bushey first asked Phillips to do. To notify Simpson in person of the death of his ex wife and help him recover his children. That's the only reason the detectives went to Rockingham that night.

When Vannatter told Shapiro that Simpson was no more a suspect than Shapiro was has to be put in the context of what Shapiro was asking Vannatter. Vannatter didn't lie, and he wasn't impeached. He told it like it was.

September 19, 1995

MR. SHAPIRO: "Did you have any notion at all that time that--"Answer: I didn't know who the suspect was. Anybody could have been a suspect at that point."
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Did you give those answers?
DET. VANNATTER: Yes, I gave those answers.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is there any doubt in your mind that you conveyed to the jury under oath that when you went to Rockingham Mr. Simpson was not a suspect?
DET. VANNATTER: There is no doubt in my mind. Mr. Simpson was no more of a suspect at that point than you were, Mr. Shapiro.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you gave that same testimony before the grand jury under oath?
DET. VANNATTER: That is absolutely correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you gave that same testimony at the preliminary hearing under oath?
DET. VANNATTER: That is absolutely correct, yes.

bobaugust

weezer

05-01-2006, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by martin II
quesiton for anyone that knows the answers.

1. Paula told oj on 6/11 that she would be going to los Vegas
either that day or on 6/12 and she did not tell oj why. Does
this mean that she was having some kind of personal
relationship with M Bolton prior to 6/11 and oj was not aware
of it? She was on ojs arm at the dinner party on 6/11 as his
woman. Was she serious about the relationship with oj that
night?

2. If she was really closing the book on her relationship with oj
and this gave her a feeling of relief,(early 6/12) why did she
almost immediately come back to oj when he was arrested 4-5
days later ? 1. Maybe the beginnings of a new relationship with Bolton?

2. I wondered about this too so went looking for the answer and IIRC what I found, Arnelle called Paula and asked her to come back that her Dad needed her.

weezer

05-01-2006, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

Going with your ducks---now lets put them in a row.

If person talks like a Nazi, looks like a Nazi, walks like a Nazi, acts like a Nazi, then why is everybody upset when he is called a Nazi?

If the blood on the backgate was not collected until weeks later, blood in the Bronco not collected until months later, blood not seen on the socks until months later, then what do we call this type of duck? Again, anoher big leap on your part.

The only "Nazi" talk came from conversations with a screen writer.
Looks like a "Nazi"?
Walks like a "Nazi"?
Acts like a "Nazi"?
Looks like you bought Cochran's reference to Hitler hook, line and sinker. Too bad.

Okay, discount the backgate blood, the Bronco blood and the socks blood. You are still left with OJ's blood, footprint, cap, glove and hair at the crime scene. How did it get there if not by OJ?

tazzybaby

05-01-2006, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,
*snip*

If Nicole was so concerned about OJ's image, because without his image, he couldn't make the money he made and therefore her support payments would be made lower, then why call the police in the first place? Why even mention that one and only time?

And AC Cowlings, he loved both Nicole and OJ and he testified to what he knew and what he was told, he didn't always paint Nicole in a positive light. He knew Nicole hit OJ and OJ did nothing but look stupid why trying to protect himself. Did OJ deserve to be hit?

Limakey,

They were volatile. However, physically OJ Simpson had the upper hand. He had the upper hand on EVERYTHING. He threatened her with Money, the kids, her family and her friends. He was going to destroy her if she didn't come back to him. But yet, you keep talking about how she was abusive to him. What does that mean to you? You keep saying that Nicole knew how to push his buttons. What exactly does that mean to you? What if OJ did call Nicole that night and fight with her? What if she said just the right thing (you know, push his buttons)? She caused him to lose his mind and come and murder her? It's not really his fault? It's hers? What exactly is your point in saying that Nicole pushed his buttons? Are YOU saying that Nicole deserved what she got because she pushed OJ's buttons??????

If the tables were turned Nicole would be in jail. She wouldn't of gotten off like OJ did. I would have understood why she did what she did but I would have also expected her to go to jail. The only way it would be justified is if he was trying to kill her at the moment. You keep trying to make some point with this. There is no point there to make. And, I do not care in the slightest what Marcia Clark told you about abuse. She didn't even put on the entire abuse case that she had. She made very bad judgement calls. She is not some kind of expert on abuse. And, yes Nicole would have been able to use the "battered woman's syndrome". Look at Susan Polk. There isn't even proof in her case.

It does not matter if Nicole complained constantly, didn't cook, didn't clean, didn't look right, gained too much weight, didn't bow down to OJ, didn't go where he wanted to go, wouldn't let the cheating go or ANYTHING else. She did not deserve to be hit so hard that she had bruises. It did not mean that she deserved to be choked. Remember that the cops saw finger marks on her NECK when they responded to the 911 call. So, Nicole slaps OJ for cheating.....it's okay for him to choke her since she slapped him? She provoked him so she deserved it. She should never put herself in a man's position by hitting him in the first place? Once she does that then all's fair? I've heard many a man say that.

You definately have shades on whether you admit it or not. You can not look at the abuse issue without bias. You need to look at the proof of abuse in the CIVIL trial. That's when all of the abuse came out. They didn't use it all in the criminal trial. Clark decided not to. So, the criminal trial is of no use for issues of abuse. Your proof is in the civil trial. Read Petrocelli's book. He details things that her friends said. You use the books for your arguments. So, please read his book. Read about the things that he couldn't even put in the trial. Things that they couldn't put in the trial because of hearsay rules. He threatened to kill her if she was with anyone else. She was afraid that the next time that he hurt her it would be her death. That's why she put the things in her lockbox. She put the proof in her lockbox because of people like you who pretend like it's her fault it happened or who pretend like it wasn't there. She already knew that no one would believe her. She even told her friends that.

I know that if my husbands maid was helping him lie and cheat I would hate her. I would hate her. I would probably kick her ***. But, that is girl on girl. OJ was more powerful than Nicole. He could hurt her more than she could ever hurt him. He was one of the best football player ever. And, she ran. That's no comparison.

I also know that I tried to stand up to my abuser. I didn't just take what he dished out. But, the difference is that a "normal" fight would escalate to him hurting me. That would be when I didn't give in to his argument or I didn't do what he said. Did I push his buttons? I'm sure he'd say that I did. But, you know what? He would get a look in his eye. And, at that point I was scared of him. What escalated that fight? Because when given an option I chose the wrong one. Then I was lazy and a *****. Do I just keep my mouth shut when someone calls me a lazy ***** because I chose an easy meal to cook? No. I decide to leave. He wasn't going to let me. He hit me right in front of the kids. Just like OJ yelling at Nicole while the kids were asleep. At the moment that they are "freaking out" the kids don't matter. Later he cried and apologized. But, if I would of just cooked what he wanted then it wouldn't have happened. I guess I just pushed his buttons too far.

The biggest issue with the diary is that it is even there. She detailed the abuse. And, it was also backed up by her friends. I don't care what the family's reasons were. The prosecutors could have got their hands on it and used it. I also remember how pissed the family was for what Clark said about them and that she lied. So, why believe Clark and Darden? If you took up for the family why believe Clark and Darden? Clark was trying to defend herself in her book as to why she did such a crappy job. What do you think it means? What questions did you ask yourself about the diary?

If Nicole was so concerned about OJ's image, because without his image, he couldn't make the money he made and therefore her support payments would be made lower, then why call the police in the first place? Why even mention that one and only time?

This is VERY important. She called because she thought he was going to kill her. She even put that in her letter. She said that

"I called the cops to save my life whether you believe it or not."

http://walraven.org/simpson/nb-to-oj.html

And, this is a letter to OJ. You don't believe the diary? What about a letter TO OJ? You think she would make that up too?

AC also made Nicole tell the truth at the emergency room. Even AC knew.

weezer

05-01-2006, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Wukong,

I truly don't understand the importance you place on Paula's message to OJ.

The DA's were desperate for a "trigger" for the murders. I don't remember the Paula Message Debate was brought up in the criminal trial. If I remember correctly, the DA's just played it like OJ was mad at Nicole and when he couldn't get hold of Paula, he figured he had enough time to do the whacko hacko on Nicole (and anybody else for that matter) and make it back in plenty of time for his plane.

And if Paula left a message that she may be going out of town, what does that tell you? Maybe Paula left more then one message.

Think about it, she leaves this long message early in the morning, so early in fact that she knows exactly where OJ should be on the golf course. Now if she knew what fairway he would be on when she made the phone call, what are the chances she knew what time he would be back in his car and get her message?

Do you ever think that maybe Paula was a tad pissed off, that she left another message about going out of town?

And don't you think Paula was tad pissed off that before the love of her life mentioned her in his letter, that he talked about his first wife and his love for Nicole and that Paula was "special"?

And how do you think Paula felt when Gretchen Stockdale testified and when Kato testified about Tracy O'dell? I don't consider myself to be a jealous person, but I do have some pride. Again the NG's tout stuff that is not in evidence and didn't happen.

weezer

05-01-2006, 10:07 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
". . . then he should have blown his head off . . . ." The first of your post is BS -- but I'll drink to this.

weezer

05-01-2006, 10:30 AM

*snipped*Originally posted by limakey
The fact that you insist on keeping blinders on this subject is why all your other points are not accepted by NG's. You can't see the reality of their lies and why because of these lies, anything they have to say now means nothing. They lied about issues that, if they were on the up and up, never needed to be said.
IMO. I don't think there is a need to address the rest of your post since you continue to twist and turn the evidence to fit your vision OJ. Now, disregard the search warrant. How did OJ's blood, cap, glove, footprint, hair, Bronco fiber get to the murder scene if OJ didn't do it?

weezer

05-01-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by martin II
wukong

would you call a staring role in ROOTS a joke of a acting career?? A starring role? Please.

weezer

05-01-2006, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

In all fairness, Martin did say a "staring" role :D Oh well, that's more like it. ;)

alien

05-01-2006, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The fact is that Vannatter and Lange were following orders that Commander Bushey first asked Phillips to do. To notify Simpson in person of the death of his ex wife and help him recover his children. That's the only reason the detectives went to Rockingham that night.

When Vannatter told Shapiro that Simpson was no more a suspect than Shapiro was has to be put in the context of what Shapiro was asking Vannatter. Vannatter didn't lie, and he wasn't impeached. He told it like it was.

September 19, 1995

MR. SHAPIRO: "Did you have any notion at all that time that--"Answer: I didn't know who the suspect was. Anybody could have been a suspect at that point."
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Did you give those answers?
DET. VANNATTER: Yes, I gave those answers.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is there any doubt in your mind that you conveyed to the jury under oath that when you went to Rockingham Mr. Simpson was not a suspect?
DET. VANNATTER: There is no doubt in my mind. Mr. Simpson was no more of a suspect at that point than you were, Mr. Shapiro.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you gave that same testimony before the grand jury under oath?
DET. VANNATTER: That is absolutely correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you gave that same testimony at the preliminary hearing under oath?
DET. VANNATTER: That is absolutely correct, yes.

bobaugust

Isn't it amazing how people can sink their teeth into one thing said and repeat and repeat it to make someone look like a liar. Jeez, I got right away what Vannatter was talking about. And why would LE think of OJ as a suspect other than the norm of looking at the spouse. IMO, it is just another way for the NG's to point a figure and yell, frame up.

weezer

05-01-2006, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by alien

Isn't it amazing how people can sink their teeth into one thing said and repeat and repeat it to make someone look like a liar. Jeez, I got right away what Vannatter was talking about. And why would LE think of OJ as a suspect other than the norm of looking at the spouse. IMO, it is just another way for the NG's to point a figure and yell, frame up. LOL -- ain't that the truth. I can't get the NGs to answer how OJ's blood, footprint, cap, glove, hair and Bronco fiber got to the murder scene if OJ didn't take it there. Not sure what Fuhrman being a racist (Not) or Vannatter being a liar (Not) has to do with that evidence.

Kate Sachel

05-01-2006, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Kayleighjo
Tazzy,

I agree with what you say. A very well known women's activist wrote several articles during the Simpson trial. Here are some bits and pieces:

"You won't ever know the worst that happened to Nicole Brown Simpson in her marriage, because she is dead and cannot tell you. And if she were alive, remember, you wouldn't believe her."

...

"Remember the video showing Simpson, after the ballet recital, with the Brown family--introduced by the defense to show Simpson's pleasant demeanor. Hours later, Nicole Simpson was dead. In the video, she is as far from Simpson, physically, as she can manage. He does not nod or gesture to her. He kisses her mother, embraces and kisses her sister and bear-hugs her father. They all reciprocate. She must have been the loneliest woman in the world."

...

"What would Nicole Simpson have had to do to be safe? With this abuser's wealth and power, a dream team of lawyers would have taken her children from her. She would have been the villain--reckless, a s l ut, reviled for muddying the character of a hero. If his abuse of her is of no consequence now that she's been murdered, how irrelevant would it have been as she, resourceless, tried to make a court and the public understand she needed to fear for her life?"

...

"On the same day the police who beat Rodney G. King were acquitted in Simi Valley, a white husband who had raped, beaten, and tortured his wife, also white, was acquitted of marital rape in South Carolina. He had kept her tied to a bed for hours, her mouth gagged with adhesive tape. He videotaped a half hour of her ordeal, during which he cut her breasts with a knife. The jury, which saw the videotape, had eight women on it. Asked why they acquitted, they said he needed help. They looked right through the victim. There were no riots afterward."

...

"We blame Nicole, as the batterer did. We ask why she stayed, though we, of course, were not prepared to stand between her and the batterer so that she could leave. And if, after she is dead, we tell the police that we heard the accused murderer beat her in 1977, and saw her with black eyes--as Nicole's neighbors did--we will not be allowed to testify, which may be the only justice in this, since it has taken us 17 years to bother to speak at all. I was a battered wife; I had such neighbors."

There's alot more, but these points jump out at me.

Wow, I was so affected by these excerpts that I found the articles in their entirety. Thank you for leading me to these.

weezer

05-01-2006, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Wow, I was so affected by these excerpts that I found the articles in their entirety. Thank you for leading me to these. Do you have a link to the articles?

Kate Sachel

05-01-2006, 12:04 PM

There was a posting several pages back in regard to how Nicole's diary should be questioned because of the Brown's reaction to it.

I think the Brown family is a classic case of not wanting to see the reality and severity of a situation because you've got too much invested in it that you don't want to lose. OJ controlled the Brown family financially and they took every cent that he ever offered, even if it meant turning a blind eye to what they may have suspected their daughter/sister was suffering through.

Because of this, I tend to look down on the Browns.

Then I realize that I too was hesitant to understand the violence that occurred in the Simpsons' relationship simply because I wasn't very educated on the issue at hand. I had never been abused and didn't, to my knowledge, know anyone that was abused.

I ended up having to research deep into domestic violence for one of my major college courses. I was stunned at the things I learned. One of the biggest things I learned is that it's hard to truly understand the nature of domestic violence because the reality of a batterer and the abused is far different from the reality of a non-violent relationship or person.

What seems logical to us means nothing in the abusive relationship.

Kate Sachel

05-01-2006, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Do you have a link to the articles? http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OnlineLibrary.html

In scrolling toward the bottom you will find a series of articles regarding Nicole Brown.

weezer

05-01-2006, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OnlineLibrary.html

In scrolling toward the bottom you will find a series of articles regarding Nicole Brown. Thank you Kate.

alien

05-01-2006, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
LOL -- ain't that the truth. I can't get the NGs to answer how OJ's blood, footprint, cap, glove, hair and Bronco fiber got to the murder scene if OJ didn't take it there. Not sure what Fuhrman being a racist (Not) or Vannatter being a liar (Not) has to do with that evidence.

I have been on every board that talks about OJ because I am obsessed with the case and the fact that he got away with it. I am always looking for anything that could possibly make me change my mind about his guilt. Know what?? Ain't seen it yet (forgive my bad use of the English language :) )

I myself have asked several of them to give me one little thing (give me a fricking bone :) ) but I have never received a straight answer. It seems all they do is try to point out the good things about OJ, blame Nicole, blame LE and holler about a frame-up. I would just like to see one little tid bit that would make me go HMMM!!!. But like I said before, I ain't seen it yet.

I am so not a closed minded person and would look at anything they gave me to disprove the evidence that is so out there. All I see is the overwhelming evidence that tells me OJ did it.

weezer

05-01-2006, 01:57 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by alien

I have been on every board that talks about OJ because I am obsessed with the case and the fact that he got away with it. I am always looking for anything that could possibly make me change my mind about his guilt. Know what?? Ain't seen it yet (forgive my bad use of the English language :) ) I guess all of us that visit/post this board are a little obsessed with this case. The NGs can't give you anything that points to anyone else because OJ has been proven beyond all doubt to be the murderer. Whether Fuhrman is racist, Vannatter lied to get the search warrant, Fung was incompetent -- nothing changes OJ's blood, footprint, cap, glove, hair, Bronco fiber being at the scene of the murders.

I said a while back that the only mind I'd seen changed was mine. I had always thought OJ "blew-up" maybe and committed the murders in a rage. I have been convinced by the evidence that he knew he was going to murder her and went there with that intention.

alien

05-01-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel
There was a posting several pages back in regard to how Nicole's diary should be questioned because of the Brown's reaction to it.

I think the Brown family is a classic case of not wanting to see the reality and severity of a situation because you've got too much invested in it that you don't want to lose. OJ controlled the Brown family financially and they took every cent that he ever offered, even if it meant turning a blind eye to what they may have suspected their daughter/sister was suffering through.

Because of this, I tend to look down on the Browns.

Then I realize that I too was hesitant to understand the violence that occurred in the Simpsons' relationship simply because I wasn't very educated on the issue at hand. I had never been abused and didn't, to my knowledge, know anyone that was abused.

I ended up having to research deep into domestic violence for one of my major college courses. I was stunned at the things I learned. One of the biggest things I learned is that it's hard to truly understand the nature of domestic violence because the reality of a batterer and the abused is far different from the reality of a non-violent relationship or person.

What seems logical to us means nothing in the abusive
relationship.

Kate, I am so glad that you did research on the subject of DV. It is the best thing to make people aware of what it is all about. I posted previously that I was a victim of DV in my first and second marriage. The first one was all about emotional abuse and the second was about physical abuse. I would never be able to explain to anyone who never went through what I did to ever try and understand why I would have stayed 1 day after the abuse occured. And a lot of people can't wrap their minds around emotional abuse. There are no outward signs to show the abuse. However, IMO, emotional abuse is actually harder to overcome. I was able to get rid of the bruises from the physical abuse, but the internal scars of emontional abuse took a very long time to heal. For years I thought truly that I was fat, dumb, ugly etc. That no man would ever want me blah blah blah....My self esteem had hit rock bottom. Unfortunately I went into my third marriage with the attitude that "no man would ever do that to me again" and it didn't happen. However, I was such a hard a** b***ch that I didn't give my husband at the time any leeway. I mean, I wasn't an unloving person who treated him like crap, I just had very low tolerance. My third husband actually was a wonderful person, but he developed a drinking problem that caused issues for my children. At that point I told him he had to leave. To this day I always pray that he will find happiness because he deserves it.

Thank God, he gave me the strength to find myself, my self confidence and self esteem. When Mr Alien came along, I was cleansed of all the bad things in my mind. And he is a wonderful man who just treats me so wonderfully.

Can you explain to me about the Brown's reactions to Nicole's abuse. I am not familiar with that issue. I know that Denise Brown testified to the abuse, but what about her parents.

Kate Sachel

05-01-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by alien

Can you explain to me about the Brown's reactions to Nicole's abuse. I am not familiar with that issue. I know that Denise Brown testified to the abuse, but what about her parents.

Alien,

Bless you for having found your way through the darkness.

When Nicole was first murdered, the Browns went on national television and declared that Nicole was not a battered spouse.

Then, all of a sudden they had these instances of abuse to testify to. I thought to myself, how do you say she wasn't abused when you clearly witnessed incidents?

Denise said later that they weren't educated on what domestic violence really is and that they were in denial. They said that they came to understand that Nicole really was a battered woman based on all they had learned.

alien

05-01-2006, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Alien,

Bless you for having found your way through the darkness.

When Nicole was first murdered, the Browns went on national television and declared that Nicole was not a battered spouse.

Then, all of a sudden they had these instances of abuse to testify to. I thought to myself, how do you say she wasn't abused when you clearly witnessed incidents?

Denise said later that they weren't educated on what domestic violence really is and that they were in denial. They said that they came to understand that Nicole really was a battered woman based on all they had learned.

Thank you Miss Kate.

The one part that I could understand would be if Nicole never told her family that she was abused. A lot of abused people will give all kinds of reasons to explain away the bruises. Educated Smeducated. Did they suddenly put 2 and 2 together after their education to testify that, yes, Nicole was abused. I suppose at the beginning the Browns knew that OJ was their meal ticket and they didn't want to alienate him, but when he was charged, they were going to do their part to have him found guilty.

I believe very much in the after life and that when people pass on they know what is going on around in the world they left behind. I wonder what poor Nicole must have felt knowing that her very own parents were saying she wasn't abused. And the friends that made money off her death. As my Irish ancestors would say, "she was probably spinning in her grave." The more I learn about OJ and Nicole, the more my heart cries for her. IMO, she was a young naive "girl" when she met OJ and him being the smooth talking fool that he was found the perfect person for his ego. IMO, he probably started out sweet talking her into his web and when she was caught, he started the emotional abuse. After convincing her that no one would ever want her, but him, he started with the physical abuse. I say this because that is exactly what I experienced.

weezer

05-01-2006, 03:58 PM

In one of the books I read regarding this case, it was stated that both jury consultants identified the fact that black female jurors would not have sympathy for Nicole being abused because DV is not uncommon in that community......And, sure enough, after the trial one of the female jurors said she didn't know why that was even in this trial. Dumb broad thought it was about OJ.....stupid me thought it was about murder.

weezer

05-01-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Clark did take her consultants advice.. Actually, she didn't. She thought she knew because she had always been able to get convictions with black female jurors and even thought of herself as one of their 'darlings' -- unfortunately, she was wrong.

weezer

05-01-2006, 05:02 PM

I've always thought it was odd how "effected" Arnelle was by the murders. Wonder if it was because she realized that she had been an accomplice by doing some wash.

A: That, but my daughter was in sort of a bad way, my older daughter was in sort of a bad way, so I was a little concerned about her, too. Not a little. Just as much as concerned about her. I was pretty concerned about my older daughter, because when I spoke to her, she was in a bad way.

weezer

05-01-2006, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Could be because she was worried about being held accountable for some of the clean up, or it might have been just the realization that dear old Dad is a double murderer. That's got to be shocking.... Maybe it's just me -- I just think that for the woman who stole your dad from your mom and who brought such volatility to his life -- maybe she over reacted just a little? I know Jason said he had had a special relationship with Nicole -- has anyone heard the same about Arnelle and Nicole?

weezer

05-01-2006, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

What if she did take the consultants advice? Then maybe we wouldn't have been blessed with the ignorance that served as jury for this trial.

weezer

05-01-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I had heard about Jason being fond of Nicole, but never heard the same said about Arnelle.

Are you saying over reacted because you think she believes that Dad is innocent? Oh no -- I think the reaction came when she realized what he'd done.

weezer

05-01-2006, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Fuhrman wasn't a racist, he was preceived to be a racist because of his disability request and his voice on a tape audio! Not sure which post you snipped this from . . .

2L8 4A D8

05-01-2006, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

<snipped>

When Vannatter told Shapiro that Simpson was no more a suspect than Shapiro was has to be put in the context of what Shapiro was asking Vannatter. Vannatter didn't lie, and he wasn't impeached. He told it like it was.

<snipped>

Bob: Can you just imagine the media circus that would have ensued if Vannatter stated to anybody that OJ Simpson was a suspect in the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman? Just a thought.

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

05-01-2006, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*snipped* I don't think there is a need to address the rest of your post since you continue to twist and turn the evidence to fit your vision OJ. Now, disregard the search warrant. How did OJ's blood, cap, glove, footprint, hair, Bronco fiber get to the murder scene if OJ didn't do it?

How many times have you asked this question and NEVER got an answer? I think that I have lost count.

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

05-02-2006, 01:23 AM

Bob,

The reason why Shapiro hammered Vanatter about that is because he knew that not one single lawyer, regardless of which side of the isle they work, didn't believe it. Shapiro also knew that without doubt, that not one single jurors, regardless of race or gender was going to believe it.

And no matter how many times you say they were following the orders of Commander Bushey, that does make it true or even realistic. He was impeached on this issue, by two witnesses, who again think OJ Simpson is as guilty as hell.

There is no way you can convince a majority of Americans that they told the truth on this issue. It is simply a lie that they got caught and they never recovered from it.

You do realize you asking millions upon millions of people, to believe that four lead detectives with over a hundered years of experience between them, did not suspect OJ Simpson. That has no credibility and the jurors saw right through it. Especially the one who felt OJ Simpson did it but felt because of Vanatter's lies and Fuhrman, she felt she had no other choice but to vote not guilty. And this is the same juror who was a juror in another trial, where she was the lone holdout for a guilty verdict. She turned around the 11 other jurors for a conviction. And she is white Bob.

So unless you intend to prove that she was threatened or beaten up by the black jurors in this case to say those things about Vanatter and Fuhrman and that she really believed them, then I think this issue should be closed. You may continue to live in your dream world, but the jurors and several millions of other Americans are perfectly within their right to call Fuhrman and Vanatter what they are, liars. It was proven.

limakey

05-02-2006, 02:07 AM

Taz,

It is a sad fact in our country that in the majority of divorce cases, men always have had, continue to have and probably always will have an upper hand. Just look at the number of men who would rather quit their jobs then pay child support? Look at the number of men who will even go "underground" then rather support their children.

In regards to the relationship between OJ and Nicole, as I see it, both were abusive, both admitted that they were, both admitted that they made mistakes. I think when Nicole was confronted about her slapping Michelle, she said something like, "I knew it was wrong, but she just made me so mad!". The problem I have is that anything that Nicole did or say that was abusive either mentally or emotionally, she has been give an excuse for it, and the same excuse, no matter who it is worded by the G's, it all amounts to the same, "It wasn't her fault because OJ made her do it." I do not agree with that.

I know woman have been murdered because they burned the steak or it wasn't cooked to perfection. I know women have been murdered because the house wasn't as clean as it should have been. I know that women have been killed because the kids were screaming and couldn't get them to shut up. I know that woman have been killed because the lawn wasn't cut to the degree that pleased the master. However, there is no evidence of that type of abuse in the Simpson marriage.

What was proven is that OJ and Nicole had one physical altercation, both have been drinking, both have different versions of the events, OJ pleaded no contest, did his fine and community service and accepted full responsibility for Nicole's injuries. It was also proven that in 1993 that OJ and Nicole got into another verbal disagreement that esculated and the police were called. While you hear OJ ranting and raving, and Nicole's pleas to keep quiet because of the kids, there was no phsyical contact between them. It has also been proven that OJ knew what happend in 1989 was his fault, he made no excuses and he also said if ever layed a hand on her again he would rip the pre-nup agreement. He also said that he was told by the police if he ever touched her again, he was going to jail.

It is also proven that Nicole spoke about the one incident, she told AC, she told the cops that it was only that one time. While I understand that many, many women will lie to protect themselves and their children, I do not think it was proven that this was the case in the Simpson relationship.

You and others have posted about other 911 phone calls, yet there is not one shred of proof of them. Not one police officer, out of what, those alleged 30 phone calls, remembered responding to the Simpson home? Oh, there was one, that was Mark Fuhrman, he explained why he remembered the details, because it isn't every day that you get called to a celebrities' home.

While I understand the constant need to blame the DA's for the loss in this case, lets be real. They had millions and millions of dollars at their disposal for this case. They had dozens and dozens and dozens of lawyers working on this case. They had dozens of police investigators at their disposal for this case. They had dozens of other law enforcement agencies, as well as the FBI at their disposal for this case, yet the jury came back in less then four hours with a total and solid rejection of the state's case.

To continue to say that Marcia Clark made a lot of mistakes is false. She was following orders from the DA and for each and every witness she didn't use, there had to much more to it then she just made a mistake. Not one G has ever explained why she rejected two eyewitnesses in this case. One may have crediblity issues, yet the other one didn't. So they just decided not use the second eyewitness? Come on Taz, there is much more to this story then we know about.

Yes, I have read the books from both sides, however, I don't expect either side to accept any responsibility for the loss. Petrocelli's book didn't do as well as you expected because he was the one who was hammered for saying that Arnelle was the one who helped OJ get away with murder, but he had no proof. And if it was any other person then OJ Simpson, then he would have gotten another civil trial because what was allowed in.

IMO, if OJ Simpson is the killer, this was not a routine domestic abuse case, the DA's didn't prove it. Even MF felt that it was wrong to use this as the motive. Marcia Clark, in her book, said that she was never for the motive in the first place, had to be talked into it, then felt bad that she ignored it, then after Denise Brown testified she realized that she was getting no where and dropped the motive. Well, why didn't she use the other witnesses who were not Nicole's sister or family members?

limakey

05-02-2006, 02:17 AM

IMO, I believe who ever killed Ron and Nicole knew the intimate details of the Simpson relationship. That who ever killed them ensured they wore items that could be linked to Simpson. I believe the gloves were left at the scene on purpose. As for the hat, there was at least one other hat in Nicole's home that was identical to one found. While OJ Simpson was asked to try on the gloves, he was never asked to try on the hat because he has an exceptionally large head (and no jokes okay!) and the hair that was found inside it, could have come from another African American and there was something about dandruff.

I think it is just unbelieveable to think that OJ Simpson, one of the most famous and recognizable faces in this country, would attempt to use a dark hat, sweatsuit and gloves to disguise himself. As much as Johnnie Cochran was laughed at about his demonstration in the courtroom, he proved his point, OJ Simpson in a dark knit cap is still OJ Simpson.

Marcia Clark in her closing arguements even told the jury why OJ didn't dump his gloves and other stuff in a dumpster, he was too famous to do that. So the question I have for her, well what if he still had his hat on, would that have concealed his fame?

I believe Mark Fuhrman and every other police person who responded from Bundy believed OJ did it. They had every reason to believe it, they knew where he was, knew when he left, knew that he didn't have much time to do clean up. There is no doubt in my mind that the police and the DA's were stunned and shocked that the bloody clothes, the bloody knife and the bloody shoes never surfaced. And please G's, save yourself from that truly unbelieveably funny statement that he threw the stuff out at the airport, in a normal trash can. That would have been picked up in no time. And for all the talk of the bags, it is clear that had OJ Simpson committed this murder, he would not be stupid enough to carry any bloody evidence back to LA. He knew the police were waiting for him, he knew he was a prime suspect and this was even before he talked Denise Brown and she accused him.

limakey

05-02-2006, 02:58 AM

I have no doubt that the glove was planted behind the wall. My best guess for the person(s) who did this was Mark Fuhrman. Even if you wipe away his race challenged past, he still responded to the Simpson's home in 1985, he still answered a call out and submitted a statement on this incident after the 1989 incident. While it was talked about and while Chris Darden says that the DA's were able to keep out Fuhrman's comments about Nicole, like he was her personal cop and that he saw her boob job unclose and personal, it never made into evidence. However, the fact that he responded in 1985, the fact that he responded to a call out after the 1989 incident, he had every reason and being the outstanding detective that Mr. August claims him to be, he knew that Simpson was a prime suspect.

Detective Fuhrman knew about the thumps Kato heard before the glove was found. If you read Clark's comments about the glove and what Fuhrman told her and showed her, it was his description and his description of the chain of events, that were used to explain how the glove got back there. That OJ Simpson ran into the AC unit and that caused him to drop the glove.

After he is told about the thumps, he brings Kato into the house, he tells the other detectives to talk to him, he goes back out and about 15 minutes later, he comes back and then escorts all three detectives, by themselves to see his prize, the glove. Now, MF tells us that he was concerned about the thumps because he thought the thumps were made by a person who had collasped back there, he didn't know if it was another victim or the actual perp, but his concern was someone was back there, injured. If that is the case, why even escort Kato back into the house? Why not tell him to wait while he checked it out? What did this person suddenly become less injured, less collapsed? What was Fuhrman's delay on checking on this possible injured victim or prep?

Why didn't he ever or any other cop or DA have Kato walk back there and give a demonstration on what he heard? At that time, the theory that the AC unit was the reason the gloved was dropped, would have been put to rest even before it was leaked.

Then we have Vanatter getting nailed with reckless disregard for the truth on the search warrant. Poor old Phil, he took one for the team but he called his old buddy Marcia and sure enough, they would get together with a story, that a judge would buy. I don't think they ever expected Ito to question it or write what he did about it, but that was okay, because it took the focus off of the glove.

Now, there was glove that was spotted on a wire, but not enough of it to even determine if it was human blood or not. But damn, what great eyes that caught that. However, what does this tell us? That the cops and the DA's knew that there had to be more evidence to prove that someone was back there and dropped the glove and they searched, searched and searched some more and found nothing. The only "evidence" they had were the thumps, but when you added up what Kato said about it and what Fuhrman said about it and where the glove was found, you came up with "glove planting 101". IMO.

limakey

05-02-2006, 03:20 AM

As you know, I think if OJ Simpson was the killer, he had help, I do not believe that one man could have done this and had to at least have help to get rid of the evidence. Now, what if the guy who helped Simpson clean up, thought it was good idea to toss the glove back there. Figured no goes back there, no one would ever find, etc. What does that prove, the glove was still put back there by someone one other then OJ Simpson.

Now we go onto the blood evidence at Bundy, we will skip over the blood on the backgate, because it was found weeks later. The jurors made it clear that the x-ray was very difficult to read because it was degraded. They could not tell for sure and they had nothing else to compare it to. The reason given for this was that the ac was broken in the evidence truck and the evidence was "cooked". But this was never proven. The ac unit in an evidence truck was broke for a long time, but it never affected any other blood degrations in any other case, so why fix it. Well why was Simpson's blood the only blood the broken ac unit had an affect on? When did the DA's prove this was the reason for this little problem of evidence?

The blood on the socks, we know the defense's theory and we know why the witness said he believed it was planted. It was Marcia Clark who conceded the witness was correct, except she said that the only way the blood could have gotten on that sock, where it was, if Nicole reached up, and with hand went under OJ's pant leg and grabbed his ankle or leg. Well, that kind of destroys the DA's timeline and the fact that Nicole was dead before she even hit the ground and what was OJ doing, bending over her?

And lets no forget that not only the blood on the socks was found much later, these were the most important piece of evidence the DA's had against OJ. They were inside his house, right then and there, the glove didn't matter, nothing else matter but those socks but it appears to me that they weren't given a second thought until the other evidence never appeared and there were problems with the glove.

So much of the DA's evidence is truly manna from heaven. It is a miracle that all those experts didn't see the blood on the socks, it was a miracle that the glove got behind the wall with no other trace evidence. It was a miracle that not one single fiber was found in OJ's home, in his cars.

It was a miracle that Kato knew (however, he was said he thought) what OJ was wearing, yet he got it totally wrong on what he was wearing to the airport. What is that Mr. August, it doesn't matter if he got it wrong, that what he wore to the Airport was irrelevant, well maybe in Bob August Land, it is irrelevent, but here on plant reality, it is very relevent.

And the fibers on the socks, well what happens when you store sections on the carpet and the socks in the same evidence bag? Is there some rule of behavior that prevents these items from bonding with one another? Of course, that was OJ's fault that they were packaged together, but then again, everything is his fault, isn't? Or Johnnie Cochran's.

And the shoes, okay, the pictures. Lets see, after the criminal verdict, the Goldmans' had several offers to have OJ killed. More the one person, they were mainly black, who wanted to kill OJ for him and his family. The Goldmans declined these kind offers, but if people were willing to kill OJ because of the verdict and felt so bad for the Goldmans', does this mean no one would fake a photo? Personally, I probably wouldn't have a problem faking a photo in the civil trial, because one it is only money, two, I think the guy is guilty as hell, three, I cry everytime I look at the Goldmans', especially Kim but would I kill him for them, are you kidding me?

Every piece of evidence in the trial was challenged and the DA's had no response. It was their expert who said that no EDTA would be found in the samples and when it was, then they came up with the other explainations, which they claimed there were none before that. The DA's made up the rules of evidence as they went a long and they got caught.

All of this is MOO.

limakey

05-02-2006, 03:21 AM

SoCal,

You made your post before I was done---night, night!

limakey

05-02-2006, 03:26 AM

Alien,

OJ's mother was very relgious (my spelling is way off tonight). He was often quoted as saying that he was always taught by her, "do onto others as you have done on to you".

I read a story about famous people who have converted to be Catholics. They listed OJ Simpson as one when he married Nicole. I have never been able to find any more information on this. I do know that Nicole insisted that her children be raised in the faith and that OJ did follow her wishes on this.

He also made an interesting comment about Mrs. Brown. He said that Judy asked him not to re-marry and have another woman raise Sydney and Justin and he promised her this wouldn't happen. He says he wonders if it would have been better for the kids if had remarried but he felt obligated to keep his promise to Judy.

I'm think if I truly believed that my ex son in law killed my daughter, and he won custody of the kids, I would want another woman or another person there just to make sure that the kids were okay. But, to each his own.

2L8 4A D8

05-02-2006, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by limakey

<snipped>

While I understand the constant need to blame the DA's for the loss in this case, lets be real. They had millions and millions of dollars at their disposal for this case. They had dozens and dozens and dozens of lawyers working on this case. They had dozens of police investigators at their disposal for this case. They had dozens of other law enforcement agencies, as well as the FBI at their disposal for this case, yet the jury came back in less then four hours with a total and solid rejection of the state's case.

<snipped>

Limakey: Even if the DA's brought in Jesus Christ himself to testify, this Jury was not about to convict OJ under any circumstances.

IIRC, didn't one of the Jurors state that they didn't understand the DNA evidence, so they just discounted it and threw it out? You have no problem with that? That doesn't bother you?

The Jury took only 4 hours to render a not guilty verdict in a double murder case. Again, you have no problem with that? That doesn't bother you? Heck, I spent over 5+ days as a Juror on a Malicious Prosecution case! After only 4 hours of deliberations and throwing out all of the DNA evidence and the NG's just can't understand what the big fuss is about? GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

05-02-2006, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Bob,

The reason why Shapiro hammered Vanatter about that is because he knew that not one single lawyer, regardless of which side of the isle they work, didn't believe it. Shapiro also knew that without doubt, that not one single jurors, regardless of race or gender was going to believe it.

And no matter how many times you say they were following the orders of Commander Bushey, that does make it true or even realistic. He was impeached on this issue, by two witnesses, who again think OJ Simpson is as guilty as hell.

limakey, no matter how many police officers testified that it was Commander Bushey's order to notify Simpson in person, you still refuse to believe it. For someone who was in the military you seem to be very ignorant about how a chain of command works. Commander Bushey testified that his order was proper police procedure.

All you do is argue about what you think Vannatter thought. Thoughts are not lies. You or anyone else can call Vannatter a liar all you want but that doesn't make it true. No one is convicted of lying based on what they're thinking, only on what they say they did. I don't care how many examples you give of what the criminal trial jurors supposedly thought. The fact is that Simpson was the killer no matter what excuses they may have given to justify their decision to acquit.

You seem to be playing dumb not being able to understand the difference between a potential suspect and an actual suspect.

Vannatter was never impeached about any fact he ever testified to in this case.

bobaugust

tazzybaby

05-02-2006, 08:04 AM

Limakey,

You are so wrong about the abuse. And, the two calls (89 & 93) to 911 are not the only abuse we have. There are witnesses to him hitting her other than these two calls. She had written notes in the margin of a book as to the way their relationship matched the book and the things he had done to her. There is her diary. There are the pictures of her. There are the many witnesses who SAW him hit her. The man on the beach, the woman at the vet's office, the neighbors who saw her bruises after hearing them fight, the call to the shelter. He smashed up her car. The doctor that was consulting him while he was in jail said that he was a batterer and Nicole was battered.

This is why I say you have shades on. You pretend like all of that is not there. Or, you dismiss it as everyone is lying but OJ. You don't even mention any of that.

This is exactly why I say the DA's (Clark, Darden) screwed up. They did not follow thru with the abuse issue. That is a screw up. They didn't follow thru. However, the civil trial did. The civil trial showed that OJ was a killer without any doubt. I believe that OJ and Nicole fought on the phone that night and she pissed him off good. And, I don't think he had the cap for a disguise. That's rediculous. I think he had it (just like the gloves) to try to keep evidence of himself being the killer to zip. The defense did nothing but lie to try and get a killer out free. Just like Cochran saying that OJ did not hear the message from Paula. That was a lie because Simpson already admitted to Lange and Vannatter that he did. But, they couldn't bring that into the criminal trial. That's how the DA's screwed up.

So, for you to say it's not fair that I keep saying they screwed up...you are wrong. They did screw up. The civil trial made OJ have to finally answer for himself. And, that's when we saw what a liar he is. Not one little lie. Many big ones.

You are not taking into account the many many many many many different things that prove his guilt.

Remember his lies? He was definately in the bronco at 10:03. He even told HIS therapist this. She made notes of it. He said in his interview with Vannatter and Lange that he HAD picked up Paula's message. (and this WAS talked about in the civil trial) His hands were NOT cut at the recital. He was cut after the recital. There was blood found in the drain in his bathroom. There was blood found on the wire behind the house. There was blood found on the air conditioner behind the house. There were blood drops from the bronco to the house and then inside the house. He was bleeding pretty good before he left for Chicago. A small papercut would not bleed like that. Another lie. Rediculous.

And, Vannatter was NOT impeached. They only suggested it. That is also NOTHING that would change the fact that OJ killed his ex-wife and her friend. I don't care who you don't trust. OJ didn't have to lie if he didn't do it.

bobaugust

05-02-2006, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by limakey
IMO, I believe who ever killed Ron and Nicole knew the intimate details of the Simpson relationship. That who ever killed them ensured they wore items that could be linked to Simpson. I believe the gloves were left at the scene on purpose. As for the hat, there was at least one other hat in Nicole's home that was identical to one found. While OJ Simpson was asked to try on the gloves, he was never asked to try on the hat because he has an exceptionally large head (and no jokes okay!) and the hair that was found inside it, could have come from another African American and there was something about dandruff.

I think it is just unbelieveable to think that OJ Simpson, one of the most famous and recognizable faces in this country, would attempt to use a dark hat, sweatsuit and gloves to disguise himself. As much as Johnnie Cochran was laughed at about his demonstration in the courtroom, he proved his point, OJ Simpson in a dark knit cap is still OJ Simpson.

limakey, it amazes me how gullible and naive you are when it comes to understanding the clothing that Simpson wore that night when he committed the murders. Again for someone who claims they were in the military, based on your statements you must have slept through all of your camouflage and concealment classes.

Simpson wore all dark clothing for concealment in the dark shadows at Nicole's house, just like he learned when making the movie Frogman. He wore gloves so he wouldn't leave fingerprints. Most people understand that. Johnnie Cochran's ridiculous demonstration of wearing the knit hat on his head, which was noticeably too big for him, didn't prove anything. Of course if Simpson was wearing that hat in court under lights it would still be Simpson. But when he wore it at night in the dark any witness who had seen a large man dressed in all dark clothing on the dark walkway at Bundy would not have been able to identify that person as O.J. Simpson. No witness could have made a positive identification, not being able to tell what kind of hair if any the man had or any other distinguishing features.

There was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff at the time of the murders.

I have no idea what you base your belief on that the police were stunned that they didn't find the bloody knife or the bloody shoes. That's completely ridiculous. If they had actually found the murder weapon or the shoes that would have stunned them. They did find the murder clothing but never even realized it. When they later learned that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders a second search warrant was issued to go back to Rockingham and get it. But it was too late, it was gone.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-02-2006, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by limakey
I have no doubt that the glove was planted behind the wall. My best guess for the person(s) who did this was Mark Fuhrman. Even if you wipe away his race challenged past, he still responded to the Simpson's home in 1985, he still answered a call out and submitted a statement on this incident after the 1989 incident. While it was talked about and while Chris Darden says that the DA's were able to keep out Fuhrman's comments about Nicole, like he was her personal cop and that he saw her boob job unclose and personal, it never made into evidence. However, the fact that he responded in 1985, the fact that he responded to a call out after the 1989 incident, he had every reason and being the outstanding detective that Mr. August claims him to be, he knew that Simpson was a prime suspect.

Detective Fuhrman knew about the thumps Kato heard before the glove was found. If you read Clark's comments about the glove and what Fuhrman told her and showed her, it was his description and his description of the chain of events, that were used to explain how the glove got back there. That OJ Simpson ran into the AC unit and that caused him to drop the glove.

After he is told about the thumps, he brings Kato into the house, he tells the other detectives to talk to him, he goes back out and about 15 minutes later, he comes back and then escorts all three detectives, by themselves to see his prize, the glove. Now, MF tells us that he was concerned about the thumps because he thought the thumps were made by a person who had collasped back there, he didn't know if it was another victim or the actual perp, but his concern was someone was back there, injured. If that is the case, why even escort Kato back into the house? Why not tell him to wait while he checked it out? What did this person suddenly become less injured, less collapsed? What was Fuhrman's delay on checking on this possible injured victim or prep?

Why didn't he ever or any other cop or DA have Kato walk back there and give a demonstration on what he heard? At that time, the theory that the AC unit was the reason the gloved was dropped, would have been put to rest even before it was leaked.

Then we have Vanatter getting nailed with reckless disregard for the truth on the search warrant. Poor old Phil, he took one for the team but he called his old buddy Marcia and sure enough, they would get together with a story, that a judge would buy. I don't think they ever expected Ito to question it or write what he did about it, but that was okay, because it took the focus off of the glove.

Now, there was glove that was spotted on a wire, but not enough of it to even determine if it was human blood or not. But damn, what great eyes that caught that. However, what does this tell us? That the cops and the DA's knew that there had to be more evidence to prove that someone was back there and dropped the glove and they searched, searched and searched some more and found nothing. The only "evidence" they had were the thumps, but when you added up what Kato said about it and what Fuhrman said about it and where the glove was found, you came up with "glove planting 101". IMO.

limakey, you say you have no doubt that the glove was planted behind the wall?

You know no such thing, you fantasize that it was planted. You can't name one single piece of legitimate evidence that supports that claim. All of the known evidence contradicts your false claim. Logic and common sense contradicts your false claim.

You keep referring to Clark's and Fuhrman's comments. Their comments are not evidence and they were wrong. Just as you are wrong.

No, it wasn't a miracle where fiber evidence was found and not found, just reality. All of the fiber evidence found in this case was found only on fabrics.

Your confused. There was no carpet fibers on the socks there were only blue black cotton fibers from Simpson's clothing. The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on Simpson's right hand glove. Those items were not packaged with the socks.

There were three different photographers who took photographs of Simpson wearing the exact same shoes that the killer wore when he wore them nine months before the murders on September 26, 1993. Over thirty photographs and negatives were examined by experts and all were found to be authentic. One of these photographs was even published in a weekly newsletter in November 1993 showing Simpson wearing the exact same shoes the killer wore.

The claim that these photographs were fake is a bogus and false claim. There isn't one single piece of legitimate evidence to support it. Just another excuse used by people who either refuse or are not capable of accepting the simple truth of these murders.

Based on the your comments you would have flunked Glove Planting 101 just like you flunked basic camouflage and concealment.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-02-2006, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by limakey

Now we go onto the blood evidence at Bundy, we will skip over the blood on the backgate, because it was found weeks later. The jurors made it clear that the x-ray was very difficult to read because it was degraded. They could not tell for sure and they had nothing else to compare it to. The reason given for this was that the ac was broken in the evidence truck and the evidence was "cooked". But this was never proven. The ac unit in an evidence truck was broke for a long time, but it never affected any other blood degrations in any other case, so why fix it. Well why was Simpson's blood the only blood the broken ac unit had an affect on? When did the DA's prove this was the reason for this little problem of evidence?

The blood on the socks, we know the defense's theory and we know why the witness said he believed it was planted. It was Marcia Clark who conceded the witness was correct, except she said that the only way the blood could have gotten on that sock, where it was, if Nicole reached up, and with hand went under OJ's pant leg and grabbed his ankle or leg. Well, that kind of destroys the DA's timeline and the fact that Nicole was dead before she even hit the ground and what was OJ doing, bending over her?

And lets no forget that not only the blood on the socks was found much later, these were the most important piece of evidence the DA's had against OJ. They were inside his house, right then and there, the glove didn't matter, nothing else matter but those socks but it appears to me that they weren't given a second thought until the other evidence never appeared and there were problems with the glove.

So much of the DA's evidence is truly manna from heaven. It is a miracle that all those experts didn't see the blood on the socks, it was a miracle that the glove got behind the wall with no other trace evidence. It was a miracle that not one single fiber was found in OJ's home, in his cars.

It was a miracle that Kato knew (however, he was said he thought) what OJ was wearing, yet he got it totally wrong on what he was wearing to the airport. What is that Mr. August, it doesn't matter if he got it wrong, that what he wore to the Airport was irrelevant, well maybe in Bob August Land, it is irrelevent, but here on plant reality, it is very relevent.

And the fibers on the socks, well what happens when you store sections on the carpet and the socks in the same evidence bag? Is there some rule of behavior that prevents these items from bonding with one another? Of course, that was OJ's fault that they were packaged together, but then again, everything is his fault, isn't? Or Johnnie Cochran's.

And the shoes, okay, the pictures. Lets see, after the criminal verdict, the Goldmans' had several offers to have OJ killed. More the one person, they were mainly black, who wanted to kill OJ for him and his family. The Goldmans declined these kind offers, but if people were willing to kill OJ because of the verdict and felt so bad for the Goldmans', does this mean no one would fake a photo? Personally, I probably wouldn't have a problem faking a photo in the civil trial, because one it is only money, two, I think the guy is guilty as hell, three, I cry everytime I look at the Goldmans', especially Kim but would I kill him for them, are you kidding me?

Limakey, it was proved that Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock and Simpson's blood on the rear gate were NOT planted from Nicole's autopsy sample or Simpson's reference sample.

Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock did not contain EDTA preserved blood. It was also less degraded than the blood in her autopsy sample proving that it was not planted. Nicole didn't reach up and grab Simpson's ankle. Nicole's fresh blood probably splashed on Simpson's socks when he walked through her pooling blood.

Simpson's blood on the rear gate did not contain EDTA preserved blood. A crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders showed one of the blood stains on the rear gate that the defense claimed was planted. After that photograph was entered into evidence in the criminal trial Simpson's defense never made that false claim again. Only uninformed people or people who can't understand realty continue to claim blood was planted.

You've got things backwards. The clothing that Simpson wore to the airport is irrelevant. The clothing he was wearing before the murders was what was relevant to the murders.

No, it wasn't a miracle where fiber evidence was found and not found, just reality. All of the fiber evidence found in this case was found only on fabrics.

Your confused. There was no carpet fibers on the socks there were only blue black cotton fibers from Simpson's clothing. The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on Simpson's right hand glove. Those items were not packaged with the socks.

There were three different photographers who took photographs of Simpson wearing the exact same shoes that the killer wore when he wore them nine months before the murders on September 26, 1993. Over thirty photographs and negatives were examined by experts and all were found to be authentic. One of these photographs was even published in a weekly newsletter in November 1993 showing Simpson wearing the exact same shoes the killer wore.

The claim that these photographs were fake is a bogus and false claim. There isn't one single piece of legitimate evidence to support it. Just another excuse used by people who either refuse or are not capable of accepting the simple truth of these murders.

bobaugust

weezer

05-02-2006, 08:34 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
So unless you intend to prove that she was threatened or beaten up by the black jurors in this case to say those things about Vanatter and Fuhrman and that she really believed them, then I think this issue should be closed. You may continue to live in your dream world, but the jurors and several millions of other Americans are perfectly within their right to call Fuhrman and Vanatter what they are, liars. It was proven. Shapiro hammered Vannatter on the search warrant details because the defense had NO other argument. I do not believe Vannatter lied -- it was proven to be blood on the Bronco and the maid was suppose to be in the house.

As far as the 'white' juror who also voted to release the murderer, you need to do a little more research. IIRC, she stated that because there was such animosity among the jurors, she wanted it over. She along with the other jurors did not do their sworn duty. They did not consider the evidence of the case and released a double murderer back into society.

You can continue to live in your dream world but until you, the several million and the jury can say how Orenthal's blood, footprint, cap, glove, hair and Bronco fiber got to the scene of the murder without OJ carrying them there, then you cannot make a case for his innocence.

weezer

05-02-2006, 08:47 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
I think it is just unbelieveable to think that OJ Simpson, one of the most famous and recognizable faces in this country, would attempt to use a dark hat, sweatsuit and gloves to disguise himself. Absolutely unbelieveabele that a thinking person can take the evidence in this case, then twist it and turn to fit their outrageous theory.

No one but Orenthal was at the murder scene -- Proven. No one but Orenthal wanted Nicole dead -- Proven. Any other peripheral involvement by LE or anyone else is exactly that -- peripheral.

BTW, I'm still hoping for an answer to my inquiries as to how Orenthal's blood, footprint, cap, glove, hair, Bronco fiber got to the scene if he wasn't the one that took it there.

weezer

05-02-2006, 09:09 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by limakey
I'm think if I truly believed that my ex son in law killed my daughter, and he won custody of the kids, I would want another woman or another person there just to make sure that the kids were okay. But, to each his own. I don't mean to be rude but you present a twisted sense of argument. The Brown's do truly believe that Orenthal murdered Nicole. They fought for custody of the children to keep them away from him. Unfortunately, Orenthal won custody and as we have seen, that has not been without incident between him and the kids -- or at least Sydney. I doubt very seriously that Juditha Brown asked Orenthal not to remarry and so he didn't. Orenthal was/is a man-*****......I think a deeper question would be why he was. Doesn't say much for his character. Not that I think a philanderer goes on to become a murderer. But I do believe that an abuser can and does. Orenthal was both.

Your posts more often than not hold Orenthal up as some kind of hero while you denigrate Nicole. He is just a human who was a lousy husband (twice) and has been proven to be an abuser and a murderer.

As far as the rest of your comments about Fuhrman, Vannatter, planted gloves and blood -- wrong. Besides spouting the dream team mantra, you cannot provide any credible proof whatsoever that any of this is true. In fact, you are posting stuff that has been proven to you and other NGs on this board to be wrong. IMO, it is dishonest of you to continue to post such fantasies.

MOO

Wukong

05-02-2006, 09:41 AM

Interesting photo of the reaction when the verdict was read:

http://espn-att.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/simpson_verdict_reaction.jpg

weezer

05-02-2006, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Wukong
Interesting photo of the reaction when the verdict was read:

http://espn-att.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/simpson_verdict_reaction.jpg I bet we could put the same people in the same room and still get the same reaction. Sad.

weezer

05-02-2006, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by martin II

wukong

what i see is some black people making happy type gestures and some white people not making any gestures at all.

it is difficult to tell what the white faces represent because there seems to be no expression at all.

but at any rate, people did react differently to this verdict. Think those black faces really believed in Orenthal's innocence or did those faces reflect a collective 'up yours'?

weezer

05-02-2006, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I'm going with "b" :tongue: Do you think the NGs don't answer my request for explanation to the Bundy evidence because they don't have an answer?:D

weezer

05-02-2006, 11:52 AM

Interesting Dershowitz interview:

"I think for some of the jurors, Barry Scheck gave them the intellectual and the moral permission to vote their heart. They wanted to vote acquittal. Barry showed them how to; Johnnie told them why to."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/defense.html

weezer

05-02-2006, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by martin II
The prosecution said they had a mountain of evidence. Barry Scheck Showed the jury and the world where the valleys were
and there were many. imo The same Barry Scheck who has used evidence from this same lab to exonerate his clients? Surely he wouldn't use an incompetent, contaminated lab to test DNA for his clients?

The prosecution did have a mountain of evidence that all led to Orenthal James Simpson -- motive, means, opportunity. We had a jury that was incompetent, uneducated and biased. So, before the defense and NGs slap themselves on the back about what a great job was done in defending the murderer, remember that there has still been no answers as to how Orenthal's blood, hair, cap, glove, footprint and bronco fibers got to the murder scene without him taking it there.

weezer

05-02-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by martin II
The prosecution said they had a mountain of evidence. Barry Scheck Showed the jury and the world where the valleys were
and there were many. imo Dershowitz interview:
"The second biggest sin is that we understood the rule of race in this case. And the third biggest sin is that we put the police on trial. Instead of defending our client, we prosecuted the police, and that was the best strategy for winning this case. It was a strategy that I had devised 15 years earlier in a book called The Best Defense where I said, "In a case like this, you put the prosecution on trial."

weezer

05-02-2006, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

IIRC there were 2 other labs in addition to that one & they all came to the same conclusions. You remember right -- Cellmark and DOJ.

weezer

05-02-2006, 02:59 PM

This from Gerald Uelman interview:

"Well, the jury-consultant polling suggested that minority women had a different attitude about domestic violence than white women. This suggested to us that the conventional wisdom that you don't want women on a jury where one of the issues is domestic violence wasn't necessarily true; that we wouldn't necessarily have to be afraid that minority women would come in with an attitude prejudging or prejudiced against someone who was accused of domestic violence. "

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/uelmen.html

weezer

05-02-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by martin II

Barry Scheck pointed out to the jury and every one else all the holes in the prosecutions collection of samples and the dna results.. The jury understood his presentation and liked him as a lawyer. The belived him. IMO
Martin II You are not any smarter about this case as martin II than you were as RR2. I am giving you the defense's own words to tell you that they knew the case and evidence against Orenthal could and would convict him. Their only hope was to distract the jury from the truth and to make it case about race and not murder. Scheck distorted the truth and facts. He knew that contaminated blood would not have shown to be Orenthal's -- which it did. Contaminated blood would have be inconclusive -- and there was some that was. IMO and many others, Barry Scheck proved to be a fraud.

weezer

05-02-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by martin II

I if you ask cellmark they will tell you that their lab has improved
quite a bit since the oj case.

Most labs are now certified by a national standards organization Partly because of the oj case and the work of Barry Scheck and others.imo Cellmark will tell you that Barry Scheck has used them to prove his clients' cases for exoneration. Three labs -- independent of each other -- tested the evidence. All three labs came to the same conclusions. What about THAT, mr. martin II? What about that?

weezer

05-02-2006, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You are giving Scheck more credit than he deserves. The jurors didn't have a lot of smarts. I doubt they understood DNA. You're right. It was one of the real "bright" (:rolleyes: ) female jurors that said the prosecution shouldn't have shown the DNA because they (the jury) didn't understand it. Or words to that effect.

weezer

05-02-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Yes, I remember something along those lines too. Don't you just hate it when the District Attorney's Office brings all that science mumbo jumbo into court? :rolleyes: LOL -- yep -- Peggy Sue didn't know she was gonna need to pay attention in school............LOL

weezer

05-02-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by martin II

What i think is that Bary Schack has no reason not to use cellmark. It was his cross eximination of the prosecution experts that exposed how unprofessional most le labs were in collecting evidence that they sent to labs like cellmark. Now it is standard practice in le labs to ware gloves and aprons in the collection and
testing of all evidence. Not so in the oj case by lapd lab .

And don't forget before the oj trial Cellmark had been sited twice
for problems in their lab. these problems have been corrected now so i wouild say that since all labs are under some national
work standards, cellmark would be a good lab to use.imo You may have reincarnated yourself but you are still misinformed about the case and the facts. Everything you have posted is poppycock. The Simpson trial was not responsible for any great 'clean-up' of labs nationally. The Simpson trial did not set the standard for problems within labs. Cellmark was a good lab before the Simpson case and Cellmark is a good lab since the Simpson case.

2L8 4A D8

05-02-2006, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by martin II

<snipped>

there is no rule that the jury must go over every piece of evidence
presented in a case. unless some jurors request that certain evidence be discussed. each juror has the right to have any piece of evidence disscused and when a juror makes this request the discussion takes place.

<snipped>

So it does not matter if this takes one hour, four hours of 10 days.
All of this is my opinions.
Martin II

GMAFB! The DNA evidence was extremely important in this case in order to reach the correct verdict. I'd like to know where you got the information that "there is no rule that the jury must go over every piece of evidence presented in a case." That is the most assinine statement that I have ever heard. Discount the socks if you want or the blood found on the back gate, but the DNA evidence? Just another lame excuse for these morons to justify their not guilty verdict if you ask me. Four hours! This was such a travesty of justice!

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

05-03-2006, 04:44 AM

Kate,

The problem with all the research and the profiles is that if you keep this exact same case, with the exact same evidence, with the exact same witnesses, but change the victim to OJ Simpson and Nicole being the defendant, the exact same research would prove that Nicole was not a battered woman, that it was a one time incident and that Mr. Simpson took responsiblity for it.

The worst part about this, is that if Mrs. Simpson was on trial, she would not have had to money to have legal team of experts. So she would have fried.

tazzybaby

05-03-2006, 08:02 AM

weezer

05-03-2006, 08:20 AM

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Scheck/scheck-con3.html Now, everyone in the forensic community realizes that the collection and handling of this evidence is essential to getting reliable results. You get contaminated results if you commingle contaminant. Faked the data. They had inconclusives, or just gave the results they wanted, didn't even do the tests.
Martin II Three labs -- independent of each other -- tested the forensics in this case and all identified Orenthal as the murderer. This is the fact of the case -- not Dershowitz and Scheck espousing their views and/or patting each other on the back. Contaminated forensics are found to be inconclusive. It was the uncontaminated forensics that found Simpson to be a double murderer.

weezer

05-03-2006, 08:33 AM

weezer

05-03-2006, 08:38 AM

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
now if you have information contrary to what my opinions of the jury responsibility are and you can prove my opinions wrong.
i will be happy to admit that my opinions were wrong.
Martin II The jury is required to consider ONLY the evidence in the case -- not what they think, not what the defense lawyer says and certainly not their racial prejudices. The EVIDENCE (Orenthal's blood, hair, cap, glove, footprint, Bronco fiber at the murder scene) in this case identified Orenthal Simpson as the murderer of Nicole and Ron. If you have credible EVIDENCE that he did not murder them, I will be happy to admit that I am wrong. For the jury to have considered ANYTHING else was wrong.

weezer

05-03-2006, 08:45 AM

From the Dershowitz PBS interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dershowitz.html

"Do you ever wonder if maybe O.J. really did it?

"Every day I thought about did he do it or didn't he do it. Any human being has private thoughts. I closely identified with the victims in the case. I closely identify with a battered woman. I closely identified with a Jewish man. I identified with the parents, with the families. I constantly asked myself, "Did he do it?" And I constantly asked myself, "Am I on the right side of this case?" Any defense attorney who's a human being has to have conflicting emotions about a case where uncertainty prevails. That's true of every case I'm involved in."

Dershowitz goes on for about three paragraphs and never answers the question.

Kate Sachel

05-03-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Kate,

The problem with all the research and the profiles is that if you keep this exact same case, with the exact same evidence, with the exact same witnesses, but change the victim to OJ Simpson and Nicole being the defendant, the exact same research would prove that Nicole was not a battered woman, that it was a one time incident and that Mr. Simpson took responsiblity for it.

The worst part about this, is that if Mrs. Simpson was on trial, she would not have had to money to have legal team of experts. So she would have fried.

I don't see how you can state this if you actually have done the research and know the profiles.

We know that Lenore Walker wrote in her notes that OJ fits the profile of a batterer and that Nicole fits the profile of a battered wife. I honestly believe that the reason that the defense did not call her to testify in the criminal trial is that, in order to do so, they would have had to turn her notes over to the prosecution. Instead, they released bits and pieces of statements and deemed their reasoning for not calling her as being due to some sort of tactical strategy.

You place alot of blame on Nicole Brown and exonerate OJ Simpson by saying that he took full responsibility. How did he take responsibility? By going to court and doing some hours of community service? Never once has he admitted to hitting her that night limaky. Never once. He won't even admit that he slapped her. Yet our eyes tell us in viewing the photographs that she was indeed beaten. I've yet to see him take responsibility for that.

Why do you keep excusing him?

Kate Sachel

05-03-2006, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I've always thought it was odd how "effected" Arnelle was by the murders. Wonder if it was because she realized that she had been an accomplice by doing some wash.

A: That, but my daughter was in sort of a bad way, my older daughter was in sort of a bad way, so I was a little concerned about her, too. Not a little. Just as much as concerned about her. I was pretty concerned about my older daughter, because when I spoke to her, she was in a bad way.

It is my understanding that Arnelle and Nicole had overcome the initial obstacles to be rather close, though certainly not as close as Nicole and Jason were.

I do believe she did some damage control for OJ after the murders though.

Kate Sachel

05-03-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by kta

fgweezer,

I read this interview also. It's quite telling as far as what went on behind the scenes with the defense. He claims that the ethics code of law won't allow him to answer whether or not he thinks OJ did it.

PS ... I'm having a baby boy for those of you who remember that I'm expecting!

Kate

Congratulations! I see you're a Kate too. Welcome to the club as I believe that limakey is also a Kate, and one other person who posts here, though I haven't seen her post in awhile is also a Kate.

Alan Derschowitz's interview sticks in my mind for many reasons. If you read into it in several things that he says you will be able to read his thoughts that he does indeed believe that OJ is guilty. That is how I interpreted several things anyway.

weezer

05-03-2006, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by kta

fgweezer,

I read this interview also. It's quite telling as far as what went on behind the scenes with the defense. He claims that the ethics code of law won't allow him to answer whether or not he thinks OJ did it.

PS ... I'm having a baby boy for those of you who remember that I'm expecting!

Kate Oh I think he did tell us when he said he spent sleepless night questioning what side of the issue he was on -- and then came to the conclusion that he was like a "priest" and was there to accuse the state of wrongdoing and not try his client for murder.

Congratulations on the baby boy! Hope you are going to be through before the hot weather is here. LOL

weezer

05-03-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by martin II
This i belive is true.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dershowitz.html

Alan Dershowitz

The other thing that I think the public hated is this showed how the Constitution is really supposed to work. This was a case with a level playing field. This was a case where the defense had not quite as many resources as the prosecution, but roughly the same resources. We had the best forensic pathologists. We had the best lawyer on DNA, Barry Scheck. We had the best trial lawyer for a Los Angeles jury, Johnnie Cochran. We had F. Lee Bailey, who had more experience than any lawyer in America. We had Jerry Uelmen and me, who could do the sophisticated legal research. We had [forensic pathologist] Dr. [Michael] Baden; we had Dr. Lee. We could stand mano a mano against the prosecution. And the public didn't like a level playing field, because in a level playing field, when the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense will often win. Don't forget this statement: So the defense presented a credible case, [and we were] able to show that the prosecution's case was full of lies. That doesn't mean that ultimate truth was on one side or the other, but the defense got the jury to focus on the lies of the prosecution rather than on the innocence or guilt of the defendant."

weezer

05-03-2006, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by martin II
This i belive is true.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dershowitz.html

Alan Dershowitz

The other thing that I think the public hated is this showed how the Constitution is really supposed to work. This was a case with a level playing field. This was a case where the defense had not quite as many resources as the prosecution, but roughly the same resources. We had the best forensic pathologists. We had the best lawyer on DNA, Barry Scheck. We had the best trial lawyer for a Los Angeles jury, Johnnie Cochran. We had F. Lee Bailey, who had more experience than any lawyer in America. We had Jerry Uelmen and me, who could do the sophisticated legal research. We had [forensic pathologist] Dr. [Michael] Baden; we had Dr. Lee. We could stand mano a mano against the prosecution. And the public didn't like a level playing field, because in a level playing field, when the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense will often win. And this one: "I think [prosecuting attorney] Marcia Clark believed that gender would trump race with black women, and it turned out that wasn't the case; that many of these women identified much more with their brothers and fathers and uncles, who had seen police harassment. They were black first and women second. ... "

weezer

05-03-2006, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

He's considered himself like a priest? :rolleyes: That's what he said, ". . .And every lawyer who's also a good person has these ambivalences, and then you have to stop and think, I have a role in the process. I'm like a priest, and when somebody confesses to a priest,..."

weezer

05-03-2006, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by martin II
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dershowitz.html

A Dershowitz

But then you must sometimes stand between the guilty and the service of justice?

I am standing between a guilty man and justice in the same way that Abraham argued with God over the sinners of Sodom in the book of Genesis when God said, "I'm going to kill all the sinners," and Abraham said: "Wait a minute, God. What if there are 50 or 40 or 30 or 10 innocent people?" And God admitted that you can't kill people if there's a possibility that someone might be innocent. That's what the defense attorney does; he does stand between the state, the police, the prosecution, the public and his one defendant. He's the one person in the world -- the defense attorney -- who has one duty and one duty alone, and that is zealously to defend the rights and interests of his client. And I believe that to be true to a point. I do not believe you sell your soul to the devil -- knowing that your client is a double murderer -- and then pretend you did it for humanity. Dershowitz wanted to be part of the defense team for the same reasons the others did -- $$$$$$$$ and status.........

He can go on and on about his duty -- BS -- the man defended a double murderer and then has hid behind his profession.

Kate Sachel

05-03-2006, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
And this one: "I think [prosecuting attorney] Marcia Clark believed that gender would trump race with black women, and it turned out that wasn't the case; that many of these women identified much more with their brothers and fathers and uncles, who had seen police harassment. They were black first and women second. ... "

In our society, I believe that women go to great lengths to excuse men and find reasons to blame women.

weezer

05-03-2006, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by martin II
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dershowitz.html

A Dershowitz

But then you must sometimes stand between the guilty and the service of justice?

I am standing between a guilty man and justice in the same way that Abraham argued with God over the sinners of Sodom in the book of Genesis when God said, "I'm going to kill all the sinners," and Abraham said: "Wait a minute, God. What if there are 50 or 40 or 30 or 10 innocent people?" And God admitted that you can't kill people if there's a possibility that someone might be innocent. That's what the defense attorney does; he does stand between the state, the police, the prosecution, the public and his one defendant. He's the one person in the world -- the defense attorney -- who has one duty and one duty alone, and that is zealously to defend the rights and interests of his client. This is what Dershowitz needs to remember:
Proverbs 6:16-19
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. KJV

tazzybaby

05-03-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by martin II
i think that the court system was very fortunate to have ended up with 12 well informed citizens from the community on the jury that were able to cast aside the media hype and the calls for blood.
Most of all it was great that they did not act as a rubber stamp for the posecution and did evaluate the 'mountain" of evidence for what it was. a mountain of REASONABLE DOUBT.
Martin II

Hi Martin,

Okay, but that doesn't mean that OJ is innocent. Can you believe that they came to the right verdict but still believe he is actually guilty? I truly want to know your answer to this. And, if you truly believe OJ is innocent then how do you explain his lies? I mean, do you just overlook them?

I don't agree with your statement. However, I do understand the reasonable doubt. I do know OJ is guilty though.

tazzybaby

05-03-2006, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by kta

*snip*

PS ... I'm having a baby boy for those of you who remember that I'm expecting!

Kate

Woo Hoo! CONGRATULATIONS!!

:beer:

weezer

05-03-2006, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by martin II
i think that the court system was very fortunate to have ended up with 12 well informed citizens from the community on the jury that were able to cast aside the media hype and the calls for blood.
Most of all it was great that they did not act as a rubber stamp for the posecution and did evaluate the 'mountain" of evidence for what it was. a mountain of REASONABLE DOUBT.
Martin II Then please tell me how the well-informed citizens, using this mountain of reasonable doubt, how do they explain Orenthal's hair, footprint, blood, cap, glove and Bronco fibers at the murder scene? They can't.

The NGs and the jury don't want to face the fact that they were used -- just like the justice system -- to get a double murderer off.

Kate Sachel

05-03-2006, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by martin II

it is said that oj lied about paulas telephone call. i really don't know if it is true or not. Petrocelli was a good quesitonedm, he did seem to confucs oj on some questions. but none that goes to the issue. that is my opinion.

It is far more than Paula's phone call that OJ was proven to have lied about. You have been on this board long enough to have all of those lies pointed out in great detail for you to read, yet you seem to believe, or want us to believe, that there is only one lie.

weezer

05-03-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by martin II

hi tazzy

can you be more specific about "they came to the right verdict but still belive he is actually guilty"

who are you talking about. comments of one joror or 2-3-4-5-6-

people are intitled to their opinions. the jury evaluated the evidnce and declared that there was reasonable doubt.

now, many people that dissagre have been trying to dig up every angle to dismiss and attack the jury in a effort to satisfy their need in their minds to " IGNORE" the not guilty verdict.
example
this jury member said this, and this jury member said that, jury was made up of ignorant black women, they were black before they were women. all kinds of nonsense.
just because they cannot see the reasonable doubt in the case.
Martin II

it is said that oj lied about paulas telephone call. i really don't know if it is true or not. Petrocelli was a good quesitonedm, he did seem to confucs oj on some questions. but none that goes to the issue. that is my opinion. I told you he wasn't any smarter even with the new name! MOO

No one is digging up anything -- I was quoting the defense attorneys and gave you the link to the interview.

Orenthal did lie about paula's call -- if you believe no one else, won't you believe him? He said (twice) that he'd received the message. Paula said he'd received the message. His cell phone records prove he received the message.

Okay -- one more time. Please explain Orenthal's blood, footprint, hair, cap, glove and Bronco fibers at the murder scene.

weezer

05-03-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by martin II
C. OGLETREE.
Harvard Law Proffessor.

The one thing that's amazing about the Simpson case ... [is that] no one's mind has changed in a decade. The whites who thought he was guilty haven't budged an inch, and the blacks who thought he was not guilty haven't budged an inch. They both saw the same program played out on American television, and they both had very different views about it.

And in both cases, their views were influenced by their experiences with race and their experience with the criminal justice system. Whites assume that if there were enough accusations that Simpson would be convicted. Blacks assume that here's another black man drawn into the criminal justice system. But this time he had Johnnie Cochran; this time he had resources; this time he had experts like [criminalist] Dr. Henry Lee and [forensic pathologist] Michael Baden. This time he was somebody who could fight back to a system that is frequently unfair, and to make it show its many flaws.

So the views about race didn't budge one inch, and unfortunately, it reflects a deep-seated chasm in this country in the way people view race and the criminal justice system.

Why was the white community so angry?

The rage in this case toward O.J. Simpson was a result You see rayray -- oops, I mean martin -- it wasn't white America that was angry because a black man got away with murder. I believe white America was angry because we were playing by the rules and black America wasn't. MOO

tazzybaby

05-03-2006, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by martin II

hi tazzy

can you be more specific about "they came to the right verdict but still belive he is actually guilty"

who are you talking about. comments of one joror or 2-3-4-5-6-

*snip*
it is said that oj lied about paulas telephone call. i really don't know if it is true or not. Petrocelli was a good quesitonedm, he did seem to confucs oj on some questions. but none that goes to the issue. that is my opinion.

Hi Martin,

I am talking about you. Your opinion. Much has happened since the criminal trial. We finally saw OJ on the stand. We got to hear the rest of the abuse evidence.

I'm just curious if you can overlook everything outside of a court of law and still come to the same conclusion? Just curious.

:seeya:

weezer

05-03-2006, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Hi Martin,

I am talking about you. Your opinion. Much has happened since the criminal trial. We finally saw OJ on the stand. We got to hear the rest of the abuse evidence.

I'm just curious if you can overlook everything outside of a court of law and still come to the same conclusion? Just curious.

:seeya: I don't think he can answer this for you. He was able to overlook evidence and came to the same conclusion. I don't believe time and clarity will have made any difference. MOO

2L8 4A D8

05-03-2006, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by martin II

2l8

<snipped>

remember, there are many cases where the jury deliberated for a few hours and came to a agreement on the verdict. so the oj case was not the first time a jury deliberated for 3-4 hours and came to a verdict.

Oh really? Enlighten me. Throw out some Case names because I do not remember any double murder case that included detailed DNA evidence and a not guilty verdict was rendered in 4 hours!

now if you have information contrary to what my opinions of the
jury responsibility are and you can prove my opinions wrong.
i will be happy to admit that my opinions were wrong.
Martin II

My post was also my opinions. So since I asked you first, "you can prove my opinions wrong and then I will be happy to admit that my opinions were wrong!"

:D

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

05-03-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by kta

Thanks! I'm due in July, can hardly wait. I've been trying for awhile and had wanted children by the age of 26 but I'm now 31 and have just concieved. It took me that long to find the right relationship to bear children into.

Kate

Congratulations! Any names picked out yet? Hope all goes well for you. Welcome to the OJ Board!

:seeya:

2L8 4A D8

05-03-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer

I told you he wasn't any smarter even with the new name! MOO

<snipped>

I think that's the reason why he uses 2/II after his name. He figures that 2 heads are better than one. Problem is that if you don't have common sense, no amount of heads will help.

JMO and MOO!!

weezer

05-03-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by martin II

TAZZY

I don't belive oj killed anyone.
Martin II Which must mean you have an explanation for his blood, footprints, cap, glove, hair and bronco fiber being at the murder scene? It couldn't have been an LE plant since he was in Chicago when they were found. How do you think they got there?

weezer

05-03-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Which must mean you have an explanation for his blood, footprints, cap, glove, hair and bronco fiber being at the murder scene? It couldn't have been an LE plant since he was in Chicago when they were found. How do you think they got there? martin, I was hoping you'd answer. I really am interested.

2L8 4A D8

05-03-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
martin, I was hoping you'd answer. I really am interested.

Better get on your knees and start begging and invest in some knee pads. However, I don't even think that will work! LOL!

;)

weezer

05-03-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by martin II
2L8

You asked the quesiton below. i gave you my opinion of how the jury deliberations work in my post.

I'd like to know where you got the information that "there is no rule that the jury must go over every piece of evidence presented in a case." That is the most assinine statement that I have ever heard. Discount the socks if you want or:

:seeya: I think he's off his meds again or that bump on his head is getting bigger. :confused:

weezer

05-03-2006, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Better get on your knees and start begging and invest in some knee pads. However, I don't even think that will work! LOL!

;) did netta ever finish telling his theory about Fuhrman being on Orenthal's side? I think we may have scared him off but I would like to hear his theory.

weezer

05-03-2006, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I don't think there's any head left, I think it's all bump :D :lol:

Wukong

05-04-2006, 12:02 AM

Some times the best defense is a good offense.

Example:
Q: "Why is OJ guilty?"
A: "Because white america is angry."

Child psychology 101.

Wukong

2L8 4A D8

05-04-2006, 02:57 AM

Wukong ~ Love It!

Here's a Rootbeer Float for you :beer:

Wukong

05-04-2006, 07:00 AM

Martin,

I understand. But my post was in reply to SocalDiva:

"Gee, I wonder why Martin II doesn't answer the questions posed to him about evidence & continues to go look stuff up about "white america" being angry."

I was merely giving an example of your tactic; which is to go on the offensive when backed into a corner. My example could have very well been:

Q: Why is OJ not guilty?
A: Mark Fuhrman planted the glove!

Wukong

tazzybaby

05-04-2006, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by martin II

TAZZY

I don't belive oj killed anyone.
Martin II

Hi Martin,

Thanks. No disrespect, but that baffles me. How do you justify (to yourself) OJ's lies? I mean, because of Mark Fuhrman's lie then you throw out anything he said or found. So, shouldn't it be the same for OJ? Shouldn't you, at that point, not trust him and actually have to look at and prove/disprove what he says?

:shrug:

Kate Sachel

05-04-2006, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by martin II

HI
Tazzy

some say oj lied about paulas call. that he PROBERBLY understood that the prosecution had developed this huge theory
that he was so in love with her and became so depressed at her ' DUMPING him ( if that is what she did) that he PROBERBLY just went crazy, tossed all reasoning to the wind and ran to bundy and killed everyone in sight. therefore he lied about the call.

in his testimony in the civil trial i did notice that in some instances oj did give a serise of NO answers to Petrocelli's quesitons. i got the feeling that some of these answere were reckless or it was as if he did not give a damm what he said or it could have been that his lawyer had instructed him to give a no answer to many of these type questions. i have no answer for some of his responses. but i don't think this helped him with this jury or American public opinion. so i think this was a mistake on his and or his lawyers part.

these lies and or preceptions of lies by him cost him in the civil trial.
the lies, excuse me mistakes, by furhman, vanhatter, fung, mazallo and vanhatter cost the prosecution in the criminal trial however there are still some that don't belive they lied at all. imo

To set the record straight here, there were no "perceptions" of lies by OJ during the civil trial, he was PROVEN to lie over and over again ... about far more than Paula's telephone call so could you please get past that?

OJ's lies were not mistakes and even after shown to be lying what did he do? Continued to lie.

Since you refuse to directly address this issue other than spinning off into some perception of lies web, I can only assume that you have no feasible response?

weezer

05-04-2006, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by martin II

HI
Tazzy

some say oj lied about paulas call. that he PROBERBLY understood that the prosecution had developed this huge theory
that he was so in love with her and became so depressed at her ' DUMPING him ( if that is what she did) that he PROBERBLY just went crazy, tossed all reasoning to the wind and ran to bundy and killed everyone in sight. therefore he lied about the call.

in his testimony in the civil trial i did notice that in some instances oj did give a serise of NO answers to Petrocelli's quesitons. i got the feeling that some of these answere were reckless or it was as if he did not give a damm what he said or it could have been that his lawyer had instructed him to give a no answer to many of these type questions. i have no answer for some of his responses. but i don't think this helped him with this jury or American public opinion. so i think this was a mistake on his and or his lawyers part.

these lies and or preceptions of lies by him cost him in the civil trial.
the lies, excuse me mistakes, by furhman, vanhatter, fung, mazallo and vanhatter cost the prosecution in the criminal trial however there are still some that don't belive they lied at all. imo Orenthal murdered Nicole because he was obsessed with her and had lost control of her. Ron was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Paula was peripheral to the situation and the fact that she dumped him on that particular day "proberly" added to his anger/frustration with Nicole's attitude and final break from him -- coupled with the maid not coming home that night gave him motive, means and opportunity. The only evidence of anyone saying they had thought about killing Nicole was Orenthal.-- his statement to police and Ron Shipp.

Still hoping you will explain your theory on how Orenthal's blood, footprints, hair, cap, glove and bronco fiber got to the murder scene if not taken there by him.

weezer

05-04-2006, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by martin II

wukong
thanks
not backed into a corner at all.

i have stated my views about oj being not guilty, on why i belive the jury got it right. etc i also agree with
much of limakey comments on some specifics of the case and that is no secrete.

i have no idea what socaldive may or may not have posted as she has been on IGNORE.

however i do belive that the author of my post does give a valid reason as to why some white people became angry. imo

Martin II You have stated the jury got it right because of reasonable doubt. On that we disagree. But I'm more interested in your most recent posts that Orenthal did not kill anyone. Did not commit the murders and reasonable doubt are two different views. Which one are you exactly?

weezer

05-04-2006, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by martin II

i agree we must agree to dissagree. at least i have as far as you are concerned.
Martin II :confused: Then I will take it as fact that you are as confused about which stand you are taking as you are about the facts in this case. I will also take as fact that you are unable to give a credible explanation on the Bundy evidence and Orenthal's PROVEN involvement.

tazzybaby

05-04-2006, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by martin II

HI
Tazzy

some say oj lied about paulas call. that he PROBERBLY understood that the prosecution had developed this huge theory
that he was so in love with her and became so depressed at her ' DUMPING him ( if that is what she did) that he PROBERBLY just went crazy, tossed all reasoning to the wind and ran to bundy and killed everyone in sight. therefore he lied about the call.

in his testimony in the civil trial i did notice that in some instances oj did give a serise of NO answers to Petrocelli's quesitons. i got the feeling that some of these answere were reckless or it was as if he did not give a damm what he said or it could have been that his lawyer had instructed him to give a no answer to many of these type questions. i have no answer for some of his responses. but i don't think this helped him with this jury or American public opinion. so i think this was a mistake on his and or his lawyers part.

these lies and or preceptions of lies by him cost him in the civil trial.
the lies, excuse me mistakes, by furhman, vanhatter, fung, mazallo and vanhatter cost the prosecution in the criminal trial however there are still some that don't belive they lied at all. imo

And, what if you were shown that he actually lied? Not just that it's perceived as a lie but an actual lie. And, if you began to believe that he truly lied, would that change your mind of his innocence? Not that the criminal verdict was correct or that you believe reasonable doubt because of your perception of police misconduct.....would that change your mind of his innocence?

Are you aware of the things that he told his phsyciatrist? She was his own phsyciatrist, the one that the defense hired.

I really am curious because so many people who defend OJ and don't believe he committed the crime seem to dismiss everything except the things that the Dream Team pointed out. That's hard for me to grasp. I've seen it a lot.

weezer

05-04-2006, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by martin II
FBG

I am of a different opinion on all in your post. The opposite of what is in your post.

Orenthal murdered Nicole because he was obsessed with her and had lost control of her. Ron was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Paula was peripheral to the situation and the fact that she dumped him on that particular day "proberly" added to his anger/frustration with Nicole's attitude and final break from him -- coupled with the maid not coming home that night gave him motive, means and opportunity. The only evidence of anyone saying they had thought about killing Nicole was Orenthal.-- his statement to police and Ron Shipp. What's to be opposite of? I can prove that Orenthal was a batterer. I can prove Orenthal was dumped by Paula. I can prove the maid took an unexpected night off. I can prove that Nicole had made the final break and was moving on with her life. I can prove Orenthal's blood, footprints, cap, glove, hair and bronco fiber were at the murder scene. What proof do you have of your position?

weezer

05-04-2006, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Oh, I'm crushed, I'm absolutely crushed. I hope I have enough Kleenex :rolleyes: It really is sad isn't it? Poor socal.....forest gump's bro has her on ignore. :D

Kate Sachel

05-04-2006, 11:17 AM

weezer

05-04-2006, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by martin II

I believe he did lie about the paula call. No big deal for me.

However, Oj beating nicole on the day the pictures were taken(pictures of her face) in what to me must have been a big fight between them(unless nicole just stood there and let him take his shots) was oj's fault and i think he said so.

there were other yelling and other type arguments between them
that some say was ALL HIS ABUSE of her. since i have no way of knowing who pushed whoes buttons in these arguments i have no way of knowing who was at fault other than to say possible both of them in some way. But in order not to prolong this, lets say that every argument/yelling event that they had was all oj's fault.

a full blown fight in 1989(i think it was) and subsequent other yelling and verbal dissagreements and the phsychiatrist view that oj did abuse nicole does not equal oj loosing it on the night of 6/12 and running to bundy with a small ( i think some have said a 3-4 inch knife) to kill her.

my thought is that IF he had at some point decided to kill her he had other options:

1. just kill her with one of the 'CLEAN' guns ron ship had given
him.
2. kill her at a time and place when he would have a better alibi
than rushing to chicago.
3. he would know that killing her with a knife at her door steps
would leave the bloody scene that would be impossible for him
to clean up in 5-10 minutes. AND leave him as the prime
suspect immediately.

now some say oj was a long time abuser because he knew for some time that nicole was finished with him. That he was a manipulator of many situaitons and was smart enough to hide his manipulations of her from family and friends. but when it comes to the Paula phone call they claim that he became stupid,just went totally out of character. lost all reason, did not think about le looking at him a the suspect. not caring that the children would not have their mother all because nicole had told him to get lost, rented a apartment away from him and they BELIEVE he was not able to have another woman in his life. it seems he had no problem finding all the women nicole accused him of having affairs with.

all this i don't belive.

Martin II I was going to answer you point for point on this very ignorant post but I know that it would not matter if I sent you the video of Orenthal beating Nicole (or pictures from her lockbox) -- You obviously have some experience in DV since you condone the beatings and blame Nicole for 'pushing' buttons.

I do want to answer your numbered arguments:
1. Criminalists and psychologists have established as part of the criminal profile that when someone is murdered with a knife, it is a personal murder. It is done by someone filled with rage and hatred.

2. I doubt he woke up that morning knowing that 'today is the day.' It was only when Paula dumped him, the maid didn't come home and Nicole blew him off that motive, means and opportunity was there.

3. He had no intention of there being a bloody scene to leave behind. He wore gloves so that there would be no prints. What he didn't count on was Ron showing up.

One other thing -- I don't remember anyone saying the murder weapon was 3 - 4 inches........I've always heard 6 inches. Please provide link to your statement on weapon.

weezer

05-04-2006, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva
None of RR2's post answers the questions asked of him relative to the blood evidence. The sock, the hairs etc. How did they turn into OJ's if he wasn't the killer???? I'm waiting for him and limakey to say Nicole did it.

bobaugust

05-04-2006, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by martin II

I believe he did lie about the paula call. No big deal for me.

Martin II

martin II so you agree that Simpson lied about receiving Paula's message but it's no big deal to you?

It was evidently a big deal to Simpson since when he was confronted with his telephone records and Dr. Walker's note impeaching him he still would not admit the truth. It would have been a big deal in the criminal trial since Cochran told the criminal trial jury that there was no problems between Simpson and Paula at the time of the murders, that to say any different was "one of the most outrageous things" he heard.

What about Simpson's other lies?

Simpson lied about the cut on his finger. He first told the police that he recut his finger in Chicago, that it was cut before and if there was blood at hs house then it was his blood that he dripped there. In the civil trial Simpson said he was never cut before he went to Chicago.

Simpson told the police he remembered bleeding in his house and the last thing he did before leaving for Chicago was he went to his Bronco to get his phone. In the civil trial he said that he went to his Bronco to get his phone accessories, and then he went into his house. All were lies. Simpson never went to his Bronco before leaving for the airport. Either Kato Kaelin or Allan Park were with Simpson or near Simpson in the ten or so minutes they spend loading the limousine before leaving for the airport and neither ever saw or heard Simpson go out or come back in the Rockingham gate.

Simpson said he never wore a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders. Yet Kaelin consistently testified that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit when he came to his room and when they went to McDonalds. And a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders.

Simpson looked at over thirty photographs from two different photographers that all showed him wearing the same clothing and the same shoes. Photographs and negative that were examined by an expert and found to be authentic. One even published seven months before the murders in monthly newsletter. Yet Simpson denied that the shoes he was shown wearing in every photograph were on his feet.

Simpson lied about the small dark knapsack on the driveway behind Simpson's Bentley that Kaelin started to get to load into the limousine when he said Simpson stopped him and said he would get it himself. Allan Park testified he saw and heard the same thing Kaelin did, but Simpson denied it ever happened. The knapsack has never been seen again.

Simpson lied about the set of Nicole's house keys that were found in Simpson's possession at the time of his arrest. Simpson denied any knowledge about those keys saying that he believed that the Browns gave AC Cowlings a set of keys to Nicole's house after the murders. Cowlings testified that never happened. He never had a key to Nicole's house.

Simpson lied about everything he said he did after returning from McDonalds with Kaelin until he left for the airport. Allan Park testified that Simpson's Bronco was not at Rockingham when he arrived there at about 10:25 and Simpson never answer his ringing buzzer at the Ashford gate until a half hour later.

Simpson lied about what he was doing when Allan Park saw him walk into his house and lights go on. Simpson said he was wearing a bath robe and had just walked out of his house and was returning. Park testified that the clothing Simpson was wearing was not a bath robe and when he was watching the house he only saw Simpson go into his house and then light downstairs lights come on.

Simpson even lied about his dog, Chachi. Simpson used Chachi as an excuse as to why he didn't open the gate to let the limousine driver in and why his Bronco was parked at a slight angle. And part of his alibi was that Chachi went with him when he went to his Bronco before going into his house and he let the dog run across the street to take a dump on his neighbors property. Simpson testified how he was so concerned the dog would run out the gate. He even told how in the mid 80's he had gotten complaints from the SPCA. The truth is at the time of the murders Chachi was an old and arthritic. Several witnesses, Kato Kaelin, Dale St. John, and Gigi all testified that the dog never tried to run out the gates and never left the property.

How do you account for those lies, martin II?

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-04-2006, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by martin II

BOB can tell you the exact length of the knife that experts believe was used to kill nicole and ron. you may be correct they may have estimated that it was 6 inches or more. imo
Martin II

martin II, the prosecutors may have speculated that the murder weapon was a stiletto with a 6 5/8" blade but I don't agree.

I agree with Mark Fuhrman's belief that the knife was a Swiss Army knife with a 3 1/2 " single edge lockblade.
That knife is consistent with having made every cut on both victims. It also would fit in the empty Swiss Army Knife box that was found and photographed on the edge of Simpson's bath tub in his master bathroom the day after the murders.

bobaugust

weezer

05-04-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, the prosecutors may have speculated that the murder weapon was a stiletto with a 6 5/8" blade but I don't agree.

I agree with Mark Fuhrman's belief that the knife was a Swiss Army knife with a 3 1/2 " single edge lockblade.
That knife is consistent with having made every cut on both victims. It also would fit in the empty Swiss Army Knife box that was found and photographed on the edge of Simpson's bath tub in his master bathroom the day after the murders.

bobaugust Good enough explanation for me. Thanks bobaugust

bobaugust

05-04-2006, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by martin II

my thought is that IF he had at some point decided to kill her he had other options:

1. just kill her with one of the 'CLEAN' guns ron ship had given
him.
2. kill her at a time and place when he would have a better alibi
than rushing to chicago.
3. he would know that killing her with a knife at her door steps
would leave the bloody scene that would be impossible for him
to clean up in 5-10 minutes. AND leave him as the prime
suspect immediately.

Martin II

martin II. more hind site excuses from you.

1. Simpson didn't use a gun probably because he knew that guns were easily traced. He also knew Nicole was very afraid of knives. In the opinion of many experts the fact that the killings were close range, and confrontational and the weapon was a knife tells them that this was a very personal type of crime.

2. What better alibi could Simpson have had? After the murders he got back home as quickly as he could, took less than ten minutes to shower and change, and was on his way to the airport about ten minutes later. His alibi was so good that some people today still can't understand how he could have done what he did in the time he did it in. Including you, right?

3. I doubt that Simpson thought about cleaning anything up. What ever his plan was went he went to Nicole's that night it never included Ron Goldman. Simpson screwed up and left incriminating evidence every time he encountered an unexpected situation. If Ron Goldman had never showed up, Simpson may have gotten away cleanly with these murders with nobody the wiser.

bobaugust

weezer

05-04-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I had never thought of that, but I think you are right on. If Ron hadn't shown up, the glove probably wouldn't have been ripped off, he probably wouldn't have gotten cut or dropped the hat with his hair in it. He most likely would not have left any evidence of him being the killer. Wow.

Although, there still would have been Nicole's blood in the Bronco & at Rockingham on the sock etc..... If there hadn't been the struggle and he hadn't lost his glove and cut himself, there probably wouldn't have been blood to transport to the bronco and home. I have a feeling that none of this went according to his plan.

weezer

05-04-2006, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob

i thought i remembered it was about 3-4 inches in lengths. fbg
dissagred so i was sure that whatever you estimated the blade to be she would agree even if you estimated it to have been 20 ft long.

thanks for clearing that up for her.
however no one knows what size the knife was. everyone just guessed based on what they thought.
thanks again
Martin II I said I had never heard that but bobaugust's explanation makes perfect sense so I accept the difference in what I've read and your statement. I think the fact that the empty box fitting that size was found in Orenthal's bathroom had probably held the murder weapon. I am a little surprised that you would have agreed to anything MF had to say.

weezer

05-04-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Why would they need to be "wipping" egg from their faces? They didn't kill anyone & they can SPELL! :lol:

bobaugust

05-04-2006, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob
didn't the prosecution estimate that it was a stiletto with a 6 5/8" inch blade because they had info that oj had purchased such a blade?

but when the special master delivered ojs stiletto to the court unused, m clark and c darden could be seen with towels wipping
egg from their faces?

martin II, yes the prosecutors thought that the stiletto may have been the murder weapon.

When the police searched Simpson's house the day after the murders they never found the stiletto. In late June a street search was conducted using dozens of recruits from the LAPD Academy walking the various possible two mile routes from South Bundy to North Rockingham. No weapon was ever found.

Evidence Dismissed,
The day after the June 28 search of the North Rockingham estate, defense attorney Gerald Uelmen claimed to have found the knife Simpson purchased from Ross Cutlery in a box inside a vanity cabinet in Simpson's bedroom. Lange and Vannatter insisted that cabinet was thoroughly searched during the search. Upon "finding" the knife Uelmen who didn't touch it, and his colleagues on Simpson's defense team arranged for a retired judge to supervise the recovery of the knife, which was then placed in a sealed envelope and give to Judge Kathleen Kennedy Powell. Not knowing its contents, the judge displayed the envelope in open court allowing everyone to speculate what was inside.

bobaugust

weezer

05-04-2006, 01:24 PM

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
i don't hit or abuse women in any way. You can assume anything you like. it only means that YOU assume it.Martin II You just seem to be so comfortable in denying the abuse by Orenthal and ready with excuses about it and so very willing to blame Nicole for "pushing" buttons that I think any right-minded person would assume you are very familiar with the circumstances of abuse. MOO

weezer

05-04-2006, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

And there was his meltdown last week. The one that caused him to seek out another identity :rolleyes: Wonder how he would handle it if Orenthal was standing there pounding on him or chasing him through the house so he could beat on him. Think he would 'give as good as he got'?

Kate Sachel

05-04-2006, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

And there was his meltdown last week. The one that caused him to seek out another identity :rolleyes:

Yes, I believe that when he posted to Kayleigh that her mouth is what got her black eyes and broken bones he told the world, or at least this board, that he condones domestic abuse.

weezer

05-04-2006, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by martin II

i have not agreed to anything other than different people have said that a knife was used and the kinfe was different lenghts.
NO one knows because no murder weapon has ever been found. Only speculation and guess work just like the shoes or boots. What speculation on shoes or boots?:confused:

tazzybaby

05-04-2006, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by martin II

I believe he did lie about the paula call. No big deal for me.

*snip for space*

all this i don't belive.

Martin II

Hi Martin,

So, you don't find OJ's lie regarding the phone call to be important. And, it's not important because you believe it had no impact on any reason for OJ to have committed the crime? But, OJ lied about it. If it meant nothing (as Bob was saying) then why would he lie about it? And, since you know that he would definately lie on the stand, then how could you trust his testimony?

I have heard over and over that because Fuhrman lied then NONE of the evidence he found/had anything to do with could be trusted. So, when OJ says that he didn't own a sweat suit we can't believe him. Why? Because we have a witness who states that he never returned the sweatsuit she gave him three weeks before the murders. That's very incriminating in and of itself. He could never produce it. We can't trust what OJ says because he lied. When he says that he didn't own BM shoes, we can't believe him. Because there are pictures of him with these shoes on. He even tried to deny that the pants he were wearing were his. Until, they found a video of him at the same game with the same clothes on.

I won't detail it all out because Bob did a great job above.

I'm just saying that since OJ did indeed lie on the stand regarding Paula's call then that means that he would definately lie under oath. And, if he would lie about something that is "no big deal" then why wouldn't he definately lie about something that could send him to jail?

I just want to touch on the abuse thing real quick. You think that Nicole pushed OJ's buttons which caused him to blow and hurt her. In a way, you think that it is her fault or she is partly to blame because she did this. So, what if on the night of June 12th she told him that since he was going to turn her in for IRS taxes that she was going to turn him in for something else? What if she told him that she was moving and he would have to fight her to see the kids? What if she knew secrets about him? What if she threatened to go to the tabloids or write a book about his abuse? That would tarnish his image that he held so dearly. What if she pushed the "kill button" that night? What if she went too far (in his mind)? He has always blamed Nicole for her death.

Thanks for your answers.

weezer

05-04-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Translation: RR2 is saying that it wasn't proved what shoes were at the murder scene or who was wearing them, cause they were never recovered :rolleyes: :confused: Are you kidding me? Bloody Size 10 Bruno Magli's, slightly pigeon-toed footprints at the murder scene. Size 10 Bruno Magli's, slightly pigeon-toed on Orenthal's feet a good 7-8 months BEFORE the murders. :eek:

weezer

05-04-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Yes, I think that's what RR2 is getting at. IIRC the shoes were size 12. Big wobbly head, big feet :D

The pigeon-toed prints are a dead giveaway.....but, I'm sure they would say that whoever framed Simpson was just very thorough. :lol:

Lionthrone

05-04-2006, 02:13 PM

Could someone please answer this question:

Why is O J Simpson on the Notorious Murders thread? :flamemad:

If memory serves he was acquitted :beer:

Lionthrone

tazzybaby

05-04-2006, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Lionthrone
Could someone please answer this question:

Why is O J Simpson on the Notorious Murders thread? :flamemad:

If memory serves he was acquitted :beer:

Lionthrone

Oh no! You didn't know?

He was found Liable.

Lionthrone

05-04-2006, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby
Oh no! You didn't know?

He was found Liable.

tazzybaby,

By a civil trial jury :rolleyes:

Lionthrone :)

Lionthrone

05-04-2006, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
Because most THINKING people know that he committed two murders.

Acquittal doesn't equal innocense.

Hello socaldiva,

I see you haven't changed any ;)

Too bad they got rid of the duke rape scandal thread - it was just starting to heat up :(

Lionthrone

Lionthrone

05-04-2006, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

And YOU have changed?

socaldiva,

No, I'm still as remarkable as ever :cool:

Lionthrone

weezer

05-04-2006, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Lionthrone

tazzybaby,

By a civil trial jury :rolleyes:

Lionthrone :) A very smart jury that considered ALL of the evidence and listened to ALL of the testimony and DELIBERATED in order to come to their decision. Orenthal James Simpson is a double murderer.

weezer

05-04-2006, 02:35 PM

Lionthrone

05-04-2006, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
A very smart jury that considered ALL of the evidence and listened to ALL of the testimony and DELIBERATED in order to come to their decision. Orenthal James Simpson is a double murderer.

Hello fbgweezer,

Before I exit stage left, I just want to say that I still believe If O J Simpson faced a primarily black civil jury, he would have been found not culpable in the deaths of Ron & Nicole

Lionthrone :)

weezer

05-04-2006, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Lionthrone

Hello fbgweezer,

Before I exit stage left, I just want to say that I still believe If O J Simpson faced a primarily black civil jury, he would have been found not culpable in the deaths of Ron & Nicole

Lionthrone :) Oh I believe you because for many people, Orenthal's trial was never about culpability in the deaths of Nicole and Ron -- it has always been about race. I understand that -- it's just when they want to pretend he didn't commit the murders that I have to question their motives.

weezer

05-04-2006, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

OJ, with the help of whoever Nicole's neighbor "Tom Lange" witnessed in front of the Condo at about 10:05p, staged the evidence! Where'd they get Orenthal's blood, footprint, hair, cap, glove and bronco fiber?

Kate Sachel

05-04-2006, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

More like the perception of ongoing abuse, when there is nothing to support it. Other than what we've convinced ourselves might have existed...

Even in the 89 incident according to the police notes, Nicole said OJ didn't hit her... Nicole had a bruise on her neck and one to her face, OJ admitted to forcibly removing her from the room.. The 911 call came from Rockingham and a woman's voice could be heard in the background., Nicole never said she made the call...

When the policed called to notify Nicole's family about her murder, Denise Brown is heard screaming OJ did it!! Shortly afterwards, when questioned about any abuse Nicole may have experienced Denise and the Brown family knew of NO abuse... After meeting with Gloria Allred, Denise suddenly remembers threats OJ made, actually witnessed OJ physically throwing her sister from the house.. (coincident) I think not!!!

The other incidents of abuse did not make it to trial because the Police notes would not have supported a violent OJ!

Many of us were dupe into believing that there were things about this case, that just didn't exist (ABUSE and RACISM) were 2 of those things, and i also think murder was the other!!

JMO.. MOO.. IMO

You are incorrect. Nicole did say that she called 911 that night. In her letter to OJ she stated "I called the cops that night to save my life ..." In addition, Nicole had more than just a bruise on her neck and one to her face. Read the reports and look at the photos. Stangulation marks to her neck, lip cut open, black eye, brusied forehead, brusied cheek.

The numerous other incidents of abuse did make their way into the civil trial. Many of them also were allowed in the criminal trial, but Marcia Clark chose to use only a couple of them.

The threats that Denise heard OJ make are the same that several other friends also heard him make. In fact, Faye Resnick's ex-fiance Christian Reichardt even admitted in the civil trial that he was aware that OJ had threatened to kill Nicole.

You stated "Many of us were dupe into believing that there were things about this case, that just didn't exist (ABUSE and RACISM) were 2 of those things, and i also think murder was the other!!"

Are you implying that murder didn't exist in this case? Are Nicole and Ron off vacationing with Elvis somewhere rather than lying in their graves?

weezer

05-04-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

The Bronco carpet was not exclusive to the Ford Bronco!! They were exclusive to Ford and 2 of Ford's product (Bronco and Crown Victoria), the police cruiser! The bronco fiber was was exclusive to broncos manufactured in 1993 - 1994. Orenthal's was a 1994. Do you know what make of car the LAPD was driving in june of 1994?

Kate Sachel

05-04-2006, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Maybe she used the only 2 that could support her argument..

I don't believe that, based on her own statement in her own book that she should have used them but didn't because she was not prpoerly educated on the issue of domestic violence.

weezer

05-04-2006, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Actually the Carpet was used for Ford Products from 1992 to 1995.. Ford used the carpet in 2 of it's models, care to take a guest what 2 models Ford used that rare carpet in!

I'll give you the first one :
1. Bronco
2. ? I'll have to go do my research but I'm pretty sure that the expert narrowed the carpet to the years 1993-1994.

weezer

05-04-2006, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

You believe this, she based on her case on something she knew nothing about !! HELLO She wasn't the one that felt strongly about DV being a driving force in the motive for Orenthal murdering Nicole -- Darden is the one that brought that aspect to the case.

Kate Sachel

05-04-2006, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

You believe this, she based on her case on something she knew nothing about !! HELLO

I don't believe that the Prosecution based their case on domestic violence with an appropriate level of knowledge.

You act as though it cannot happen, but do you know how many people go to jail or are aquitted because their attorney is uneducated?

Everyone knows that it happens.

Kate Sachel

05-04-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

You believe this, she based on her case on something she knew nothing about !! HELLO

It may also behoove you not to scream out HELLO in CAPS. It brings us back to unpleasant exchanges with you and rayraytwo/Martin II.

weezer

05-04-2006, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Wasn't Darden brought in after the Grand Jury and Preliminary hearings? and?

Kate Sachel

05-04-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Forgive me, the caps were not intentional and i've reduced the exclamations to 2 that's some progress, and i can do better.

Forgiven. When you use all those caps it appears as though you are yelling at me as though I am some brand of idiot.

weezer

05-04-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

I don't believe that the Prosecution based their case on domestic violence with an appropriate level of knowledge.

You act as though it cannot happen, but do you know how many people go to jail or are aquitted because their attorney is uneducated?

Everyone knows that it happens. And don't forget, as punishment to the prosecution, Ito split the presentation of the abuse evidence.

Kate Sachel

05-04-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Wasn't Darden brought in after the Grand Jury and Preliminary hearings?

That's why I say that domestic violence was not their main focus. It was brought in further into the case. That's why it made no sense to many people at that particular time, in my opinion.

During the civil trial, it was pieced together rather than left in these little shambles of scattered incidents here and there.

tazzybaby

05-04-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Actually the Carpet was used for Ford Products from 1992 to 1995.. Ford used the carpet in 2 of it's models, care to take a guest what 2 models Ford used that rare carpet in!

I'll give you the first one :
1. Bronco
2. ?

I don't see how it matters.........because, Fuhrman is accused of "planting". However, he was accused/would have had to put the glove in a baggie. So, therefore, the glove would never have been on the carpet.

weezer

05-04-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by martin II

From the wear and tear on police cars i would guess that they get some new ones every year. hmm -- I've always assumed that they probably didn't even have carpet in them.

weezer

05-04-2006, 05:19 PM

bobaugust

05-04-2006, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

The carpet wasn't rare, however that doesn't eliminate OJ either.. It does prove that we weren't told everything, and somethings were presented incomplete!

nettathirty, I don't know how this discussion got to be about Crown Victoria's. Police cars at the LAPD were Ford Taurus's. The Bronco carpet in Simpson's Bronco was used primarily in Ford Bronco's in 1993 and 1994.

June 29, 1995

THE COURT: Doesn't this report really speak to the rareness, the relative rareness of this particular fiber, and doesn't it eliminate--say, for example, one of the things that piqued my interest yesterday, and I asked Mrs. Robertson to pull up the crime scene photos to see how many Ford automobiles were driven by the police officers to the crime scene. And I was looking to see how many Ford Taurus's at the crime scene, but I know that Ford Taurus automobile are eliminated as a source of carpet which I found interesting.

bobaugust

Wukong

05-04-2006, 08:51 PM

Oh that clever Lionsthrone! Writes a first post that is a complete misunderstanding of the name of this board; Notorious murders, NOT murderers! This case happens to be about a notorious MURDER. The title in no way implicates anyone as being a murderer; only that two people were murdered and the case is famous in a not so good way.

Then that rascal hits and runs so he/she doesn't have to answer any questions. This is also child psychology 101 and the use of this tact shows the poster believes they are above answering questions and feels they have won in some bizzare game happening only in their own little mind. Pat yourself on the back Lion, you have succeded in making yourself feel good. Your obvious attempt at self gratification and a lame attempt to show your superiority has left you naked. Even your nic exposes you as having self dilluding images of being a superior person. I believe you are only an egotistical little pussy cat.

My take

Wukong

Lionthrone

05-04-2006, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Wukong
Oh that clever Lionsthrone! Writes a first post that is a complete misunderstanding of the name of this board; Notorious murders, NOT murderers! This case happens to be about a notorious MURDER. The title in no way implicates anyone as being a murderer; only that two people were murdered and the case is famous in a not so good way.

Then that rascal hits and runs so he/she doesn't have to answer any questions. This is also child psychology 101 and the use of this tact shows the poster believes they are above answering questions and feels they have won in some bizzare game happening only in their own little mind. Pat yourself on the back Lion, you have succeded in making yourself feel good. Your obvious attempt at self gratification and a lame attempt to show your superiority has left you naked. Even your nic exposes you as having self dilluding images of being a superior person. I believe you are only an egotistical little pussy cat.
My take

Wukong

Wukong,

With all due respect, then why isn't this particular thread entitled Ronald Goldman & Nicole Brown Simpson. Why is it called OJS?

Secondly, the reason I don't frequently post here is because there are many more interesting message boards out there. Boards whose posters are much more enlightened and far more interesting.

I'm not on some ego trip - I posted for years on the old O J Simpson message boards, but it's become boring over the years going over the same facts over and over again ad infinitum

PS: I'm probably the a biggest Frank Herbert & Dune fan you'll ever meet, and the Golden Lionthrone is in reference to the seat of power in which the emperor of a million worlds resides.

lionthrone:)

2L8 4A D8

05-05-2006, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Maybe that poster has some "inside" info as to the police cruiser's interior? ;)

:lol: :lol: U R 2 hysterical girlfriend!!

2L8 4A D8

05-05-2006, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by martin II

The killer used a knife on Mr Cantor. imo

Duh, no kidding. Did you just have an epiphany or something?

:rolleyes:

2L8 4A D8

05-05-2006, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva
Yes, Lionthrone posted & ran. He went over to the American Idol board to lament Paris being booted from last night's show because of "White America". I pointed out to him that Ruben Studdard & Fantasia were both AA winners, but that didn't elicit a response from him. It's pathetic, no matter what the topic, it's "White America's" fault. I didn't know that I wielded such power. :tongue:

Uh oh. Please say that Talisman hasn't reincarnated himself as Lionthrone. Please say it ain't so!

:eek:

2L8 4A D8

05-05-2006, 01:27 AM

WTH? Who changed the name of the Thread. It's awful. Doesn't make sense to me at all. Please, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

JMO and MOO!!

:cuss: :no: :cuss:

weezer

05-05-2006, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Evidence Dismissed:

Brett Cantor, was friends with Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman and he was killed in a similar manner as the "Bundy Murders"! Faye Resnick wrote in her book and Cora Fischman also stated that they talked to OJ about getting Nicole out of Southern California...

Wasz story probably had some truth in that OJ and Kardashian was setting a stage for how to get Nicole out of danger! IIRC, they both also said Orenthal had said he would kill Nicole.

weezer

05-05-2006, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Evidence Dismissed:

Brett Cantor, was friends with Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman and he was killed in a similar manner as the "Bundy Murders"! Faye Resnick wrote in her book and Cora Fischman also stated that they talked to OJ about getting Nicole out of Southern California...

Wasz story probably had some truth in that OJ and Kardashian was setting a stage for how to get Nicole out of danger! There was no need for Orenthal and friend to 'get Nicole out of danger' -- she had already leased a new place away from Brentwood and Orenthal.

weezer

05-05-2006, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by martin II

The killer used a knife on Mr Cantor. imo And I bet Nicole and Ron had probably lost friends/loved ones to automobile accidents and Orenthal drove a Ford -- doesn't mean Ford was plotting their murders.

weezer

05-05-2006, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Lionthrone

Wukong,

With all due respect, then why isn't this particular thread entitled Ronald Goldman & Nicole Brown Simpson. Why is it called OJS?

Secondly, the reason I don't frequently post here is because there are many more interesting message boards out there. Boards whose posters are much more enlightened and far more interesting.

I'm not on some ego trip - I posted for years on the old O J Simpson message boards, but it's become boring over the years going over the same facts over and over again ad infinitum

PS: I'm probably the a biggest Frank Herbert & Dune fan you'll ever meet, and the Golden Lionthrone is in reference to the seat of power in which the emperor of a million worlds resides.

lionthrone:) You would probably find us really interesting if you did some research into the case and quit posting fantasies. We go over facts and discuss testimony and evidence relevant to it -- you and other NGs repeat nonsense and fantasies over and over.

weezer

05-05-2006, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by martin II

i think the statements by Faye and Cora suggesting that oj and
Nicole move to Florida were made before the final breakup and prior to nicole leasing her new living quarters. imo That's not what netta posted. The post said 'was' -- obviously more misinformation and distortions.

weezer

05-05-2006, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by martin II

this is the was you are referring to. right? yes

weezer

05-05-2006, 10:37 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by Lionthrone
Sorry but from what's been posted - there's nothing new under the sun. Lionthrone :) I should also note that in the 'nothing new' there has also been no evidence ever that anyone but Orenthal was at the murder scene. Oh, and a second thing, Orenthal has been unsuccessful in finding the killers on any golf course he's been on and goodness knows he's looked. I guess that pretty much covers the 'nothing new.'

bobaugust

05-05-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Lionthrone

fbgweezer,

Do I sense a bit of jealousy on your part because you missed the prime posting period on the O J Simpson message board (following the verdict) when the G's and NG's were at each others throats (like a pack of wild dogs) 24/7 ?

Sorry but from what's been posted - there's nothing new under the sun.

Lionthrone :)

Lionthrone, nothing new to you maybe.

But to most of us the many depositions containing a wealth of information that wasn't known before, the new evidence that was presented in the civil trial, and Simpson's testimony under oath telling his fabrications and lies were all new since the criminal trial verdict.

bobaugust

weezer

05-05-2006, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

netta can answer you himself but the word WASZ, i think was referring to a person. if that is what you are referring to if not then netta can answer you.

Wasz story probably had some truth in that OJ and Kardashian was setting a stage for how to get Nicole out of danger!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WTH -- I wasn't referring to the author -- :punch:

weezer

05-05-2006, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
i thought the below post cleared up the the issue of the 'WAS' in netta post when you responded YES.

fbgweezer
Senior Member

Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Boerne, Texas
Posts: 1271

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by martin II

this is the was you are referring to. right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yes The author's name: Wasz. The sentence: '. . .OJ and Kardashian was setting a stage for how to get Nicole out of danger!..." I was not referring to the author -- I was referring to the statement as to what Orenthal and RK were doing.

weezer

05-05-2006, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Are you adding to the bumps? :tongue: LOL -- reminds me of Clinton and what the meaning of 'is' is......

Or 'who's on first' from the old vaudeville routine.

Geez.

weezer

05-05-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

:confused: lol -- me too.

weezer

05-05-2006, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

:confused: So, he is saying that he was just reporting that NETTA was confused? :lol: :shrug:

weezer

05-05-2006, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

He's more fun than a barrel of monkeys. I bet the monkeys could figure out who the murderer is though :tongue: LOL -- but after awhile, you'd think he'd notice the stares. :D

Heyes

05-06-2006, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

He's more fun than a barrel of monkeys. I bet the monkeys could figure out who the murderer is though :tongue:

Just found this thread, I actually can't believe there are still some fighting about OJ's innocence! I'll be honest, I could lock the guy up for life for clogging the L.A and Orange Co. freeways for a frigging half a day. While Orenthal was having his little girl, cry baby "I'll kill myself" tantrum, the rest of us didn't make flights, never made it back to work, the kids were late being picked up from school. need I say more.

uplate

05-06-2006, 05:01 AM

Has anyone discussed that OJ told his agent that he was there? This was on Greta and the 2pt intrw was on her blog sometime around the 10anniv.

That wd explain some of the blood evi...and I have LOTS of theories...but why would his left finger be cut yet not the glove? IMO it is v poss that he was 'summoned' there to witness (whether he called for a hit or was being framed) and these were pros who knew how to implicate him.

Like I said, I haven't read the thread and I'm not trying to incite but I still have many unanswered ?? Some of the 'facts' put forth in what I did read I have retorts...jmo oc

uplate

05-06-2006, 05:19 AM

I almost wish it wd be mandated that the Prosecution give the court full disclosure. Too many times we learn of defendants being unduly convicted bec Pros only presented the facts that supported their case. It is indeed sad that many ADAs/DAs and even judges in certain jurisdictions are more interested in their own political careers than the justice of citizens. Perhaps it is a fault of the system inasmuch as a lot of them have impossible caseloads. But too often we hear of DAs not wanting to hear about exculpatory ev...it makes one wonder.

So it brings me to one point that DAs office knew about Jill Shively (hope my memory serves me) was she the one who almost colllided w/the Wh Bronco) but didn't call her bec it wasn't good for the timeline? But their excuse was bec she sold her story to tabloid tv? Or was there another reason? Seems kind of whacked to not bring forth a witness who would have supported the fact that OJ was there. There is a lot more behind this case, IMO IMO than a lot of people realize. JMO oc

uplate

05-06-2006, 07:01 AM

those who know me from Laci...will know I start w/open mind, assess the facts (had access to tscripts) then decide. I actually have a lot of theories on that case...but have little doubt that if HE Scott didn't actually do it, he had someone else who botched it hence his unintentional involvement (going to the bay).

OJ...I haven't thought it a while but...I do believe it is plausible that he, having the $$ to do so, went to hire someone, then when he backed out they said OH NO....BACKING OUT WON'T DO.

(Humming Steely Dan there...) but it is just one of many plausible scenarios....

bobaugust

05-06-2006, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by uplate
Has anyone discussed that OJ told his agent that he was there? This was on Greta and the 2pt intrw was on her blog sometime around the 10anniv.

That wd explain some of the blood evi...and I have LOTS of theories...but why would his left finger be cut yet not the glove? IMO it is v poss that he was 'summoned' there to witness (whether he called for a hit or was being framed) and these were pros who knew how to implicate him.

Like I said, I haven't read the thread and I'm not trying to incite but I still have many unanswered ?? Some of the 'facts' put forth in what I did read I have retorts...jmo oc

update, I've never heard where Simpson ever admitted he was at Bundy. Simpson has never admitted to even one of the many lies he told under oath or anything that incriminates him.

No it's not possible that Simpson was summoned to Bundy unless there were voices in his head doing the summoning. There were no professional killers involved in these murders. Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. The fact is that all of the relevant physical evidence in this case tells us there were only three people at Bundy that evening when the murders occurred. The two victims and the killer. All of the evidence points only to Simpson, no one else and there is nothing, not a shred of evidence that eliminates Simpson.

There is huge amount of new information that didn't become known until after the criminal trial. Mainly from the many depositions taken before the civil trial. There was also new test results and new evidence presented in the civil trial again that was not available during the criminal trial.

You ask why didn't Simpson's left hand glove have a cut on it? Probably because when Ron Goldman was struggling for his life as Simpson held him, stabbing and cutting him over thirty times, Ron was able to pull Simpson's glove off his left hand before Simpson sustained the cut on the knuckle of his middle finger.

If you have some unanswered questions, there are many posters here that can provide the answers for you. Reasonable answers based on the evidence and witness testimony. If you're a reasonable thinking person with common sense, the answers will make sense to you. Feel free to ask.

bobaugust

GrrlPwer

05-06-2006, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

The word "PROBABLY" is not even contained in the third paragraph :rolleyes: Very true its in the Fourth lol

GrrlPwer

05-06-2006, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

update, I've never heard where Simpson ever admitted he was at Bundy. Simpson has never admitted to even one of the many lies he told under oath or anything that incriminates him.

No it's not possible that Simpson was summoned to Bundy unless there were voices in his head doing the summoning. There were no professional killers involved in these murders. Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. The fact is that all of the relevant physical evidence in this case tells us there were only three people at Bundy that evening when the murders occurred. The two victims and the killer. All of the evidence points only to Simpson, no one else and there is nothing, not a shred of evidence that eliminates Simpson.

There is huge amount of new information that didn't become known until after the criminal trial. Mainly from the many depositions taken before the civil trial. There was also new test results and new evidence presented in the civil trial again that was not available during the criminal trial.

You ask why didn't Simpson's left hand glove have a cut on it? Probably because when Ron Goldman was struggling for his life as Simpson held him, stabbing and cutting him over thirty times, Ron was able to pull Simpson's glove off his left hand before Simpson sustained the cut on the knuckle of his middle finger.

If you have some unanswered questions, there are many posters here that can provide the answers for you. Reasonable answers based on the evidence and witness testimony. If you're a reasonable thinking person with common sense, the answers will make sense to you. Feel free to ask.

bobaugust Sooooooooo,..........whats all the new evidence??

uplate

05-06-2006, 07:48 PM

the video of OJs agent was on Greta's blog...in 2 parts around the time of the 10anniv. I imagine if you search their archives it may still be there. He says OJ told him that he WAS there, but he doesn't remember what happened. Then he goes through this sort of rant about 'if I don't remember then I must have done it, right?'

I have a lot of probs w/this case, starting w/ the v little blood ev against OJ. Unlike Laci where the probability of other perps was slim and remote (IMO the only plausible one was SP got involved in and over his head in perhaps a meth thing), here we had many many possible scenarios. Life in the fast lane...

I have some free time (first in a loooong time!) so I'll be around tonight if anyone cares to discuss. For example...who was the 'power player' w/bodyguards hugging Nicole earlier that night...and did anyone ever think that the 'missing keys' was actually missing 'kilos'???

bobaugust

05-06-2006, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by martin II

HI Bob

would you agree that the operative word here is "PROBABLY"
(third paragraph)
Martin II

martin II, I could have easily said most likely or maybe not even qualified my statement in the fourth paragraph at all.

That's one of the things I was referring to about being a reasonable thinking person. Ron couldn't pull Simpson's right hand glove off because Simpson was holding the murder weapon in his right hand.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-06-2006, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by GrrlPwer
Sooooooooo,..........whats all the new evidence??

GrrlPwer, to start with it was learned in Paula Barbieri's deposition that she had left a long "dear John" message on Simpson's car phone early Sunday morning in which she broke off their relationship. In the criminal trial Johnny Cochran argued to the criminal trial jury that claim was one of the most outrageous things he ever heard.

Testimony by Dr. Robin Cotton about DNA test results on Nicole's autopsy sample and DNA tests results on Nicole's blood found on Simpson's sock showed that Nicole's blood on the sock was fresher and richer in DNA content than her autopsy sample blood. That proved that Nicole's blood could not have been planted on Simpson's socks as the criminal defense claimed. Once blood has degraded, it is impossible to raise its DNA count; you can't pony it back up. Nicole's blood was fresher when it spurted out and splashed onto Simpson's sock as he was killing her than two days later when the coroner collected it.

Over thirty authenticated photographs and negatives from two different photographers showing Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes with Silga soles, the same exact shoes that the killer wore, nine months before the murders. One of those photographs was even published in a Buffalo Bills newsletter seven months before the murders.

And the most important difference between the two trials, Simpson testified. Simpson's story changes, fabrications and outright lies confirmed his guilt. Simpson was contradicted by many witnesses including defense witnesses. Simpson was impeached by authenticated photographs, telephone records, and even a defense Doctor's notes.

bobaugust

uplate

05-06-2006, 08:43 PM

but who is going to admit that they were keys of coke? That there was no coke in their systems is somewhat irrelevant. OJ was nicknamed Hoover, Nic was heavy into it, Mezza was a den and Faye was 'conveniently' out of the house. I remember something about one of the neighbors seeing what did not look to them to be LE removing boxes from the garage the next day.

And to bobaugust...the fact that you did not know OJ admitted being there should make you aware that not any of us knows EVERYTHING about this case. Didn't the autopsy show two different knives rendered wounds? Does it make sense that OJ used 2 knives? And how did no one HEAR anything but 'HEY HEY"? IMO there were at least 2...they were in wait, rang the bell at the same time that Ron arrived. Nic was knocked out by a hit on the head (autopsy), the other perp grabbed Ron from behind and covered his mouth as perp1 proceeded to stab him. Remember, Ron was young and fit and put up quite a fight as told by the #of defensive wounds. The thought that OJ was alone and during this struggle for life, he used two knives and had his glove knocked off then suffered only a small cut does not make sense to me.

What does make sense is that someone intentionally cut him so that his blood would be found at the scene. It makes sense that his blood wd be on his sock(s), but why Nic's and not Ron's? I wd think that the perp wd be kicking Ron...not Nic who was disabled.

uplate

05-06-2006, 08:54 PM

bec he couldn't divulge who really did it. I think there's a strong case against his son. He was off his meds and v pissed that Nic didn't go to the restaurant he was cheffing at that night when she said she would take the party there after the recital. He was embarassed bec he boasted to everyone that she was coming and snapped. He lawyered up immediately. He was uncooperative and Police never intervwd him. Can you see a scenario where he tells OJ what he's going to do and OJ goes to stop him?

uplate

05-06-2006, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
I don't know how you can say that Nicole was heavily into coke & say the fact that there were no drugs in her system is irrelevant, all in one breath.

Sorry, but the keys of coke that you speak of are pure imagination on your part. They were proven to be house keys. Plain & simple. I'd call it more speculation. I don't think it's a big stretch of imagination. Being 'heavy' into coke doesn't mean one does it 24/7. For appearance's sake one wdn't do it on a 'family' day, and Ron had been working. That doesn't mean on a 'party' night they didn't kick it.

LOL...I was just watching Entourage on HBO. It ended and the credits for a movie come on and whose name just flashed?? None other than our topic's (for the Naked Gun 2 1/2). Kind of surreal...

uplate

05-06-2006, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
I don't believe for a minute that Jason "snapped" because Nicole didn't go to his restaurant. IIRC police did interview him.

No I can't see a scenario where he flips out & calls & tells his Dad first. No one's blood is there but Orenthal's. Also, there are not two sets of footprints in blood. Only one. They belong to Orenthal. Catherine Crier had an author on sometime in the last year who discussed this theory. Catherine stated that she knew for a fact and I believe she had a written confirmation that LE did NOT interview Jason.

We know that the BM shoe print is OJ's. The fact that there was only one shoe print means that only OJ stepped in the blood. But then again, that brings us to my aforementioned lack of full disclosure. Just bec we were told there was a print of a BM shoe does not mean that no other prints were found.

uplate

05-06-2006, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
LE had no reason to implicate Orenthal. At the time he received preferential treatment. There would be no reason to hide this imaginary set of second footprints. There were about 16 officers on the scene. You are implying they were all in on this mass conspiracy to bring down a beloved sports hero. It didn't happen. Well...who knows? That's all I'm saying. There prob were no other prints. Does Jason wear BM shoes? I don't know. I respect LE, but even my detective uncle will tell you there's corruption. It doesn't have to be a mass conspiracy either.

ALL I'm saying is that I know OJ was there, but I just don't think HE committed the murders. It's MO and unpopular and we will most likely never know the truth...just like with Laci's murder. Unlikely that we will ever know EXACTLY what happened.

bobaugust

05-06-2006, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by uplate
but who is going to admit that they were keys of coke? That there was no coke in their systems is somewhat irrelevant. OJ was nicknamed Hoover, Nic was heavy into it, Mezza was a den and Faye was 'conveniently' out of the house. I remember something about one of the neighbors seeing what did not look to them to be LE removing boxes from the garage the next day.

And to bobaugust...the fact that you did not know OJ admitted being there should make you aware that not any of us knows EVERYTHING about this case. Didn't the autopsy show two different knives rendered wounds? Does it make sense that OJ used 2 knives? And how did no one HEAR anything but 'HEY HEY"? IMO there were at least 2...they were in wait, rang the bell at the same time that Ron arrived. Nic was knocked out by a hit on the head (autopsy), the other perp grabbed Ron from behind and covered his mouth as perp1 proceeded to stab him. Remember, Ron was young and fit and put up quite a fight as told by the #of defensive wounds. The thought that OJ was alone and during this struggle for life, he used two knives and had his glove knocked off then suffered only a small cut does not make sense to me.

What does make sense is that someone intentionally cut him so that his blood would be found at the scene. It makes sense that his blood wd be on his sock(s), but why Nic's and not Ron's? I wd think that the perp wd be kicking Ron...not Nic who was disabled.

update, you're correct not everyone knows everything about this case, but some know far less than others.

You're facts are wrong. The autopsy did not show two different knives, only two different kinds of cuts. There could have been two knives, three knives, or any amount of more knives but that's irrelevant. The relevant fact is that all of the wounds on both victims were consistent with having been made by one knife. That was the opinion of Dr. Golden and every other Forensic expert who testified regarding the knife wounds.

Robert Heidstra testified he heard a clear young male voice yell "Hey, hey, hey! He said he then heard an older deeper voice yell back, like an argument. There is absolutely not one shred of relevant physical evidence that points to anyone else being at Bundy that night except for the two victims and the killer.

The evidence suggest that Simpson first encountered Nicole and hit her on her forehead. When she fell she hit the back of her head on something hard, possibly the cement stairs, and was knocked unconscious. As Simpson was standing over her and the Akita was barking loudly and strangely, Ron Goldman walked in and yelled surprising Simpson. Simpson yelled back and attacked Goldman, stabbing and cutting him over thirty times holding him from behind before dropping him to the ground to bleed to death. The whole struggle lasted about one minute. Simpson than returned to his exwife, put one foot on her back, pulled her head up by her hair with his left hand and sliced her throat, nearly decapitating her. Simpson couldn't leave a living witness to his rage killing of Goldman.

Simpson than left Bundy never realizing that he was dripping blood everywhere he went after the murders.

Nicole's blood most likely splashed on Simpson's sock either when he was killing her or when he walked through her pooling blood leaving his bloody shoe prints.

bobaugust

uplate

05-06-2006, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
Jason commits the murders but manages not to step in the blood. Orenthal is a bystander, but steps in it?

Jason is off his meds & flipped out enough to butcher two people with a knife, yet he manages these ballet moves over the pools of blood & never leaves any of his blood or trace evidence? I don't think you could even sell that as a "B" movie. Refresh my memory about the shoe print(s). I remember there was a print in Nic's blood, so that's how they knew he walked in the house. But was that it? One BM shoe print?

If these were professional killers I'd guess they'd know not to step in blood. If it was Jason...he could have been the one who rang Nicole's bell, as OJ arrived, assaults her by hitting her over the head. Maybe that would have sufficed and asuaged his anger. But then Ron comes, says HEY HEY HEY, OJ instinctively grabs him to shut him up, and Jason who has knives (any chef will tell you they have their own knives, a set of 10 that they do not keep at the restaurant but bring back and forth), could have went on the attack. There was more than one kife used, yes?

uplate

05-06-2006, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by uplate
Refresh my memory about the shoe print(s). I remember there was a print in Nic's blood, so that's how they knew he walked in the house. But was that it? One BM shoe print? Did Jason wear BM, like father like son?

If these were professional killers I'd guess they'd know not to step in blood. If it was Jason...he could have been the one who rang Nicole's bell, as OJ arrived, assaults her by hitting her over the head. Maybe that would have sufficed and asuaged his anger. But then Ron comes, says HEY HEY HEY, OJ instinctively grabs him to shut him up, and Jason who has knives (any chef will tell you they have their own knives, a set of 10 that they do not keep at the restaurant but bring back and forth), could have went on the attack. There was more than one kife used, yes?

uplate

05-06-2006, 10:23 PM

It's tough relying on long-term memory for details! I believe what socal and bob are saying, but what is that? The paid testimony of an expert witness for the pros? Two knives wdn't work for the prosecution. So...if one knife can produce two different types of wounds...can two knives produce two diff types of wounds???

uplate

05-06-2006, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
I don't recall how many shoe prints there were. I don't know what you mean about walking in the house. I've never heard anything suggesting he went in the house. The prints & blood drops to the left of the prints were trailing away from the bodies & back towards the back alley.

No, there it was never proven that more than one knife was used. As Bob August just posted, there was nothing to indicate it couldn't have been one knife & it could have been from the Swiss Army knife (empty knife box found in Orenthal's bathroom). See...in my memory it was a single BM print, and when LE was tracing the events they determined the killer walked into the house, denoting a sort of brazeness.

So...who do you think visited Nicole earlier, and was seen hugging her by the dog-walking neighbor (name escapes me) and confronted by martial artsy bodyguards? It is very mob-like, to kiss your target and make them think all is good, b4 they get hit.

And do you believe that Sydney, who heard mommy crying and arguing w/her best friend like what, less than an hour b4, then fell into such a deep sleep so quickly that she didn't hear anything? Was OJ able to contain young athletic Ron w/one hand over his mouth from behind while stabbing him to death? And blood DROPS? This was a blood BATH. One bloody shoe print, a dime-size on the Bronco door handle, a swipe on the dashboard, questionable blood on the socks (smeared through side to side through his ankle?, not splattered on each side), little more than that? Blood on the back gate that went undetected until a wk or 2 later...and didn't that have EDTA?

I dunno...there just was never enough blood IMO given the extent of the murders. JMO. But remember, OJ WAS there, so take out the evidence that implicates his presence which I think convicts him in some people's eyes, and realize it may not be as clear cut as everyone thinks. again JMO

uplate

05-06-2006, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
I know what you mean about it being a long time ago. I'm not that familar with the particulars of the knives, but I am sure it there was something to indicate two knives & two killers the defense would have put it on. IIRC, they didn't.

The defense had plenty of expert witnesses of their own & I'm sure Orenthals legal budget exceeded that of the State's.

Yes, I'm sure there are transcripts on the internet. I think for both trials. I saw one for the civil trial, but I was more interested in the first one. Anyway...I thought about why the defense wd not exert that there were 2knives which might indicate 2 perps. If it were Jason, or Cowlings (who prob did wear BM shoes of the same size)...OJ may have demanded they not go there. As I said, 2 knives didn't work for the Pros, and OJ may not have wanted to have folks wondering who ELSE was there. He'll go down alone rather than bring his buddy or his son down too...and if it was the mob what is he going to do?

THAT is why I believe he was fleeing. He knew he was there and there was no way he could exonerate himself, so rather than go to jail he took his chances. Yet this flight showed Consciousness of Guilt, which is admissable in CA. But...if you were in his shoes...what wd you do???

uplate

05-06-2006, 11:14 PM

and I'm not implying he was there. HE WAS THERE...I saw the intrvw w/his agent on Greta's blog where he tells that OJ finally admitted this, around the 10anniv.

Most likely OJ is a narcissist, and if you've ever been involved w/one, you will realize that it is ALWAYS about them, all them all the time no one else except for their narcissistic 'supplier' aka 'adorer'. Once one stops adoring a narcissist, that's it. What little they thought about you b4 is now done.

AND...since you asked how I cd explain, I will...IF he was being railroaded...then at that point it wd be all about him, as an act of preservation. He knew he was going down, guilty or not.

2L8 4A D8

05-07-2006, 12:58 AM

There is a lot of fantastic research, great information and hard work that is located in the Archived OJ Simpson Board. There are many Threads that probably will answer most of your questions. It is located at the bottom of the Board entitled "OJ Simpson ~ 10 Years Later." Click on the Thread and you will see the Thread, OJ Simpson. Below that you will see the drop down menu "from." Go into that; hit "from the beginning" and hit return. It will then bring up all of the Threads of that Archived Board. If you have a question about anything or just want to catch up, this is definitely the place.

:)

uplate

05-07-2006, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva
Ok. We both agree he was there, but for different purposes. Why do you think LE would want to "railroad" him & let the "true killer" go free? Keep in mind he was a beloved sports hero at the time & even Orenthal himself said that he didn't think he was framed or treated badly by LE. It may not be a 'want' to railroad but a rush to judgement. It becomes a runaway train after a while. Once the Prosecution starts, they can't stop. That is why, IMO, if the Pros, during their case building, stumbles upon something that doesn't fit...they 'ignore' it. Because otherwise they wd have to say 'oops' and admit a mistake. When they've already invested time/$$/reputation, often Pros will just forge onwards. It's actually a sort of denial, combined w/a want for a good record. Sad but not always true, but often.

Wukong

05-07-2006, 05:10 AM

2L8,

The archived board is chock full of information. What is interesting is that I went there recently to look for a link, in the links sticky, and the moderators have deleted about 5 pages worth of links. Not sure why?

Anyway, the transcripts link that is still there does not work any longer. Here is a link to the transcripts that will work:

http://walraven.org/simpson/simpson.html

I do not believe that AC or Jason were involved in the actual murders. They both had alibis; AC was at a party and Jason was at work, and they did not have time to be at the murder scene when the murders were supposed to occur. Also Marcus Allen was on a plane (took off around 9:30), just in case that one comes up again.

Wukong

Wukong

05-07-2006, 05:46 AM

Uplate,

I agree with some of what you say concerning the MO of the prosecution. I do believe there were plenty of clues and evidence that, once revealed, did not fit their theory or impossible timeline they came up with. I like your analogy with the runaway train, there was so much momentum that it was impossible to put on the brakes.

Some important situations that were not brought up were:

1) Bill Wasz and his involvement with Kardashian and OJ. Wasz was OJ's cocaine supplier. Kardashian hired Wasz to follow Nicole in January of '94, take pictures of who she met with and detail her movements. He then asked Wasz to kill Nicole, while she was at OJ's house, offered him a gun, told him to steal Paula Barbieri's car (telling him when and where to find it, which Wasz did) offered him $17,000 for the hit. Wasz stole the money from Kardashian at gun point then stole Paula's car and went on a drug induced robbery spree. He was caught, in Paula's car which contained a notebook with his detailed notes on following Nicole, and spent ten years in prison. He was released from prison in 2004 and ended up dead less than a year later, murdered say some.

2) OJ's regular limo driver, Rocky Bateman. According to Mario Nitrini, Rocky's inlaw at the time, Mario was asked in late 1993 to follow Nicole also; Mario wisely declined.

Rocky and Mario were at a family function together in late '93 and were hanging out in the back of "The" limo, which Rocky drove all the time. Rocky was showing Mario the hidden compartments in the limo, including a large one in the back seat area. He was talking about the times he drives OJ around out on the town partying. Apparantly Rocky was not only OJ's driver, but also a party participant. He then told Mario about driving Nicole and friends to the airport and hearing them plotting to get money out of OJ. Rocky told this to OJ and OJ asked him to find someone to follow Nicole to get more information about this alleged plot; enter Mario.

The day of the murders, Rocky called Dale St John and told him he could not drive OJ that night because he was camping with his daughters. The day after the murders "someone" brought a bag, which was taken from the back of the limo, to Rocky at the campsite and Rocky dumped the bag and it's contents in the lake.On June 14th, two days after the murders, Rocky is seen by a reporter at Rockingham. He is leaving the estate with two more bags in his hands. This happens to be on tape. Shortly afterward Rocky flees California at the urging, and with finances from, OJ's people.

What is interesting about this story is that OJ picks up a bag from behind his Bentley and carries it into the back of the limo after the murders. When OJ arrives at the airport he gets out of the limo and the two guys who are right there to get his autograph see him exit the limo but don't see OJ carry the bag.

Many people discount this story but I have been talking directly with Mario lately and he has told me many things that convince me this is absolutely true. Mario, upon learning of the murders, approaches both the defense and the prosecution with this evidence and is driven away by both. Finally the police (Detective Ron Ito, no relation to the judge) contact Mario. Mario tells Ito the story and Ito says he investigated the limo company and Rocky Bateman does not work there. Very interesting!

Just figured I'd add some new stuff that the recent posters may not have known. I'll add more about this later.

Wukong

Wukong

05-07-2006, 06:27 AM

Martin,

This was not entered into evidence, but that does not make it any less relevant. None of your stories, to support OJ being innocent, were entered into evidence either.

The part that was entered into evidence is OJ getting into the limo with a bag and exiting without said bag. Now that's relevant!

Wukong

Wukong

05-07-2006, 12:32 PM

Martin,

Maybe you need to slow down when you are reading. It is quite apparant you got things really mixed up.

I don't know who Rocky Harmon is but I assume you mean Rocky Bateman. If you found posts by Mario G. Nitrini III then they are from Mario. If you read carefully you would know that Mario has not spoken to Rocky in many years so I am not sure how you got the idea they speak all the time.

Law enforcement knows all about the bag in the lake. As for who the "someone" was, you need to ask Mario directly. He posts quite a bit on the website below. You need to sign up in order to post. He will be happy to answer your's, or anyone's, questions. You may want to ask why two of LAPD's finest beat Mario so badly that, if witnesses didn't arrive, he would have been killed. All because of what Mario knows he has been under the watchful eyes of LE to this day.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showforum=108

Neither Williams the sky cap, the two witnesses seeking an autograph or anyone else saw that bag when OJ got to the airport. You and I have never agreed on WHO KNOWS, so I don't know how you got that idea.

I like how you are now using Bob as the standard bearer when it comes to what is legitimate or not. There was a lot of things not brought into court that may be relevant to whether OJ Simpson is guilty of murder. Apparantly what was brought into court was not enough to send him up the river, where he belongs. More evidence was introduced at the civil trial and there is certainly more information that goes to OJ's guilt, and yes, some may say evidence of his innocence, that still needs to be looked at when coming to a determination one way or the other.

Wukong

Wukong

05-07-2006, 12:49 PM

It seems OJ is attending the Kentucky Derby:

"The Juice has been trying to keep a low profile while in Louisville, but it isn¡¦t as easy as it sounds. Cut off your ex-wife¡¦s head and never live it down. Who knew?"

http://worldchumps.blogspot.com/2006/05/derby-sure-to-be-cut-above-rest.html

bobaugust

05-07-2006, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by martin II

however as bob has always said evidence not entered into evidence is not evidence in the case. i think i have quoted him correctly.
Martin II

martin II, your statement is wrong. I don't believe I've ever said that let alone always said it.

I have no idea where you got that from or what evidence we must have been discussing but you probably didn't understand what I said. Your memories of past discussions are not very good, just like your memory of what you think witnesses in the criminal trial said without reading the transcripts. Please, if you wish to quote me than find my exact words.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-07-2006, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by martin II

the cut was on the left hand. and i assume that both were fighting and both had closed fist.

martin II, your assumption doesn't make much sense.

This wasn't a fist fight. Simpson completely had the advantage. He was bigger, stronger, motivated, and had a knife. Ron Goldman was caught in a very small enclosure with no weapon. He fought as best as he could but the fatal wound happened early in his struggle, a stab to his left flank that cut his aorta. Goldman immediately weakened but still turning, twisting and struggling he managed to pull Simpson's hat and left hand glove off. But it was a one sided fight. Goldman never had a chance.

bobaugust

Wukong

05-07-2006, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Since Martin II has me on ignore, can someone else remind him that he's been told as both RR2 & Martin II to snip what part of the post he's responding to, rather than continually quote posts in their entirety?

Martin,

I agree with Socal. PLEASE stop quoting entire posts, I'm begging you.

Wukong

2L8 4A D8

05-07-2006, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
Excellent idea 2L8. I bet the links to the transcripts are there also.

Thanks! Wukong has posted a link to the transcripts. I thought that all of the new Posters could take advantage of this Archived OJ Board to catch up or answer any unanswered questions they might have. It certainly would save on bandwidth and the repitition of a topic that has been hashed and rehashed months and months ago.

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

05-07-2006, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by uplate

<snipped>

That is why, IMO, if the Pros, during their case building, stumbles upon something that doesn't fit...they 'ignore' it. Because otherwise they wd have to say 'oops' and admit a mistake.

<snipped>

Hmmmm. Sounds familiar. The Criminal Trial Jury comes to mind.

:shrug:

2L8 4A D8

05-07-2006, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Nothing like throwing your money away at the horse races in lieu of spending it on looking for the "real killers".

Or better yet, paying off some of that $33,000,000 judgment that was rendered against him in the Civil Trial.

:confused:

Wukong

05-08-2006, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by martin II

wukong

here is a article on the bags.

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/missing_bags.htm
martin II

Yes Martin, this is a article about the bags. For a self proclaimed genius, Jasper Garrison has gotten this wrong. Maybe he is a genius and got it wrong on purpose (I wonder what his motive could be for that?). This is from Jasper's bag page:

"Limo driver Allan Park recalled seeing only one of the travel bags below that returned on O.J.'s flight from Chicago. He said that he recognized the black tote bag that Johnnie Cochran showed him. He said that it was one of the bags he put in the passenger compartment of the limo. He originally identified it as a black duffle bag. Later it was referred to as a "small" duffle bag. This is the bag Marcia said O.J. would not let anyone touch."

This information Jasper wrote is false. The bag Parks identified above was OJ's black leather grip (Grip is what OJ called it, most of the time). The "Grip" and the missing "back pack" (the one he would not let anyone touch) bag were the only two bags that were in the back of the limo when OJ left Rockingham. OJ got out of the limo at LAX with only the black leather grip.

Jasper is just as clever as OJ when it comes to creating confusion. Luckily I have read all the bag testimony several times and know it backward and forward. All the bags were called many different names by the witnesses. OJ knew this by the time he gave his deposition and testimony and used the confusion surrounding the names of the bag to create further confusion. For example OJ called his black leather grip (the bag he kept his passport and plane ticket, and later his disguise. The same bag he came back from Chicago carrying when he returned to Rockingha, the same bag he had in the Bronco that contained his disguise, passport, gun, underwear $10,000 cash......) a "small duffle bag", "grip", "smallish black bag", "small bag", "black tote bag", among others. Jasper is using the same technique here.

Alan Park testified that the bag OJ would not let anyone touch was not any of the bags presented in court. When Park was shown the bag the defense brought into court, which was supposed to be the missing bag, both he and Kato said it definitely was not the same bag. Even OJ said he couldn't be sure it was the same one when shown this bag.

Wukong

uplate

05-08-2006, 04:58 AM

TKS Wukong for the link to the transcripts! As far as alibis...do u know how far away that party was, and what time Jason's restrnt stopped serving, and what time the person hugging Nic was (a lot of speculation was that it may have been Marcus). Alibis are tricky,,,

uplate

05-08-2006, 06:16 AM

it still comes down to not enough blood. All that was recovered was a bit here and there...certainly there wd have been more. Ron had what, 30 wounds???

The fact that OJ lied and tried to flee shows a huge 'consciousness of guilt. We now know that he in fact was there. WHY he was there might be a different story...

uplate

05-08-2006, 06:39 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by socaldiva
Again, I've never heard anything about the killer going into the house. I've also never heard anything credible relative to someone visiting Nicole earlier that evening.
Can anyone help me out here?? I truly remember this...

I believe Sydney overheard her Mom crying on the phone with Orenthal. Yes, I believe that children can drop into a deep sleep almost immediately. I've seen it happen many ti I beleive it was "Mommy was crying/arguing w/her 'best friend'. Prob not a term Syd wd use for her dad. Furthermore...Faye says their conversation was v upbeat...they were planning for the future. Sounds like a lie to me...

As for the blood bath & your statement that there should have been more blood in the Bronco etc, Orenthal was behind the victims, so he was shielded from the marjority of the blood. Also, IIRC Nicole's fatal blow was delivered in her neck & she faced the pavement. Ron's fatal wound was a massive internal bleed.

Except for his arms...imagine stabbing so from behind...one wd get more blood than if stabbing frontwards. Blood wdve been all over OJs arms, at least.... [/QUOTE [COLOR=darkred]

bobaugust

05-08-2006, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by uplate
it still comes down to not enough blood. All that was recovered was a bit here and there...certainly there wd have been more. Ron had what, 30 wounds???

uplate, you're making a false assumption that there was not enough blood. The question is why was there any blood from both victims and Simpson in his Bronco?

The majority of blood found at Bundy came from both victims when they were lying on the ground bleeding to death. If Simpson held Ron from behind him as he stabbed and cut him what ever blood got on Simpson's clothing would have only been on the front of his clothing and probably his sleeves.

When Simpson was speeding home from Bundy he nearly caused an accident at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente when he ran a red light almost hitting Jill Shively's car. Shively made eye contact with the driver and recognized Simpson when he was leaning out his window yelling at the driver of another car that was blocking his way. Shively said that Simpson's arms were bare. Evidently Simpson rolled his sleeves up so he wouldn't transfer any blood from them to the inside of his car.

There would have been no blood on the seats of his car since he had no blood on the back of his clothing. The blood later found on the Bronco's center console was most likely from Simpson's right hand glove and knife. After Simpson made it back home and was forced to park his Bronco on Rockingham before he left his car he wiped up what ever blood he saw on the center console leaving only blood stains. But is was dark inside the Bronco and Simpson never saw the tiny blood drops that splattered all over the inside of his car from the cut on his knuckle. Simpson's tiny blood drops were found on the inside of the driver's door, the instrument panel, the steering wheel and mixed with both victims blood on the center console.

Simpson also left a partial bloody shoe print on the Bronco carpet just to the left of the break pedal. That blood stain was too large to wipe up so Simpson covered it with a plaid cap.

If you want to see and learn about all of the blood evidence found in the Bronco click on this link.
http://www.bobaugust.com/bronco.htm

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-08-2006, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by uplate
[QUOTE]Originally posted by socaldiva
[B]Again, I've never heard anything about the killer going into the house. I've also never heard anything credible relative to someone visiting Nicole earlier that evening.
Can anyone help me out here?? I truly remember this...

uplate, there was no evidence that the killer went into Nicole's house.

Neither the prosecution or the defense ever suggested that.

bobaugust

Wukong

05-08-2006, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by uplate
TKS Wukong for the link to the transcripts! As far as alibis...do u know how far away that party was, and what time Jason's restrnt stopped serving, and what time the person hugging Nic was (a lot of speculation was that it may have been Marcus). Alibis are tricky,,,

Uplate,

You're welcome. Your questions about AC and Jason's alibis can be found in their depositions at the link I provided. I would look but I don't have the time right now.

I assume you are speaking of Nicole's neighbor Tom Lange (no relation to the detective of the same name) who said he saw a van, and 3 or 4 men, out front of Nicole's condo. This story keeps popping up but I have never seen any confirmation and would think that the defense would have been all over this. The defense and prosecution both spoke to Lange and neither called him as a witness. I would think that if his story was true we would have seen him on the witness stand.

Marcus Allen was at LAX catching a plane to Cabo with his wife at 9:30 pm so he could not have been involved.

Wukong

weezer

05-08-2006, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by uplate
I'd call it more speculation. I don't think it's a big stretch of imagination. Being 'heavy' into coke doesn't mean one does it 24/7. For appearance's sake one wdn't do it on a 'family' day, and Ron had been working. That doesn't mean on a 'party' night they didn't kick it.

LOL...I was just watching Entourage on HBO. It ended and the credits for a movie come on and whose name just flashed?? None other than our topic's (for the Naked Gun 2 1/2). Kind of surreal... I'd call it more than 'speculation' -- it's out and out fantasy. Testimony (defense and prosecution) proved that Nicole and OJ had participated in recreational drugs earlier in their relationship. The same evidence also proved that Nicole was not a drug user and in fact, was very into a healthy body. Evidence proved that there were no drugs in Nicole's body at the time of her death but evidence does prove that Orenthal had marijuana in his.

weezer

05-08-2006, 08:32 AM

weezer

05-08-2006, 08:34 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by uplate
...but why would his left finger be cut yet not the glove? Because the glove wasn't on his hand when the finger was cut?

weezer

05-08-2006, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by uplate
I almost wish it wd be mandated that the Prosecution give the court full disclosure. Too many times we learn of defendants being unduly convicted bec Pros only presented the facts that supported their case. It is indeed sad that many ADAs/DAs and even judges in certain jurisdictions are more interested in their own political careers than the justice of citizens. Perhaps it is a fault of the system inasmuch as a lot of them have impossible caseloads. But too often we hear of DAs not wanting to hear about exculpatory ev...it makes one wonder.

So it brings me to one point that DAs office knew about Jill Shively (hope my memory serves me) was she the one who almost colllided w/the Wh Bronco) but didn't call her bec it wasn't good for the timeline? But their excuse was bec she sold her story to tabloid tv? Or was there another reason? Seems kind of whacked to not bring forth a witness who would have supported the fact that OJ was there. There is a lot more behind this case, IMO IMO than a lot of people realize. JMO oc The Prosecution is required to turn over any exculpatory evidence whether it works for or against their case. Unfortunately, the Prosecution is also required to present only the evidence that they can back up with facts whereas the defense, can and does throw out any and all kind of garbage. In the Simpson criminal trial, the defense knew that Orenthal had committed the murders and as has been written in their's and other books since the trial, knew the only way to have a chance of getting off was to divert attention away from the murders and attack LE and the victims. They were blessed with an uneducated and biased jury who made their work all the more easy.

The Prosecution made many errors in their case but as has been proven in the 10+ years since the trial, it wouldn't have mattered. Orenthal James Simpson, double murderer, was not going to be convicted by this jury.

weezer

05-08-2006, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by uplate
those who know me from Laci...will know I start w/open mind, assess the facts (had access to tscripts) then decide. I actually have a lot of theories on that case...but have little doubt that if HE Scott didn't actually do it, he had someone else who botched it hence his unintentional involvement (going to the bay).

OJ...I haven't thought it a while but...I do believe it is plausible that he, having the $$ to do so, went to hire someone, then when he backed out they said OH NO....BACKING OUT WON'T DO.

(Humming Steely Dan there...) but it is just one of many plausible scenarios.... Is it just me or is there a common storyline going on here? Scott and Orenthal hired other people to murder their wives.....hmmmm. Evidence was provided and has proved that both of these losers murdered their wives with their own hands. There is no evidence of anyone being at the crime scenes other than the victims and the murderers.

weezer

05-08-2006, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by uplate
the video of OJs agent was on Greta's blog...in 2 parts around the time of the 10anniv. I imagine if you search their archives it may still be there. He says OJ told him that he WAS there, but he doesn't remember what happened. Then he goes through this sort of rant about 'if I don't remember then I must have done it, right?'

I have a lot of probs w/this case, starting w/ the v little blood ev against OJ. Unlike Laci where the probability of other perps was slim and remote (IMO the only plausible one was SP got involved in and over his head in perhaps a meth thing), here we had many many possible scenarios. Life in the fast lane...

I have some free time (first in a loooong time!) so I'll be around tonight if anyone cares to discuss. For example...who was the 'power player' w/bodyguards hugging Nicole earlier that night...and did anyone ever think that the 'missing keys' was actually missing 'kilos'??? You offered the statement as proof to your argument -- now YOU need to provide the link.

You shouldn't have any problems with the blood evidence in this case -- there was more than enough to convict Orenthal ten times over.

The 'missing keys' were just that -- missing house keys. Nicole told several people that they were missing and even went through Faye's purse the night of the intervention to make sure that she didn't have them. But lo and behold, guess whose pocket they were in? Mr. Orenthal Simpson's -- hmmm. The double murderer even tried to blame his 'buddy' AC -- lol --

weezer

05-08-2006, 08:58 AM

weezer

05-08-2006, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by uplate
bec he couldn't divulge who really did it. I think there's a strong case against his son. He was off his meds and v pissed that Nic didn't go to the restaurant he was cheffing at that night when she said she would take the party there after the recital. He was embarassed bec he boasted to everyone that she was coming and snapped. He lawyered up immediately. He was uncooperative and Police never intervwd him. Can you see a scenario where he tells OJ what he's going to do and OJ goes to stop him? Oh please -- that ego-maniac would have accused his mother if he thought it would save his sorry azz and keep him feeling 'special.' LE did interview Jason as they did everyone else. He was not uncooperative. It was in evidence that Jason and Nicole genuinely liked each other. I've always thought it was because Orenthal abused both. Does it make sense to you that Jason would murder two people because he was embarrassed but Orenthal wouldn't because he'd been snubbed and dumped? The scenario you suggest is fantasy -- there is a difference you know.

weezer

05-08-2006, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by uplate
Catherine Crier had an author on sometime in the last year who discussed this theory. Catherine stated that she knew for a fact and I believe she had a written confirmation that LE did NOT interview Jason.

We know that the BM shoe print is OJ's. The fact that there was only one shoe print means that only OJ stepped in the blood. But then again, that brings us to my aforementioned lack of full disclosure. Just bec we were told there was a print of a BM shoe does not mean that no other prints were found. Please provide link to Crier statement. You believe wrong -- LE interviewed Jason. I believe that the worse thing the NGs have done has been the character assassination of the victims, Ron Shipp, Jason and LE while they have continued to protect and excuse the abuser/batterer and murderer.

Oh good, we agree on something -- that is Orenthal's BM shoe print. Again, blatant distortion/misinformation/untruths on your part. We do know for a fact that there was only one set of footprints because it was documented in police reports and PICTURES. The defense tried to say otherwise but Henry Lee got it wong. What he pointed out to be a different footprint turned out to be marks that had been made in the concrete when it was originally poured. Now there's always the possibility that anyone else at the crime could have had little tiny wings and flown above the ground -- hence no evidence of anyone but Orenthal being at the murder scene. Hey, this is as good a theory as your fantasy. MOO