Acting Innocent? Acting Guilty? [Archive] - Crime Library Message Boards

Beebee

07-08-2006, 10:39 AM

I've said this before, but I think it fits on this thread.... OJ leaving for a golf match, making no attempt to find and get rid of evidence left on the property to me is consciousness of innocence. He had no idea what had been left (planted) on his property.

At 10:00 OJ made a call to his girlfriend. Was he thinking about Paula when he was also thinking about rage killing Nicole? I can't see it.

OJ was calm and happy at the recital. Despite the lying testimony of (I forget her name)-- the video was played in court.... he was calm and happy.

OJ was calm, hungry and tired when he went to McDonalds to eat-- Now, this is supposidly shortly before the kill. Does a person who is homicidal and raged have the desire to eat a burger? I don't think so.

Nicole was no angel. Let's face it, she wasn't. She slept with plenty, yet OJ never rage killed her. Why on June 12? Makes no sense. I don't see a motive.

OJ loves his kids. He would not kill Nicole and leave her for them to find. imo

nettathirty

07-08-2006, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva
Simpson not asking about the manner of Nicole's death reeks of guilt. He didn't ask if it was a car accident, or where or how she died. Even LE who routinely have the task make death notifications found it noteworthy. It is normal to ask questions, IF you don't already know the answer.

IIRC, Denise Brown was on the phone simultaneously as Lou Brown when the call came to the Browns home about Nicole's death. Denise who at the time unware of any marital problems between OJ and Nicole, could be heard yelling OJ did it, he finally killed her. This goes without saying, but she was at the recital a little more than 12 hours earlier hugging OJ!

martin II

07-08-2006, 11:55 AM

limakey

oj's conversation with Det Lang---

"what do you men she was killed?!"

sound like a direct request from oj for ALL the info about micole/his ex wife being killed.

martin II

limakey

07-09-2006, 01:03 AM

Wukong,

Thank you for your post! I hope it stays this way!

When I first heard of the murders, my first thought was OJ, where is OJ and I felt a sudden rush of emotion and I said to a friend, "see, money and fame don't make immune to a crime of passion."

Now, here is another way to look at the Bronco chase. Remember all the media reports, like the murder weapon being a military entrenching tool, then perhaps some sort of saber? I believe it was reported that a bloody mask was found plus a few more hundered details that were said to have come from "sources" inside the police department or some agency directly involved with the investigation.

He never would have made even into the Bronco because he would have laughed himself into a coma! I mean they weren't even close on some of the stuff---he knew the clothes would never be found, he knew the murder weapon would never be found, he knew who cleaned up after him, he heard all the reports that he was the only suspect, etc., etc. So there was no need for him to "run".

Now, flip that around if you can, think that OJ is innocent. (I know it might hurt, but if you read this quickly, the pain will go away!)

Or if it less painful, put yourself in OJ's place. You are being accused to killing your ex and her "friend". Cops say they have glove found on your property, they have found the murder weapon, they have witnesses on the plane to say that you were hiding your hands all the way to Chicago, they have found a sack of bloody clothes just blocks from your hotel in Chicago. Now, lets "fame" into the pictures. The press who has always been so good to you in the past, is now portraying as you an animal, that you had mistresses who went to the police because you paid them off millions for taking his beating, you even paid for the plastic surgery on that face that you broke.

We both have ex's, and while divorce is extremely painful, I would be shattered if I was accused of killing my ex. Granted, I wanted him to hurt, but I wanted the "broken toe" hurt. One that was really painful, impossible to cast and takes a long, long, long time to heal. If the cops were accusing me, and they said they found all this stuff and all these witnesses, I would think I might take a ride, just to figure out what was going on.

Also, as I have posted before, OJ knew why his marriage, both of his marriages broke up. And if what Cora says is true, that she warned him that Nicole was in serious trouble and that he needed to get her out of there, how was he suppose to feel? He didn't listen and now she is dead. Wouldn't any husband or wife feel guilty because they didn't listen.

BTW, I think if OJ was guilty of the murders, he would have killed himself.

limakey

07-09-2006, 01:12 AM

S-Diva,

They may have only been married for 7 years but I think they had something like 17 years together.

In the spirit of this thread, lets just say that OJ did ask the questions you thought he, as an innocent man, would have asked.

He wanted all the details---isn't it fair to say that some people, perhaps even the police, would have turned it against him, saying that the only reason why he was asking these questions is because he wanted to know what they knew so he could plan his alibi? Isn't it also fair to say that for every cop who felt his not asking questions is a sure sign of his guilty, that there would be a cop ready to testify that in all the cases they were involved in, the husband was even too upset to even think about how they died, just the fact they were dead put them into the grief zone that they couldn't even be asked their own name at that point?

alien

07-09-2006, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by Wukong
Limakey,

Here's my first go at it: I remember clearly when this whole case broke. I felt at the very beginning there was no way OJ is guilty. I was outraged when I saw them talking to him and he had the cuffs on. But, when he took off in that Bronco I felt immediately that this was not the actions of an innocent man. I admit that this may have skewed my thinking while watching the whole case unfold but I still tried to stay objective. I never could find anything during the trial that convinced me he was innocent.

Wukong

Wukong, that is what made me judge him guilty. I never thought of his guilt or innocence when I heard about Nicole's death, but that Bronco chase and what I learned during the trial convinced me of his guilt.

alien

07-09-2006, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Beebee
I've said this before, but I think it fits on this thread.... OJ leaving for a golf match, making no attempt to find and get rid of evidence left on the property to me is consciousness of innocence. He had no idea what had been left (planted) on his property.

At 10:00 OJ made a call to his girlfriend. Was he thinking about Paula when he was also thinking about rage killing Nicole? I can't see it.

OJ was calm and happy at the recital. Despite the lying testimony of (I forget her name)-- the video was played in court.... he was calm and happy.

OJ was calm, hungry and tired when he went to McDonalds to eat-- Now, this is supposidly shortly before the kill. Does a person who is homicidal and raged have the desire to eat a burger? I don't think so.

Nicole was no angel. Let's face it, she wasn't. She slept with plenty, yet OJ never rage killed her. Why on June 12? Makes no sense. I don't see a motive.

OJ loves his kids. He would not kill Nicole and leave her for them to find. imo

IMO, unless you have killed someone how can you know how a killer should or would act? I posted on another thread that IMO OJ was very selfish and was only thinking about himself at the time.

alien

07-09-2006, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by limakey

BTW, I think if OJ was guilty of the murders, he would have killed himself.

Limakey, would you ever mind expounding on this statement and tell me why you feel that way.

weezer

07-09-2006, 05:29 PM

*Snip*Originally posted by limakey
.BTW, I think if OJ was guilty of the murders, he would have killed himself. When AC talked to the police from the Bronco he said something like, "I have OJ in the car and he's threatening to kill himself."

limakey

07-09-2006, 05:53 PM

Alien,

The reason why I think he would have killed himself if he was the murderer was because if he took his own life, there would always be some question of his innocence. A dead man can't defend himself.

Also, I think if he was the murderer and even if the cops were wrong about a lot of the other stuff, the glove found behind his house was pretty damning. At that time, he had no idea of the questions that were to come about the glove, he had no way of knowing anything about MF at the time. He had no way of knowing about any of the other problems of evidence.

Also, it had to be shocking to see how the media turned on him (in his opinon), he had to be stunned about how many people who thought he was innocent changed their minds once they heard the 911 tape the cops released.

limakey

07-09-2006, 06:01 PM

BeeBee and Martin,

IMO, I never would have sent my two younger, minor children to stay with my ex-in-laws, especially after at one of them already accused me of killing their mother. That just would not have happened in my world.

Another point----OJ got raked over the coals by the media because he Kato to find out what was going on at his house. OJ said that he wanted to know if the cops were tearing up his house, well if he is the killer, who cares about Rockingham---shouldn't have been more concerned on what was found at Bundy?

And I don't believe that OJ ever talked to Sydney or Justin before they went down to their grandmother's. I don't think Arnelle was ever asked if Sydney and/or Justin said anything to her about that night. What they heard or didn't hear.

IMO, if OJ was the killer, he had to have found out what Sydney and/or Justin saw or heard that night---then worry about his house being torn up.

weezer

07-09-2006, 06:15 PM

*Snip*Originally posted by limakey
IMO, I never would have sent my two younger, minor children to stay with my ex-in-laws, especially after at one of them already accused me of killing their mother.

. . .OJ got raked over the coals by the media because he Kato to find out what was going on at his house. OJ said that he wanted to know if the cops were tearing up his house, well if he is the killer, who cares about Rockingham---shouldn't have been more concerned on what was found at Bundy?

And I don't believe that OJ ever talked to Sydney or Justin before they went down to their grandmother's. I don't think Arnelle was ever asked if Sydney and/or Justin said anything to her about that night. What they heard or didn't hear.

Orenthal wasn't worried about his children -- he was more concerned about getting his golf bag from the airport. Besides, he didn't have to wonder about what his children saw or heard, he'd sent Arnelle and AC to get the kids. He would have known everything they said.

You should go back and re-read Orenthal's depositions/testimony/statements -- that was his house and his house only. Those were his things and his things only.

limakey

07-09-2006, 06:57 PM

S-Diva,

From what Mr. Simpson has said in interviews, he was advised on how to handle this. That he was not to ask, it was up to his children to come to him. He was also warned that he had to address the issue right then and there, he couldn't put them off. Apparently he was telling the truth because even the expert talking heads could not disagree with this.

We also know that OJ wrote letters to all his children, we do not know what was in the those letters and therefore, we don't know what he "said" in those letters.

We also know that the Browns did not provide a safe mental health environment for the children. It had to be hell for all of them living in that house together.

From my personal experience, I believe that in today's world we do seek professional advice much quicker then in generations past, why? Because in so many cases, we can't possibly understand what our children are going through because we hadn't experienced the same. For example, divorce. I'm not a child of divorce, it took years for my son's pain to come out and I'm devasted to discover, that he has years and years left of pain on this.

I also believe there is a huge difference between being a single parent and a soul parent. IMO.

weezer

07-09-2006, 07:18 PM

*Snip* Originally posted by limakey
From what Mr. Simpson has said in interviews, he was advised on how to handle this. That he was not to ask, it was up to his children to come to him. He was also warned that he had to address the issue right then and there, he couldn't put them off. Apparently he was telling the truth because even the expert talking heads could not disagree with this.

We also know that OJ wrote letters to all his children, we do not know what was in the those letters and therefore, we don't know what he "said" in those letters.

We also know that the Browns did not provide a safe mental health environment for the children. It had to be hell for all of them living in that house together.

From my personal experience, I believe that in today's world we do seek professional advice much quicker then in generations past, why? Because in so many cases, we can't possibly understand what our children are going through because we hadn't experienced the same. For example, divorce. I'm not a child of divorce, it took years for my son's pain to come out and I'm devasted to discover, that he has years and years left of pain on this.

I also believe there is a huge difference between being a single parent and a soul parent. IMO. Seems odd that you wouldn't talk about it with your children -- Unless you make it an off limits subject. I would think he would have had at least a cursory conversation to reassure them that they were safe and there was nothing to be afraid of -- especially after writing them his goodby letters. I think the more telling thing about his children is that Sydney called the police and said her dad was abusing her -- wonder where that came from?

You are being very harsh on the Brown's -- even Orenthal said he knew they loved the children and that that was the best place for them if they couldn't be with him.

Wukong

07-10-2006, 12:11 AM

I was cruising CTV and came across this post on the Notorious murders board. I was quite suprised and wondered if anyone here thinks 2L8 is guilty or innocent (In keeping with this thread topic).

2L8 4A D8
Senior Member

Registered: Oct 2004
Location: NANCY GRACELAND
Posts: 7181
This is the only way for me to...
participate in the OJ Simpson Board and Threads. They didn't have enough ammunition to ban me completely, so they did the next best thing ~ they banned me from the OJ Simpson Board and all Threads. I would be interested to know if this has been done to any other Posters.

If you didn't know this already (I didn't), please be advised that stating "JMO and MOO" in your Post doesn't protect you from being banned. I call a spade, a spade and some people just can't handle that.

I still have questions and comments re: the OJ Simpson case. I hope that Posters from the OJ Board will support me in my endeavor. If not, this Thread will die a slow death and at least I tried!

It's late, so I will post my questions and comments at a later time ~ if this Thread makes it to late Sunday morning that is! LOL!

JMO and MOO!! For whatever good that it does!

Wukong

07-10-2006, 08:55 AM

Hey Socal,

What I meant by 2L8 being innocent or guilty had to do with why she was banned. In my opinion 2L8 was a good poster who was here before I was and I never saw her get out of line any more than anyone else here. I'm shocked she was banned.

Wukong

Kate Sachel

07-10-2006, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by limakey
This thread is about how the same set of words or acts can be seen as points of guilt or innocence. This is just based on our gut feelings.

For example: Mr. Dunne felt that the moment he saw that Simpson was cuffed and didn't demand that the cuffs be taken off of him and didn't tell the cops to take the cuffs off of him and offer all of his money to find the killers, that he was guilty.

IMO, if Mr. Simpson was freaking out like Mr. Dunne thought he should have been, I would have said that he is guilty. An innocent man would have remained calm and cool and know that the cuffs would come off because this was a mistake.

One of the main behaviors that piqued my curiousity is how calm and collected OJ continued to be in both the criminal trial and the civil trial. If I was wrongly accused of butchering the mother of my children, I would feel rageful and I would let the world see it.

In my opinion, he was trying far too hard to give the idea that he was not capable of losing his temper, but rather always remained a calm man.

Kate Sachel

07-10-2006, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Wukong
Hey Socal,

What I meant by 2L8 being innocent or guilty had to do with why she was banned. In my opinion 2L8 was a good poster who was here before I was and I never saw her get out of line any more than anyone else here. I'm shocked she was banned.

Wukong

I agree. I can't say that I am suprised though, because she is brutally honest and while I applaud such I didn't figure that it would sit well with some.

I think she was an excellent poster, and I hope that she will reincarnate as we have seen so many do.

alien

07-10-2006, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Wukong
Hey Socal,

What I meant by 2L8 being innocent or guilty had to do with why she was banned. In my opinion 2L8 was a good poster who was here before I was and I never saw her get out of line any more than anyone else here. I'm shocked she was banned.

Wukong

I myself liked 2L8 and reading some of her posts. IMO, she did dis the moderator on some occasions so I wonder if that is what prompted her being banned. Correct me if I am wrong about it being 2L8 who made the comments.

I hope I don't get banned for this.

Beebee

07-10-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

One of the main behaviors that piqued my curiousity is how calm and collected OJ continued to be in both the criminal trial and the civil trial. If I was wrongly accused of butchering the mother of my children, I would feel rageful and I would let the world see it.

In my opinion, he was trying far too hard to give the idea that he was not capable of losing his temper, but rather always remained a calm man.

Hi Kate,

I don't think OJ was all that calm. He broke a glass in Chicago, then we had the wild Bronco ride. During the criminal trial, I saw different emotions on his face (JMO) and I didn't get the impression he was always calm.
I think he was using restraint because he had no choice. How many trials do you see people getting out of control? The ones that do usually come across as looking like lunatics, so I can see why defense attys advise certain behaviors.

alien

07-10-2006, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Alien,

The reason why I think he would have killed himself if he was the murderer was because if he took his own life, there would always be some question of his innocence. A dead man can't defend himself.

Also, I think if he was the murderer and even if the cops were wrong about a lot of the other stuff, the glove found behind his house was pretty damning. At that time, he had no idea of the questions that were to come about the glove, he had no way of knowing anything about MF at the time. He had no way of knowing about any of the other problems of evidence.

Also, it had to be shocking to see how the media turned on him (in his opinon), he had to be stunned about how many people who thought he was innocent changed their minds once they heard the 911 tape the cops released.

Thanks for the response Limakey.

If I can put my 2 cents in....IMO, OJ was the kind of person who probably never thought he would be judged guilty or would have people turn against him. He always thought that what he did was justified and probably thought he could turn the tide of public and media opinion back in his favor. I think the Bronco chase was his way of saying, look at poor me. People think that I am a murderer so if I kill myself because I can't deal with that and I want to be with Nicole, they will change their minds, feel sorry for me and know there is no way I could have killed Nicole.

Also, IMO was that a lot of the public probably never even thought OJ could be the killer because of how OJ presented himself to the public. That Bronco chase started changing people's minds (at least it did mine..not what the media was reporting) and then what came out in the criminal trial made them feel justified for believing OJ guilty. The civil trial was the icing on the cake for guilty.

I also don't think OJ had the guts to kill himself.

These are just my thoughts, Limakey. I am not dissing you for yours.

Kate Sachel

07-10-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Beebee

Hi Kate,

I don't think OJ was all that calm. He broke a glass in Chicago, then we had the wild Bronco ride. During the criminal trial, I saw different emotions on his face (JMO) and I didn't get the impression he was always calm.
I think he was using restraint because he had no choice. How many trials do you see people getting out of control? The ones that do usually come across as looking like lunatics, so I can see why defense attys advise certain behaviors.

The "wild" Bronco chase? I hope you are kidding, there was nothing wild about it. He signed his suicide note with a smiley face for goodness sakes.

The only things the Bronco showed us is a man of guilty action, hence the disguise, passport, and cash.

I don't believe he broke a glass in Chicago as a result of being upset at the news that Nicole was killed. Since I believe that he already knew she was dead as a result of him killing her, it is my belief that he broke the glass purposefully in an attempt to validate his wounds on his hand.

Beebee

07-10-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

The "wild" Bronco chase? I hope you are kidding, there was nothing wild about it. He signed his suicide note with a smiley face for goodness sakes.

The only things the Bronco showed us is a man of guilty action, hence the disguise, passport, and cash.

I don't believe he broke a glass in Chicago as a result of being upset at the news that Nicole was killed. Since I believe that he already knew she was dead as a result of him killing her, it is my belief that he broke the glass purposefully in an attempt to validate his wounds on his hand.

I say "wild" because it happened at all. A calm person wouldn't be acting so irrationally, imo.

Since you believe OJ guilty, all of his actions are going to be suspect to you. JMO

I'll ask this question anyway-- Do you think calmly eating a burger (appetite) with a friend and calling his girlfriend around 10:00 pm is normal for somebody who is about to rage kill?

Kate Sachel

07-10-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Beebee

I say "wild" because it happened at all. A calm person wouldn't be acting so irrationally, imo.

Since you believe OJ guilty, all of his actions are going to be suspect to you. JMO

I'll ask this question anyway-- Do you think calmly eating a burger (appetite) with a friend and calling his girlfriend around 10:00 pm is normal for somebody who is about to rage kill?

I didn't find the Bronco chase to be irrational, but rather the calculated actions of a guilty man attempting to flee.

Your question contradicts itself, as a rage killing is something that occurs in the moment. I think he premeditated certain actions that evening, but the rage aspect occurred sometime during the act.

Calling his girlfriend around 10:00? Considering the fact that he had made numerous attempts to contact her, and the fact that phone records proved he had picked up the voice mail in which she dumped him, I would have to say that continuously attempting to contact the woman who dumped you does not show a calm and rational mind set.

martin II

07-10-2006, 12:25 PM

kate

I think that anyone that attemps to give the Pula phone call as a excuse for oj to loose it and decide to commit murder is doing a hugh job of streatching. Paula made her call to oj because oj refused to allow her to interject herself into what was a family affair.The recital. He and Nicole had some kind of agreement not to bring their lovers to these kind of events that involved the children and oj told paula she could not go.

Remember this was not the first time Paula had become pissed with oj about Nicole or something else and dumped him so to speak.

Next OJ knew that Nicole had nothing to do with paula going off this time. So no reason to have ill feelings against Nicole because of Paula's call. As a matter fact oj not allowing paula to go to the recital indicates that oj was respecting nicoles wishes on this matter.

What is wrong with oj calling Paula 2-3 times trying to get her. This does not mean that because he did not get her he decides to just go kill Nicole. imo
,martin II

martin II

07-10-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

The "wild" Bronco chase? I hope you are kidding, there was nothing wild about it. He signed his suicide note with a smiley face for goodness sakes.

The only things the Bronco showed us is a man of guilty action, hence the disguise, passport, and cash.

I don't believe he broke a glass in Chicago as a result of being upset at the news that Nicole was killed. Since I believe that he already knew she was dead as a result of him killing her, it is my belief that he broke the glass purposefully in an attempt to validate his wounds on his hand.

the wound found on his hand was made from jagged glass not a knife. according to the doctor.
martin II

martin II

07-10-2006, 12:36 PM

I think the Bronco chase was his way of saying, look at poor me. People think that I am a murderer so if I kill myself because I can't deal with that and I want to be with Nicole, they will change their minds, feel sorry for me and know there is no way I could have killed Nicole.

alien
according to your post above, oj, if he killed himself would have cause to be concerned what the public would think of him after his death.
martin II

:confused:

Kate Sachel

07-10-2006, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by martin II
kate

I think that anyone that attemps to give the Pula phone call as a excuse for oj to loose it and decide to commit murder is doing a hugh job of streatching. Paula made her call to oj because oj refused to allow her to interject herself into what was a family affair.The recital. He and Nicole had some kind of agreement not to bring their lovers to these kind of events that involved the children and oj told paula she could not go.

Remember this was not the first time Paula had become pissed with oj about Nicole or something else and dumped him so to speak.

Next OJ knew that Nicole had nothing to do with paula going off this time. So no reason to have ill feelings against Nicole because of Paula's call. As a matter fact oj not allowing paula to go to the recital indicates that oj was respecting nicoles wishes on this matter.

What is wrong with oj calling Paula 2-3 times trying to get her. This does not mean that because he did not get her he decides to just go kill Nicole. imo
,martin II

How on earth did you translate my post into meaning that I believe that OJ lost it because of Paula's phone call or that I believe that OJ being unable to contact Paula means that he just "decides to just go kill Nicole"?

Astounding. Utterly and completely astounding.

Kate Sachel

07-10-2006, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by martin II

the wound found on his hand was made from jagged glass not a knife. according to the doctor.
martin II

According to a doctor perhaps, but not according to all doctors.

Kate Sachel

07-10-2006, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by martin II

alien
according to your post above, oj, if he killed himself would have cause to be concerned what the public would think of him after his death.
martin II
:confused:

OJ was obviously concerned with what the public would think of him after his death, hence the contents of his "suicide note".

It's really not confusing.

martin II

07-10-2006, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by alien

I myself liked 2L8 and reading some of her posts. IMO, she did dis the moderator on some occasions so I wonder if that is what prompted her being banned. Correct me if I am wrong about it being 2L8 who made the comments.

I hope I don't get banned for this.

alien
the moderator warned all that baiting and stinging personal attacks would cause posters to be banned. Dissing the moderator, as you say , does not seem to be a good stratergy if one desires to remain on the thread.

martin II

weezer

07-10-2006, 12:57 PM

weezer

07-10-2006, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Wukong
Hey Socal,

What I meant by 2L8 being innocent or guilty had to do with why she was banned. In my opinion 2L8 was a good poster who was here before I was and I never saw her get out of line any more than anyone else here. I'm shocked she was banned.

Wukong I thought 2L8 was an excellent poster. I'm sorry we've lost her. Maybe she can come back as Martin III or nettathirtysomething -- wouldn' that be a hoot? LOL

martin II

07-10-2006, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

OJ was obviously concerned with what the public would think of him after his death, hence the contents of his "suicide note".

It's really not confusing.

kate
it is my opinion that everything that oj did would be considered as an indicaiton of his guilt by some. The good news is that there was no suicide and he was found not guilty of charges brought against him in a court of law by a legal jury. imo
martin II

martin II

07-10-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I thought 2L8 was an excellent poster. I'm sorry we've lost her. Maybe she can come back as Martin III or nettathirtysomething -- wouldn' that be a hoot? LOL

fbg

you are seeking a response right.
martin II

martin II

07-10-2006, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

According to a doctor perhaps, but not according to all doctors.

kate
what doctors testified that the cuts oj suffered in chicago were not from glass. Did not have jagged edges that would be from glass?
martin II

weezer

07-10-2006, 01:08 PM

*Snip* Originally posted by martin II
He and Nicole had some kind of agreement not to bring their lovers to these kind of events that involved the children and oj told paula she could not go. LOL -- He could threaten her with the IRS and all that entails (loss of all savings/monies/investment as well as not being able to afford to go anywhere else); He could tell her not to bring the kids to HIS house for HIS housekeeper to help with (although, friends/family stated that he was an absentee dad); He and Nicole were not speaking and the animosity between them had grown in the weeks just prior to the murders -- BUT, he kept the agreement not to bring a girlfriend to family stuff? Please. He didn't bring Paula because #1 -- she'd dumped him that morning and #2 -- he was obsessed with Nicole.

weezer

07-10-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by martin II

kate
what doctors testified that the cuts oj suffered in chicago were not from glass. Did not have jagged edges that would be from glass?
martin II His own doctor.

Kate Sachel

07-10-2006, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by martin II

kate
it is my opinion that everything that oj did would be considered as an indicaiton of his guilt by some. The good news is that there was no suicide and he was found not guilty of charges brought against him in a court of law by a legal jury. imo
martin II

I suppose now is as good a time as any to point out that in a court of law, a jury does not have to believe in a defendent's innocence in order to render a "not guilty" verdict.

tazzybaby

07-10-2006, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by martin II

*snip*
The good news is that there was no suicide and he was found not guilty of charges brought against him in a court of law by a legal jury. imo
martin II

Hi Martin,

That's not good news. That's why everyone was so upset. There was no justice for Nicole and Ron in a court of law in the criminal trial. OJ killed two people then got off of the charges because he had a great defense team and because of Mark Fuhrman being a racist.

imo

Beebee

07-10-2006, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Calling his girlfriend around 10:00? Considering the fact that he had made numerous attempts to contact her, and the fact that phone records proved he had picked up the voice mail in which she dumped him, I would have to say that continuously attempting to contact the woman who dumped you does not show a calm and rational mind set.

What it does show, imo, is a man thinking about Paula Barbieri (sp), not Nicole Brown.

JMO

weezer

07-10-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Beebee

What it does show, imo, is a man thinking about Paula Barbieri (sp), not Nicole Brown.

JMO During the timeframe he was calling Paula, he was talking about Nicole to Kato and Christian.

Beebee

07-10-2006, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
During the timeframe he was calling Paula, he was talking about Nicole to Kato and Christian.

So?

He had two children with Nicole. She was not a non-issue. My point is if he was so consumed with jealous controlling homicidal rage for Nicole, what was he doing calling Paula??

weezer

07-10-2006, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Beebee

So?

He had two children with Nicole. She was not a non-issue. My point is if he was so consumed with jealous controlling homicidal rage for Nicole, what was he doing calling Paula?? Ever heard of having your cake and eating it too? Orenthal was known to be a man-wh*re but most of all, he was OJ and I doubt his ego took very well to being dumped. Seems like no females wanted him on that day.

Kate Sachel

07-10-2006, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Beebee

So?

He had two children with Nicole. She was not a non-issue. My point is if he was so consumed with jealous controlling homicidal rage for Nicole, what was he doing calling Paula??

I think your point is made moot by Paula herself. In her book "The Other Woman" she shares in great detail about how OJ remained tied to and obsessed with Nicole all the while he was with Paula, and how greatly it hurt her to realize that Nicole would always be the woman that captured OJ's mind.

martin II

07-10-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Hi Martin,

That's not good news. That's why everyone was so upset. There was no justice for Nicole and Ron in a court of law in the criminal trial. OJ killed two people then got off of the charges because he had a great defense team and because of Mark Fuhrman being a racist.

imo

tazzy

"That's why everyone was so upset."

It was not everyone that was up set and for those that were upset with the verdict SO WHAT.

martin II

:shrug:

Beebee

07-10-2006, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

I think your point is made moot by Paula herself. In her book "The Other Woman" she shares in great detail about how OJ remained tied to and obsessed with Nicole all the while he was with Paula, and how greatly it hurt her to realize that Nicole would always be the woman that captured OJ's mind.

So Paula wasn't the one for OJ, and saw the opportunity to write a book.... doesn't surprise me, or change the fact that OJ had Paula on his mind that night-- not something you would expect from someone so obsessed with someone else they are homicidal, IMO.

alien

07-10-2006, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip*

You are being very harsh on the Brown's -- even Orenthal said he knew they loved the children and that that was the best place for them if they couldn't be with him.

I agree with this statement. And IMO, because they did love those children, they would not make things uncomfortable for them by saying ugly things about their Father, no matter how they felt about him.

Kate Sachel

07-10-2006, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Beebee

So Paula wasn't the one for OJ, and saw the opportunity to write a book.... doesn't surprise me, or change the fact that OJ had Paula on his mind that night-- not something you would expect from someone so obsessed with someone else they are homicidal, IMO.

I don't think we will end up agreeing on this one, but I can appreciate your thought process.

I think it's a matter of how you percieve OJ's guilt or innocence that is the deciding factor on how you view his behaviors.

However, I do not believe that Paula was the only one of OJ's mind that night. He had numerous women on his mind that night, as we know from his phone call to that model ... I have forgotten her name.

weezer

07-10-2006, 04:08 PM

tazzybaby

07-10-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by martin II

tazzy

"That's why everyone was so upset."

It was not everyone that was up set and for those that were upset with the verdict SO WHAT.

martin II

:shrug:

And, I don't care what you think about it. I am telling you why everyone was upset. It was an injustice for Nicole and Ron.

:tongue:

martin II

07-10-2006, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

I think your point is made moot by Paula herself. In her book "The Other Woman" she shares in great detail about how OJ remained tied to and obsessed with Nicole all the while he was with Paula, and how greatly it hurt her to realize that Nicole would always be the woman that captured OJ's mind.

kate

Paula left the message and flew to Los Vegas and hooked up with some singer the same day. I think it was Michael Bolton. I am sure oj knew she was fooling around so it would be no surprise that paula left "ANOTHER" message and split. Surely not someting that would cause him to be angry with NICOLE because of some dumb stuff paula did again . That makes absolutely no sense unless one has a buring reasoN to tell ones self that it does. IMO

tazzybaby

07-10-2006, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Beebee

So Paula wasn't the one for OJ, and saw the opportunity to write a book.... doesn't surprise me, or change the fact that OJ had Paula on his mind that night-- not something you would expect from someone so obsessed with someone else they are homicidal, IMO.

It wasn't about Paula being the one for OJ. We all know she wasn't. Even she knew she wasn't that's why she broke up. But, why did he lie about getting her "break up" message? If it wasn't a big deal then why did OJ lie? Because it WAS a big deal. He was alone and blamed Nicole. Nicole finally broke completely free and he was alone. How embarassing for him. A great Football legend alone and dumped. His ex-wife dissing him and going out. His much younger and hot ex-wife finally breaking free of his hold.

I do not think for one minute that the break up with Paula caused his rage. I think it was a combination of a lot of incidences.

martin II

07-10-2006, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

And, I don't care what you think about it. I am telling you why everyone was upset. It was an injustice for Nicole and Ron.

:tongue:

HI TAZZY

Who is this "EVERYONE" you talk about????
martin II

tazzybaby

07-10-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by martin II

HI TAZZY

Who is this "EVERYONE" you talk about????
martin II

You already know who. Well, I know that doesn't include you. It includes all the people who were upset. That includes all races.

martin II

07-10-2006, 04:22 PM

Tazzy. HI

Oj either had many side women and cheated on nicole with them or he was a lonley guy that no woman wanted.

WHICH WAS IT????

PS: Greta Stockdale ( sp) was quite a piece of work from what i saw when she took the stand.imo
martin II

martin II

07-10-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

You already know who. Well, I know that doesn't include you. It includes all the people who were upset. That includes all races.

TAZZY

Then i can assume you mean SOME people. right.
martin II

tazzybaby

07-10-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by martin II
Tazzy. HI

Oj either had many side women and cheated on nicole with them or he was a lonley guy that no woman wanted.

WHICH WAS IT????

PS: Greta Stockdale ( sp) was quite a piece of work from what i saw when she took the stand.imo
martin II

OJ said it himself..........

"For the first time in my life I am completely unattached"

He definately could have found someone else. I am not saying he couldn't. However, he couldn't that night.

Kate Sachel

07-10-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by martin II

kate

Paula left the message and flew to Los Vegas and hooked up with some singer the same day. I think it was Michael Bolton. I am sure oj knew she was fooling around so it would be no surprise that paula left "ANOTHER" message and split. Surely not someting that would cause him to be angry with NICOLE because of some dumb stuff paula did again . That makes absolutely no sense unless one has a buring reasoN to tell ones self that it does. IMO

How many times do I have to point out to you that I did not say that Paula's message caused him to be angry with Nicole and kill her? Apparently numerous times, since you refuse to acknowledge it thus far.

weezer

07-10-2006, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

How many times do I have to point out to you that I did not say that Paula's message caused him to be angry with Nicole and kill her? Apparently numerous times, since you refuse to acknowledge it thus far. Wonder if he's back to bumping his head again? It may have caused him some problems with him memory. Hmmmm.

martin II

07-10-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

I don't think we will end up agreeing on this one, but I can appreciate your thought process.

I think it's a matter of how you percieve OJ's guilt or innocence that is the deciding factor on how you view his behaviors.

However, I do not believe that Paula was the only one of OJ's mind that night. He had numerous women on his mind that night, as we know from his phone call to that model ... I have forgotten her name.

With Greta Stockdale available, why be concerned about Paula.
That is a no brainer. imo
martin II

Beebee

07-10-2006, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

I don't think we will end up agreeing on this one, but I can appreciate your thought process.

I think it's a matter of how you percieve OJ's guilt or innocence that is the deciding factor on how you view his behaviors.

However, I do not believe that Paula was the only one of OJ's mind that night. He had numerous women on his mind that night, as we know from his phone call to that model ... I have forgotten her name.

Gretchen <something>

I think it was a 7:30 phone call-- around that time.

The main thing for me is he was not obsessing about Nicole in a homicidal rage. JMO (Why should he? Nothing special about that night at all)

Beebee

07-10-2006, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You don't understand that Orenthal was outraged at not being able to convince Nicole to want him again? It doesn't matter what else he had going on. He was rebuffed by Nicole AND Paula.

Maybe you should read Nicoles letter to OJ.

Beebee

07-10-2006, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
IF Paula wasn't the one for him then why have her on his mind? Did you expect him capable of the domestic abuse?

fbg-

The few incidents of domestic abuse doesn't surprise me. They were both pretty assertive, imo-
IMO there was no pattern that was esculating to murder, in fact, just the opposite, imo.

Kate Sachel

07-10-2006, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by martin II

With Greta Stockdale available, why be concerned about Paula.
That is a no brainer. imo
martin II

I cannot even bring myself to respond in detail to this one, as you have so obviously missed the boat on what I have been saying.

He obviously was concerned about Paula, enough to try repeatedly to contact her.

And that, my friend, is indeed a no brainer.

Beebee

07-10-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

It wasn't about Paula being the one for OJ. We all know she wasn't. Even she knew she wasn't that's why she broke up. But, why did he lie about getting her "break up" message? If it wasn't a big deal then why did OJ lie? Because it WAS a big deal. He was alone and blamed Nicole. Nicole finally broke completely free and he was alone. How embarassing for him. A great Football legend alone and dumped. His ex-wife dissing him and going out. His much younger and hot ex-wife finally breaking free of his hold.

I do not think for one minute that the break up with Paula caused his rage. I think it was a combination of a lot of incidences.

IMO OJ never had to worry about not having a woman. I don't agree with your assessment at all. JMO

martin II

07-10-2006, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

OJ said it himself..........

"For the first time in my life I am completely unattached"

He definately could have found someone else. I am not saying he couldn't. However, he couldn't that night.

Tazzy. hi

He had already come to the conclusion that he and nicole would not get back togeather and he was ok with that. now he was able to get rid of the last of the regulars.Paula.

He had a plane to catch in two hours. it could be that he was lining Greta up for after the return trip from chicago. imo
martin II

weezer

07-10-2006, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Beebee

Gretchen <something>

I think it was a 7:30 phone call-- around that time.

The main thing for me is he was not obsessing about Nicole in a homicidal rage. JMO (Why should he? Nothing special about that night at all) There was something very special about that night -- Nicole had blown him off. She didn't save a seat for him and he wasn't invited to join the family for dinner. He'd made Paula mad by not taking her to the recital and then Nicole dissed him. Yep, he was mad and he was thinking.

weezer

07-10-2006, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Beebee

fbg-

The few incidents of domestic abuse doesn't surprise me. They were both pretty assertive, imo-
IMO there was no pattern that was esculating to murder, in fact, just the opposite, imo. It was years of domestic abuse BUT I'm most taken aback by your statement that you're not surprised. Why not? Or is this where Nicole gets blamed for 'Headquarters' beating her?

How you not think the situation between them was escalating? There was so much tension that they were not even speaking.

weezer

07-10-2006, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Beebee

IMO OJ never had to worry about not having a woman. I don't agree with your assessment at all. JMO I bet he does these days -- LOL. Fat, old and a double murderer.........he must really attract some honeys!

weezer

07-10-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by martin II

Tazzy. hi

He had already come to the conclusion that he and nicole would not get back togeather and he was ok with that. now he was able to get rid of the last of the regulars.Paula.

He had a plane to catch in two hours. it could be that he was lining Greta up for after the return trip from chicago. imo
martin II So Greta not getting together with him made for strike three. Right? He had to settle for a burger from Mickey D's with Kato......no wonder he got pizzed..........LOL

martin II

07-10-2006, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

I cannot even bring myself to respond in detail to this one, as you have so obviously missed the boat on what I have been saying.

He obviously was concerned about Paula, enough to try repeatedly to contact her.

And that, my friend, is indeed a no brainer.

kate
I do believe that YOU believe that what you posted is absolutely true.imo
martin II

martin II

07-10-2006, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
So Greta not getting together with him made for strike three. Right? He had to settle for a burger from Mickey D's with Kato......no wonder he got pizzed..........LOL

fbg
He had a flight to catch in two hours to go to chicago in case you were not aware.
martin II

martin II

07-10-2006, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I bet he does these days -- LOL. Fat, old and a double murderer.........he must really attract some honeys!

fbg

you do seem to keep up with oj's weight and looks. have you seen him lately.imo
martin II

weezer

07-10-2006, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
He had a flight to catch in two hours to go to chicago in case you were not aware.
martin II either that or she said "Eeewwww"

weezer

07-10-2006, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

you do seem to keep up with oj's weight and looks. have you seen him lately.imo
martin II Yep. Fat, old and a double murderer.

martin II

07-10-2006, 05:25 PM

martin II

07-10-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
either that or she said "Eeewwww"

she came into court and testifief for the defense.
martin II

weezer

07-10-2006, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by martin II

she came into court and testifief for the defense.
martin II This is the same 'friend' who was sleeping around on her husband with the bag boy from the local grocery and wanted Nicole to lie and cover-up for her. This is the same 'friend' who 'visited' Orenthal's home after the trial when he was in town. Of course she testified for the defense.

weezer

07-10-2006, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
cora fishman testified that at the recital oj was sittin 2-4 chairs from nicole on the same row. He went out to get the flowers at the break and just stood at the back of the room from then on.
He knew that he and nicole were finished so why get upset about a seat.imo
martin II The fact of the matter is, Nicole did not save a seat for Orenthal. Mr. Bigshot had to find his own. And the fuse burned.

martin II

07-10-2006, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
This is the same 'friend' who was sleeping around on her husband with the bag boy from the local grocery and wanted Nicole to lie and cover-up for her. This is the same 'friend' who 'visited' Orenthal's home after the trial when he was in town. Of course she testified for the defense.

fbg
you seem to be confused. i was talking about Greta testified for the defense. do you remember her.imo
martin II

limakey

07-10-2006, 06:36 PM

Taz,

IMO, both G's and NG's feel the same on the subject of justice for Nicole and Ron. I don't think the G's have sole custody of this emotion.

limakey

07-10-2006, 06:43 PM

S-Diva,

Sorry, used the wrong spelling of the word, it should have been there is a big difference between a single parent and a sole parent.

California appointed some type of guardian for Sydney and Justin. I know there is a term for it but I just can't think of it right now. I think her name was Marjorie Fuller. Any way, she said that the Browns had a shrine to Nicole and that their feelings regarding OJ Simpson could not be kept hidden.

I remember when the Browns were being slammed in the media for not attending the trial everyday. I remember Denise and Mrs. Brown addressing this issue, they said if was very hard coming home from a day in court and have to answer the kids' questions. Obviously, Sydney and Justin had their own opinons on their father's involvement with the murders.

Wukong

07-10-2006, 06:45 PM

I don't believe that Paula breaking up with OJ and him not being able to contact her led to OJ making a decision to kill Nicole. I also don't believe that OJ was in a "Rage" all day as some here are suggesting. I think OJ was developing his plan for quite some time and thought he had it all planned out to make it look like a random act. Nicole was not killed in a rage by the way, a slit throat with a few defensive wounds is not indicative of a rage killing. Ron had more wounds because he put up a bigger fight and he screwed up OJ's plan. Many conspiracy theorists on this case point to this fact as evidence it was a hit.

Martin, the womans name is Gretchen Stockdale, not Greta, and OJ only left a message for her. You stated she was available which OJ could not have known if she was or not. Only OJ said he was available, another indication he got Paula's message. Again, I don't think Paula breaking up with him was the reason he killed Nicole but it was one of the many straws that finally broke his back.

My first post here was about the Bronco ride. What really made me suspicious of OJ was not only the ride but also the thoughts of suicide, the suicide note and especially OJ having brought along his passport, a disguise, over $10,000 in cash, several pairs of socks and underwear and other clothing for what he said was just a ride to Nicole's grave.

Wukong

limakey

07-10-2006, 06:48 PM

I have always found it interesting what jurors have said about defendants. Like the ones they found guilty, said they showed no signs of remorse, but how do you show signs of remorse if you didn't do it?

Or, how do you show remorse for a person's death because you truly just missed them and are devasted by their death, but you are not showing, "I'm sorry I killed her remorse"?

I think for the most part that OJ was calm during both trials. I think he was very confident that the people who really mattered most to him knew he was not guilty.

Beebee

07-10-2006, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
There was something very special about that night -- Nicole had blown him off. She didn't save a seat for him and he wasn't invited to join the family for dinner. He'd made Paula mad by not taking her to the recital and then Nicole dissed him. Yep, he was mad and he was thinking.

My gosh, that kind of insignificant drama happens in households all over the country every day...... it's not a big deal. You think that was the first time OJ didn't join his ex in-laws? You think OJ couldn't get women? You think OJ is the first guy to ever call two women in one day? lol You are the one attaching significance to it, in the hopes of looking for a motive, IMO. The way I see it, OJ Simpson had a pretty good life going, and was not the least bit interested in killing Nicole. Nicole, imo, was much more useful to OJ alive, than dead.... and I'm sorry because I don't want to sound cold... but for the purpose of this discussion, it's true!
She was the mother to his children. (I doubt he wanted to be a single father), she was his friend (they had a friendship, nobody can argue that), she was somebody he had an emotional history with and feelings of affection, and even love--
No motive for murder that I can see. None at all.

Beebee

07-10-2006, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
It was years of domestic abuse BUT I'm most taken aback by your statement that you're not surprised. Why not? Or is this where Nicole gets blamed for 'Headquarters' beating her?

How you not think the situation between them was escalating? There was so much tension that they were not even speaking.

Nothing unusual for a divorced couple.
In many cases, the non-speaking goes away after a bit, especially if kids are involved. That seemed to be the pattern of OJ and Nicole. Pretty typical, imo.
No escalation. Just the opposite, imo.

When did Nicole write OJ that letter? Before or after the "domestic violence"?

Beebee

07-10-2006, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Wukong
I think OJ was developing his plan for quite some time and thought he had it all planned out to make it look like a random act. Nicole was not killed in a rage by the way, a slit throat

My first post here was about the Bronco ride. What really made me suspicious of OJ was not only the ride but also the thoughts of suicide, the suicide note and especially OJ having brought along his passport, a disguise, over $10,000 in cash, several pairs of socks and underwear and other clothing for what he said was just a ride to Nicole's grave. some snip

Wukong

Why do you think OJ wanted Nicole dead?
They were rage killed. It was overkill. What would be the reason for that? Sloppy and done with rage. If you think he premeditated this, then he sure as heck picked the worst way! There would have been numerous better ways.

Do you really wonder why he might have wanted to go away?
I don't.
By the way, $10,000 is nothing. A few socks and underwear? Sounds like a short trip to get away to me.

Thoughts of suicide? I can see that too. imo he wasn't equiped to handle the thoughts that anyone could think he could kill Nicole. He was an American hero. imo he was devastated for multiple reasons. I could see irrational suicidal thoughts, if nothing else, for attention.
Doesn't make him a killer, at all, imo.

bobaugust

07-10-2006, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Beebee

My gosh, that kind of insignificant drama happens in households all over the country every day...... it's not a big deal. You think that was the first time OJ didn't join his ex in-laws? You think OJ couldn't get women? You think OJ is the first guy to ever call two women in one day? lol You are the one attaching significance to it, in the hopes of looking for a motive, IMO. The way I see it, OJ Simpson had a pretty good life going, and was not the least bit interested in killing Nicole. Nicole, imo, was much more useful to OJ alive, than dead.... and I'm sorry because I don't want to sound cold... but for the purpose of this discussion, it's true!
She was the mother to his children. (I doubt he wanted to be a single father), she was his friend (they had a friendship, nobody can argue that), she was somebody he had an emotional history with and feelings of affection, and even love--
No motive for murder that I can see. None at all.

Beebee, no one knows Simpson's motive and motive is not needed to convict someone in our court system, the facts and the evidence prove Simpson guilty.

Motive is only something we want to understand so we can make some kind of sense of why Simpson would do something like this.

I believe it was an accumulation of things that got to Simpson that day starting with his arguments with Paula the night before. Simpson started the day in a bad mood even in his golf game that morning. Simpson continually tried to get hold of Paula calling her many times during the day into the night.

The recital was more aggravation for Simpson. Nicole embarrassed him. She never spoke with him and ignored him in public. That was a major sin for Simpson. Simpson always put on his O.J. face in public and expected everyone to treat him accordingly. It was O.J. the celebrity who paid the bills and provided the life style for the entire family. He didn't show his personal problems in public. He acted like nothing was wrong. Just like he was shown acting in the video tape outside after the recital. Simpson, the head of his family was excluded from the family dinner for for his daughter. That pissed him off. Another embarrassment.

Simpson could never get hold of Paula and when he got home after the recital he learned she had broken up with him in a message. He had no chance to talk to her out of that, no chance to charm her back, he couldn't reach her. He continued to call her. His last call was made at 10:03 that night.

If you don't think that was such a big thing both Simpson and his defense attorneys disagree with you. Johnnie Cochran said to the criminal trial jury why should Simpson kill Nicole, he had Paula. Either Cochran didn't know about Paula's message or he outright lied.

Cochran in his closing statement told the jury,
"Let me just make a comment about Paula Barbieri. One of the most outrageous things I heard yesterday was this wild speculation that O.J. Simpson had some kind of falling out with Paula Barbieri on that Sunday."

It wasn't until Paula gave her deposition for the civil trial that the truth came out.

Simpson lied about it in the civil trial. Simpson's home telephone records show that someone made a call on Simpson's telephone to Simpson's message center and forwarded Paula's dear john message from Simpson car phone and listened to it. Twice. Simpson admits he was home at that time because Kaelin testified that he was but Simpson continued to deny he ever heard that message.

Dr. Lenore Walker the criminal defense domestic violence expert interviewed Simpson in jail. When she was disposed for the civil trial she was asked for the contemporaneous notes of her sessions with Simpson and she turned them over to the plaintiffs attorneys. In her notes she wrote that Simpson told her he call forwarded Paula's car phone message and some of the details in that message.

Yet Simpson continued to deny he ever heard it.

Normally nothing would have happened that night. Simpson would have taken his frustration, anger, and whatever with him to Chicago and it probably would have been over. Except for an unexpected telephone call.

Gigi Guarin was Simpson's live in housekeeper. One of her responsibilities was to always be in Simpson's house whenever he went out of town. Gigi had left for the weekend Friday night intending to return Sunday evening. She knew Simpson was taking a red eye flight that night. She normally helped Simpson get ready for his trips and that's what she planned to do that Sunday night. Gigi had gone to Knott's Berry Farm to celebrate Filipino Independence Day with her family and at 8:00 Sunday night she called Simpson to ask permission to come back Monday morning. Simpson agreed.

Simpson never told anyone about that telephone call. Not Kaelin and not his home security company Westec. Simpson would be alone in his house until he had to leave for the airport about three hours later. That's called opportunity. Simpson changed his clothing putting on a dark colored sweat suit and the rest is history.

bobaugust

limakey

07-10-2006, 10:43 PM

There is one thing about Paula that really surprises me that people continue to overlook---the main reason why she "wanted" to break up with OJ. She couldn't stand the fact that when OJ and Nicole had to attend a function with their children, no "dates" were allowed. IMO, she had to finally face a very hard thing, that while couples may divorce, but when there are young children involved, there are couples who insist on certain occassions to maintain a decent relationship for their children's sake. Paula was mad because OJ would not take her to Sydney's dance. Paula was not above getting her shots in, like sending the Christmas gift to the Jenners' house for OJ, knowing that Nicole would be there. And wasn't it at the same party where one of Nicole's friends were there?

Also, without doubt, OJ was a player when it came to women. He is no different then a lot of rich and famous men (some may even say that fame and fortune has nothing to do with it, but a man has got to be a man and it isn't natural to only sleep with one woman for the rest of your life!) However, OJ had long lasting relationships with his mistresses. Even after they found out that he had other mistresses then them, they still went along for the ride. I don't remember any of them coming forward and trashing him.

I don't think that OJ had any problem getting woman and if you look at the long history he has had with the same ones, then you know that these women have broken up with him before or he has broken up with them but when it came right down to it, he felt pretty secure in this area.

I don't see any woman being the "trigger" that caused OJ to kill Nicole. I think whatever Paula had said to OJ on that message was nothing that he hadn't heard before and knew that he would it hear it again and again.

limakey

07-10-2006, 10:50 PM

Wukong,

One of the reasons why the DA's didn't introduce the Bronco chase was because everything that you mentioned in your post, the defense had tons of evidence to prove that both OJ and Nicole were known to carry large sums of cash on them. They both always had their passports with them because at least OJ always wanted to be able to jump on a plane and go to Mexico or where ever.

Also, don't forget, the letters that OJ wrote to family and friends and the tapes we haven't heard.

The only thing that really makes me wonder about the Bronco chase is when he said, "I'm the only one that deserves to be hurt."

How would any of us react to being accused of murder? Then to hear the press say how women were coming forward because OJ beat them so bad they had to have their face rebuilt.

IMO, I think it would be almost impossible to grasp what it would be like to be in the middle of this nightmare and watch TV and hear all this stuff that you have no idea where it is coming from.

How would any of us react? However, Wukong, most of the Talking Heads still shake their head over why this wasn't entered into evidence.

As for the disguise, the only one that disputed OJ's story was Faye and she made it impossible for her to be called. IMO.

bobaugust

07-10-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by limakey

I don't think that OJ had any problem getting woman and if you look at the long history he has had with the same ones, then you know that these women have broken up with him before or he has broken up with them but when it came right down to it, he felt pretty secure in this area.

I don't see any woman being the "trigger" that caused OJ to kill Nicole. I think whatever Paula had said to OJ on that message was nothing that he hadn't heard before and knew that he would it hear it again and again.

limakey, Simpson evidently contradicts your opinion with all the telephone calls he made to Paula through out that day and into the night. Even after he heard her message.

Johnnie Cochran evidently contradicts your opinion with the comments he made about this to the criminal trial jury.

Simpson never had a problem getting women or leaving women as long as it was him doing the leaving.

Paula was not the "trigger" that caused Simpson to kill Nicole, only one of many things that caused him to come to that decision. The trigger was Gigi's telephone call.

bobaugust

Beebee

07-11-2006, 07:51 AM

Bob,

You wrote:

Gigi had gone to Knott's Berry Farm to celebrate Filipino Independence Day with her family and at 8:00 Sunday night she called Simpson to ask permission to come back Monday morning. Simpson agreed.

What if Gigi hadn't called?? You think Nicole would be alive?

My point is it was Gigi who made the request not to be there, it wasn't OJ trying to keep her out of the house.

So much for premeditation.

And by the way-- unless somebody is a serial killer or psycho, I do need to see some kind of motive. But that's just me. And in this case..... there was no motive what-so-ever for OJ to kill Nicole. imo

tazzybaby

07-11-2006, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Beebee

IMO OJ never had to worry about not having a woman. I don't agree with your assessment at all. JMO

Hi Beebee,

Then how do you explain OJ himself stating that he was completely unattached for the first time in his life? Why was he continuing to call Paula if he had so many women? OJ could always get a piece but he couldn't always get love. He didn't love Paula, he loved Nicole.

I am not suprised that you don't agree with my assessment. But, why?

tazzybaby

07-11-2006, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by martin II

Tazzy. hi

He had already come to the conclusion that he and nicole would not get back togeather and he was ok with that. now he was able to get rid of the last of the regulars.Paula.

He had a plane to catch in two hours. it could be that he was lining Greta up for after the return trip from chicago. imo
martin II

Hi Martin,

Then why was he calling her at 10:04? If she was nothing then why did he try to call her all day? If it didn't matter then WHY?

tazzybaby

07-11-2006, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,

IMO, both G's and NG's feel the same on the subject of justice for Nicole and Ron. I don't think the G's have sole custody of this emotion.

I never said that the G's have sole custody of this emotion. I know that most NG's feel bad for Nicole and Ron (and their families).

:shrug:

I was talking to Martin. And, he said "who cares".

:punch:

tazzybaby

07-11-2006, 08:28 AM

tazzybaby

07-11-2006, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Beebee

Nothing unusual for a divorced couple.
In many cases, the non-speaking goes away after a bit, especially if kids are involved. That seemed to be the pattern of OJ and Nicole. Pretty typical, imo.
No escalation. Just the opposite, imo.

When did Nicole write OJ that letter? Before or after the "domestic violence"?

It IS NOT a typical relationship when there is abuse involved. Not typical at all.

OJ was throwing Nicole and his very own kids out of their home. He was so mad at her that he didn't care about his own kids having a home. He only cared about being mad at her. There was MUCH tension the week that lead up to the murder.

Kate Sachel

07-11-2006, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Beebee

Why do you think OJ wanted Nicole dead?
They were rage killed. It was overkill. What would be the reason for that? Sloppy and done with rage. If you think he premeditated this, then he sure as heck picked the worst way! There would have been numerous better ways.

Do you really wonder why he might have wanted to go away?
I don't.
By the way, $10,000 is nothing. A few socks and underwear? Sounds like a short trip to get away to me.

Thoughts of suicide? I can see that too. imo he wasn't equiped to handle the thoughts that anyone could think he could kill Nicole. He was an American hero. imo he was devastated for multiple reasons. I could see irrational suicidal thoughts, if nothing else, for attention.
Doesn't make him a killer, at all, imo.

When he went to Bundy, I'm quite certain that he didn't intend for Ron to show up which quickly turned a "neat" little plan into something far bigger and beyond his control.

Most women who are killed at the hands of their controller are killed by a slashed throat. It is considered a personal killer. Now, obviously that isn't true in all cases, but there is a profile that does exist.

OJ was concerned only about himself after Nicole's death. His niece Terri Baker has said that she wondered why he was only concerned with and talking only about himself without once mentioning Nicole. I do understand that he quite a few things to be concerned with, but when you've just lost the woman you spent 17 years with and who is the mother of your children it would seem to me that you mention her, or at the very least put your energy into comforting your small children.

You are correct that those behaviors don't make him a murderer. It's the fact that the evidence shows that he killed Nicole and Ron that makes him a murderer.

Kate Sachel

07-11-2006, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,

IMO, both G's and NG's feel the same on the subject of justice for Nicole and Ron. I don't think the G's have sole custody of this emotion.

I don't think it is possible for both sides to feel the same on the subject of justice for Nicole and Ron.

Those who feel that OJ is guilty of both domestic violence and murder feel a tidal wave of something different than those who believe that OJ is innocent of all things yet feel bad that a "true killer" was not brought to justice.

Two very different sets of emotion on that one.

Kate Sachel

07-11-2006, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Beebee

And by the way-- unless somebody is a serial killer or psycho, I do need to see some kind of motive. But that's just me. And in this case..... there was no motive what-so-ever for OJ to kill Nicole. imo

Many people do. Even when evidence points overwhelmingly toward something we often times need to feel a sense of why the event occurred.

In the civil trial, Dan Petrocelli felt the same. While legally he was not required to prove motive, he said that he felt that the jurors would need to have some understanding of what drove an American hero to slash two people to death.

That's why he delved into the past of the Simpon's lives like no one had done before. He spoke to everyone that would speak to him, and for those who wouldn't speak willingly, he had them subpoenaed and had them tell their story that way.

He found a string of witnesses who testified about firsthand witnessing of OJ hitting, slapping, or punching Nicole. Even Lenore Walkers notes stated that OJ had fit the profile of the batterer. Lenore Walker is the domestic violence awareness pioneer who met with OJ in jail during the criminal trial and was supposed to testify for the defense. The defense never called her, and I'm guessing that the reason may be because her professional opinion of OJ's profile as a batterer is not what they expected her to come out with.

alien

07-11-2006, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Waaa....like a blowfish :D

Hey, Friend...

You always seem to find pictures for some postings. Can you find one for this? :D

alien

07-11-2006, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Beebee

Thoughts of suicide? I can see that too. imo he wasn't equiped to handle the thoughts that anyone could think he could kill Nicole. He was an American hero. imo he was devastated for multiple reasons. I could see irrational suicidal thoughts, if nothing else, for attention.
Doesn't make him a killer, at all, imo.

Hi, BeeBee.

IMHO, your post just goes to prove the selfish side of OJ. Not suicide because Nicole was murdered and he would never see her again, but suicide because he looked bad in the public eye (and to stop any arguments, SOME, in the public eye). Didn't care about what kind of impact his suicide would have on his children. You did say irrational thoughts, though. I just don't happen to agree with that.

I agree with your comment about the attention thing. Pity poor me, OJ...SOME people don't like me now and think I killed Nicole. IMO, he never intended to commit suicide, he just wanted SOME people to feel sorry for him.

It was stated earlier that it wasn't unusual for OJ to carry large sums of money and a passport, but the disguise thing wasn't usual IMO. Someone said back some time ago they thought it was because OJ would disguise himself when he went out in public. I didn't buy that at all because OJ reveled in his fame. I think it was because he didn't want to be seen and he was planning to run.

I respect your thoughts even if I don't agree with them.

Can anyone enlighten me as to how the Bronco chase started. I just remember on tv seeing it, but don't remember how the police came to be aware of it.

alien

07-11-2006, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Beebee

fbg-

The few incidents of domestic abuse doesn't surprise me. They were both pretty assertive, imo-
IMO there was no pattern that was esculating to murder, in fact, just the opposite, imo.

Why doesn't it surprise you? They may have both been pretty assertive as you put it, but IMO there is no way that Nicole could have done as much damage to OJ as he did to her.

Please explain your statement about "there was no pattern......in fact, just the opposite.

Thanks, Alien.

weezer

07-11-2006, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by alien

Hi, BeeBee.

IMHO, your post just goes to prove the selfish side of OJ. Not suicide because Nicole was murdered and he would never see her again, but suicide because he looked bad in the public eye (and to stop any arguments, SOME, in the public eye). Didn't care about what kind of impact his suicide would have on his children. You did say irrational thoughts, though. I just don't happen to agree with that.

I agree with your comment about the attention thing. Pity poor me, OJ...SOME people don't like me now and think I killed Nicole. IMO, he never intended to commit suicide, he just wanted SOME people to feel sorry for him.

It was stated earlier that it wasn't unusual for OJ to carry large sums of money and a passport, but the disguise thing wasn't usual IMO. Someone said back some time ago they thought it was because OJ would disguise himself when he went out in public. I didn't buy that at all because OJ reveled in his fame. I think it was because he didn't want to be seen and he was planning to run.

I respect your thoughts even if I don't agree with them.

Can anyone enlighten me as to how the Bronco chase started. I just remember on tv seeing it, but don't remember how the police came to be aware of it. IIRC, AC called and told them he had OJ in the car and OJ was holding a gun to his head.

Beebee

07-11-2006, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by alien

Why doesn't it surprise you? They may have both been pretty assertive as you put it, but IMO there is no way that Nicole could have done as much damage to OJ as he did to her.

Please explain your statement about "there was no pattern......in fact, just the opposite.

Thanks, Alien.

There had not been abuse in many years.... so I don't see a pattern of increasing violence- I hope that made sense.

I hate to say it, but IMO OJ was not much different than many pro football players. I think he realized quickly that his strength and size could hurt Nicole, and he stopped being pysical at all when they had fights. Remember, Nicole was also physical, but she couldn't make a dent. Still, their mindsets were similar, imo.

Did you notice in Nicoles letter to OJ, she describes herself as the controlling one?

alien

07-11-2006, 10:25 AM

alien

07-11-2006, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
IIRC, AC called and told them he had OJ in the car and OJ was holding a gun to his head.

I wonder if that was staged or if AC called because he was really concerned that OJ would kill himself?

I keep trying to remember some of the details, but you know what they say, the mind is the first to go.

Beebee

07-11-2006, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by alien

Thanks for responding BeeBee. Did the physical abuse stop after their divorce. If that is the case then OJ wouldn't be with Nicole as much. I can't imagine that he would abuse her if he was trying to get her to come back to him.

I haven't read the letter in a really long time and should to refresh my memory, but did she possibly mean controlling as in mentally or that she was in control of the situation NOW?

Thanks, Alien

She meant that when they were together, she was the one who was controlling. She wanted him back.
Hold on... I'll get a link for you.

weezer

07-11-2006, 10:42 AM

Beebee

07-11-2006, 10:43 AM

alien,

Here is an excellent link that I got from some other posters here... it has a ton of info:

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

The letter is on there.

weezer

07-11-2006, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Beebee

She meant that when they were together, she was the one who was controlling. She wanted him back.
Hold on... I'll get a link for you. Wrong

weezer

07-11-2006, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Beebee
alien,

Here is an excellent link that I got from some other posters here... it has a ton of info:

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

The letter is on there. I think this pretty well sums up their relationship: " I'm the one who was controlling. I wanted you to be faithful and be a perfect father. I was not accepting to who you are."

bobaugust

07-11-2006, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Beebee
Bob,

You wrote:

Gigi had gone to Knott's Berry Farm to celebrate Filipino Independence Day with her family and at 8:00 Sunday night she called Simpson to ask permission to come back Monday morning. Simpson agreed.

What if Gigi hadn't called?? You think Nicole would be alive?

My point is it was Gigi who made the request not to be there, it wasn't OJ trying to keep her out of the house.

So much for premeditation.

And by the way-- unless somebody is a serial killer or psycho, I do need to see some kind of motive. But that's just me. And in this case..... there was no motive what-so-ever for OJ to kill Nicole. imo

Beebee, yes I do believe if Gigi hadn't called, Nicole would have been still alive at least for that night.

That telephone call gave Simpson a rare and unexpected opportunity.

The premeditation came after that telephone call. After that telephone call Simpson changed his clothing putting on the dark colored sweat suit. After that telephone call Simpson went to Kaelin's room to ask Kaelin for money for the skycap. Simpson was planning his alibi

Yes. there was a motive Simpson for Simpson to kill Nicole. He had made that threat before but this time nothing stopped him from actually carrying it out. The opportunity and circumstances made it possible.

bobaugust

Kate Sachel

07-11-2006, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Beebee

There had not been abuse in many years.... so I don't see a pattern of increasing violence- I hope that made sense.

I hate to say it, but IMO OJ was not much different than many pro football players. I think he realized quickly that his strength and size could hurt Nicole, and he stopped being pysical at all when they had fights. Remember, Nicole was also physical, but she couldn't make a dent. Still, their mindsets were similar, imo.

Did you notice in Nicoles letter to OJ, she describes herself as the controlling one?

Coming into play here is the common misconception that abuse is only physical. People don't take into consideration emotional, sexual, and financial abuse ... all of which are based on the need to control someone and all of which are capable of leading to an explosive ending.

We don't know if he continued to be physical with her. All we have is speculation, and we will never know because he won't admit to it and she is dead. What we do know, based on testimony in the civil trial, is that there was in fact a whole lot of escalating anger and tension in her final weeks. What we do know is whether or not he hit her, he continued to stalk her and intimidate her. We have individuals who testified that she told them in her final weeks that she was scared because he was following her. We have Ron Fischman, one of OJ's staunchest supporters, who admitted to us in deposition that OJ told him on the night of the recital that he was "going to get her, but good". Ron testified that OJ seemed wierd and dark at that time.

It saddens me that she considered herself to be controlling because she wanted him to be a good father and faithful husband.

weezer

07-11-2006, 11:30 AM

*Snip* Originally posted by Kate Sachel
It saddens me that she considered herself to be controlling because she wanted him to be a good father and faithful husband. Me too but I figure that was what he had convinced her of -- she was at fault. The true mark of the abuser.

martin II

07-11-2006, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Coming into play here is the common misconception that abuse is only physical. People don't take into consideration emotional, sexual, and financial abuse ... all of which are based on the need to control someone and all of which are capable of leading to an explosive ending.

We don't know if he continued to be physical with her. All we have is speculation, and we will never know because he won't admit to it and she is dead. What we do know, based on testimony in the civil trial, is that there was in fact a whole lot of escalating anger and tension in her final weeks. What we do know is whether or not he hit her, he continued to stalk her and intimidate her. We have individuals who testified that she told them in her final weeks that she was scared because he was following her. We have Ron Fischman, one of OJ's staunchest supporters, who admitted to us in deposition that OJ told him on the night of the recital that he was "going to get her, but good". Ron testified that OJ seemed wierd and dark at that time.

It saddens me that she considered herself to be controlling because she wanted him to be a good father and faithful husband.

link to this about ron fishman's testimony. please

martin II

martin II

07-11-2006, 12:36 PM

bob

GIGI not comming to work + Paula left anothet call + oj had to sit 2-3 chairs from nicole at the recital + nicole did not invite oj to mezzaluna (although her mother did) all of this caused oj to forget, everyhing he had going for him, forget his children go on a
uncontrollable rage and go kill the mother of his children and someone he cared for. imo None of the above was worth even paying any attention to. imo
martin II

martin II

07-11-2006, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* Me too but I figure that was what he had convinced her of -- she was at fault. The true mark of the abuser.

fbg

Don't you think Nicole would be a better judge of whether she was a controller in her relationship with oj than you. I have never
viewed Nicole as some dumb blond not able to know what and why she felt a certain way. imo

martin II

weezer

07-11-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by martin II

link to this about ron fishman's testimony. please

martin II LOL -- can you never research any of the stuff yourself? I have yet to see you support any of your outrageous fantasies with links to proof/evidence!

weezer

07-11-2006, 12:43 PM

weezer

07-11-2006, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

Don't you think Nicole would be a better judge of whether she was a controller in her relationship with oj than you. I have never
viewed Nicole as some dumb blond not able to know what and why she felt a certain way. imo

martin II I understand exactly how you viewed Nicole since you have made it clear in your postings on this thread. She most certainly could -- and did -- judge her relationship with Orenthal so she kept a lockbox with pictures of his abuse, her diaries chronicling the abuse, letters to and from Orenthal and most telling, her will. Then she told family and friends that she was afraid he was going to kill her and finally, called a hot line for abused women.

What other evidence do you need to know what that relationship was about?

martin II

07-11-2006, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Wrong

fbg

Dear O.J.
I'd like to see you, to talk to you in person. But I know you can't do that. I've been attending these meetings to help me turn negatives into positives -- to help me turn get rid of my anger . . . . I've learned to "let things go" (the most powerful, helpful thing I've ever learned). I've learned that all things that upset & bother me are just a mirror of what's going on in me. I always knew that what was going on with us was about me -- I just wasn't sure why it was about me -- So I just blamed you. I'm the one who was controlling.
martin II

martin II

07-11-2006, 12:59 PM

fbg here is the link to the above.
martinII

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

martin II

07-11-2006, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
LOL -- can you never research any of the stuff yourself? I have yet to see you support any of your outrageous fantasies with links to proof/evidence!

fbg

the request was made to the poster kate not you.
martin II

martin II

07-11-2006, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I understand exactly how you viewed Nicole since you have made it clear in your postings on this thread. She most certainly could -- and did -- judge her relationship with Orenthal so she kept a lockbox with pictures of his abuse, her diaries chronicling the abuse, letters to and from Orenthal and most telling, her will. Then she told family and friends that she was afraid he was going to kill her and finally, called a hot line for abused women.

What other evidence do you need to know what that relationship was about?

fbg
nicoles words.

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

O.J. You'll be my one and only "true love." I'm sorry for the pain I've caused you and I'm sorry we let it die. Please let us be a family again, and let me love you -- better than I ever have before.

I'll love you forever and always . . .

O.J., I want to come home -- I want us all to be together again -- We can move wherever you want -- we can stay here -- I just never want to leave your side again.

martin II

weezer

07-11-2006, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
nicoles words.

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

O.J. You'll be my one and only "true love." I'm sorry for the pain I've caused you and I'm sorry we let it die. Please let us be a family again, and let me love you -- better than I ever have before.

I'll love you forever and always . . .

O.J., I want to come home -- I want us all to be together again -- We can move wherever you want -- we can stay here -- I just never want to leave your side again.

martin II I'm not surprised that she's been convinced it was all her fault and I'm not surprised that his abuse of her has been turned around to be 'all about OJ.' You might gain some real insight if you did some research on domestic abuse.

Why are you skipping over the part about him whoring around and not being a good dad? But she wasn't willing to kill herself over him and he was willing to kill himself over her. What does that tell you?

tazzybaby

07-11-2006, 01:31 PM

It is so frustrating to deal with this abuse stuff. If you're going to use ONE letter to define the abuse or non-abuse...please use this one....

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

And if I wanted to hurt you or had it in me to be anything like the person you are -- I would have done so after the (illegible) incident. But I didn't even do it then. I called the cops to save my life whether you believe it or not. But I didn't pursue anything after that -- I didn't prosecute, I didn't call the press & I didn't make a big charade out of it. I waited for it to die down and asked for it to. But I've never loved you since or been the same.

To save her life folks. She was so scared of this man that she thought he was capable of KILLING her. But, yet she blamed herself. That's what abuse victims do. They blame themselves. For one thing .... the abusers tell them it's all their fault.

:rolleyes:

weezer

07-11-2006, 01:39 PM

I've had a thought -- Orenthal retrieved Paula's kiss-off message earlier in the day but continued to call her right up to the time he left for the murders. Wonder if he was trying to track her to make sure she wasn't coming by Rockingham or trying to track him?

tazzybaby

07-11-2006, 01:40 PM

weezer

07-11-2006, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Beebee,

It wasn't many years. When he broke down the door it was only months before her murder. She was freaking out that he would hurt her. She was crying on the phone. She told her friend that she felt like the next time he would kill her. He broke the door down because she hung up on him. He wanted to continue the fight she didn't. So, he went over there and forced his way in. How do we know she didn't hang up on him the night she was murdered? What if she threatened him back? It is still my belief that it was Orenthal on the phone that night that made her cry.

Kate Sachel

07-11-2006, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by martin II

link to this about ron fishman's testimony. please

martin II

Daniel Petrocelli includes several portions of Ron Fischman's deposition transcipt in his book "Triumph of Justice".

Kate

bobaugust

07-11-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by martin II
bob

GIGI not comming to work + Paula left anothet call + oj had to sit 2-3 chairs from nicole at the recital + nicole did not invite oj to mezzaluna (although her mother did) all of this caused oj to forget, everyhing he had going for him, forget his children go on a
uncontrollable rage and go kill the mother of his children and someone he cared for. imo None of the above was worth even paying any attention to. imo
martin II

martin II, it's obvious you don't pay attention to the facts and evidence in this case. That's why your opinions aren't very credible since you base them on false information due to your ignorance of the facts and evidence..

There is no evidence Simpson was in an "uncontrollable rage" when he went to Bundy. Based on the known evidence Ron walked in on Simpson surprising him. Simpson attacked Ron stabbing and cutting him over thirty times. That was the rage killing. The evidence tells us Simpson then returned to Nicole and sliced her throat. Simpson could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Ron Goldman.

bobaugust

martin II

07-11-2006, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Daniel Petrocelli includes several portions of Ron Fischman's deposition transcipt in his book "Triumph of Justice".

Kate

"We have Ron Fischman, one of OJ's staunchest supporters, who admitted to us in deposition that OJ told him on the night of the recital that he was "going to get her, but good". Ron testified that OJ seemed wierd and dark at that time. "

kate

Your post referrs to Fishman testifying in a deposition. Nothing is in your post about petrocelli and his book. It is the link from testimony you described i was requesting not quotes from a book.
martin II

martin II

07-11-2006, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
It is still my belief that it was Orenthal on the phone that night that made her cry.

nope
fay resnick from rehab.
martin II

martin II

07-11-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, it's obvious you don't pay attention to the facts and evidence in this case. That's why your opinions aren't very credible since you base them on false information due to your ignorance of the facts and evidence..

There is no evidence Simpson was in an "uncontrollable rage" when he went to Bundy. Based on the known evidence Ron walked in on Simpson surprising him. Simpson attacked Ron stabbing and cutting him over thirty times. That was the rage killing. The evidence tells us Simpson then returned to Nicole and sliced her throat. Simpson could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Ron Goldman.

bobaugust

Ron Goldman was cut so much because he faught so hard for his life. No other reason. The killers did not even know ron.
martin II

Kate Sachel

07-11-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by martin II

"We have Ron Fischman, one of OJ's staunchest supporters, who admitted to us in deposition that OJ told him on the night of the recital that he was "going to get her, but good". Ron testified that OJ seemed wierd and dark at that time. "

kate

Your post referrs to Fishman testifying in a deposition. Nothing is in your post about petrocelli and his book. It is the link from testimony you described i was requesting not quotes from a book.
martin II

Re-read my response from you which states there are portions from the deposition transcript ...".

Get it? That means more than a "quote from a book".

Kate Sachel

07-11-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by martin II

nope
fay resnick from rehab.
martin II

Where is your proof of this? I noted that you failed to include that it is only your opinion or speculation.

martin II

07-11-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Re-read my response from you which states there are portions from the deposition transcript ...".

Get it? That means more than a "quote from a book".

For me it is better to read the tesrimony direct from the transcript
considering petrocellis history.
thanks anyway
martin II

martin II

07-11-2006, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Where is your proof of this? I noted that you failed to include that it is only your opinion or speculation.

Read fay Resnicks book. IMO
martin II

martin II

07-11-2006, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I'm not surprised that she's been convinced it was all her fault and I'm not surprised that his abuse of her has been turned around to be 'all about OJ.' You might gain some real insight if you did some research on domestic abuse.

Why are you skipping over the part about him whoring around and not being a good dad? But she wasn't willing to kill herself over him and he was willing to kill himself over her. What does that tell you?

i didn't see anything in her letter about "him whoring around". either i missed that or you substituted your own words for nicoles.
which was it?
martin II

Kate Sachel

07-11-2006, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by martin II

For me it is better to read the tesrimony direct from the transcript
considering petrocellis history.
thanks anyway
martin II

Are you truly making me explain for the third time that actual transcript can be found there, which does indeed mean direct from the transcript ??? Wow.

Kate Sachel

07-11-2006, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by martin II

Read fay Resnicks book. IMO
martin II

I own the book. The book does not say anything about Nicole crying on the phone with Faye that evening. As a matter of fact, it says that Nicole was in an upbeat and happy mood when she spoke with her that evening.

Now try to prove me wrong. It's not possible because the claim you make does not exist in her book.

weezer

07-11-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by martin II

nope
fay resnick from rehab.
martin II Faye says Nicole wasn't crying when they talked. It was Orenthal harrassing her.

weezer

07-11-2006, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Re-read my response from you which states there are portions from the deposition transcript ...".

Get it? That means more than a "quote from a book". LOL -- go with it Kate! Martin likes to ask/demand/require links to information he never reads. Don't worry about it -- he'll just argue that it's not the truth or that it was planted.

weezer

07-11-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by martin II

i didn't see anything in her letter about "him whoring around". either i missed that or you substituted your own words for nicoles.
which was it?
martin II "I wanted you to be faithful"

martin II

07-11-2006, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
"I wanted you to be faithful"

"him whoring around".

so these were YOUR WORDS not nicoles. i thought so.

martin II

martin II

07-11-2006, 05:17 PM

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

O.J. You'll be my one and only "true love." I'm sorry for the pain I've caused you and I'm sorry we let it die. Please let us be a family again, and let me love you -- better than I ever have before.

I'll love you forever and always . . .

what does she mean by " you'LL will be my one and ONLY true love". wasn't ok suppose to alreadt be that. What did she do to cause him this PAIN/???
martin II

weezer

07-11-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by martin II
http://walraven.org/simpson/simpson.html

O.J. You'll be my one and only "true love." I'm sorry for the pain I've caused you and I'm sorry we let it die. Please let us be a family again, and let me love you -- better than I ever have before.

I'll love you forever and always . . .

what does she mean by " you'LL will be my one and ONLY true love". wasn't ok suppose to alreadt be that. What did she do to cause him this PAIN/???
martin II From reading her letters to him, I take it that she meant his anger that she questioned him on anything he did -- whoring around, being a bad parent, etc.

weezer

07-11-2006, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by martin II

"him whoring around".

so these were YOUR WORDS not nicoles. i thought so.

martin II hmmm -- 'wanted you to be faithful' -- whoring around............I might have used my own words. Although, I do remember one of his friends/lawyers describing him that way. I'll have to go look.

martin II

07-11-2006, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
From reading her letters to him, I take it that she meant his anger that she questioned him on anything he did -- whoring around, being a bad parent, etc.

what about the last paragraph in my post. what did she mean?
martin II

martin II

07-11-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
hmmm -- 'wanted you to be faithful' -- whoring around............I might have used my own words. Although, I do remember one of his friends/lawyers describing him that way. I'll have to go look.

fbg
we are talking about nicoles letter not some friends, right?
there is no MIGHT HAVE about it. you did . But-- i understand .

martinII

weezer

07-11-2006, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
we are talking about nicoles letter not some friends, right?
there is no MIGHT HAVE about it. you did . But-- i understand .

martinII LOL -- you're a good teacher. If you don't like what it says, twist it up.

weezer

07-11-2006, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by martin II

what about the last paragraph in my post. what did she mean?
martin II I couldn't even begin to guess what she meant. Hey, did you compare her letters to Orenthal's suicide note? Man is he barely literate or what?

martin II

07-11-2006, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
LOL -- you're a good teacher. If you don't like what it says, twist it up.

fbg
we both know that twisting is your speciality right?

martin II

martin II

07-11-2006, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I couldn't even begin to guess what she meant. Hey, did you compare her letters to Orenthal's suicide note? Man is he barely literate or what?

fbg

what pain did she cause oj????
martin II

Melody04

07-11-2006, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

what pain did she cause oj????
martin II

Unreal!:rolleyes:

Certainly nothing compared to the gruesome, painful death she & Ron suffered at his hands.

Not to mention the pain and suffering he caused their children, other family members and friends.

Poor, poor oj.....the victim in all this. :rolleyes:

weezer

07-11-2006, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
we both know that twisting is your speciality right?

martin II If you mean that I use facts and common sense to support my conclusion -- you're right!

weezer

07-11-2006, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

what pain did she cause oj????
martin II Obviously Orenthal thought everything was all about him so I can only guess that his whoring around and beating Nicole was her fault -- per Orenthal.

weezer

07-11-2006, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Melody04

Unreal!:rolleyes:

Certainly nothing compared to the gruesome, painful death she & Ron suffered at his hands.

Not to mention the pain and suffering he caused their children, other family members and friends.

Poor, poor oj.....the victim in all this. :rolleyes: Even after brutally murdering her he made it all about HIM. :beer:

martin II

07-11-2006, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Even after brutally murdering her he made it all about HIM. :beer:

fbg

Nicole's letter speaks for itself.

martin II

weezer

07-11-2006, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

Nicole's letter speaks for itself.

martin II As does all her letters, diary, photos and will in a lockbox. Sad.

weezer

07-11-2006, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

Nicole's letter speaks for itself.

martin II Or did you mean this one?

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

And if I wanted to hurt you or had it in me to be anything like the person you are -- I would have done so after the (illegible) incident. But I didn't even do it then. I called the cops to save my life whether you believe it or not. But I didn't pursue anything after that -- I didn't prosecute, I didn't call the press & I didn't make a big charade out of it. I waited for it to die down and asked for it to. But I've never loved you since or been the same.

weezer

07-11-2006, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

As does trial testimony, but you seem to refuse to hear that too.

The "pain" you are asking about was the pain inflicted on Orenthal when Nicole left his cheating, beating azz. Hi socal.

martin II

07-12-2006, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Or did you mean this one?

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

And if I wanted to hurt you or had it in me to be anything like the person you are -- I would have done so after the (illegible) incident. But I didn't even do it then. I called the cops to save my life whether you believe it or not. But I didn't pursue anything after that -- I didn't prosecute, I didn't call the press & I didn't make a big charade out of it. I waited for it to die down and asked for it to. But I've never loved you since or been the same.

fbg

Which letter came last??
martin II

weezer

07-12-2006, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

Which letter came last??
martin II Since one of the letters is undated, you tell me.

Kate Sachel

07-12-2006, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

Which letter came last??
martin II

I'm actually still waiting for you to advise me where in Fay Resnick's book she states that Nicole was crying to her on the phone the night of June 12, 1994.

You did state that it was Faye that she was crying with, did you not? And when I asked you where your proof of that came from you did tell me Faye Resnick's book, did you not?

I then advised you that no, that it most definitely not in Faye Resnick's book and that just the opposite rather is what Faye wrote.

Are you able to provide me with something that contradicts that, or may I freely just point out that you made it up?

martin II

07-12-2006, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

I'm actually still waiting for you to advise me where in Fay Resnick's book she states that Nicole was crying to her on the phone the night of June 12, 1994.

You did state that it was Faye that she was crying with, did you not? And when I asked you where your proof of that came from you did tell me Faye Resnick's book, did you not?

I then advised you that no, that it most definitely not in Faye Resnick's book and that just the opposite rather is what Faye wrote.

Are you able to provide me with something that contradicts that, or may I freely just point out that you made it up?

fbg
if you know that faye did not say that then i must have been wrong. it may have come from opinions expressed by others that it was faye. she did call her but i don't know what the conversation was about. just speculaiton or opinion.
i apologize. i should have added imo .
martin II

martin II

07-12-2006, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Since one of the letters is undated, you tell me.

fbg

i don't see a date on either. But reading the content it seems that her critical letter to him was first.imo What do you think?
martin II

weezer

07-12-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
if you know that faye did not say that then i must have been wrong. it may have come from opinions expressed by others that it was faye. she did call her but i don't know what the conversation was about. just speculaiton or opinion.
i apologize. i should have added imo .
martin II You owe Kate the apology --

weezer

07-12-2006, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

i don't see a date on either. But reading the content it seems that her critical letter to him was first.imo What do you think?
martin II which one are you referring to as the "critical" letter?

Kate Sachel

07-12-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

i don't see a date on either. But reading the content it seems that her critical letter to him was first.imo What do you think?
martin II

I don't know that you can deem one letter to be the "critical one".

I believe that both letters came from genuine emotion, but the red flag in my eyes is to notice the way that she has been broken down. I think she got to a point where she truly believed that her human flaws were somehow terrible things that would be unacceptable to any individual. I think she was conditioned to believe that his faults were excusable, while her feelings had no value or validation.

Too many people throughout the years encouraged her to work it out. Even her family chose not to be supportive when she wanted to leave. How on earth do you attempt to validate your feelings when everyone around you is saying that they hold no merit?

martin II

07-12-2006, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

I don't know that you can deem one letter to be the "critical one".

I believe that both letters came from genuine emotion, but the red flag in my eyes is to notice the way that she has been broken down. I think she got to a point where she truly believed that her human flaws were somehow terrible things that would be unacceptable to any individual. I think she was conditioned to believe that his faults were excusable, while her feelings had no value or validation.

Too many people throughout the years encouraged her to work it out. Even her family chose not to be supportive when she wanted to leave. How on earth do you attempt to validate your feelings when everyone around you is saying that they hold no merit?

KATE

It may be that you missed my meaning.
one letter was critical of oj's behavior.
one was Nicole admitting to her mistakes and asking oj to take her back.

my quesiton to fbg was which letter in her opinion came last/first.
martin II

Kate Sachel

07-12-2006, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by martin II

KATE

It may be that you missed my meaning.
one letter was critical of oj's behavior.
one was Nicole admitting to her mistakes and asking oj to take her back.

my quesiton to fbg was which letter in her opinion came last/first.
martin II

I see, I completely misunderstood. I though you meant "critical" as in "most important".

I would assume that the letter asking to reconcile came "last". However, my opinion on why that letter was written still stands the same as what I posted above.

Kate

martin II

07-12-2006, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
which one are you referring to as the "critical" letter?

fbg

the one where she criticized oj's behavior and expressed her fellings about him and their relationship. the one you posted.
martin II

weezer

07-12-2006, 02:33 PM

weezer

07-12-2006, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

the one where she criticized oj's behavior and expressed her fellings about him and their relationship. the one you posted.
martin II Both letters discuss his being unfaithful, etc.

At any rate, I don't know why you think there is some kind of importance as to which one came last. You seem to want to attach some kind of importance to Nicole expressing her love and wanting a reconciliation while ignoring the fact that Orenthal murdered her for leaving him. What's your point?

martin II

07-12-2006, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

I see, I completely misunderstood. I though you meant "critical" as in "most important".

I would assume that the letter asking to reconcile came "last". However, my opinion on why that letter was written still stands the same as what I posted above.

Kate

kate
obviously nicole was expressing her displeasure with how their relationship had turned out and that she had made some mistakes in allowing oj to dictate their relationship. If that is a proper intrepertation of her words.

Sometime between then and the last letter she obviously decided that the situation had imporved and that she wanted to give it another go. She also talked about how she had been at fault on some issues .making everyting about her, and that she had learned from this. imo
martin II

martin II

07-12-2006, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Both letters discuss his being unfaithful, etc.

At any rate, I don't know why you think there is some kind of importance as to which one came last. You seem to want to attach some kind of importance to Nicole expressing her love and wanting a reconciliation while ignoring the fact that Orenthal murdered her for leaving him. What's your point?

fbg
i never said one was more important than the other. i asked you which did you think came first/last. nothing more. anything else you must be adding on your own. imo

MartinII

Kate Sachel

07-12-2006, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by martin II

kate
obviously nicole was expressing her displeasure with how their relationship had turned out and that she had made some mistakes in allowing oj to dictate their relationship. If that is a proper intrepertation of her words.

Sometime between then and the last letter she obviously decided that the situation had imporved and that she wanted to give it another go. She also talked about how she had been at fault on some issues .making everyting about her, and that she had learned from this. imo
martin II

I believe that she loved OJ. I believe that she had been manipulated and broken down to feel as though her anger and displeasure had no merit or validation. I think she wanted to believe that things could be different. I think that too many people encouraged her to turn a blind eye and try to work things out.

Of course Nicole had her faults. Every human being does, and I'm sure that she did make her own mistakes throughout the course of her relationship. Nicole Brown was not an angel, but she was by all accounts a good and decent human being who did not deserve the abuse that she suffered at the hands of her husband. And she was certainly entitled to more than a circle of friends and family who turned a blind eye and then sold her out after she was murdered.

weezer

07-12-2006, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
i never said one was more important than the other. i asked you which did you think came first/last. nothing more. anything else you must be adding on your own. imo

MartinII My bad -- I understood your 'critical' to mean 'more important' --

Don't be so hating?

limakey

07-12-2006, 10:37 PM

Taz and Kate, And S-Diva

I just wanted to make sure S-Diva knew, that I knew the difference between the words "sole" and "soul". One little typo and everybody is a critic!---HA HA--S-Diva just a joke between us, no war!

Kate I have to disagree with you on your post about how NG's feel about justice for Ron and Nicole. One of the most difficult things for me is that many of the issues brought up in this case were never proved to the degree that would have left out a lot guess work and because of this guess work, it generated so much hate and anger---and no matter who was talking, no one was listening. Even now, a couple of us here have to go into our neutral corners and cool off and remember that we have shared kinds words or touching PM's.

To me, a perfect example of what I'm talking about is the many phone calls that were made to 911. The one cop talked about them, we heard 2 and knew of MF's 1985 response. Where were the other cops to testify to them?

When G's post about these phone calls, right away we assume it was done out fear, that OJ was going to, or was in the process or just finished beating her. However, what if it was like the 1985 call, that Nicole was pissed, OJ got pissed, smashed a windshield?
I'm not saying that smashing a windshild is totally adult or responsible but should it be considered a direct physical assault against a human?

And one time you made a post, which was very fair, if a woman is getting hit, should any one be surprised if she strikes back, to try to defend herself? Well what if in the 1989 incident, Nicole was the first to strike OJ, she got him a good one and he was in the position of protecting himself?

I truly felt OJ was guilty in the beginning but I knew as soon as the detectives said that OJ was never a suspect, I was in a rage because I knew then that no jury would ever believe them and I was angry. I was also angry when Clark went on TV to say that OJ was the sole murderer, then writes in her book, she was sorry she said that but she had to stay "married" that statement.

IMO, I think that there was so much unnecessary guess work and too much left up the jurors and the public to assume.

limakey

07-13-2006, 07:06 AM

Has anyone really looked at the core of OJ's and Nicole's relationship? IMO, even if you took away the domestic violence or discord and took away his womanizing, I still think OJ and Nicole would have ended up divorced.

It appears to me that while Nicole loved OJ, she, like the first Mrs. Simpson had a hard time dealing with his celebrity and had no real interest in the fame game. And what I mean by the fame game is to be always on their husband's arm for every social event. It appears to me that OJ loved that, Nicole would rather have been home with her kids.

I also think age comes into play, I truly believe that both sexes do have "midlife crisis", (of course of us have more then one and perhaps it would be fair to say that there are people (men-sorry!) who are a permanent mid-life crisis.

Of course we now have rehab for every human situation there is.............! IMO

limakey

07-13-2006, 07:14 AM

Kate,

Dr. Walker didn't testify in the criminal trial because the DA's domestic violence motive tanked. There was no need to call her.

I don't know if you are aware of this but Barry Scheck is or was considered an expert on the battered woman's syndrome. He worked with Hedda Nausbaum (sp?).

Dr. Walker made sure that OJ knew that he was a batterer, that even if you only physically strike once, you are a batterer. It doesn't mean that you will do it again, but it does mean that you are prone to it.

IMO, I think the defense did counter the motive very well. Believe it or not, I think the 1993 taped helped the defense more then the DA's. The reason is because OJ was clearly angry, in a rage, but never hit her. They also had the letter where he took responsibility for it, told Nicole he knew what would happen the next time and made a promise that would have cost him millions if he broke it.

I think it is fair to say that if you are a wife beater, a promise, the reality of going to jail means nothing. And I do agree with about the emotional, finanical abuse, however, in our country, I think that happens in every divorce case. Most woman never recover finanically unless they remarry. Emotionally, well that goes both ways but I still think woman suffer more from it.

Kate Sachel

07-13-2006, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Kate,

Dr. Walker didn't testify in the criminal trial because the DA's domestic violence motive tanked. There was no need to call her.

I don't know if you are aware of this but Barry Scheck is or was considered an expert on the battered woman's syndrome. He worked with Hedda Nausbaum (sp?).

Dr. Walker made sure that OJ knew that he was a batterer, that even if you only physically strike once, you are a batterer. It doesn't mean that you will do it again, but it does mean that you are prone to it.

IMO, I think the defense did counter the motive very well. Believe it or not, I think the 1993 taped helped the defense more then the DA's. The reason is because OJ was clearly angry, in a rage, but never hit her. They also had the letter where he took responsibility for it, told Nicole he knew what would happen the next time and made a promise that would have cost him millions if he broke it.

I think it is fair to say that if you are a wife beater, a promise, the reality of going to jail means nothing. And I do agree with about the emotional, finanical abuse, however, in our country, I think that happens in every divorce case. Most woman never recover finanically unless they remarry. Emotionally, well that goes both ways but I still think woman suffer more from it.

I disagree about why they did not call Lenore Walker. How on earth could they, when her notes stated that he did indeed fit the profile of a batterer?

I think it's a gross error to seem so nonchalant in making a statement that emotional and financial abuse happens in every divorce case. First of all, it doesn't. But secondly, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about emotional, sexual, or financial abuse that occurs throughout the life of a relationship.

It's dangerous to write if off in such a casual manner. I believe that because of that type of attitude is why the statistics show us that between 2-4 million women are abused in our country each year, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. I guarantee that there are far more out there that we don't know about.

How can we solve a problem when we don't take it seriously?

Beebee

07-13-2006, 08:19 AM

Great post Limakey and I agree.

tazzybaby

07-13-2006, 08:21 AM

Limakey,

There are many things to prove to us that OJ was a batterer and abuser. They have been listed many many many many times. This is not something that is in question. Not only did they have a letter where OJ took responsibility for his actions, they had diary entries and letters from Nicole listing abuse. You can't choose to take to heart OJ's letter but not Nicole's. Nicole took steps to document her abuse because she was afraid he would kill her. That's not a common thing among divorcee's. You make a lot of excuses for OJ. His behavior was not "normal" divorce behavior. It went beyond normal.

Kate Sachel

07-13-2006, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by limakey

SNIPPED THROUGHOUT

To me, a perfect example of what I'm talking about is the many phone calls that were made to 911. The one cop talked about them, we heard 2 and knew of MF's 1985 response. Where were the other cops to testify to them?

When G's post about these phone calls, right away we assume it was done out fear, that OJ was going to, or was in the process or just finished beating her.

And one time you made a post, which was very fair, if a woman is getting hit, should any one be surprised if she strikes back, to try to defend herself? Well what if in the 1989 incident, Nicole was the first to strike OJ, she got him a good one and he was in the position of protecting himself?

IMO, I think that there was so much unnecessary guess work and too much left up the jurors and the public to assume.

I can't answer where the rest of the officers were to testify. Perhaps they were like so many that had information but didn't forward.

We don't assume that the 911 calls were done out of fear, we need only to listen to Nicole's voice to know that they were made out of fear. We need only to hear the high pitched screaming in the background to know that they were out of fear. This is not difficult unless you'd rather choose not to acknowledge the truth.

When you delve into the "core" of the Simpson's relationship, you will find that the pieces fit, and the guesswork becomes almost non-existant. When you listen to what so many of the people who were close to them throughout the years had to say about behaviors on either side, you will see a puzzle fit together that shows the story of an obsessive and controlling husband. Almost every person, including those who were close supporters of OJ's were able to share some type of incident that showed the different side of OJ.

Kate

tazzybaby

07-13-2006, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*

When G's post about these phone calls, right away we assume it was done out fear, that OJ was going to, or was in the process or just finished beating her. However, what if it was like the 1985 call, that Nicole was pissed, OJ got pissed, smashed a windshield?
I'm not saying that smashing a windshild is totally adult or responsible but should it be considered a direct physical assault against a human?

And one time you made a post, which was very fair, if a woman is getting hit, should any one be surprised if she strikes back, to try to defend herself? Well what if in the 1989 incident, Nicole was the first to strike OJ, she got him a good one and he was in the position of protecting himself?

I truly felt OJ was guilty in the beginning but I knew as soon as the detectives said that OJ was never a suspect, I was in a rage because I knew then that no jury would ever believe them and I was angry. I was also angry when Clark went on TV to say that OJ was the sole murderer, then writes in her book, she was sorry she said that but she had to stay "married" that statement.

IMO, I think that there was so much unnecessary guess work and too much left up the jurors and the public to assume.

Well, we G's don't just assume that it was out of fear that she made the phone calls. You can hear it in her voice. That's not an assumption. She was crying and told the operator that she was afraid he was going to beat the **** out of her. And, smashing a windshield goes a little beyond "not being adult". Especially when he isn't smashing his cars' windshield. It was the car that Nicole drove. But, he bought it for her so, HE owned it. Even though it was a car for "her", he made sure the police knew that it was HIS and he could do what he wanted. That's part of control Limakey. "If you're good you can have this car but if you're bad I'll take it away." No matter how you try to explain this behavior it is not normal or common amongst non-batterer's.

OJ could have stood there and let Nicole beat on him and it would not have hurt him. So, for you to say that OJ was in a position to defend himself against Nicole is rediculous. Defending himself would be to stop her blows not HIT HER. Not try to choke her.

I was hoping OJ was innocent from the beginning. I had a hard time believing that he could be a person that would kill his wife. I had doubts but really hoped for his innocence. He killed any doubts I had of his guilt. He did that. Not the media, the prosecutors, Petrocelli, Kardashian or anyone else. He did it.

All of the answers are there if you look.

Kate Sachel

07-13-2006, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by limakey

They also had the letter where he took responsibility for it, told Nicole he knew what would happen the next time and made a promise that would have cost him millions if he broke it.

You speak of this letter of OJ's, but none of Nicole's.

You know how I feel about your account that he took responsibility. She was clearly beaten silly limakey, and he'll go to the grave claiming he never hit her that night.

You do not get bruises all over your face, a cut lip, or strangulation imprints on your neck from simply "wrassling" as OJ likes to say is what he did.

What about Nicole's letters? The one that states that she called the police that night to save her life. Or the one that talks about the time he "beat the holy hell" out of her and they "lied about it at the X-ray lab and said I fell off a bike". Or in the same letter how she reminds him of the fact that he belittled her during pregnancy and called her fat?

I suppose you'll tell me that she was lying.

Kate Sachel

07-13-2006, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by limakey

Kate I have to disagree with you on your post about how NG's feel about justice for Ron and Nicole. One of the most difficult things for me is that many of the issues brought up in this case were never proved to the degree that would have left out a lot guess work and because of this guess work, it generated so much hate and anger---and no matter who was talking, no one was listening. Even now, a couple of us here have to go into our neutral corners and cool off and remember that we have shared kinds words or touching PM's.

I understand the process under why you disagree, but again I don't believe there is any way for the two sides to share the same emotion on the topic of justice for Nicole and Ron and whether or not it was served.

The at times heated discussions will always exist in human relations no matter the topic because each of us believes ourselves to be a reasonable thinker, and therefore almost always will believe our thoughts and our "side" to be reasonable and valid.

Kate

limakey

07-14-2006, 11:56 PM

Kate,

>>>>*snip*>>>>>>>>

I think it's a gross error to seem so nonchalant in making a statement that emotional and financial abuse happens in every divorce case.

It's dangerous to write if off in such a casual manner.
How can we solve a problem when we don't take it seriously?

I'm anything but nonchalant about the emotional and financial abuse that happens in divorce cases, it is just a very, very real reality in divorce cases.

Women simply do not have the earning power that a man has. When I was younger, and I'm not that old, my mother was very, very odd. In fact, her own family turned against her, why? Because she went to work to support her three children. I think it is very possible that some of the female posters on this thread know exactly what I'm talking about. How many woman stay in abusive marriage because they can't financially support themselves, let alone their children?

Women have come a long way on many issues, but we are no where near close enough when it comes to earning power.

Anyone who has ever been divorced can tell you that the first thing disappears is the person who you married. I made the mistake of not getting a lawyer because my ex promised me that he would be very generous and please don't go to a lawyer to because he will get screwed over. Well, it been years later and the only person who has been screwed over, is our child. A perfect example, how many fathers put money as a motivator for their child's "affection" or put conditions on their love and visits. Like if you come for the whole summer, I'll pay for your camp, but if you don't, then sorry. Or how many children have heard the excuse that their parent won't pay for any of the "extras" because all the money they give to the primary custodian, is either drank, snorted, shot up or spent on low life friends?

Kate, divorce sucks, no matter who is right or who is wrong, the abuse goes on and on.

So, am I really being nonchalant or am I dealing with a sad reality? Should more people do what Darren Mack did? I always kept my wits about me and I was pretty lucky, I refused to hate my ex, but I can see where the marriage ended, the hate cemented it self and I believe hate is a much stronger emotion.

IMO. You can either hate and let it consume you or you can carry on and do the best that you can, you have to always remember that no matter what, it is the children that suffer in the long run. Again, IMO.

limakey

07-15-2006, 12:16 AM

Kate,

IMO, the term justice has as much meaning as the word closure. I believe it is impossible for justice or closure to be reached any murder case.

As you know, the most accurate statement that can be said about hard core "Gs" and "I" (for innocent, not, not guilty) would be a video tape of the murders. For my example, lets just say a video tape was found and OJ Simpson was not the killer. Would G's suddenly be outraged that Simpson was put on trial? That he was wrongly accused, or would you still feel the sense of outrage that justice wasn't serve because someone is still not behind bars for the crime?

And what if murder charges were filed against someone else, wouldn't your sense of outrage be just as high because you know that a defense lawyer, will drill holes in the case because all he or she would have to do is to say how can you accuse my guy, when you said that you had the other guy and all the evidence only pointed to him---well, how did it get there ladies and gentlemen of the jury?

I don't understand how any side can have any sense of justice knowing a person was murdered and no one is behind bars.

As much as I agree with the verdict in the criminal trial, it doesn't mean that I think justice was done, it wasn't. That was why I'm so angry about the DA's and the civil trial lawyers who believe that Simpson had help but have elected not to file charges, why not? No, that can't try OJ again but they can sure as hell make sure someone is sitting behind bars for any assistance they gave him before, during or after the murders.

Again, this is my opinon.

weezer

07-15-2006, 10:05 AM

*Snip*Originally posted by limakey
I always kept my wits about me and I was pretty lucky, I refused to hate my ex, but I can see where the marriage ended, the hate cemented it self and I believe hate is a much stronger emotion.

IMO. You can either hate and let it consume you or you can carry on and do the best that you can, you have to always remember that no matter what, it is the children that suffer in the long run. Again, IMO. Your post sounds like you could really relate to the chaos and turmoil that was Nicole and Orenthal's marriage. I'm surprised that you don't recognize the build up that led him to finally murder her. He was consumed with her -- for whatever reason -- but that obsession is what led him to murder her.

weezer

07-15-2006, 10:09 AM

*Snip*Originally posted by limakey
As you know, the most accurate statement that can be said about hard core "Gs" and "I" (for innocent, not, not guilty) would be a video tape of the murders. For my example, lets just say a video tape was found and OJ Simpson was not the killer. Would G's suddenly be outraged that Simpson was put on trial? That he was wrongly accused, or would you still feel the sense of outrage that justice wasn't serve because someone is still not behind bars for the crime?

And what if murder charges were filed against someone else, wouldn't your sense of outrage be just as high because you know that a defense lawyer, will drill holes in the case because all he or she would have to do is to say how can you accuse my guy, when you said that you had the other guy and all the evidence only pointed to him---well, how did it get there ladies and gentlemen of the jury?

I don't understand how any side can have any sense of justice knowing a person was murdered and no one is behind bars.

As much as I agree with the verdict in the criminal trial, it doesn't mean that I think justice was done, it wasn't. That was why I'm so angry about the DA's and the civil trial lawyers who believe that Simpson had help but have elected not to file charges, why not? No, that can't try OJ again but they can sure as hell make sure someone is sitting behind bars for any assistance they gave him before, during or after the murders.

Again, this is my opinon. I don't understand your post. Orenthal was found not guilty by the criminal jury -- how then do you think LE can prosecute someone for helping him? But your are right -- justice was not served!

limakey

07-17-2006, 07:17 AM

FBG,

Daniel Pertrocelli came out and accused Arnelle Simpson of being her father's accomplice. That is a crime.

Johnnie Cochran, Chris Darden and Marcia Clark have also made comments and given hints that they believe that OJ had to have help.

bobaugust

07-17-2006, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by limakey
FBG,

Daniel Pertrocelli came out and accused Arnelle Simpson of being her father's accomplice. That is a crime.

Johnnie Cochran, Chris Darden and Marcia Clark have also made comments and given hints that they believe that OJ had to have help.

limakey, Petrocelli never outright accused Arnelle Simpson.

Was it a crime when Arnelle destroyed blood evidence by washing her father's sweat suit even if she didn't realize what she was actually doing? Maybe. Was it a crime when Arnelle committed perjury when she lied under oath. Probably.

Evidently the powers to be didn't want to prosecute her. Possibly because the police were never able to recover that sweat suit. It was all circumstantial evidence. No physical evidence, no case.

bobaugust

Kate Sachel

07-17-2006, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by limakey
SNIPPED IN PLACES

I'm anything but nonchalant about the emotional and financial abuse that happens in divorce cases, it is just a very, very real reality in divorce cases.

Anyone who has ever been divorced can tell you that the first thing disappears is the person who you married.

Kate, divorce sucks, no matter who is right or who is wrong, the abuse goes on and on.

So, am I really being nonchalant or am I dealing with a sad reality? Should more people do what Darren Mack did? I always kept my wits about me and I was pretty lucky, I refused to hate my ex, but I can see where the marriage ended, the hate cemented it self and I believe hate is a much stronger emotion.

I have known many, many people to divorce who have had none of the financial and emotional abuse that you speak of. It does happen frequently, but not in "every" case as you originally stated.

Yes, I do think you really are being nonchalant about it. You speak of it as though because it's a common thing that it somehow means that's just the way it is and oh well. That's the way that far too many people speak of the issue of domestic violence.

Perhaps you didn't mean it to sound that way, but it's the way you seem to speak of it anytime the topic is mentioned.

Kate

Kate Sachel

07-17-2006, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by limakey

As much as I agree with the verdict in the criminal trial, it doesn't mean that I think justice was done, it wasn't. That was why I'm so angry about the DA's and the civil trial lawyers who believe that Simpson had help but have elected not to file charges, why not? No, that can't try OJ again but they can sure as hell make sure someone is sitting behind bars for any assistance they gave him before, during or after the murders.

Again, this is my opinon.

It's not as easy to charge an alleged accomplice as you make it sound. Believing that he had help and having enough circumstantial evidence to pursue such a belief in a court of law are two very different things.

martin II

07-17-2006, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

limakey, Petrocelli never outright accused Arnelle Simpson.

Was it a crime when Arnelle destroyed blood evidence by washing her father's sweat suit even if she didn't realize what she was actually doing? Maybe. Was it a crime when Arnelle committed perjury when she lied under oath. Probably.

Evidently the powers to be didn't want to prosecute her. Possibly because the police were never able to recover that sweat suit. It was all circumstantial evidence. No physical evidence, no case.

bobaugust

bob
no sweat suite no case
no knife no case

on these issues
martin II

Kate Sachel

07-17-2006, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by martin II

bob
no sweat suite no case
no knife no case

on these issues
martin II

Your belief that because no murder weapon was uncovered means that there is no case is not supported by law.

The law never requires a murder weapon in order to try, and convict, a case.

Are you honestly stating that there is no case because a sweatsuit was not recovered? If so, then I can say that I've heard everything now.

bobaugust

07-17-2006, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob

no knife no case

on these issues
martin II

martin II, funny but you're wrong again.

There was a case. It was found on the edge of Simpson's bathtub.

bobaugust

Martyrdom

07-18-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by limakey

To me, a perfect example of what I'm talking about is the many phone calls that were made to 911. The one cop talked about them, we heard 2 and knew of MF's 1985 response. Where were the other cops to testify to them?

What cop do you know that wants to step forward and admit he got a 911 call for abuse but didn't do anything about it? Escpecially in this case? He'd be villified forever.

Not all people rise to the challenge of doing their duty.

limakey

07-20-2006, 11:00 PM

Marty,

So in other words, if a doctor refused to tell the family of terminally ill person or the person themselve because it was just too emotionally upsetting for him, that would be cool? You would understand that?

Or what about a doctor who refused to open his eyes when examining patients because he was too embarrassed to look at a naked body?

And what about the guy who operates on people, it would be okay if he used a chain saw because he forgot where he put his scapel?

limakey

07-20-2006, 11:10 PM

Mr. August and Kate,

If Petrocelli didn't have the proof, then he should have kept his mouth shut. It is obvious to me that even the people who just "know" he is guilty, as in the DA's, believe if OJ did this, he needed help. IMO.

bobaugust

07-21-2006, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August and Kate,

If Petrocelli didn't have the proof, then he should have kept his mouth shut. It is obvious to me that even the people who just "know" he is guilty, as in the DA's, believe if OJ did this, he needed help. IMO.

limakey, Petrocelli presented proof that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. He had no help in committing these murders. Anyone who thinks that he did is uninformed about the facts and evidence. Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and lies confirmed his guilt.

bobaugust

Martyrdom

07-21-2006, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Marty,

So in other words, if a doctor refused to tell the family of terminally ill person or the person themselve because it was just too emotionally upsetting for him, that would be cool? You would understand that?

Or what about a doctor who refused to open his eyes when examining patients because he was too embarrassed to look at a naked body?

And what about the guy who operates on people, it would be okay if he used a chain saw because he forgot where he put his scapel?

Hey nobody said it's right I'm just giving it to you how it is in terms of the real world. Not all people rise to their duty. Look how many doctors that end up sexually touching their patients and whatnot.

You don't know how many times cops came to my place after I abused my wife and didn't do anything. Didn't even write a report. To alot of them it was just family business that shoulda been handled privately without cops being called up. And at the time I agreed.

Maybe your a saint who's always and always will admit to somethig embarasing or wrong that you've done or maybe you've never told a lie, who the heck knows. All I know is that the real world is full of people with warts in their character and times in their lives when lookin in the mirror can be pretty tough.

It's ain't pretty sometimes, and sometimes it just plain ugly. But heck, how can you expect a cop to come forward to admit that they were called to an abuse situation and did nothing when you yourself only refer to abuse as some kinda "domestic discord"???

:eek:

Kate Sachel

07-21-2006, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Martyrdom

It's ain't pretty sometimes, and sometimes it just plain ugly. But heck, how can you expect a cop to come forward to admit that they were called to an abuse situation and did nothing when you yourself only refer to abuse as some kinda "domestic discord"???

:eek:

Bravo!

weezer

07-21-2006, 11:05 AM

limakey

07-21-2006, 11:22 PM

A little reality check is in order, IMO.

It was the LAPD and the DA's office who released that 911 tape. Are you saying that everyone of those police officers, who ever responded to a domestic call to the Simpson house were all too shy or didn't want to get involved?

It is truly pathic the way some of you just let them get away with it. If it was my daughter, I would still be chained to the Chief's desk and the rest of my family would be chained to their state representative's desks until we had names and answers.

No way would I ever be able to sleep knowing or being told that my daughter called for help over 30 times and not one of them helped her? Even after she was dead, not one of them had the courage to step forward and testify and at least help ensure her killer spent the rest of their lives in jail?

It amazes how some people will race bait on the verdict but will let the LAPD and other state agencies get away with their behavior because they were too embarrassed to do their job and when they had the opportunity to at least help put a way a killer---you play the "Embarrassment Card"?? Are you kidding me?!

jotun

07-22-2006, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva
It amazes me that some people want to blame anyone & everyone other than the actual killer.

All
That would be the actual KILLERS.
jotun

limakey

07-22-2006, 01:00 AM

S-Diva,

There will always be a debate on how many killers were at the scene. However, IMO, an accomplice after the fact is just as guilty as the killer.

Don't forget, even Clark and Darden have made statements were they believe he had help, at least in the clean up and getting rid of the evidence.

The clean up process and getting rid of the evidence was a huge issue for the DA's and they were never able to over come it. IMO.

limakey

07-22-2006, 01:04 AM

Marty,

Remember, all these cops had three chances to come forward. In both of these situations, a call went out to any and all cops who ever responded to a call to the Simpson home. Only Fuhrman wrote a statement about the 1989 incident.

Also, we don't know what the situation was because there are no records of the calls and the cops who responded to these alleged calls, were too shy or embarrassed to come forward, even after Nicole's death.

Where were they during the civil trial?

limakey

07-22-2006, 01:25 AM

S-Diva,

Not true, I have always said that if OJ was the killer, he had help. I have always believed that two killers were at the scene.

There was so much blood at the scene, I think it is a fair question to ask, how did he clean up so well by his himself? How could have gotten rid of everything where nothing was found after search afer search after search didn't produce a weapon, the clothes, the shoes?

Also, the DA's took a huge hit on their "Tag, Bag and Bury" theory. Remember, when Clark on "Drama Friday", had MF hold and talk about the big plastic bag and shovel---clearly giving the impression that Simpson planed to "Tag, Bag and Bury" Nicole. What were the jurors suppose to think about this--and what were they suppose to think when that their theory was destroyed because that huge plastic bag came with all the Broncos?

They also never even gave an explaination on how OJ got behind the wall. They just hoped the jury wouldn't notice they had nothing other then the glove back there.

2L8 4A D8

07-22-2006, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by limakey
<snipped>

There was so much blood at the scene, I think it is a fair question to ask, how did he clean up so well by his himself? How could have gotten rid of everything where nothing was found after search afer search after search didn't produce a weapon, the clothes, the shoes?

<snipped>

The clothes OJ was wearing during the murders were washed by Arnelle and then completely disappeared 2+ weeks later. No one seems to know what happened to them. I guess they want us to believe that they just jumped out of the washing machine by themselves and took off for parts unknown!

The weapon and the shoes were in the little black bag that was unaccounted for when OJ returned from Chicago. I think he stashed it in his carry-on baggage. By the time OJ arrived in Chicago and was dropped off at the hotel, his comings and goings were not monitored, as Chicago PD had no idea what had just happened in California.

OJ is an idiot, but he's not stupid. He knew that he couldn't dump it at LAX knowing full well that that would be the first place that the LAPD would look. He knew that he had to get rid of that bag before he ever came back to California though. I think OJ either found a spot close to the hotel, dug a hole with his bare hands and put the bag in the hole and covered it up and camoflauged it. Or he simply threw it in a dumpster in a trash bag where it now has been a resident of the Chicago Local Public Dump for the last 12+ years. Never to be found ~ ever!

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

07-23-2006, 12:27 AM

S-Diva,

I did agree with you about the planting of the evidence being comical---that was after I read Jeff Toobin's story in the New Yorker. However, I stopped laughing as the trial progressed. The strange part about this whole thing, is that it was the DA's who used "comedy" as the base of the state's case---the comedy of errors that was committed by their own "expert" witnesses. IMO.

limakey

07-23-2006, 12:37 AM

2-Late,

How are you? Hope all is well!

When did the DA's prove that OJ Simpson was wearing a sweat suit that night? It was from Kato Kalin, yet, he described it as having white stripes and a zipper, I think. Yet, he totally got what OJ was wearing to the airport wrong. So, how much confidence do you put in what he says regarding what Simpson was wearing that night? Do I think he was lying? No, but do I believe that he may have gotten some things wrong, yes.

When was it proved that the fibers came from a sweat suit. I know I didn't follow the civil trial, but did they prove that he blue black fibers came from the same sweat suit brand that Simpson was given?

And it doesn't work about the DA's going back to find the sweat suit 2 weeks later and couldn't find them only because they seem to have so much luck finding their other evidence so much later.

I agree with you that OJ would not have dumped the clothes and whatever else he had at LAX, however, some G's are convinced that he did dump them in the trash bin outside the airport doors.

This is where another point comes into play--when did the LAPD suspect Simpson. In my opinon, he was a suspect shortly after the murders were discovered, the LAPD knew where OJ was and knew when he left LA.

I'm not sure but I think the bodies were discovered before OJ landed in Chicago? Also, it would be interesting to know what the hotel's security system could tell about his movements. What was on his reg card, was his key and lock able to determine if he ever left his room that nigt?

bobaugust

07-23-2006, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by limakey

When did the DA's prove that OJ Simpson was wearing a sweat suit that night? It was from Kato Kalin, yet, he described it as having white stripes and a zipper, I think. Yet, he totally got what OJ was wearing to the airport wrong. So, how much confidence do you put in what he says regarding what Simpson was wearing that night? Do I think he was lying? No, but do I believe that he may have gotten some things wrong, yes.

When was it proved that the fibers came from a sweat suit. I know I didn't follow the civil trial, but did they prove that he blue black fibers came from the same sweat suit brand that Simpson was given?

And it doesn't work about the DA's going back to find the sweat suit 2 weeks later and couldn't find them only because they seem to have so much luck finding their other evidence so much later.

This is where another point comes into play--when did the LAPD suspect Simpson. In my opinon, he was a suspect shortly after the murders were discovered, the LAPD knew where OJ was and knew when he left LA.

I'm not sure but I think the bodies were discovered before OJ landed in Chicago?

limakey, the only clothing Kaelin remembered Simpson wearing that night was a dark colored cotton sweat suit. Does that mean Simpson was never wearing it? Of course not. When Kaelin was helping load luggage in the ten or so minutes before Simpson left for the airport, Kaelin was not concerned about what Simpson was wearing. He was nervous and scared. He was concerned about the noises he heard and a possible intruder on the property.

The freshly washed dark colored sweat suit found in Simpson's washing machine the afternoon after the murders was never collected. At the time no one knew Simpson had been wearing that kind of clothing the night of the murders. About two weeks later the police obtained a second search warrant to go back to Rockingham and get it. But it was gone.

The fibers were never compared to that sweat suit. They didn't have to be. The fact is that same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks. That fact is what ties Simpson to the murders.

Your opinion that the LAPD suspected Simpson before going to Rockingham is wrong and contradicted by the reality of the facts as to why they went there. The police never knew where Simpson was until Kaelin told them.

Yes the bodies were discovered before Simpson landed in Chicago. Simpson's plane landed in Chicago about an hour or so before the police went to Rockingham.

bobaugust

limakey

07-23-2006, 10:33 PM

Mr. August,

So why are you convinced that the blue black fibers came from a sweat suit that was never linked to OJ Simpson?

And what was the reason Fung gave for having his picture taken with the sweats and why he didn't collect them. And what was his reason for collecting the socks?

You truly give yourself away when you say the police didn't suspect OJ Simpson. I swear Mr. August you would rather lose a limb then admit the truth. OJ Simpson was the prime suspect in these murders. Especially from your boy Fuhrman. You can't have him great and then say he had no reason to suspect him.
IMO.

2L8 4A D8

07-23-2006, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by limakey

<snipped>

You truly give yourself away when you say the police didn't suspect OJ Simpson. I swear Mr. August you would rather lose a limb then admit the truth. OJ Simpson was the prime suspect in these murders. Especially from your boy Fuhrman. You can't have him great and then say he had no reason to suspect him.
IMO.

Limakey: You talk about Bob, I think that you would rather lose a limb than admit the truth.

If OJ had spent the last 3 days before the murders in Chicago, then yes there would be no reason for the LAPD to suspect OJ because he would have had an airtight alibi, but he just left for Chicago approximately an hour or so before the bodies were found. Hello?

What was LAPD supposed to think? And, if they had any suspicions, they had to keep them close to their bullet proof vests. Can you just imagine the media circus and public hysteria that would have been created had they just opened up their big mouths by making a statement regarding OJ as a possible suspect?

Come on Limakey. Think about it!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

07-24-2006, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

So why are you convinced that the blue black fibers came from a sweat suit that was never linked to OJ Simpson?

And what was the reason Fung gave for having his picture taken with the sweats and why he didn't collect them. And what was his reason for collecting the socks?

You truly give yourself away when you say the police didn't suspect OJ Simpson. I swear Mr. August you would rather lose a limb then admit the truth. OJ Simpson was the prime suspect in these murders. Especially from your boy Fuhrman. You can't have him great and then say he had no reason to suspect him.
IMO.

limakey, why do we believe that the blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt, on the killer's right hand glove, and on Simpson's socks came from a sweat suit linked to Simpson?

Because the blue black cotton fibers most likely came from the killer's clothing.

The fact is that Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit the night of the murders and a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders. The sweat suit was never collected but it was video taped. When the police went back to get it, it was gone and never seen again.

It's not that great a leap to make the reasonable logical inference that the blue black cotton fibers most likely came from that sweat suit.

Fung never had his picture taken with any sweat suit. He had his picture taken in Simpson's bathroom with Simpson's black towels.

I don't give myself away with anything. The detectives never knew where Simpson was at the time of the murders before they went to Rockingham. They believed him to be at his estate and they had no idea if he had an airtight alibi for the time the murders were committed. Simpson was a possible suspect just like everyone who knew Nicole was a possible suspect until the police eliminated them. When the killer's right hand glove was found behind Kaelin's room and blood was seen on Simpson's driveway Simpson became a stronger suspect until he could be eliminated. He was never eliminated. Nothing ever eliminated Simpson as the killer then or now.

You keep avoiding the reason you started posting on this thread. Who do you believe planned and committed these murders if it wasn't Simpson? And how and why did they do it on the night of June 12, 1994?

bobaugust

Martyrdom

07-24-2006, 08:12 AM

Kate Sachel

07-24-2006, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by limakey
A little reality check is in order, IMO.

It was the LAPD and the DA's office who released that 911 tape. Are you saying that everyone of those police officers, who ever responded to a domestic call to the Simpson house were all too shy or didn't want to get involved?

It is truly pathic the way some of you just let them get away with it. If it was my daughter, I would still be chained to the Chief's desk and the rest of my family would be chained to their state representative's desks until we had names and answers.

No way would I ever be able to sleep knowing or being told that my daughter called for help over 30 times and not one of them helped her? Even after she was dead, not one of them had the courage to step forward and testify and at least help ensure her killer spent the rest of their lives in jail?

It amazes how some people will race bait on the verdict but will let the LAPD and other state agencies get away with their behavior because they were too embarrassed to do their job and when they had the opportunity to at least help put a way a killer---you play the "Embarrassment Card"?? Are you kidding me?!

No offense here because we generally debate well despite our differing opinions, but ... are you serious?

"Pathetic the way some of you let them get away with it" ... what precisely is it that you would expect us to do? We cannot make the LAPD account for something that is not proven. I think we are speculating here as to why officers may not have come forward. How can you get names and answers from someone who will not come forward? If the presiding officer did not file a report, which by the way was common place in the 70's and 80's, then there is not much to go off of.

"Even after she was dead not one of them had the courage to testify and at least help ensure her killer spent the rest of their lives in jail" ... even after she was dead most of her friends didn't have the courage to come forward and speak of what they knew. Reagardless, I guess you didn't hear the jury when they said that domestic violence had no business being mentioned in that trial.

"The embarassment card" ... I don't believe anyone has played such a card but rather has been pointing out to you a very real fact about why an officer may not have come forward. Have you ever spoken with women in a battered women's shelter? I've spoken to probably about a hundred. Do you have any idea of how many of them share the same story about calling 911 and having an officer arrive who declares the issue a "family matter" and leaves? No report written, no referrals, no anything to help the beaten woman.

Have you ever spoken with officers who respond to these calls? I've spoken with about 20 or so. They hate the calls. Many of them see responding to a domestic violence call as more of a social worker's job, rather than crime protection. They don't believe it's their job to diffuse a man's anger and hand out referrals to shelters and court advocacy agencies. Many see it as a waste of their time because they say that the justice system is so lenient with batterers that they rarely ever get much punishment anyway so what's the point in arresting?

The fact that you label someone else as being pathetic for letting "them get away with it" astounds me after you manage to so nonchalantly summarize emotional and financial abuse as some type of just willy nilly thing that occurs in all divorces.

Kate

limakey

07-24-2006, 11:34 PM

Kate,

IMO, there are 3 ways to do away with finiancal abuse in divorce cases. Eliminate or change "no fault divorces", eliminate pre-nup agreements and ensure that women have equal earning power as men do. IMO, a single parent, man or woman has two choices when the parent of their child decides they would rather go underground rather then pay child support, would rather cut off the favorite limb rather then pay alimony--that is they can spend what little money they make on support for their children, or spend it on lawyers trying to get what they most likely never will.
I made the choice to ensure my son had a childhood. That whatever debts I occur to help him reach his goals or dreams, it will be worth it in the long wrong. Going after a spouse for something they will never pay isn't worth it.

I truly admire any man or woman who can, from the very start never forget that at one time they loved one another, their children were created in love and that they always are put first. However, I have yet to meet any people. I'm sure you have met or will meet some people who even after decades and decades broke up, are even more bitter now then they were then. I would rather be broke then be bitter. In the long run, I have found that my son's love and respect are the greatest riches I will ever received. IMO.

limakey

07-24-2006, 11:48 PM

Kate,

IMO, the "Embarrasment Card" has been played when it comes Mark Fuhrman and the other alleged domestic calls to the Simpson home.

IMO, there are very few times where we make a professional wrong, right. If these phone calls did happen, then the police officers who responded, had not one, not two but three chances to come forward after their inital response to the Simpson home.

After the Simpson trial, the media blamed OJ Simpson for thousands of women who now would not come forward because of his aquittal. However, again, IMO, had those alleged calls been documented, then we would have had a clearer picture and it is very possible that Nicole and Ron would still be alive today--if
OJ Simpson is the killer.

I understand about cops hating these calls and not wanting to get involved, however, their job dictates they get involved. That is why their paychecks come from our taxes.

Another point, what if these calls were never made? It does not diminish the three calls we know about, put it would put it in a different light, IMO.

There is nothing that can done for Nicole now, however, had those police officers come forward, at least during the trial, then the verdict may have different or the motive would have been made stronger. Again, all IMO.

Changes could have been made, the Browns and Goldmans' had the press on their side, had they pushed the issue, then IMO, it would have made a difference.

jotun

07-25-2006, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Because the blue black cotton fibers most likely came from the killer's clothing.

The fact is that Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit the night

a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders. The sweat suit was never collected but it was video taped.

Fung never had his picture taken with any sweat suit. He had his picture taken in Simpson's bathroom with Simpson's black towels.

You keep avoiding the reason you started posting on this thread. Who do you believe planned and committed these murders if it wasn't Simpson? And how and why did they do it on the night of June 12, 1994?
bobaugust

ALL:
Yes the blue-black fiber most likely came from one of the KILLERS.
The fact is O.J.said he was wearing all blue that night.The photos of his clothes at the recital back him up.Look dark navy blue.

I don't remember any sweatsuit being testified to by Fung.As being 'found'.Bob can you post that Fung testimony for US??????? Did see the video of the clothes.They were slips, bras and panties. NO SWEATSUIT.

Fung did have his photo taken with dark clothes.Maybe from the hamper or the blue clothes O.J. wore that night.The towels were GREEN
not black.

Yes limakey I would also like
to know your thoughts on the
KILLERS.But let's take it to the OTHER SUSPECTS thread.
jotun

bobaugust

07-25-2006, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by jotun

ALL:
Yes the blue-black fiber most likely came from one of the KILLERS.
The fact is O.J.said he was wearing all blue that night.The photos of his clothes at the recital back him up.Look dark navy blue.

I don't remember any sweatsuit being testified to by Fung.As being 'found'.Bob can you post that Fung testimony for US??????? Did see the video of the clothes.They were slips, bras and panties. NO SWEATSUIT.

Fung did have his photo taken with dark clothes.Maybe from the hamper or the blue clothes O.J. wore that night.The towels were GREEN
not black.

jotun, Kato Kaelin first testified in the grand jury five days after the murders that when he and Simpson went to McDonalds the evening of the murders Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit. Kaelin testified to the same facts in the preliminary hearing, the criminal trial, and the civil trial.

It should be noted that when Kaelin first testified he was a Simpson supporter and tried not to say anything that would be detrimental to Simpson, but he told the the truth. Fibers later found confirmed his testimony.

Fung was never asked about the dark colored sweat suit that was video taped in Simpson's washing machine. The only picture I know of was in Mark Fuhrman's book. A photo taken from the video tape showing the dark colored sweat suit in the washing machine. Fung looked at the sweat suit and the washing machine for blood but none was seen. The police at that time didn't know Simpson had been wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders and the sweats were never collected. Two weeks later a second search warrant was issued to go back to Rockingham and get them. But they were gone.

There is also a photograph in Fuhrman's book of the hamper in the Simpson's master bath taken on June 13, 1994. It shows a black towel hanging from the edge of the hamper, a black towel in the foreground and two black towels hanging from the towel rack. Those were the only black cloth items in the bathroom. Towels.

bobaugust

tazzybaby

07-25-2006, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Kate,

*snip* for space

There is nothing that can done for Nicole now, however, had those police officers come forward, at least during the trial, then the verdict may have different or the motive would have been made stronger. Again, all IMO.

Changes could have been made, the Browns and Goldmans' had the press on their side, had they pushed the issue, then IMO, it would have made a difference.

Limakey,

There wasn't an "embarassment card" played...lol The embarassment came from their own actions. Whether we're talking about Fuhrman or Simpson. The abuse wasn't pointed out to "embarass" Simpson. It was pointed out so that people would understand that he wasn't just a football great. He had another side.

You are making such a big deal out of these officers not coming forward. But, you are minimizing what Simpson actually did. There have been many instances of abuse pointed out to you again and again. Yet, you are harping over some officers that didn't come forward like it would change your opinion of the domestic violence. It will not change your opinion if all of these other instances aren't. We have instances of abuse documented. DOCUMENTED. We have layed it out many times for you. You still minimize it like it is normal behavior. You state that many, many people act like this when they are going through a divorce. But, Simpson acted like this whether they were together or going through the divorce or separated or already divorced. Simpson was abusive period.

The media didn't blame SIMPSON. They blamed the whole trial. They blamed the reactions of so many people who dismiss it as nothing but "normal" behavior. They blame the jurors who came out and said "this trial wasn't about domestic abuse" (no one ever said it was, they only pointed out that Simpson had it in him to hurt her). Many people believe like you do that it's not that big of a deal or out of the ordinary. Why do people believe like you do? Why do you dismiss Nicoles diary, her pictures, her calls (that ARE documented) and witnesses who testify that they saw it? Why do you believe that it's not out of the ordinary?

There is nothing that can done for Nicole now, however, had those police officers come forward, at least during the trial, then the verdict may have different or the motive would have been made stronger. Again, all IMO.

I can't even believe you are stating that. You, like I already mentioned, dismiss what we do know. Do you honestly believe that a couple of officers (whom you have made it clear you don't trust anyway) came forward it would have changed the whole trial?????? I have no doubts that those officers coming forward would NOT change your mind.

IMO

weezer

07-25-2006, 09:01 AM

*Snip* Originally posted by limakey
There is nothing that can done for Nicole now, however, had those police officers come forward, at least during the trial, then the verdict may have different or the motive would have been made stronger. Again, all IMO. The jury did not consider the abuse in this case (". . .if they want to try him for abuse, they need to take it to another court. That's not what this case was about.") Besides, can you imagine if LE had come forward with stories of the other incidents? The NGs didn't believe Nicole.

Kate Sachel

07-25-2006, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Snipped

Kate,

IMO, the "Embarrasment Card" has been played when it comes Mark Fuhrman and the other alleged domestic calls to the Simpson home.

After the Simpson trial, the media blamed OJ Simpson for thousands of women who now would not come forward because of his aquittal. However, again, IMO, had those alleged calls been documented, then we would have had a clearer picture and it is very possible that Nicole and Ron would still be alive today--if
OJ Simpson is the killer.

Another point, what if these calls were never made? It does not diminish the three calls we know about, put it would put it in a different light, IMO.

There is nothing that can done for Nicole now, however, had those police officers come forward, at least during the trial, then the verdict may have different or the motive would have been made stronger. Again, all IMO.

I'm almost at a loss on your responses above.

You speak so freely of others needing a "reality check" yet you don't appear to take into consideration one of the greatest realities that exists, which is that people are not always the noble and strong individuals that we'd like to think. They get embarassed when they are called on something they have done that they shouldn't have ... or something that they should have done that they didn't.

Had those calls been documented limakey, we'd still be in the exact same place as we are right now. Why? Because the jurors looked at photos of a beaten Nicole and heard the frantic 911 calls and then in essence said that none of it mattered. Calls are documented by battered women by the thousands every single day, and yet domestic violence is once again on the rise. Why is that? I believe it is because of people that don't take it seriously enough. I believe it is because of the people who do things like look at OJ and see him as the victim, while they speak of how Nicole could give as well as she got and how she was so conditioned and toned that the match between them would somehow be even.

Why would it change it those calls never occurred? We have so much documented abuse from a diary and from actual witnesses that have nothing to do with any phone calls. He beat her. There is no way around that, and he beat her more than once or twice. The witness testimonies tell us that. We know that the police ahd been to Rockingham on at least 8 domestic violence calls because Simpson inadvertantly admitted such during his conversation with Officer Edwards in 1989, and Nicole acknowledged the same thing. How can you ignore that?

There are many things that can be done for Nicole now. We can take what happened to her seriously. We can use her life and her death as a way to educate and acknowledge the fact that abuse in the home happens at every level. We can make sure that she did not live to die in vain.

Kate

limakey

07-26-2006, 12:01 AM

Kate,

The criminal trial jurors were presented with 4 incidents of abuse in a relationship that spanned 17 years. In two of them, they were both drunk. The last one, you can Nicole and OJ and there was no physical abuse. The jurors also heard Nicole, in her own voice saying that he hit her on one occassion---a tape she didn't know was being made.

The DA's never brought a domestic abuse expert to the stand.

I believe the officer who responded to that call said some very damning things, yet they were never back up in court.

IMO, a big weakness of the DA's case was their motive. It never made any sense to me, why not use crime of passion?

And again Kate, we are not talking about private citizens who don't want to get involved---they are paid to get involved. Would feel the same way about the cops if the crime was child abuse?

IMO, when a cop puts on badge, takes his oath, he or she promises to "get involved", no matter hard or distrubing it is.

Did you ever hear a talking head question on why these officers didn't come forward?

Also, if you remember, the officer who put the call out for other officers to come forward said that he only got 1 response, from Mark Fuhrman.

limakey

07-26-2006, 11:38 PM

Taz,

I think you may have misunderstood my "embarrasment card" post. IMO, the embarrasment card was played for the officers who failed to come forward to testify about the alleged 30 phone calls of Nicole's to police for help. The point is, it was their job to come forward and they had no excuse not to.

IMO, I think everybody has at least two sides to them. However, it appears that OJ Simpson was the only person who was capable of having two sides. His "hidden" side is the only one that mattered and IMO, it wasn't.

I do think it is a big deal that if Nicole, in fact, did make these phone calls, she was not only not worth a police report, she was not even worth for those officers' to come forward, even after she was murdered.

As strongly as you feel that I have minimize what happened in their marriage, aren't you doing the same when it comes to the police by their lack of response? Doesn't it bother you that they didn't come forward?

Yes, there is documentation, however, there is also documentation of Simpson taking responsibility what he did, made no excuses and that he knew what his punishment was going to be if it happend again. There is also documentation that Nicole said it only happened once.

Kate Sachel

07-27-2006, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Kate,

The criminal trial jurors were presented with 4 incidents of abuse in a relationship that spanned 17 years. In two of them, they were both drunk. The last one, you can Nicole and OJ and there was no physical abuse. The jurors also heard Nicole, in her own voice saying that he hit her on one occassion---a tape she didn't know was being made.

The DA's never brought a domestic abuse expert to the stand.

I believe the officer who responded to that call said some very damning things, yet they were never back up in court.

IMO, a big weakness of the DA's case was their motive. It never made any sense to me, why not use crime of passion?

And again Kate, we are not talking about private citizens who don't want to get involved---they are paid to get involved. Would feel the same way about the cops if the crime was child abuse?

IMO, when a cop puts on badge, takes his oath, he or she promises to "get involved", no matter hard or distrubing it is.

Did you ever hear a talking head question on why these officers didn't come forward?

Also, if you remember, the officer who put the call out for other officers to come forward said that he only got 1 response, from Mark Fuhrman.

What a bunch of silly excuses you put forth in order to avoid the truth. We're not talking about abuse that exists in the vaccum of the evidence allowed in criminal trial. And let us not forget that far more evidence was allowed in reagrd to abuse in the civil trial from witnesses that came forward from back in the 1970's.

Nor are we talking about what an officer is "supposed to do" when he puts on a badge limakey. There are people in all professions that do not do their job. This spans far beyond law enforcement. And yes, for the record my position would not waver in the slightest were we talking about child abuse.

As I pointed out, we run across officers who do not fully rise to their duty, we run across doctors who sexually assault their patients, we come across charitable leaders who steal the money. And the list goes on. And on.

Why do you insist on ignoring that OJ acknowledged that officers had responded at Rockingham 8 times prior to 1989 for domestic calls? What about that just slips and creeps by you? Talk about turning a blind eye.

Do you know what the term "spntaneous reaction" means? It is allowed in a court of law in cases such as an abused woman who decides not to testify in court against her abuser. This matter recently came before the Supreme Court, and thankfully they ruled in favor of it's use. What it does is allows prosecutors to use 911 calls made by these women as evidence of their abuse and fear in leui of the women's testimony in court. The ruling from the Supreme Court supported this, because they acknowledged that statements made during a 911 call are made from "spontaneous reaction" which shows the true feelings of that person, and the true emotions behind the statements made during the 911 call. The Supreme Court acknowledged that domestic abuse is a very serious crime in which women often times after the fact, once protection has arrived, will attempt to minimize the situation, or the abuse as a whole, in an effort to avoid further consequences form their abuser after the fact.

That alone speaks volumes. What Nicole said to the officers after protection arrived fits the classic pattern of the abused woman. You place such a ridiculous and ludicrous amount of weight on that statement, yet none whatsoever on OJ's acknowledgement of all of the 911 calls in which he told Officer Edwards "You guys been up here 8 other times and never done anything". What does that say to you? To me, it clearly says that officers had responded on at leat 8 prior occassions for the same type of issue. And since officers responded on 8 different occasssions, and OJ and Nicole both acknowledged that fact, it says to me that there are 8 other officers out there with information who never came forward.

Stop trying to hide behind the weak argument of what the prosecution presented in the criminal trial, or the even more weak argument that because no officers came forward must mean that somehow there was no abuse.

Kate

Kate Sachel

07-27-2006, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by limakey

Yes, there is documentation, however, there is also documentation of Simpson taking responsibility what he did, made no excuses and that he knew what his punishment was going to be if it happend again. There is also documentation that Nicole said it only happened once.

Made no excuses? My God, I think I have to put you on "ignore" before I absolutely lose my head. He said he never hit her, slapped her, kicked her, punched her that night!

He said that alot of the redness on her face that night came from picking at it while she was cleaning it during her nightly routine! Can you believe that one?

How on earth you deem that as taking responsibility is a thought process that is way out of the realm of what I consider reality.

Kate

tazzybaby

07-27-2006, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,

*snip*

Yes, there is documentation, however, there is also documentation of Simpson taking responsibility what he did, made no excuses and that he knew what his punishment was going to be if it happend again. There is also documentation that Nicole said it only happened once.

Limakey,

Believe me that I understand what it means for a police officer to act like it's no big deal and to ignore and walk away. Believe me, I know. But, I am still more angry with my ex-husband than I am the police. You state that a police officer takes a vow and blah, blah, blah. But, a husband also takes a vow. A husband's vow is more important in normal life than that of a police officer. In other words, Nicole didn't need the police until Simpson hurt her or scared her. We don't know why the police didn't come forward. Because they were embarassed for not helping? Because they couldn't remember enough details to be of help? Because they actually thought it wasn't a big deal? Because they didn't want to go through what Fuhrman went through? Because they didn't want to be a part of the circus? Because they considered Simpson a friend and wanted to continue to go to his house? We don't know. Do I think them coming forward would have changed anything? No way. You wouldn't have believed it anyway.

It was VERY important to know that Simpson had another side. And, his was the MOST important. He was accused of murder. People were on the side of the road telling him to run when he was in the middle of his "chase". It was DEFINATELY important to let people know that he had a dark side.

It happens every day (not so much today as then) that the police believe the husband and walk away. My ex hit himself before the police got there and then told them that I did it and started it. He told them that I was fighting with him. He threw a few police names out there and they left. THEY LEFT. While I am shaking, scared and hiding down the street, they LEFT. I asked them why they weren't taking him and they told me that I started it by hitting him first. What?! There were even witnesses who saw him hurting me when I was trying to get out of the house. But, I guess they thought it was some big conspiracy of us out to get him. When he tells the story today he STILL says that I hit him first. His entire family believed that I hit him first.

So for you to say that I minimize what the police have done is very incorrect. I hate that the police thought the way that they did about abuse. But, you are doing the same thing they did when you deny the abuse. You think it is "normal" behavior between fighting adults. I HATE that the police failed her. It is just way more important what Simpson did. They had pictures. They had her diary. They had witnesses. Women OFTEN very, very OFTEN lie about the abuse to the police. Why? Because their abuser will get in trouble. They love their abuser and only want them to stop abusing. They don't want them to go to jail. Or in Simpson's case....lose his "job". It was important for her to downplay the abuse to the police because there could be BIG consequences for him otherwise. It could "ruin" his life. She loved Simpson.

You seem to only hold the Police/DA's/Public servants responsible for any mistakes made. You seem to think that their mistakes over shadow anything that Simpson may have done. I don't. I know that Simpson lied. He is the one accused of murdering his wife. That is VERY important. Why would he lie? Don't believe the police or DA's. But, you can't believe Simpson either. If you believe Nicole when she said it only happened once then you also have to believe her diary. She said both. So, now when you look at the known cycle of abuse you would understand why she would tell the police one thing and keep secret the truth.

Simpson took responsibility? He still to this day swears that he didn't touch her except to "wrestle" her out of the room. Did he have to put his hands around her kneck to "wrestle" her out of the room? Did he think that maybe if he choked her she would pass out and then he could just carry her out of the room? He didn't even complete his "punishment" that was layed out. He chose how he would do it. He only says that he takes responsibility. It had to have been way more than wrestling her out of the room if he even put in writing that if he did it again....blah, blah, blah. But, he still swears he didn't hit her. lol

The proof of abuse goes beyond the criminal trial. To admit that he abused her does not mean that you have to admit he killed her.

tazzybaby

07-27-2006, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Made no excuses? My God, I think I have to put you on "ignore" before I absolutely lose my head. He said he never hit her, slapped her, kicked her, punched her that night!

He said that alot of the redness on her face that night came from picking at it while she was cleaning it during her nightly routine! Can you believe that one?

How on earth you deem that as taking responsibility is a thought process that is way out of the realm of what I consider reality.

Kate

Ditto!

You beat me to the reply...lol

VERY frustrating!

Kayleighjo

07-27-2006, 02:21 PM

I'm with Tazzy and Kate on this.

I also know what it's like to be the woman crouching in the bushes waiting for the cops to come only to get no real assistance whatsoever after they arrived and ending up with a husband who is now even more angry because I called the cops.

I know what it's like to be the woman who has been beaten bloody but after the fact tell people that it was the only time it had ever happened and that it would never happen again.

I know what it's like to be the woman who feels like the justice system and the public as a whole has abandoned me. How could anyone possibly expect me to leave when no one with a badge was even willing to stand between me and abuser so that I could make it out safely with my kids?

OJ didn't tell the truth about 1989! And he didn't take responsibility no matter how much limakey or anyone else like limakey would like to convince themselves that he did.

ocan't run from that fact!

2L8 4A D8

07-27-2006, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

It reminds me of some of the posters here that claim "Nicole was buff & could hold her own" or that "Nicole gave as good as she got" or that Nicole "knew martial arts". Such rubbish.

That's correct Socal. At all costs, they will say anything in order to protect their Hero, their God. Even if it means making derrogatory comments re: Nicole, Ron Goldman and the Brown/Goldman Families.

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

07-27-2006, 11:59 PM

Kate and Taz,

I did post that the police officer who repeated what Nicole said was very damning and I was waiting for them to come forward, when they didn't, it made me wonder if the calls were made, what did they see and what was the situation.

Yes, Simpson did take responsibilty for the 1989 incident. He wrote to Nicole about it and neither Nicole or OJ ever blamed their behavior on drink or whatever. They knew they were not perfect, but who is?

And we will never agree on those phone calls, if they were made and what was the true nature of them. However, a husband and a wife make their vows to each other and God (IMO), you, IMO, can't even compare marriage vows to those to willing and knowingly take an oath to serve and protect. I find it impossible to believe that out of close to 100 police officers who responded to the Simpsons' home, not one of them had the courage to come forward on 3 separate occassions to make or give a statement.

What if those calls that it was Nicole who was the aggressor? What if the cops said if we take him, we have to take you too? What if she was the only one who was doing the slapping or punching? The point is their is no proof that these calls were made, there is no proof what the situation was and I refuse to just believe the media reports.

Kate, you and I don't agree on much but I do believe you make some excellent points. However, you really kind of belittled me and my comments about the emotional and money abuse that goes on in divorce cases. You told me that I was wrong just for just accepting this, that I was somehow at fault for this reality. Well I posted back about, IMO, should be done to help ease this situation. You have yet to post what you think should be done in this situation, accept that we just let the cops go, they were too embarrassed, they weren't professional, they didn't want to get involved, so just let the boys in blue continue to pick and choose when they decide to get involved and if that guy who molested over what 300 boys and the cops did nothing, then so be it, no harm no foul, just move on with your life boys and don't be so hard on the police.

Please, put me on ignore, my feelings won't be hurt and I understand perfectly that it is better, in some situations to ignore certain people. However, Kate, if you ever PM'ed me and needed me for something, I would be there for you. Not to just to laugh in your face, but I understand what it is like to call for help and no one respond. Just as I would be there for any of the posters on this board, regardless if they are a "G", "NG" or an "I".

So peace out and keep up the grades!

tazzybaby

07-28-2006, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Kate and Taz,

*snip*

*big Sigh*

OJ could not admit that he hit Nicole. That is not taking FULL responsibility. He is still lying. Why doesn't that bother you? We will also NEVER agree on that. Full responsibility is not denying what you did. Especially when there were hand prints on her face and neck. You think that Nicole could be the aggressor? Why? Why would OJ call the cops on Nicole? Do you HONESTLY think that Nicole could hurt or even come close to hurting OJ?

Why did OJ's team destroy the letters detailing the abuse?
Why did OJ lie?
Why did Nicole list the abuse in her diary?
Why did Nicole put the evidence of her abuse in a Lockbox???
If Nicole was the aggressor and abused OJ why would she call the cops crying and terrified?
Why would you even consider that Nicole was the aggressor when there were witnesses that OJ hit Nicole on several occassions?
Have you read HER letter to him talking about the abuse? Do you dismiss that?

I truly want to know how you can dismiss all of the above and make accusations that Nicole was the aggressor.

Yes, we will never agree on those phone calls. I will NEVER believe that you would believe any of the police if they had come forward. You don't even believe the police that stated that OJ said they had been out there 8 times before. You want the other 8 cops to come forward and get on the stand just to back up a police officers statement.

Kate Sachel

07-28-2006, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

*big Sigh*

I share your big sigh.

I'm so tired of hearing that he took responsibility for that evening. I'm so tired of pointing out that OJ acknowledged that the police had been to Rockingham on 8 previous ocassions and never done anything before and having the response be that perhaps Nicole was the agressor those 8 previous times.

It's nonsense, and disheartening to realize how far some women will go to blame other women and defend men. For instance, whenever I hear of a husband having an affair it seems that the it is always the "other woman" that the wife blames rather than placing responsibility on her husband. Why is that?

Nicole Brown Simpson was the victim. Even in death she is victimized, as people ask why she stayed though it's obvious that no one was willing to stand up for her if she left. Her abuse is minimized in a callous statement that says "they knew they were not perfect, who is"? Well, I certainly am not perfect and no one that I know is. But I strive to be a good and decent person which means that I don't inflict violence and humiliation on the people that I love.

OJ fooled some people into believing that he took responsibility in 1989 by saying "I felt responsible for what happened to her that night". He can take that statement to the grave, but that statement means nothing when in the same breath you claim to not have even so much as slapped her that night. She was beaten bloody but he claims that many of her injuries came is a person to believe that statement?

Kate

nettathirty

07-28-2006, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

*big Sigh*

OJ could not admit that he hit Nicole. That is not taking FULL responsibility. He is still lying. Why doesn't that bother you? We will also NEVER agree on that. Full responsibility is not denying what you did. Especially when there were hand prints on her face and neck. You think that Nicole could be the aggressor? Why? Why would OJ call the cops on Nicole? Do you HONESTLY think that Nicole could hurt or even come close to hurting OJ?

Why did OJ's team destroy the letters detailing the abuse?
Why did OJ lie?
Why did Nicole list the abuse in her diary?
Why did Nicole put the evidence of her abuse in a Lockbox???
If Nicole was the aggressor and abused OJ why would she call the cops crying and terrified?
Why would you even consider that Nicole was the aggressor when there were witnesses that OJ hit Nicole on several occassions?
Have you read HER letter to him talking about the abuse? Do you dismiss that?

I truly want to know how you can dismiss all of the above and make accusations that Nicole was the aggressor.

Yes, we will never agree on those phone calls. I will NEVER believe that you would believe any of the police if they had come forward. You don't even believe the police that stated that OJ said they had been out there 8 times before. You want the other 8 cops to come forward and get on the stand just to back up a police officers statement.

Tazzy,

The 89 incident, Nicole's statement to police she never said OJ hit her.. The cop only reported the condition in which Nicole was found outside in.. We do not know if Nicole placed the call to Police, the maid was in the house also..

You said other people witnessed OJ's abuse, who and what people? Nobody, not even the Browns would say they witnessed abuse, who are you referring too?

The calls from Rockingham Ave. to 911 except for the 89 and 93 incident weren't mentioned, and we know the cops keep a log.. Why wasn't that information presented or even mentioned, care to take a gander as to why?