Today, 9/10 black's agree "oj probably is guilty or involved"

[Big Ben]

Hi Ben!

Personally I see much more media coverage about the economy and foreign affairs than I do about OJ......................

What's really ironic about your seemingly old school argument is that regardless of the covert plot you claim that has been put in place to subjugate a race, there happens to be a man of some African heritage that is running very sucessfully for President of the United States.

Ito could've been making a point consciously or otherwise to the evil Americans that they shouldn't have held his parents in a WW II interment camp?



R

R, I think that your "Old School" characterization and "subjugate a race" statement again misinterprets my intent. However, after further analysis you may have been speaking of white folk when you said "subjugate a race". If in fact there was a group that ultimately, imo, became captive to all of the hyperbole and rhetoric, misinformation and outright lies associated with the Simpson case, white folk and white society would definitely be the ones I would identify. The question again is, if all of the suppression of evidence that I allege is real in the Simpson case, then what was this mock trial, this exercise or experiment all about.

1.) Could it have been utilized with the intent of Keeping the large white electorate in a maintained state of mind to be ready for engagement, in order to intimidate congressional representatives and Senators in blanketly passing legislation without debate. Granting unprecedented Presidential authority equal to martial law immediately after 9-11, without a President attempting to usurp martial law on his own.

2.) Could it have also been intended to build the hostility of whites towards people of color to such an extent short of mass hysteria and acts of ethnic cleansing in the U.S. but to be released with blind rage wrapped in patriotic retribution towards people that had nothing to do with 9-11, Iraq, while exacting glorious victories against a 13th century mule and cart society on the side of the mountains of Afghanistan.

3.) I have no comment about fluff, of a man of color running for president in the U.S. That's an epiphany that some whites have to get used to, I suppose. A president of color or a female commander and chief is passe in most civilized nations of the world. America is the only so called civilized nation that appears to have a hard time coming to grips with it.

However, I will say this, the world I'm certain is taking notice. If you can't elect a black man who has graduated from the most preeminent university in America, and earned a law degree from the most preeminent law school in America, and selected as the president of the monthly law review of the most preeminent law school in America. Then the signal you would send to those nations that you would choose to invade in order to bring to them your so called "American Values", would be, imo, to dig in deeper, ammo up, and be prepared to die, if "American Values" means a white man is willing to support only another white man sitting in the ultimate executive seat as commander-in-chief. I'm simply a curious observer from time to time, attempting to examine a global perspective of what the U.S. elections may or may not mean.

4.) Ito was a ******* pawn of the L.A. judicial system that distinguishes between those seeking the privilege of maintaining Superior Court Judge status of Municipal Court status. He was not a candidate to do anymore than go along with the media plan. Altering it, Please! When you caste your lot with those that appoint you, you have to go along with the program when they call in their favors. That's certainly the game as I've been told exists from the powerful LADA and LAPD political power bases.

5.) Nifong, he got what was justly coming to him. If he lied, suppressed evidence, failed to do his due diligence then he should accept the ass kicking that he received. However, as just as I may see the punishment to Nifong, the perception is that all of the defendants were white, and students of the most well respected Universit in North Carolina. I'm certain that the Duke boosters weren't about to accept Nifongs shinanigans lying down and neither was the geater white community of North Carolina going to accept this outrage. It will certainly be more refreshing to me when I see the white community, as well as the communities of color in the U.S., say that "We The People" are not going to tolerate such behavior and mockery of our justice system.

[martin II]

:beer: I believe in those cases where anyone who is falsely arrested or falsely charged or improperly tried, regardless of the race of the individual suffering such treatment, more than an injustice or travesty of justice has been committed.

It seems that America has not outlived its past wrongs. This is not a criticism of the remarks about Ito, because there might be truth in them. The sad part is that America's past allows those type of comments to have some validity.

I realize that the our system of jurisprudence is not perfect, nor is America. However, the words in the preamble must be given the profound meaning they convey. "In order to form a more perfect union." I think that we should all work toward that achievement, by keeping in mind the more profound words in the Constitution. "That all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." I am not so naive to think that all people in America will think this. The attitude must be that they respect these thing, even though they feel differently.

Yes a black man is successfully running for President. However, it remains to be seen whether he will win and, if he will survive after he wins. Interestingly, McCain has recently announced his design to pack the Supreme Court, if he becomes President. This just shows the importance of the law due to Chief Justice Marshall's usurpation of power under the concept of judicial review, imho.

This is why justice should be color blind and America's past combined with other events may explain the cheering of the Simpson criminal verdict. It lends validity to Wright's words that America's chickens are coming home to roost. The truly sad part is that those words in the Constitution were perhaps the most beautiful ever written. yes, America is changing and a black man is successfully running for President, but until we ensure that the same thing that happened to JFK, Abe Lincoln and MLK doesn't happen to him, we have not reached our full potential. We as humans and Americans owe it to the world to live up to those beautifully written words, imho, by changing America's future in recognition and atonement for its past. How we rid the system of those who desire to work against those words and efforts, I do not know. I know it needs to be done.


William
Thanks for that post.

:beer: :beer:

[bobaugust]

bobaugust, you are full of redundant hokus pokus, Juditha Brown apparently wouldn't jeopardize her potential freedom by telling such a fabricated story during the criminal trial in 1995. She waited 15 months after the trial ended and gave that fabricated testimony (apparently rather haphazardly in the trial transcripts) in the civil trial in December of 1996.

Although she was capable of walking and talking, and even holding a talkative interview from the driver's seat of her automobile with the press while sitting in her car outside of the criminal courthouse in 1995, she rather would allow Marcia Clark to tell this lie on her behalf on July 06, 1995.

Johnnie Cochran was almost prepared to go along with the chirade and stipulate to the Brown phone records without protest, until Clark attempted to show the horrific bloody photos of the murdered Ron and Nicole to the jury again. In his controlled anger Cochran slipped up, with video camera rolling and the jury absent.

In Paraphrasing, he said they didn't need to show the jury the bloody photographs again, they were too gorey, and only threatened to disrupt and prejudice the jury. Again paraphrasing: Cochran went on to say, afterall, both the prosecution, defense, and the judge, were aware that they all agreed to withhold the Brown's telephone records from the jury.

In Paraphrasing Cochran again: So why not simply stipulate to the bloody photos, as we did with the Brown telephone records, as to what the photos actually represent. Since you have refused to look at the documentary, "Serpents Rising" you make an inadequate effort of interpreting Johnnie's demeanor from the court transcripts alone. I believe that such a limited examination on your part is inadequate and severly diminishes your rebuttal, bob.

Furthermore, your reposting of the testimonial diatribe of Bodziak does not impress me. Bodziak was basically flimflamming the public, as you continue attempt to do, bob. He never addresses:

1.) How many inches are in a standard size 12 shoe?
2.) Is he refering to an English size 12 or an American Size 12?
3.) How many inches was the shoe print that he photographed at Bundy?
4.) Since they had Simpson at their fingertips at the L.A. County Jail for over a year, when did they ever measure the actual length of Simpson's foot?

5.) How many inches is the measure of Simpson's foot, Bob?

Bodziak's continued flim flam of telling someone that less than ten per cent of the people in the world wears size 12 shoes, is simply alot of subjective verbal mushy-mush! What he doesn't tell a race baited public, standing by with the rope, is that 90 per cent of the people in the world, probably due to a lack of abundant food supplies and vitamin nutrients, barely reach above the height of pygmy status, and thus have much smaller feet than their notably over fed, steroid meat eating, high carbohydrate consuming, American counterparts.

But like Bodziak, if you are talking to a society where 50 per cent of the population can't identify India, Japan, or China on a map, and 30 per cent can't even place their finger on the Pacific Ocean, what difference would it make to them anyway?

I doubt that 90 per cent of the U.S. American population has a foot that measures less than 11.3 inches (the International shoe chart calculation for size 12). I would be willing to gamble that there is a much greater per centage in the U.S. over and above the 10 per cent in the world statement of Bodziak with feet that measure longer than 11.3 inches.

Our measurements, if you are interested bob, came from acquiring a pair of the size 46 U2887 SILGA rubber soles from the Italian manufacturer itself, back in 2000. I can tell you that based upon the measurement of the size 46 U2887 SILGA shoe soles we have, you've been hoodwinked by (former) FBI special agent Bodziak. Simpson's foot, as we expected, and were told by his his personal aide, is much longer than the foot prints found at Bundy and considerably longer than the size 46, U2887 SILGA shoe sole, bobaugust.

Big Ben, there was no reason to put the mother of one of the victims on the stand to testify in the criminal trial. Juditha Brown was interviewed by Clark and Clark presented the facts in a stipulation that Simpson's attorneys agreed to. The times in that stipulation were documented by Juditha Brown's telephone records that the defense had also seen and stipulated to as being accurate.

The only charade here is from you and the dishonest video you are attempting to promote.

1.) The measured size of size 12 shoes is meaningless. Bodziak was provided Simpson's size 12 Reeboks that Simpson said he was wearing the day of the murders for comparison.

2.) November 20, 1996
Q. You're saying Mr. Simpson's shoe (Reeboks) was identical to the size 12 Bruno Magli?
A. It's the same size internally. It reads a size 12, U.S. size 12, as well as the European 46, size 12 Bruno Magli, and it's physical dimensions and characteristics for comparability are the same, yes.

3.) Another meaningless question. Measuring partial shoe prints do not determine what size shoe made those prints. Bodziak used more specific and detailed comparisons.
November 20, 1996
Q. Now, if you just have an impression of a heel as opposed to a sole, are you able to tell the shoe size?
A. Yes.
Q. And again, how?
A. Because each of the heels are distinctly different and each of the soles are distinctly different. So you could have just a sole or just a heel or both and you can make the same determination.
*
Q. Go ahead.
A. This is a heel impression and over the top of that is the same two-time enlargement transparency of the size -- European size 46 left sole.

Well, based on comparison of the soles themselves as well as the test impressions, and this was done with natural size photographs and the original test impressions, I was able to determine based on the orientation and positioning of these design elements that the only sole size which could have made these impressions, shoe print E and shoe print FBI Q68, was the European size 46 left sole.

4.) June 19, 1995
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, in making a determination of the Defendant's shoe size, could the--why not just measure the Defendant's feet instead of doing this?
MR. BODZIAK: Because of the factors of personal preference of fit and other factors which come into consideration, measuring the feet would not be the most accurate way of determining shoe size.

5.) Simpson foot is big enough to wear size 12 U.S. Reeboks

The only flimflam here is coming from you and your amateurish comparison of Simpson's feet to some partial shoe prints. Bodziak the foremost expert on shoe prints used specific and detailed comparisons to identify shoes with the exact kind of soles and heels that were consistent with leaving the bloody shoe prints. Shoes that were the exact same size compared to shoes Simpson wore. Shoes that Simpson was later shown wearing in over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers nine months before the murders.

You have hoodwinked yourself by your amateurish size comparisons. Based on you dishonest editing of your video, your inability to comprehend the reality of the telephone records, the witness testimony, and defense stipulations that all prove your speculation nothing but a fantasy I'm sorry to say I don't believe anything you claim to be credible unless you can document it.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, there was no reason to put the mother of one of the victims on the stand to testify in the criminal trial. Juditha Brown was interviewed by Clark and Clark presented the facts in a stipulation that Simpson's attorneys agreed to. The times in that stipulation were documented by Juditha Brown's telephone records that the defense had also seen and stipulated to as being accurate.



1.) The measured size of size 12 shoes is meaningless. Bodziak was provided Simpson's size 12 Reeboks that Simpson said he was wearing the day of the murders for comparison.







bobaugust

There was no purpose in putting Juditha on the witness stand??? So you say!
It was certainly no purpose in doing so if they believed that she couldn't tell a convincing lie as well as the attorneys could do. Telling that lie was most crucial because it completely altered the time window for the commission of these murders. They certainly did not need to have a repeat episode of the embarrassing performance that Dr. Golden displayed in his attempt to alter his autopsy findings to lie and conform his testimony to the needs of the prosecutors as to the cause and manner of death for the decedents, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

Ten months later they got a corrupt East Indian doctor to take the witness stand and testify as to the cause and manner of death based upon his more educated interpretation of Dr. Golden's autopsy examination. However, this doctor never participated in the autopsies, never examined the bodies, nor visited the murder site until 6 months after the murders occurred.

I'm not surprised about what you wouldn't believe, august. Don't use "unless you can document it" as hole to slide out of. Anything that I've been willing to say to you about the SILGA U2887 shoe soles can be easily documented by you acquiring a pair of them from the Italian shoe sole manufacturer.

Simply stating that a shoe is a size 12 is meaningless. Is it a UK size 12 or a U.S. size 12, there is a significant difference, you know! Unless you have an actual measurement of the person's (Simpson's) foot in inches, you don't know if he could wear the Italian size 46 Bruno Maglis shoes. The Italian SILGA shoe sole U2887 measures 12 and 1/4 inches and that is the typical length of a size 10 in many U.S. shoe brands, but a size 13 on the international shoe sizing scale.

Simpson never testified on the witness stand in the criminal trial that he wore anything relative to shoes. You are simply doing your favorite thing, regurgitating second hand information that you allegedly heard someone else say. Trying to force Simpson's gigantic foot into a 12 and 1/4 inch shoe would undoubtedly look as disasterous as that debacle with those miniature gloves that the feable minded deputy D.A. Darden attempted to perform before the camera. That stunt really poured cold water for a time on your mob, (LOL), didn't it, billiebob.

The only thing that you can say for sure, from testimony, is that that phoney FBI "special" agent Bodziak received some shoes forced on him by the LAPD that THEY alleged belonged to Simpson. This so called expert, Bodziak, that you tout so highly, didn't even have the professional accumen to go to Simpson's house and collect samples of Simpson's shoes on his own.
Members of Simpson's family have responded to our inquiry regarding the matter and stated that most of his shoes are size 13. Although that makes more sense, I'm still reluctant to talk in terms of shoe sizes in comparing it to evidence found at a murder site. Certainly an accurate measurement of the foot would be, imo, a more precise measurement of determining the liklihood of someone's foot being a candidate to fit in a certain pair of shoes.

Instead of Bodziak doing proper due diligence he accepted second hand evidence from a police department that is now INFAMOUS for planting false evidence in cases against innocent victims, i.e. Ramparts, and the Geronimo Pratt case, are two of the most horrendous examples of this type of blatant malfeasance.

Maybe that's why the FBI got rid of this clown, Bodziak, at 46 years old. The judge should have dismissed this fool at the same time that he got rid of the other two FBI agents he dismissed for their history of dirty tricks and slanting evidence and testimony in favor of the prosecution.

[bobaugust]

There was no purpose in putting Juditha on the witness stand??? So you say!
It was certainly no purpose in doing so if they believed that she couldn't tell a convincing lie as well as the attorneys could do. Telling that lie was most crucial because it completely altered the time window for the commission of these murders. They certainly did not need to have a repeat episode of the embarrassing performance that Dr. Golden displayed in his attempt to alter his autopsy findings to lie and conform his testimony to the needs of the prosecutors as to the cause and manner of death for the decedents, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

Ten months later they got a corrupt East Indian doctor to take the witness stand and testify as to the cause and manner of death based upon his more educated interpretation of Dr. Golden's autopsy examination. However, this doctor never participated in the autopsies, never examined the bodies, nor visited the murder site until 6 months after the murders occurred.

I'm not surprised about what you wouldn't believe, august. Don't use "unless you can document it" as hole to slide out of. Anything that I've been willing to say to you about the SILGA U2887 shoe soles can be easily documented by you acquiring a pair of them from the Italian shoe sole manufacturer.

Simply stating that a shoe is a size 12 is meaningless. Is it a UK size 12 or a U.S. size 12, there is a significant difference, you know! Unless you have an actual measurement of the person's (Simpson's) foot in inches, you don't know if he could wear the Italian size 46 Bruno Maglis shoes. The Italian SILGA shoe sole U2887 measures 12 and 1/4 inches and that is the typical length of a size 10 in many U.S. shoe brands, but a size 13 on the international shoe sizing scale.

Simpson never testified on the witness stand in the criminal trial that he wore anything relative to shoes. You are simply doing your favorite thing, regurgitating second hand information that you allegedly heard someone else say. Trying to force Simpson's gigantic foot into a 12 and 1/4 inch shoe would undoubtedly look as disasterous as that debacle with those miniature gloves that the feable minded deputy D.A. Darden attempted to perform before the camera. That stunt really poured cold water for a time on your mob, (LOL), didn't it, billiebob.

The only thing that you can say for sure, from testimony, is that that phoney FBI "special" agent Bodziak received some shoes forced on him by the LAPD that THEY alleged belonged to Simpson. This so called expert, Bodziak, that you tout so highly, didn't even have the professional accumen to go to Simpson's house and collect samples of Simpson's shoes on his own.
Members of Simpson's family have responded to our inquiry regarding the matter and stated that most of his shoes are size 13. Although that makes more sense, I'm still reluctant to talk in terms of shoe sizes in comparing it to evidence found at a murder site. Certainly an accurate measurement of the foot would be, imo, a more precise measurement of determining the liklihood of someone's foot being a candidate to fit in a certain pair of shoes.

Instead of Bodziak doing proper due diligence he accepted second hand evidence from a police department that is now INFAMOUS for planting false evidence in cases against innocent victims, i.e. Ramparts, and the Geronimo Pratt case, are two of the most horrendous examples of this type of blatant malfeasance.

Maybe that's why the FBI got rid of this clown, Bodziak, at 46 years old. The judge should have dismissed this fool at the same time that he got rid of the other two FBI agents he dismissed for their history of dirty tricks and slanting evidence and testimony in favor of the prosecution.

That's right there was no reason to put the mother of one of the slain victims on the witness stand. What ever Juditha Brown would have testified to she gave in her statement. The times of telephone calls were documented by her telephone records that were examined by the defense and stipulated to be accurate times. The person she spoke to on the phone, Karen Crawford, testified as to when that call came into the restaurant and what was discussed in that conversation.

Dr. Golden didn't attempt to alter his autopsy findings and he didn't lie. Marcia Clark wrote that he was replaced because his report was riddled with errors and the prosecutors needed someone who would be a stronger witness. Dr. Golden's report was reexamined and corrected under the supervision of Dr. Lakshmanan, the L.A. County coroner, Dr. Golden's boss, who concluded the fundamental work was sound. The prosecutors asked him to testify in place Dr. Golden.

What can't you understand about the shoe size? Bodziak was given Simpson's size 12 Reeboks. The shoes that Simpson said he was wearing the day of the murders. That is reality regardless of how gigantic you think his foot was he wore those shoes. The Bruno Magli shoe was European size 46 U.S. size 12 and when Bodziak made a comparison of the external sole dimensions, linear dimensions, and the internal measurement of the shoes he found that they were virtually identical.

It was not alleged it was a fact that the Reeboks were the shoes that Simpson gave Lange the day after the murders and were entered into evidence in the criminal trail. It's funny how many lame excuses you come up with to try and discredit any evidence that incriminates Simpson and how you call witnesses names who testify to facts that contradict your beliefs.

When I said I don't believe your claims unless you can document them I was referring to the so called personal aide to Bodziak supposedly telling you that Simpson's foot is longer than the size 46 sole and the partial shoe prints found at Bundy. That's funny.

bobaugust

[The R]

I believe in those cases where anyone who is falsely arrested or falsely charged or improperly tried, regardless of the race of the individual suffering such treatment, more than an injustice or travesty of justice has been committed.

It seems that America has not outlived its past wrongs. This is not a criticism of the remarks about Ito, because there might be truth in them. The sad part is that America's past allows those type of comments to have some validity.

I realize that the our system of jurisprudence is not perfect, nor is America. However, the words in the preamble must be given the profound meaning they convey. "In order to form a more perfect union." I think that we should all work toward that achievement, by keeping in mind the more profound words in the Constitution. "That all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." I am not so naive to think that all people in America will think this. The attitude must be that they respect these thing, even though they feel differently.

Yes a black man is successfully running for President. However, it remains to be seen whether he will win and, if he will survive after he wins. Interestingly, McCain has recently announced his design to pack the Supreme Court, if he becomes President. This just shows the importance of the law due to Chief Justice Marshall's usurpation of power under the concept of judicial review, imho.

This is why justice should be color blind and America's past combined with other events may explain the cheering of the Simpson criminal verdict. It lends validity to Wright's words that America's chickens are coming home to roost. The truly sad part is that those words in the Constitution were perhaps the most beautiful ever written. yes, America is changing and a black man is successfully running for President, but until we ensure that the same thing that happened to JFK, Abe Lincoln and MLK doesn't happen to him, we have not reached our full potential. We as humans and Americans owe it to the world to live up to those beautifully written words, imho, by changing America's future in recognition and atonement for its past. How we rid the system of those who desire to work against those words and efforts, I do not know. I know it needs to be done.

Morning WA!

Just a couple comments:

History has shown that 'packing' the court doesn't really happen. It shows that some have attempted IMO. Packing the court typically seems to be the rallying cry of those whose political stances are threatened.
You mention Marshall and usurpation of power as it related to judicial review. I tend to disagree with the description of usurpation and feel that Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison was simply invoking the authority the Supreme Court had already been provided in Article III of the Constitution.

Both your and Big Ben's negative comments about Obama and his race are a little surprising to me and run contrary to what the man himself is trying to accomplish. Why attach a qualifying statement like. "If the man survives, etc? Why not look at the positive in it and use that positive to improve the current situation?

Of course my comments about Ito were made tongue in cheek in order to illustrate a point, but the truth is that as long as people want to hold onto their grudges progress won't be made. When a group of people take specific contained incidents of racism and then apply them to the whole, something is wrong with the logic being used, plain and simple.

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

R, I think that your "Old School" characterization and "subjugate a race" statement again misinterprets my intent. However, after further analysis you may have been speaking of white folk when you said "subjugate a race". If in fact there was a group that ultimately, imo, became captive to all of the hyperbole and rhetoric, misinformation and outright lies associated with the Simpson case, white folk and white society would definitely be the ones I would identify. The question again is, if all of the suppression of evidence that I allege is real in the Simpson case, then what was this mock trial, this exercise or experiment all about.

I'm sorry Ben but you are correct, I have misinterpreted your argument and freely admit I can't figure out what it is exactly. I have no knowledge of evidence suppresion exercised by the state against OJ. I've always thought that suppresion of evidence was done in favor of the defendant and the defendant's right to due process

1.) Could it have been utilized with the intent of Keeping the large white electorate in a maintained state of mind to be ready for engagement, in order to intimidate congressional representatives and Senators in blanketly passing legislation without debate. Granting unprecedented Presidential authority equal to martial law immediately after 9-11, without a President attempting to usurp martial law on his own.

I surely don't think OJ's case had anything to do with national security issues, although I don't agree with the undermining of rights of the people, I sure can't see how OJ's trial relates. Maybe you've placed too much emphasis on its social effect?

2.) Could it have also been intended to build the hostility of whites towards people of color to such an extent short of mass hysteria and acts of ethnic cleansing in the U.S. but to be released with blind rage wrapped in patriotic retribution towards people that had nothing to do with 9-11, Iraq, while exacting glorious victories against a 13th century mule and cart society on the side of the mountains of Afghanistan.

This would be pretty funny but for the fact that it shows an incredible disrespect for the men who have lost their lives fighting against tyranny.

3.) I have no comment about fluff, of a man of color running for president in the U.S. That's an epiphany that some whites have to get used to, I suppose. A president of color or a female commander and chief is passe in most civilized nations of the world. America is the only so called civilized nation that appears to have a hard time coming to grips with it.

Actually an educated person would tell you that Obama will win ONLY if white men decide to vote for him. It's a shame that some refuse to see the positives of Obama's campaign and its potential affect on race relations. I guess to acknowedge that fact some people would have to let go of their divisive politics and beliefs?


4.) Ito was a ******* pawn of the L.A. judicial system that distinguishes between those seeking the privilege of maintaining Superior Court Judge status of Municipal Court status. He was not a candidate to do anymore than go along with the media plan. Altering it, Please! When you caste your lot with those that appoint you, you have to go along with the program when they call in their favors. That's certainly the game as I've been told exists from the powerful LADA and LAPD political power bases.

You got me here as I'm not familiar with the evils of the LA area politically and am not sure I want to be.

5.) Nifong, he got what was justly coming to him. If he lied, suppressed evidence, failed to do his due diligence then he should accept the ass kicking that he received. However, as just as I may see the punishment to Nifong, the perception is that all of the defendants were white, and students of the most well respected Universit in North Carolina. I'm certain that the Duke boosters weren't about to accept Nifongs shinanigans lying down and neither was the geater white community of North Carolina going to accept this outrage. It will certainly be more refreshing to me when I see the white community, as well as the communities of color in the U.S., say that "We The People" are not going to tolerate such behavior and mockery of our justice system.

LOL I got plenty more to say about Nifong, but perhaps here is not the time or place.


ALLMO,
R

[William Anthony]

Morning WA!

Just a couple comments:

History has shown that 'packing' the court doesn't really happen. It shows that some have attempted IMO. Packing the court typically seems to be the rallying cry of those whose political stances are threatened.
You mention Marshall and usurpation of power as it related to judicial review. I tend to disagree with the description of usurpation and feel that Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison was simply invoking the authority the Supreme Court had already been provided in Article III of the Constitution.

Both your and Big Ben's negative comments about Obama and his race are a little surprising to me and run contrary to what the man himself is trying to accomplish. Why attach a qualifying statement like. "If the man survives, etc? Why not look at the positive in it and use that positive to improve the current situation?

Of course my comments about Ito were made tongue in cheek in order to illustrate a point, but the truth is that as long as people want to hold onto their grudges progress won't be made. When a group of people take specific contained incidents of racism and then apply them to the whole, something is wrong with the logic being used, plain and simple.

ALLMO,
R

History has shown that Presidents attempt to pack the court with judges that favor their political ideology. The most recent attempt was by Bush. McCain has said that he would seek to appoint those judges who are of the conservative ideology.

Please show me in Article III, where it is expressed or implied that the Supreme Court had the power to declare an act of congress unconstitutional. Marshall stated without any reservation that the Supreme Court had the right to declare what the law is. That power was reserved to the legislature. The powers of the Supreme Court were spelled out in Article III as well as its jurisdiction in the types of cases. Its power was to carry out the laws that congress enacted, not to veto them, as that power was given to the Executive. With that said, the gist of my post was the importance of the law in changing America. Whether or not the power was usurped, which I believe, it has operated in a fashion that has been beneficial and harmful, depending on the political ideology of its constituents.

The fact that Obama is trying to accomplish racial harmony and unity shows that it does not exist. There was nothing I said that was meant to be negative, just pragmatic. The Bible tells us to watch as well as pray. Hopefully, America has reached the point that they will embrace and respect other's wishes if he is elected. However, I think he would be wise to operate on the assumption that not all will.

Whether or not they were made tongue in cheek, we should not ignore the possibility that they may be valid. As long as people say that was long ago, I was not there, neither were you, forget about it and move on, progress will never be made, imho. When people view incidents of racism as specific and contained they ignore or diminish causes that allow those incidents to fester.

Because I believe that America needs a change and there needs to be racial harmony and unity, I pointed to the alternative way of viewing things so that they will be understood. I am not arguing and respect your point of view on those issues. What I am saying is that we must respect and understand others' point of view in order to accomplish racial harmony and unity. It is time for all Americans to come together and declare that inequality toward anyone or group will no longer be tolerated in any manner, because we hold true the words in the Constitution.

[Kate Sachel]

I was addressing the fact that they jurors said they would have voted him guilty in the civil trial and the first statement in the post. I think that some may have changed their minds, if the evidence had been presented differently. However, we will never know how the defense would have handled the parade. I think Ms. Cooley may not have considered that the defense might put forth a more favorable view of the chase/parade. If she said it may have swayed her, then she probably did consider that there was a reasonable explanation for the events and other information that would not indicate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think the only way the chase could have come into trial was if Simpson took the stand. It may have been used to show state of mind or consciousness of guilt. I am interested to hear what you think on this and your views of how it could have been introduced.

Very true, there is no way to know how the defense would have countered it and hindsight is always 20/20 so it is much easier after the fact to state how you believe something may or may not have affected you.

I think that in most cases, something like the chase would have been introduced to show a consciousness of guilt. Regardless of the true intent behind it, when most people see someone in a vehicle with a disguise, cash, and a passport in hand they want to know what that person is running for. Especially when that person was due to turn themselves in to law enforcement. It just doesn't look pretty.

It may have also helped to play the audi from that chase in which OJ thanked detectives and told Vanatter that the LAPD had always been good to him. I don't have the exact quote handy so please feel free to correct me.

It's impossible to know how these things may have played out, but it certaintly couldn't have been worse than all of the other things the prosecution bungled.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Very true, there is no way to know how the defense would have countered it and hindsight is always 20/20 so it is much easier after the fact to state how you believe something may or may not have affected you.

I think that in most cases, something like the chase would have been introduced to show a consciousness of guilt. Regardless of the true intent behind it, when most people see someone in a vehicle with a disguise, cash, and a passport in hand they want to know what that person is running for. Especially when that person was due to turn themselves in to law enforcement. It just doesn't look pretty.

It may have also helped to play the audi from that chase in which OJ thanked detectives and told Vanatter that the LAPD had always been good to him. I don't have the exact quote handy so please feel free to correct me.

It's impossible to know how these things may have played out, but it certaintly couldn't have been worse than all of the other things the prosecution bungled.

Kate

you state a very solid argument for consciousness of guilt, so allow me to play devil's advocate. I think the defense would have argued that the desire to protect his family, his celebrity cause status, the idea that he was wrongly accused and, even if proven not guilty, there would be those, who still believed he was guilty, caused him to act in the manner he did, added to his depression to the extent that he contemplated suicide. This was his state of mind. I do not know how this would have come in other than he took the stand.

I agree that the prosecution bungled far too many things. The consciousness of guilt may have been one thing that they could have argued more effectively.

[martin II]

Other than Nicoles cemetary, i have not been able to figure out where oj RAN to hide from le. Certainly not driving along that highway at about 20 miles per hour past cheering crows.

[tv]

Morning WA!

Just a couple comments:

History has shown that 'packing' the court doesn't really happen. It shows that some have attempted IMO. Packing the court typically seems to be the rallying cry of those whose political stances are threatened.
You mention Marshall and usurpation of power as it related to judicial review. I tend to disagree with the description of usurpation and feel that Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison was simply invoking the authority the Supreme Court had already been provided in Article III of the Constitution.

Both your and Big Ben's negative comments about Obama and his race are a little surprising to me and run contrary to what the man himself is trying to accomplish. Why attach a qualifying statement like. "If the man survives, etc? Why not look at the positive in it and use that positive to improve the current situation?

Of course my comments about Ito were made tongue in cheek in order to illustrate a point, but the truth is that as long as people want to hold onto their grudges progress won't be made. When a group of people take specific contained incidents of racism and then apply them to the whole, something is wrong with the logic being used, plain and simple.
ALLMO,
R

Thank you, R. Well said and absolutely true.

[William Anthony]

Thank you, R. Well said and absolutely true.


Did you understand the phrase contained racism? If you did please explain your understanding.

[tv]

Did you understand the phrase contained racism? If you did please explain your understanding.That sentence speaks to blaming an entire group for individual acts of racism. I don't understand your objection.

[William Anthony]

That sentence speaks to blaming an entire group for individual acts of racism. I don't understand your objection.

I do not have an objection to the sentence or its sentiments. I have an objection to racism, be it committed by individuals or groups. I have an objection to groups or individuals that do not stand up against it or try to excuse it, because to do so does nothing to promote healing, imho.

[tv]

I do not have an objection to the sentence or its sentiments. I have an objection to racism, be it committed by individuals or groups. I have an objection to groups or individuals that do not stand up against it or try to excuse it, because to do so does nothing to promote healing, imho.If you don't disagree with my response then why did you object?

[William Anthony]

If you don't disagree with my response then why did you object?

I did not object. I was speaking of the sentence that you placed in bold from R.'s post and trying to get a clarification of contained incidents of racism. There was another poster, I don't think it was you, who said MF only spoke of burning/bombing all blacks once. Like his comment, one time is too much.

[tv]

I did not object. I was speaking of the sentence that you placed in bold from R.'s post and trying to get a clarification of contained incidents of racism. There was another poster, I don't think it was you, who said MF only spoke of burning/bombing all blacks once. Like his comment, one time is too much.William, I don't like racists comments whether they're from Mark Fuhrman or anyone else. My point was that a whole group of people shouldn't be blamed for the individual acts of others. Sorry if I didn't make that clear when I put the sentence in bold.

[William Anthony]

William, I don't like racists comments whether they're from Mark Fuhrman or anyone else. My point was that a whole group of people shouldn't be blamed for the individual acts of others. Sorry if I didn't make that clear when I put the sentence in bold.

I understand. My point was that to simply say I don't like them is not enough to promote healing. There must be a protest against them so that those who are the objects of such comments will understand and be willing to work toward healing. To remain silent or to minimize the behavior implies consent.

[William Anthony]

I think I need to make something clear. Some have said Wright's words were appalling. The words and incidents of racism perpetrated toward blacks are beyond appalling. They hurt.

[tv]

I understand. My point was that to simply say I don't like them is not enough to promote healing. There must be a protest against them so that those who are the objects of such comments will understand and be willing to work toward healing. To remain silent or to minimize the behavior implies consent.William, if you want to say I imply consent that's okay. I don't have time or energy to march in Jena or in NYC with Reverend Al or in NC for the Duke students (and apparently neither did Rev Al.) I don't see you doing more than saying you don't agree with Rev. Wright's comments. Are you implying consent?

[tv]

I think I need to make something clear. Some have said Wright's words were appalling. The words and incidents of racism perpetrated toward blacks are beyond appalling. They hurt.If those that claim they believe in equality of the races don't object to racism directed toward any group of people not only blacks then their claim is disingenuous.

[William Anthony]

William, if you want to say I imply consent that's okay. I don't have time or energy to march in Jena or in NYC with Reverend Al or in NC for the Duke students (and apparently neither did Rev Al.) I don't see you doing more than saying you don't agree with Rev. Wright's comments. Are you implying consent?

I have denounced his comments and I am not affiliated in anyway with him. I have not excused tried to make excuses for them by saying they were not relevant. I am furthering my education so that my voice can be heard in places, courtrooms, where it could make a difference.

[William Anthony]

If those that claim they believe in equality of the races don't object to racism directed toward any group of people not only blacks then their claim is disingenuous.

Thank you, because I have stated that racism in any manner, regardless of the race of those who suffer it, is wrong and add that I find disingenuous those who find excuses for racism, directed toward blacks, but claim to dislike racism.

[martin II]

There have been people killed/assassinated for those reasons but to say they are LIKELY to be assassinated is not realistic or factual.

tv
The list of those that have met this fate,described in Williams post, is long, so LIKELY seems reasonable to me.Based on fact/history.

[The R]

History has shown that Presidents attempt to pack the court with judges that favor their political ideology. The most recent attempt was by Bush. McCain has said that he would seek to appoint those judges who are of the conservative ideology.

Please show me in Article III, where it is expressed or implied that the Supreme Court had the power to declare an act of congress unconstitutional. Marshall stated without any reservation that the Supreme Court had the right to declare what the law is. That power was reserved to the legislature. The powers of the Supreme Court were spelled out in Article III as well as its jurisdiction in the types of cases. Its power was to carry out the laws that congress enacted, not to veto them, as that power was given to the Executive. With that said, the gist of my post was the importance of the law in changing America. Whether or not the power was usurped, which I believe, it has operated in a fashion that has been beneficial and harmful, depending on the political ideology of its constituents.

The fact that Obama is trying to accomplish racial harmony and unity shows that it does not exist. There was nothing I said that was meant to be negative, just pragmatic. The Bible tells us to watch as well as pray. Hopefully, America has reached the point that they will embrace and respect other's wishes if he is elected. However, I think he would be wise to operate on the assumption that not all will.

Whether or not they were made tongue in cheek, we should not ignore the possibility that they may be valid. As long as people say that was long ago, I was not there, neither were you, forget about it and move on, progress will never be made, imho. When people view incidents of racism as specific and contained they ignore or diminish causes that allow those incidents to fester.

Because I believe that America needs a change and there needs to be racial harmony and unity, I pointed to the alternative way of viewing things so that they will be understood. I am not arguing and respect your point of view on those issues. What I am saying is that we must respect and understand others' point of view in order to accomplish racial harmony and unity. It is time for all Americans to come together and declare that inequality toward anyone or group will no longer be tolerated in any manner, because we hold true the words in the Constitution.

After a closer check of Article III I'll have to say you are correct sir in saying what you did re: judicial review. I did find much written about some who argue that review is implied and in some ways I agree with the opinion but suffice it to say it was not explicitly stated there. I imagine Hamilton and probably even Marshall were supporters early on of judicial review but I'm obviously not a scholar of the Constitution!

I can say however that I don't agree totally with what you state about Obama and non-existent racial harmony. I believe racial harmony exists where people want it to. I believe it may be more pragmatic to state some disharmony exists. I really feel that total racial harmony is probably an ideal and not so much a realistic goal. Not that it shouldn't be worked towards, but to expect people to live in total harmony is akin to expecting people to not sin, to use a religious tenet as an example.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion and sharing of ideas. Whether or not I've agreed matters not, but to consider what another says seems important here.

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

Thank you, R. Well said and absolutely true.

Hey Thanks tvdinner for the kind remark!

ALLMO,
R

[William Anthony]

After a closer check of Article III I'll have to say you are correct sir in saying what you did re: judicial review. I did find much written about some who argue that review is implied and in some ways I agree with the opinion but suffice it to say it was not explicitly stated there. I imagine Hamilton and probably even Marshall were supporters early on of judicial review but I'm obviously not a scholar of the Constitution!

I can say however that I don't agree totally with what you state about Obama and non-existent racial harmony. I believe racial harmony exists where people want it to. I believe it may be more pragmatic to state some disharmony exists. I really feel that total racial harmony is probably an ideal and not so much a realistic goal. Not that it shouldn't be worked towards, but to expect people to live in total harmony is akin to expecting people to not sin, to use a religious tenet as an example.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion and sharing of ideas. Whether or not I've agreed matters not, but to consider what another says seems important here.

ALLMO,
R

Very well stated. In regard to sin and racism, forgiveness is the key to harmony. One must be willing to ask for it, which means admitting they were wrong, and one must be willing to accept it, which means wiping out the wrong from their mind, and see our mutual harmonious existence as paramount. Sin like racism can be wiped out if one has faith. Keep the faith R.

[Kate Sachel]

After a closer check of Article III I'll have to say you are correct sir in saying what you did re: judicial review. I did find much written about some who argue that review is implied and in some ways I agree with the opinion but suffice it to say it was not explicitly stated there. I imagine Hamilton and probably even Marshall were supporters early on of judicial review but I'm obviously not a scholar of the Constitution!

I can say however that I don't agree totally with what you state about Obama and non-existent racial harmony. I believe racial harmony exists where people want it to. I believe it may be more pragmatic to state some disharmony exists. I really feel that total racial harmony is probably an ideal and not so much a realistic goal. Not that it shouldn't be worked towards, but to expect people to live in total harmony is akin to expecting people to not sin, to use a religious tenet as an example.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion and sharing of ideas. Whether or not I've agreed matters not, but to consider what another says seems important here.

ALLMO,
R

R,

You have a really wonderful way with expressing your thoughts, what a pleasure to have you on this forum.

I agree that total racial harmony is an ideal that will never be achieved. There will always be those that hate another based on skin color, and unfortunately that manner of thinking is passed down through generations that teach their children that to hate based on such is acceptable, and not only acceptable but expected.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

you state a very solid argument for consciousness of guilt, so allow me to play devil's advocate. I think the defense would have argued that the desire to protect his family, his celebrity cause status, the idea that he was wrongly accused and, even if proven not guilty, there would be those, who still believed he was guilty, caused him to act in the manner he did, added to his depression to the extent that he contemplated suicide. This was his state of mind. I do not know how this would have come in other than he took the stand.

I agree that the prosecution bungled far too many things. The consciousness of guilt may have been one thing that they could have argued more effectively.

Excellent point, and I don't disagree that suicide may have entered his mind. But the question still remains; why the disguise, cash and passport if the intent is to drive to your ex-wife's cemetary, or anywhere else for that matter, to shoot yourself? It's difficult for me to imagine that he wanted to flee the country just to end his life.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

If those that claim they believe in equality of the races don't object to racism directed toward any group of people not only blacks then their claim is disingenuous.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I understand. My point was that to simply say I don't like them is not enough to promote healing. There must be a protest against them so that those who are the objects of such comments will understand and be willing to work toward healing. To remain silent or to minimize the behavior implies consent.

We must remind ourselves that not all humans come with the ability to vocalize objections and stand up in the face of such adversity. I don't believe that because someone may not be able to find the courage to protest a racial remark or racist behavior means that their silence equates implied consent.

William, you are very vocal and extremely passionate about these issues and you are very eloquent and articulate in your communication but not everyone is lucky enough to possess those same gifts in communication.

Kate

[William Anthony]

R,

You have a really wonderful way with expressing your thoughts, what a pleasure to have you on this forum.

I agree that total racial harmony is an ideal that will never be achieved. There will always be those that hate another based on skin color, and unfortunately that manner of thinking is passed down through generations that teach their children that to hate based on such is acceptable, and not only acceptable but expected.

Kate

I do believe that total racial harmony can be achieved. I do not say that racial hatred can or will be eliminated. When I speak of racial harmony, I am speaking of social, political and financial equality of opportunity. I think that the law must require people not to act on their inner feelings so that the equality will be achieved. What people think in private or teach their children may be something different. However, the law must teach that, regardless of what you have learned, America is a land where all people are treated equally, and, if you act in a manner contrary to those ideals, you can expect to be severely punished, regardless of you race, because we reserve the right to punish equally severely.

[William Anthony]

Excellent point, and I don't disagree that suicide may have entered his mind. But the question still remains; why the disguise, cash and passport if the intent is to drive to your ex-wife's cemetary, or anywhere else for that matter, to shoot yourself? It's difficult for me to imagine that he wanted to flee the country just to end his life.

Kate

I think the argument could have been made that he was fleeing the country to commit suicide, because he was acting irrationally due to the stress that he was under. In his mind he may have been thinking he could lessen the impact of his suicide on his loved ones by being distant from them. The disguise was so that no one would have been able to stop him from committing suicide, in his mind, by avoiding recognition. The argument may have been made that, during the drive, Cowlings suggested that he talk it over with Nicole and see if she thought their children needed him.

This is the type of discourse that I believe serves the community in the best way; two people with not necessarily different points of view, but being able to respectfully discuss an issue.

[William Anthony]

We must remind ourselves that not all humans come with the ability to vocalize objections and stand up in the face of such adversity. I don't believe that because someone may not be able to find the courage to protest a racial remark or racist behavior means that their silence equates implied consent.

William, you are very vocal and extremely passionate about these issues and you are very eloquent and articulate in your communication but not everyone is lucky enough to possess those same gifts in communication.

Kate

Thank you. I don't have the courage of MLK. I am trying to find it, as well as his some degree of his passion and eloquence.

[The R]

R,

You have a really wonderful way with expressing your thoughts, what a pleasure to have you on this forum.

I agree that total racial harmony is an ideal that will never be achieved. There will always be those that hate another based on skin color, and unfortunately that manner of thinking is passed down through generations that teach their children that to hate based on such is acceptable, and not only acceptable but expected.

Kate

Kate,

Thanks for the compliment, but the pleasure is all mine really. With posters like you, William, and others here I feel like I have an opportunity to grow and learn.

Thanks,
R

[William Anthony]

Kate,

Thanks for the compliment, but the pleasure is all mine really. With posters like you, William, and others here I feel like I have an opportunity to grow and learn.

Thanks,
R

I would like to return the compliment and say that you have expressed my feelings about Kate, others and yourself more eloquently than I could. Respectful, polite, civil, open and honest conversation, allows the opportunity for growth and learning. The opposite type of conversation does much to eliminate those possibilities. This community should be pleased to have Kate, you and others, who conduct themselves in a similar manner, as members.

[weezer]

I think the argument could have been made that he was fleeing the country to commit suicide, because he was acting irrationally due to the stress that he was under. In his mind he may have been thinking he could lessen the impact of his suicide on his loved ones by being distant from them. The disguise was so that no one would have been able to stop him from committing suicide, in his mind, by avoiding recognition. The argument may have been made that, during the drive, Cowlings suggested that he talk it over with Nicole and see if she thought their children needed him.

This is the type of discourse that I believe serves the community in the best way; two people with not necessarily different points of view, but being able to respectfully discuss an issue.

Didn't kardashian write that he had to keep suggesting 'other' places for orenthal to commit suicide?

I don't think he ever intended to kill himself or he would have done it -- he had hours and hours to do it in and didn't. I believe he thought that he could get 'out of' his predicament by the threat of suicide.

We will probably never know what ac said to orenthal during that drive because ac plead the 5th.

[William Anthony]

Didn't kardashian write that he had to keep suggesting 'other' places for orenthal to commit suicide?

I don't think he ever intended to kill himself or he would have done it -- he had hours and hours to do it in and didn't. I believe he thought that he could get 'out of' his predicament by the threat of suicide.

We will probably never know what ac said to orenthal during that drive because ac plead the 5th.

I have not read anything written by Kardashian.

I do not think that, because he did not kill himself, we can say that he never intended to. I do not know how the threat of suicide could prevent him from being arrested or standing trial. It may have been used as an insanity defense, but that would require the defense to prove he was criminally insane at the time of the crime, not during the ride.

No, we will never know what AC said. The argument was made in a hypothetical situation if the evidence during the ride had been admitted in the trial, as an alternative to consciousness of guilt, and how it could have possibly have been argued.

[SlowHandSam]

Didn't kardashian write that he had to keep suggesting 'other' places for orenthal to commit suicide?

I don't think he ever intended to kill himself or he would have done it -- he had hours and hours to do it in and didn't. I believe he thought that he could get 'out of' his predicament by the threat of suicide.

We will probably never know what ac said to orenthal during that drive because ac plead the 5th.

I recall reading this also, somewhere. I'll have to go dig and see where it is. I agree, also, that I believe if he was serious he wouldn't have waited until he was being pursued by police to commit suicide. Couple that with the fact he had a disguise, money and means to flee reads to me as a lame attempt and diverting the attention.

Additionally, I would argue that if his friend, AC, was going to drive him somewhere to kill himself, why on Earth would he need money AND a disguise ... and identification used to leave the country?

I'm just sayin'.

[William Anthony]

I recall reading this also, somewhere. I'll have to go dig and see where it is. I agree, also, that I believe if he was serious he wouldn't have waited until he was being pursued by police to commit suicide. Couple that with the fact he had a disguise, money and means to flee reads to me as a lame attempt and diverting the attention.

Additionally, I would argue that if his friend, AC, was going to drive him somewhere to kill himself, why on Earth would he need money AND a disguise ... and identification used to leave the country?

I'm just sayin'.

Continuing to play devil's advocate, because I do believe the evidence could effectively be argued to show consciousness of guilt, I would argue that he did not want to commit suicide within the United States, because he wanted to put distance between his loved ones and the event. I would argue that the feelings of those, who he trusted, was what prevented him from committing suicide. I would argue that he wanted to spare his loved ones the ordeal of a trial and that stress caused him to act irrationally. He had lost someone, who he loved at one time very dearly, and his and her children had suffered enough. I would argue that those he trusted most were able to convince him that his children would suffer more without him and that he owed his children the duty of raising them, and, being a part of their lives, even if it meant going to prison, rightly or wrongly convicted. I would argue that it was his love for his loved ones that made him act so irrationally, but he was incapable of killing anyone, even himself.

[martin II]

I recall reading this also, somewhere. I'll have to go dig and see where it is. I agree, also, that I believe if he was serious he wouldn't have waited until he was being pursued by police to commit suicide. Couple that with the fact he had a disguise, money and means to flee reads to me as a lame attempt and diverting the attention.

Additionally, I would argue that if his friend, AC, was going to drive him somewhere to kill himself, why on Earth would he need money AND a disguise ... and identification used to leave the country?

I'm just sayin'.

Well i remember reading someplace that the money oj had was to be given to ac and transfered to the Browns for the upkeep of his children when he went to jail.imo

[weezer]

Continuing to play devil's advocate, because I do believe the evidence could effectively be argued to show consciousness of guilt, I would argue that he did not want to commit suicide within the United States, because he wanted to put distance between his loved ones and the event. I would argue that the feelings of those, who he trusted, was what prevented him from committing suicide. I would argue that he wanted to spare his loved ones the ordeal of a trial and that stress caused him to act irrationally. He had lost someone, who he loved at one time very dearly, and his and her children had suffered enough. I would argue that those he trusted most were able to convince him that his children would suffer more without him and that he owed his children the duty of raising them, and, being a part of their lives, even if it meant going to prison, rightly or wrongly convicted. I would argue that it was his love for his loved ones that made him act so irrationally, but he was incapable of killing anyone, even himself.

oh my! you mean this good hearted, heartsick ole man was protecting his family by leaving the country to commit suicide? LOL

He had two young children that had just lost their mother in the most horrible way and yet he had to be 'talked' out of suicide? geez

Most bullies and abusers are cowards. orenthal didn't have the cajones to kill himself. :eek: imo

[weezer]

Well i remember reading someplace that the money oj had was to be given to ac and transfered to the Browns for the upkeep of his children when he went to jail.imo

but he didn't make arrangements for them before he put the gun to his head? how sad.

[tv]

Continuing to play devil's advocate, because I do believe the evidence could effectively be argued to show consciousness of guilt, I would argue that he did not want to commit suicide within the United States, because he wanted to put distance between his loved ones and the event. I would argue that the feelings of those, who he trusted, was what prevented him from committing suicide. I would argue that he wanted to spare his loved ones the ordeal of a trial and that stress caused him to act irrationally. He had lost someone, who he loved at one time very dearly, and his and her children had suffered enough. I would argue that those he trusted most were able to convince him that his children would suffer more without him and that he owed his children the duty of raising them, and, being a part of their lives, even if it meant going to prison, rightly or wrongly convicted. I would argue that it was his love for his loved ones that made him act so irrationally, but he was incapable of killing anyone, even himself.He didn't see this children for several days after Nicole was murdered. The first thing I (and any normal person) would want to do is give my children comfort after such a horrible tragedy. I see no indication that he was thinking of committing suicide in another country. He wandered all over Kardashian's property looking for a place to kill himself but each spot he considered had something about it that he said wasn't suitable. Eventually Kardashian got tired of this waffling back and forth and began to make suggestions on where he could do it.

[William Anthony]

He didn't see this children for several days after Nicole was murdered. The first thing I (and any normal person) would want to do is give my children comfort after such a horrible tragedy. I see no indication that he was thinking of committing suicide in another country. He wandered all over Kardashian's property looking for a place to kill himself but each spot he considered had something about it that he said wasn't suitable. Eventually Kardashian got tired of this waffling back and forth and began to make suggestions on where he could do it.

I would argue that he did not want to place his children in view of the media and the fact that he had not seen them, although we do not know that he did not talk with them, added to his stress. Perhaps, he decided to follow one of Kardasian's suggestions or he thought of one on his own. That would be my argument.

[tv]

I would argue that he did not want to place his children in view of the media and the fact that he had not seen them, although we do not know that he did not talk with them, added to his stress. Perhaps, he decided to follow one of Kardasian's suggestions or he thought of one on his own. That would be my argument.Kardashian didn't suggest that Simpson kill himself out of the country. He was suggesting places on his property even though I'm sure these were not serious suggestions. The argument that he didn't see his children to keep them out of the view of the media isn't a very strong one. They needed their father more than any other person. Once again, it was all about OJ and his needs. I can see that a man that would kill his children's mother and leave her dead body where the children could find it would probably wouldn't consider their needs above his own. If he wanted to see them arrangements for privacy could easily have been made.

[William Anthony]

oh my! you mean this good hearted, heartsick ole man was protecting his family by leaving the country to commit suicide? LOL

He had two young children that had just lost their mother in the most horrible way and yet he had to be 'talked' out of suicide? geez

Most bullies and abusers are cowards. orenthal didn't have the cajones to kill himself. :eek: imo

The last sentence agrees with the argument I would make, which is that he was not suited to kill anyone, including himself. I mean that he thought he was protecting his children, in his irrational state of mind. That would be my argument, as to explain his subsequent conduct. I think I would highlight in my argument that the good hearted, heartsick, ole MF, who did not have the money to leave the country, moved away from the state, to protect his family. I would argue that flight is a means of protecting one's loved one's to some, whether on not they are bullies that operate under the color of authority, or abusers operating under that same authority, or cowards. I would argue that Simpson was no different than other bullies, abusers or cowards and that he was not a murderer.

[tv]

The last sentence agrees with the argument I would make, which is that he was not suited to kill anyone, including himself. I mean that he thought he was protecting his children, in his irrational state of mind. That would be my argument, as to explain his subsequent conduct. I think I would highlight in my argument that the good hearted, heartsick, ole MF, who did not have the money to leave the country, moved away from the state, to protect his family. I would argue that flight is a means of protecting one's loved one's to some, whether on not they are bullies that operate under the color of authority, or abusers operating under that same authority, or cowards. I would argue that Simpson was no different than other bullies, abusers or cowards and that he was not a murderer.Mark Fuhrman retired from the LAPD and moved out of state. I've never seen it reported that he was carrying a gun, disguise and a large amount of money. I don't recall that he was followed by an entourage of LE either. Why would anything about Mark Fuhrman come up in an argument about Simpson attempting to flee the country?

[William Anthony]

Kardashian didn't suggest that Simpson kill himself out of the country. He was suggesting places on his property even though I'm sure these were not serious suggestions. The argument that he didn't see his children to keep them out of the view of the media isn't a very strong one. They needed their father more than any other person. Once again, it was all about OJ and his needs. I can see that a man that would kill his children's mother and leave her dead body where the children could find it would probably wouldn't consider their needs above his own. If he wanted to see them arrangements for privacy could easily have been made.

I would argue that Simpson got tired of waffling around behind Kardashian's suggestions and thought he would do it out of the country. I would argue that he did not kill his children's mother, although he may have been a bully and abuser, because he was a coward. I would argue that he thought more of his children than he did himself, because he knew the members of the media were camped outside of his home and did not want to make a spectacle of his visit with them or spend the time he had with them explaining why all the cameras and the shouting were directed to them. I would argue that it was too risky an endeavor to try to make arrangements for privacy, because that privacy might have been violated.

[William Anthony]

Mark Fuhrman retired from the LAPD and moved out of state. I've never seen it reported that he was carrying a gun, disguise and a large amount of money. I don't recall that he was followed by an entourage of LE either. Why would anything about Mark Fuhrman come up in an argument about Simpson attempting to flee the country?

Because part of your argument spoke to the actions of bullies, abusers and cowards. I would argue that MF was not facing the severity of the charges Simpson was but the actions were similar.

[tv]

I would argue that Simpson got tired of waffling around behind Kardashian's suggestions and thought he would do it out of the country. I would argue that he did not kill his children's mother, although he may have been a bully and abuser, because he was a coward. I would argue that he thought more of his children than he did himself, because he knew the members of the media were camped outside of his home and did not want to make a spectacle of his visit with them or spend the time he had with them explaining why all the cameras and the shouting were directed to them. I would argue that it was too risky an endeavor to try to make arrangements for privacy, because that privacy might have been violated.I'm assuming that even though you would make these arguments it doesn't necessarily mean that you believe them. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm assuming that even though you would make these arguments it doesn't necessarily mean that you believe them. :)

I make them because there is a reasonable alternative to be made other than they showed consciousness of guilt. That is what lawyers do.:)

[tv]

I make them because there is a reasonable alternative to be made other than they showed consciousness of guilt. That is what lawyers do.:)I don't agree that the alternative is reasonable but I'll agree it's an alternative. :)

[tv]

Because part of your argument spoke to the actions of bullies, abusers and cowards. I would argue that MF was not facing the severity of the charges Simpson was but the actions were similar.I see what you're saying but I think the comparision is like apples and rocks. :)

[William Anthony]

I see what you're saying but I think the comparision is like apples and rocks. :)

The comparison might be like apples to rocks to you, if you believe what Wright said. Although it is my personal opinion that MF is a rock head, I do not think that all members of his race think like he does. I think that his and Simpson's actions were very similar and may have been identical, if the rock head was facing the possibility of life in prison. I think in this case the comparison is more appropriate to comparing a potential rock head,(which his future acts may show he has become a full fledged one) with a rock head.

[martin II]

He didn't see this children for several days after Nicole was murdered. The first thing I (and any normal person) would want to do is give my children comfort after such a horrible tragedy. I see no indication that he was thinking of committing suicide in another country. He wandered all over Kardashian's property looking for a place to kill himself but each spot he considered had something about it that he said wasn't suitable. Eventually Kardashian got tired of this waffling back and forth and began to make suggestions on where he could do it.

Oj had put his kids in the home of their grands and they were safe and being cared of. He had much more pressing problems to deal with than taking care of his kids personally AT THAT TIME.

I would not believe much of anything R k said later on.imo

[William Anthony]

I don't agree that the alternative is reasonable but I'll agree it's an alternative. :)

I think you are predisposed to find guilt and I would strike you from the jury for cause. :)

[martin II]

I have not read anything written by Kardashian.

I do not think that, because he did not kill himself, we can say that he never intended to. I do not know how the threat of suicide could prevent him from being arrested or standing trial. It may have been used as an insanity defense, but that would require the defense to prove he was criminally insane at the time of the crime, not during the ride.

No, we will never know what AC said. The argument was made in a hypothetical situation if the evidence during the ride had been admitted in the trial, as an alternative to consciousness of guilt, and how it could have possibly have been argued.

And AC had a very good reason for taking the 5th.

[martin II]

Mark Fuhrman retired from the LAPD and moved out of state. I've never seen it reported that he was carrying a gun, disguise and a large amount of money. I don't recall that he was followed by an entourage of LE either. Why would anything about Mark Fuhrman come up in an argument about Simpson attempting to flee the country?

I have not been able to pin point any attempt by oj to flee the country.He left R K house and went to the cemetary and then drove along a highway at very slow speed.Seems to me if he was 'FLEEING THE COUNTRY' he would have been found some place near San Diago speeding to Mexico.

[martin II]

but he didn't make arrangements for them before he put the gun to his head? how sad.

I thought it was AC or someone that transported the children to the Browns
early on 6/13 at ojs request. They did not stay in le custody.

[Big Ben]

I agree that what happens in courtrooms and after the verdicts are rendered are symbolize a greater problem that exists within our society. I do not think that the judicial system should be structurally changed, with the possible exception of requiring proof beyond any doubt, in a criminal proceeding.

When a man's life is at stake, WM, I do believe that proof beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous jury verdict in a criminal trial should be the rule and should not be changed.

Before any of us rush out to change our common law court system in the U.S., which has evolved as a result of the development of rules that have emanated and descended through 800 years of time, I would recommend that a thorough examination of the California system of jurisprudence be done first and foremost, particularly in the area governing the California Rules of Evidence. I think that if you do a historical examination of the above you may find the, imo, (intentional) flaw or chink in the California system that has generated such debate relative to changing the American justice system as a whole.

I have previously asserted, imo, what is to be considered a serious undermining of justice that occurred during the Simpson trial, that being the lawyers' closed door decision to circumvent the jury's right to examine evidence, namely the Juditha Brown telephone records, by agreeing to enter by stioulation the alleged time of the phone call between Juditha Brown and Nicole Brown Simpson.

Whether you agree with my assertion or not, that these telephone records were crucial evidence, all that you are left with is the belief that the attorneys would not and did not lie when entering the phone records by stipulation.

I would contend that this is not what the framers of the "trier of fact" rule intended or envisioned. History implies, imo, that the creators of this provision in no way intended for the jury to be left out, with only the presumption that lawyers wouldn't collude to suppress evidnce and conceal a hidden truth.

Whether you agree or disagree that what the attorneys saw behind closed doors represented the factual truth, imo, is irrelevant. What is more important, again imo, is that lawyers were able to circumvent the most important and fundamental rule of common law and that is the "trier of fact rule", that only a jury by its' examination of the evidence will determine the facts and the fate of the accused whether he is to be either acquited or condemned. Only the trier of fact can make that determination.


California, has opened the door to the creation of a strange hybrid, imo, by nullifying one of its' own constitutional amendments, I believe it was formerly designated as Article 6 sec. 19 of the California Constitution, which was repealed in 1966. This amendment up till then prevented judges in the state of California from charging juries (interfering beyond instruction) relative to evidence.

Strangely, the repeal of this amendment came on the heals of the end of the twelve year conference to create the Uniform Rules of Evidence, (URE), 1953-1965, which California declined to participate. The FRE (Federal Rules of Evidence follow the URE in most instances verbatim).

Instead you now have a situation as in the case of Judge Ito, imo, using the majesty of his position, as Judge of the Superior Court, to influence the jury by instruction immediately subsequent to the introduction by stipulation of Exhibit 35, the alleged Juditha Brown Phone Records.

I believe that he abused his discretion by instructing an potentially awestruck jury on February 07, 1995, that the jury didn't have to believe anything that either attorneys had to say during the course of the trial, however, when opposing attorneys stipulate (mutually agree) to a fact, then they (the jury) must accept the stipulation as evidence in the trial. This authority is given to the California judges pursuant to Cal. BAJI 1.02 (California Book of Approved Jury Instructions).

This call for change has been, imo, based upon the subliminal racial animus associated with this trial as a result of the criminal jury's decision and fueled by the overt Simpson chat sessions, on line and in public. However, I believe that it would simply become a futile excersise if, again, attorneys either individually or jointly, attempted to denigrate the integrity of the rules, as I believe they did in this trial, with the intent of undermining the delivery of justice.

In such cases the punishment of those that do so should be swift and should be severe to effectively discourage that type of conduct. As recent events have shown, undermining justice by the suppression of evidnce, seems to flourish throughout the U.S. This, imo, is what I truly believe undermines the credibility and integrity of the American justice system.

[William Anthony]

When a man's life is at stake, WM, I do believe that proof beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous jury verdict in a criminal trial should be the rule and should not be changed.

Before any of us rush out to change our common law court system in the U.S., which has evolved as a result of the development of rules that have emanated and descended through 800 years of time, I would recommend that a thorough examination of the California system of jurisprudence be done first and foremost, particularly in the area governing the California Rules of Evidence. I think that if you do a historical examination of the above you may find the, imo, (intentional) flaw or chink in the California system that has generated such debate relative to changing the American justice system as a whole.

I have previously asserted, imo, what is to be considered a serious undermining of justice that occurred during the Simpson trial, that being the lawyers' closed door decision to circumvent the jury's right to examine evidence, namely the Juditha Brown telephone records, by agreeing to enter by stioulation the alleged time of the phone call between Juditha Brown and Nicole Brown Simpson.

Whether you agree with my assertion or not, that these telephone records were crucial evidence, all that you are left with is the belief that the attorneys would not and did not lie when entering the phone records by stipulation.

I would contend that this is not what the framers of the "trier of fact" rule intended or envisioned. History implies, imo, that the creators of this provision in no way intended for the jury to be left out, with only the presumption that lawyers wouldn't collude to suppress evidnce and conceal a hidden truth.

Whether you agree or disagree that what the attorneys saw behind closed doors represented the factual truth, imo, is irrelevant. What is more important, again imo, is that lawyers were able to circumvent the most important and fundamental rule of common law and that is the "trier of fact rule", that only a jury by its' examination of the evidence will determine the facts and the fate of the accused whether he is to be either acquited or condemned. Only the trier of fact can make that determination.


California, has opened the door to the creation of a strange hybrid, imo, by nullifying one of its' own constitutional amendments, I believe it was formerly designated as Article 6 sec. 19 of the California Constitution, which was repealed in 1966. This amendment up till then prevented judges in the state of California from charging juries (interfering beyond instruction) relative to evidence.

Strangely, the repeal of this amendment came on the heals of the end of the twelve year conference to create the Uniform Rules of Evidence, (URE), 1953-1965, which California declined to participate. The FRE (Federal Rules of Evidence follow the URE in most instances verbatim).

Instead you now have a situation as in the case of Judge Ito, imo, using the majesty of his position, as Judge of the Superior Court, to influence the jury by instruction immediately subsequent to the introduction by stipulation of Exhibit 35, the alleged Juditha Brown Phone Records.

I believe that he abused his discretion by instructing an potentially awestruck jury on February 07, 1995, that the jury didn't have to believe anything that either attorneys had to say during the course of the trial, however, when opposing attorneys stipulate (mutually agree) to a fact, then they (the jury) must accept the stipulation as evidence in the trial. This authority is given to the California judges pursuant to Cal. BAJI 1.02 (California Book of Approved Jury Instructions).

This call for change has been, imo, based upon the subliminal racial animus associated with this trial as a result of the criminal jury's decision and fueled by the overt Simpson chat sessions, on line and in public. However, I believe that it would simply become a futile excersise if, again, attorneys either individually or jointly, attempted to denigrate the integrity of the rules, as I believe they did in this trial, with the intent of undermining the delivery of justice.

In such cases the punishment of those that do so should be swift and should be severe to effectively discourage that type of conduct. As recent events have shown, undermining justice by the suppression of evidnce, seems to flourish throughout the U.S. This, imo, is what I truly believe undermines the credibility and integrity of the American justice system.

I believe the standard of proof should be raised in capital cases.

I have paid little attention to the California Rules of Evidence, per se. However, imho, there needs to be a Uniform Code of Evidence. I do believe that there are and will be flaws in anything that is codified, because, by definition they are based on words.

I think I understand your protestation against the idea of a stipulation. Let me first say that, in the experiences I have had with lawyers, it is arduous to enter into a stipulation about anything. With that said, I find it out of the norm for their to be a stipulation. However, when facts are unable to be contested it is a means of judicial and economical expediency to enter into a stipulation. I agree that our judicial system has withstood the test of time, which is why I said I did not see a need for a structural change.

The change I suggest is to eliminate any signs of racial animus from the judicial system and that trials are fair and impartial. I am not one to say that racial animus plays a part in most of the verdicts. I accept that justice has been done, even if I do not agree with the verdict. I may point to rulings and procedures that were, imho, out of line and unfair. I can not say that the rulings and verdicts were based on racial animus, unless it was clear, as in the rulings that came before the Supreme Court that were eventually overturned.
My concern is that justice is administered fairly and equally. I saw the Simpson criminal verdict as just that. Whether or not the verdict was the correct one is not a matter of justice. Justice only means that an accused receives a fair trial, by a jury of his peers (12 citizens in this case), in accordance with the rules of criminal procedure and the rule of evidence. The fact that others of his stature of a different race received similar verdicts allows me to think that the verdict was fair and equal. The racial animus was not shown in the courtroom, with the exception of MF, imho, but was shown after the verdict.

I agree with you that those who work to derail the fair and equal administration of justice should be severely punished. I only add that, as long as ordinary citizens do not stand up for the proper way to administer justice, then the longer it will be administered improperly. This is the change I was speaking of.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]=William Anthony;9098742]I believe the standard of proof should be raised in capital cases.

1. I have paid little attention to the California Rules of Evidence, per se. However, imho, there needs to be a Uniform Code of Evidence.

2. when facts are unable to be contested it is a means of judicial and economical expediency to enter into a stipulation. I agree that our judicial system has withstood the test of time, which is why I said I did not see a need for a structural change.

3. I can not say that the rulings and verdicts were based on racial animus, unless it was clear, as in the rulings that came before the Supreme Court that were eventually overturned.
[QUOTE]

Wm, your points are well taken, however, there is a Uniform Code of Evidence, it is properly titled the Uniform Rules of Evidence. California was invited to particpate in its' structuring in 1953 through 1965, but California formally rejected the request to particpate in the national conference to create a URE and instead chose to hold its' own intra-state conference in 1965 to establish a new California Rule of Evidence Code.


Any type of mandate that would require states to follow a specific guideline in the enactment of their laws would undoubtedly be met with an extreme backlash. I'm certain that such a move would be challenged as a constitutional infringement upon the inherent authority of the states to govern themselves by enacting their own laws. The Federal government would undoubtedly be reminded that they only possess narrow designated authority. Though it is limited in its far reaching potential, its' power is exceptionally strong within the narrow confines of its' designated powers.



The truth of the matter concerning the Juditha Brown Phone records is that they were in conflict within a week of Nicole's death, in conflict within Judge Kennedy Powell's chambers which required the sealing of the transcript until the issue of the time on those phone records could be cleared up. The URE and the FRE require that whenever evidence is in conflict only the trier of fact, (the jury) has the right to make a determination of the validity.

The final stipulation only lends further conflict because it creates an arrival time of 9:37 PM for Juditha Brown to arrive home to Monarch Bay, Orange County. This time of 9:37 PM is in conflict with all reasonable time sources with knowledge of what that commute requires from Brentwood to Dana Point/Monarch Bay.

Even with the recently built toll road, Cal. State Road 73, which was under construction when the murders occurred, only reduces the commute time by approximately 6 minutes from the previous 1 hour 25 minutes to 1 hour 19 minutes according to mapquest. The trial testimony locked them into commute times of 35 minutes, 52 minutes, and finally fifteen months after the criminal trial ended, during the civil trial Juditha testified that they left earlier than prior testimony which created a commute time of 1 hour and 6 minutes.

All of these reasons created furth conflict and contradiction. These are, in themselves, prerequisites for the judge, if acting in good faith regarding his job, would have guaranteed that the actual records were examined by the jury (trier of fact) to make sure that the documents purporting the above was in fact true.

The racial animus that I speak of came as a result of bill boarding by media personalities, i.e Geraldo Rivera, Charles Grodin, and other lesser knowns.
It was needlessly promulgated, imo, because the jury had rendered judgment. Denouncing the jury and denouncing Simpson became a cash cow for several networks. However, the surrepticious removal of the telephone records from the Simpson case file, the concealment of those records from the juries will always, imo, loom heavily over the voracity of this trial.

BB

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE]=William Anthony;9098742]I believe the standard of proof should be raised in capital cases.

1. I have paid little attention to the California Rules of Evidence, per se. However, imho, there needs to be a Uniform Code of Evidence.

2. when facts are unable to be contested it is a means of judicial and economical expediency to enter into a stipulation. I agree that our judicial system has withstood the test of time, which is why I said I did not see a need for a structural change.

3. I can not say that the rulings and verdicts were based on racial animus, unless it was clear, as in the rulings that came before the Supreme Court that were eventually overturned.
[QUOTE]

Wm, your points are well taken, however, there is a Uniform Code of Evidence, it is properly titled the Uniform Rules of Evidence. California was invited to particpate in its' structuring in 1953 through 1965, but California formally rejected the request to particpate in the national conference to create a URE and instead chose to hold its' own intra-state conference in 1965 to establish a new California Rule of Evidence Code.


Any type of mandate that would require states to follow a specific guideline in the enactment of their laws would undoubtedly be met with an extreme backlash. I'm certain that such a move would be challenged as a constitutional infringement upon the inherent authority of the states to govern themselves by enacting their own laws. The Federal government would undoubtedly be reminded that they only possess narrow designated authority. Though it is limited in its far reaching potential, its' power is exceptionally strong within the narrow confines of its' designated powers.



The truth of the matter concerning the Juditha Brown Phone records is that they were in conflict within a week of Nicole's death, in conflict within Judge Kennedy Powell's chambers which required the sealing of the transcript until the issue of the time on those phone records could be cleared up. The URE and the FRE require that whenever evidence is in conflict only the trier of fact, (the jury) has the right to make a determination of the validity.

The final stipulation only lends further conflict because it creates an arrival time of 9:37 PM for Juditha Brown to arrive home to Monarch Bay, Orange County. This time of 9:37 PM is in conflict with all reasonable time sources with knowledge of what that commute requires from Brentwood to Dana Point/Monarch Bay.

Even with the recently built toll road, Cal. State Road 73, which was under construction when the murders occurred, only reduces the commute time by approximately 6 minutes from the previous 1 hour 25 minutes to 1 hour 19 minutes according to mapquest. The trial testimony locked them into commute times of 35 minutes, 52 minutes, and finally fifteen months after the criminal trial ended, during the civil trial Juditha testified that they left earlier than prior testimony which created a commute time of 1 hour and 6 minutes.

All of these reasons created furth conflict and contradiction. These are, in themselves, prerequisites for the judge, if acting in good faith regarding his job, would have guaranteed that the actual records were examined by the jury (trier of fact) to make sure that the documents purporting the above was in fact true.

The racial animus that I speak of came as a result of bill boarding by media personalities, i.e Geraldo Rivera, Charles Grodin, and other lesser knowns.
It was needlessly promulgated, imo, because the jury had rendered judgment. Denouncing the jury and denouncing Simpson became a cash cow for several networks. However, the surrepticious removal of the telephone records from the Simpson case file, the concealment of those records from the juries will always, imo, loom heavily over the voracity of this trial.

BB

I understand and you are obviously more informed on this than I am. I agree that the concept of state sovereignty has been used by some states to negate attempts to create a URE if they adopted the FRE.

I agree that there are many things that usurp the trier of facts function, including summary judgment and declaratory judgment and judgment not withstanding the verdict. The idea that a controversy must be real is the reasoning behind such judgments, imho. A stipulation would be analogous in that it admits that there is no controversy on in regard to a fact.

I am aware that you have done great research on the issue of the phone records and I am in no position to disagree with your position. I will only say that the lawyers would have racked up more billable hours arguing the point, if there was an argument to be made, not saying there wasn't, but I really do not understand your point on the records. However, if the records could have ended the trial, then I can see your point as they would have lost money. This is not the view I want to take of lawyers, because I want to become one.

I think the racial animus existed in the minds of some and the media fed upon it. Some are unwilling to admit that the race of the victims and Simpson's race is a factor in their outrage against the verdict, imho. I seriously doubt if Simpson had been charged with murdering his first wife and found not guilty there would be the same outrage by some members of the media and some members of the public, imho. The fact that JC led the dream team is another reason that some are unwilling to admit it caused their ire, imho.

One thing that has puzzled me was how the prosecution got to admit the Peratis video. I have read section 1202 and I do not find it applicable. I have always thought that impeachment evidence must be related to a change in testimony by a prior inconsistent statement, not by a later statement. I thought JC would be up in arms over the video until I watched it and then I knew he knew the jury would see it for what it was, an outrageous attempt to cover up the evidence of planting.

[SlowHandSam]

Well i remember reading someplace that the money oj had was to be given to ac and transfered to the Browns for the upkeep of his children when he went to jail.imo

8K was enough to support his children in the life they had become accustomed?

Ok.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9098782][QUOTE=Big Ben;9098758][QUOTE]=William Anthony;9098742]

[I]......but I really do not understand your point on the records. QUOTE]

The point is, WM, that the only truly potential impeachable, undisputed, piece of evidence that they all knew would unravel this trial from the beginning were the Juditha Brown Phone Records. They had to be suppressed and concealed from the jury, and the public in order to have this so called "trial of the century".

The reason being, that if Nicole was alive and well the night before at 11:00 PM talking to her mother about glasses left at the Mezzaluna Restaurant, as the father, Lou Brown, first told the coroner's investigator Claudine Ratcliffe the next morning on 06/13/94, then O.J. would have been in the back seat of a limousine on his way to LAX to catch an 11:45 PM flight to Chicago.

Our investigation zooms in on the closed door machinations to bury those phone records, which truly begins to spring into action by the culprits about a week after the deaths, around 06/20/94, to nullify the prior week's news paper reports regarding the 11:00 PM time in the N.Y. Daily News, Los Angeles Times, L.A. Daily News.

The need also to nullify F. Lee Bailey's interview on the CBS Morning Show on 06/27/94, that 11:00 PM provides Simpson an iron clad alibi, they sprang into action to nullify Lou Brown's initial statement and is a retraction upon visiting the L.A. coroner's office on 06/20/ 94, also to provide Juditha Brown's retraction of her original 11:00 PM statement to Robert Shapiro and his defense investigators on or about 06/17/94, which Shapiro writes about on page 33 in his personal expose on the trial "Search for Justice"etc.

Unbeknownst to the public, the documentation of what appeared to be going on indicates that the action relative to the necessity to suppress this crucial evidence is as dramatic as any diversionary madness that was being displayed in front of the camera. Even the attempts to blunt Dr. Irwin Golden's testimony on July 07, 1994 during the preliminary hearing on the 11:00 PM time issue as it related to the cooling of the liver and whether, as his medical examination had indicated two distinctive knives were involved, was, and still is by video tape, something to behold.

In this new light one can now conclude that Dr. Golden was not a bumbling idiot as he appeared to be on camera, rather he was under pressure to facilitate the determination of the prosecution to modify his actual discoveries in regard to time of death and number of knives involved relative to his performing the autopsies on the murdered victims.

Ten months later they would all but destroy this man's reputation by tearing him down in order to facilitate Dr. Swathy Lakshmanan's entry into the actual trial to testify regarding the "true manner of how death occurred", even though he didn't participate in the autopsy, examine the bodies, or even go to the murder site until six months after the murders occurred, in November 1994.

The records are key because the proper time for the Browns to have arrived home on the night of 06/12/94, given the CalTrans highway conditions on the I-405 on that date would have been approximately 11:00 PM, or 1 an 1/2 to 2hours commute time if they departed Mezzaluna at approx. 8:45 PM as testimony seemed to indicate.

Although the statements in the police report start withrestaurant manager Debello's 9:00 PM departure time (37 minute commute time) and backed up to "8:40-8:45ish" PM during criminal trial testimony, (52 minute commute time) and 8:30 PM by the time Juditha took the stand in the civil trial (67 minute commute time), none of those departure times would have gotten the Browns home in time to make the crucial 9:37 PM phone call which is the subject of the stipulation that you and I have previously addressed.

The question that remains is why did some of the inner circle defense team participate in what we have alleged to be a fraud. Part of the answer to that we believe is beginning to surface, at least relative to Johnnie Cochran's willingness to participate; which would have been a key factor, imo, once he came on board with the defense team.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9098782][QUOTE=Big Ben;9098758][QUOTE]=William Anthony;9098742]

[I]......but I really do not understand your point on the records. QUOTE]

The point is, WM, that the only truly potential impeachable, undisputed, piece of evidence that they all knew would unravel this trial from the beginning were the Juditha Brown Phone Records. They had to be suppressed and concealed from the jury, and the public in order to have this so called "trial of the century".

The reason being, that if Nicole was alive and well the night before at 11:00 PM talking to her mother about glasses left at the Mezzaluna Restaurant, as the father, Lou Brown, first told the coroner's investigator Claudine Ratcliffe the next morning on 06/13/94, then O.J. would have been in the back seat of a limousine on his way to LAX to catch an 11:45 PM flight to Chicago.

Our investigation zooms in on the closed door machinations to bury those phone records, which truly begins to spring into action by the culprits about a week after the deaths, around 06/20/94, to nullify the prior week's news paper reports regarding the 11:00 PM time in the N.Y. Daily News, Los Angeles Times, L.A. Daily News.

The need also to nullify F. Lee Bailey's interview on the CBS Morning Show on 06/27/94, that 11:00 PM provides Simpson an iron clad alibi, they sprang into action to nullify Lou Brown's initial statement and is a retraction upon visiting the L.A. coroner's office on 06/20/ 94, also to provide Juditha Brown's retraction of her original 11:00 PM statement to Robert Shapiro and his defense investigators on or about 06/17/94, which Shapiro writes about on page 33 in his personal expose on the trial "Search for Justice"etc.

Unbeknownst to the public, the documentation of what appeared to be going on indicates that the action relative to the necessity to suppress this crucial evidence is as dramatic as any diversionary madness that was being displayed in front of the camera. Even the attempts to blunt Dr. Irwin Golden's testimony on July 07, 1994 during the preliminary hearing on the 11:00 PM time issue as it related to the cooling of the liver and whether, as his medical examination had indicated two distinctive knives were involved, was, and still is by video tape, something to behold.

In this new light one can now conclude that Dr. Golden was not a bumbling idiot as he appeared to be on camera, rather he was under pressure to facilitate the determination of the prosecution to modify his actual discoveries in regard to time of death and number of knives involved relative to his performing the autopsies on the murdered victims.

Ten months later they would all but destroy this man's reputation by tearing him down in order to facilitate Dr. Swathy Lakshmanan's entry into the actual trial to testify regarding the "true manner of how death occurred", even though he didn't participate in the autopsy, examine the bodies, or even go to the murder site until six months after the murders occurred, in November 1994.

The records are key because the proper time for the Browns to have arrived home on the night of 06/12/94, given the CalTrans highway conditions on the I-405 on that date would have been approximately 11:00 PM, or 1 an 1/2 to 2hours commute time if they departed Mezzaluna at approx. 8:45 PM as testimony seemed to indicate.

Although the statements in the police report start withrestaurant manager Debello's 9:00 PM departure time (37 minute commute time) and backed up to "8:40-8:45ish" PM during criminal trial testimony, (52 minute commute time) and 8:30 PM by the time Juditha took the stand in the civil trial (67 minute commute time), none of those departure times would have gotten the Browns home in time to make the crucial 9:37 PM phone call which is the subject of the stipulation that you and I have previously addressed.

The question that remains is why did some of the inner circle defense team participate in what we have alleged to be a fraud. Part of the answer to that we believe is beginning to surface, at least relative to Johnnie Cochran's willingness to participate; which would have been a key factor, imo, once he came on board with the defense team.

Thank you for expounding upon your position relative to the phone records. You left off that part of my post where I said that the only explanation for them entering into the stipulation would be for financial reasons, on the part of the defense. I think the prosecution members were paid salaries. Therefore, their motive would have been fame and notoriety in hopes of future financial gain. Since judge Ito retired after the trial and has not written any books, I do not understand his motivation to conceal the truth, not saying he did not have one.

I hate to believe that members of a profession I have chosen to pursue would act in such a manner. However, with that said, the FBI did a sweep in the town I was raised and arrested judges, lawyers and other officials for engaging in corruption of the legal system. I am aware that to some money is a greater motivator than a person's life or a victim's justice. As I have said, I am in no position to take a position on the matter related to the records. Therefore, I take everything you post as valid. I hope that the records, if they will prove Simpson innocent, will be made public so that comments about the jury and the name calling will cease. However, what does this mean for the civil verdict? I still accept the verdict based on the information those jurors heard. I wonder if it will require a new trial or will their be an immediate overturning of the liable verdict, if the records show he could not have caused the willful and wrongful death or Ronald Goldman. What will be the ramifications about the damages and the property Fred Goldman has received in payment of the award? What will be the ramifications to those who participated in concealing evidence?

[weezer]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=Big Ben;9098801][QUOTE=William Anthony;9098782][QUOTE=Big Ben;9098758]". . . Since judge Ito retired after the trial. ."

"Current career
Ito continues to hold office as a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge. He is regarded as an expert in the area of the use of spoken-language interpreters in courtroom proceedings and regularly teaches at the Judicial College of California and Chapman University School of Law. . ."

[weezer]

[QUOTE=Big Ben;9098801][QUOTE=William Anthony;9098782][QUOTE=Big Ben;9098758]

Thank you for expounding upon your position relative to the phone records. You left off that part of my post where I said that the only explanation for them entering into the stipulation would be for financial reasons, on the part of the defense. I think the prosecution members were paid salaries. Therefore, their motive would have been fame and notoriety in hopes of future financial gain. Since judge Ito retired after the trial and has not written any books, I do not understand his motivation to conceal the truth, not saying he did not have one.

I hate to believe that members of a profession I have chosen to pursue would act in such a manner. However, with that said, the FBI did a sweep in the town I was raised and arrested judges, lawyers and other officials for engaging in corruption of the legal system. I am aware that to some money is a greater motivator than a person's life or a victim's justice. As I have said, I am in no position to take a position on the matter related to the records. Therefore, I take everything you post as valid. I hope that the records, if they will prove Simpson innocent, will be made public so that comments about the jury and the name calling will cease. However, what does this mean for the civil verdict? I still accept the verdict based on the information those jurors heard. I wonder if it will require a new trial or will their be an immediate overturning of the liable verdict, if the records show he could not have caused the willful and wrongful death or Ronald Goldman. What will be the ramifications about the damages and the property Fred Goldman has received in payment of the award? What will be the ramifications to those who participated in concealing evidence?

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/phonebill.htm

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9098803][QUOTE=Big Ben;9098801][QUOTE=William Anthony;9098782]

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/phonebill.htm

WEEZER

You have been relentless in your criticism of wagner. I think your discription of his was that he was a kook. Or some negative description. now you are posting a link to his wotk as proof of the issue of the phone records?
hahahahah

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=William Anthony;9098803][QUOTE=Big Ben;9098801][QUOTE=William Anthony;9098782]

"Current career
Ito continues to hold office as a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge. He is regarded as an expert in the area of the use of spoken-language interpreters in courtroom proceedings and regularly teaches at the Judicial College of California and Chapman University School of Law. . ."

I will not disagree with your post. However, I distinctly recall that he and his wife retired and moved to Ohio. This is not to say he did not rethink his retirement. If I am wrong, I stand corrected.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE=Big Ben;9098801][QUOTE=William Anthony;9098782][QUOTE;9098758]

What will be the ramifications to those who participated in concealing evidence?


Wm, this trial was an anomaly, and I certainly have questioned whether it should have ever been considered as "the trial of the century", and given such coverage. Particularly in the light of others cases, I thought the Timothy McVeigh case, or that of the defendants on trial in Jasper, TX for dragging James Byrd behind their pickup truck until he was decapitated would have been better candidates for "trial of the century".

O.J. Simpson was, for all intent and purposes, forgotten by 1994 as a Heisman Trophy winner and NFL football player. Yet the broadcast networks control the celebrity domain and can revive anyone they choose.
However, with that said, I believe that the answers to many of your questions regarding ramifications may be found in Jack Olsen's authored book "Last Man Standing". As the underlying subtitle implies it was indeed a "tragedy and a triumph" relative to the California conspiracy to try and to frame Geronimo Pratt. Nothing has happened to anyone in those agencies.

As a side note, I would speculate that you are from Chicago based upon your comment about judges, lawyers, and other officials arrested for corruption, because there was a major case of note regarding that city which indirectly is tied to principals in the Simpson case.

The difference between the Simpson judicial malfeasance and that in the one that I refer to in Chicago is that the Feds were on the outside of the circle of corruption in the Chicago case. However, in the Simpson case, the prosecution, defense, D.A.'s office, Superior Court Judges, the coroner's office, and the FBI are implicated in serious malfeasance.

I inherently acknowledged the issue of defense involvement for pecuniary gain relative to stipulating to false evidence. Though those cases may appear to be unusual they do exist. We've found several cases where the court has spoken harshly in regard to that type of conduct when it is discovered.

Some of the prosecutors, as well as a few of the defense team, were paid multi-million dollar book deal advancements within a year of the trial's end.

$4.5M, M.Clark
$4.2M, J. Cochran, though I don't think that was his primary motive.
$2.0M, R. Shapiro
$1.5M, C. Darden
Wm Hodgeman, became one of three Assistant D.A.'s for Los Angeles County.

Although Judge Ito wasn't directly involved as the others, imo, he was aware of what was going on and tried to cover the malfeasance. He is a Superior Court Judge in L.A. County and as I have been told while in L.A., there is a certain insidious politic to getting there and staying there with mandatory allegiances to the LADA and LAPD organizations.

His wife Captain York was sitting at the rear of the sparsely attended L.A. court session listening to the proceedings when we had lawyers pursue on behalf of the plaintiff, Simpson, the replacement of those phone records back into his case file from the GTE archives in San Angelo Texas in 2000. GTE California was the very resistant defendant in that matter.

Nevertheless, nothing requires you to not to be an honorable person in this profession. I hope that you will pursue your place in this profession honorably and that you will maintain integrity and fairness as you move along in your career.

BB

[Big Ben]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=William Anthony;9098803][QUOTE=Big Ben;9098801][QUOTE=William Anthony;9098782]

"Current career
Ito continues to hold office as a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge. He is regarded as an expert in the area of the use of spoken-language interpreters in courtroom proceedings and regularly teaches at the Judicial College of California and Chapman University School of Law. . ."

I can't find where I said "Judge Ito had retired after that trial" Weezer. If I did, I would have had to have been awfully tired because I am quite aware that Ito still is a practising Superior Court Judge.

BB

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9098803][QUOTE=Big Ben;9098801]


Wm, this trial was an anomaly, and I certainly have questioned whether it should have ever been considered as "the trial of the century", and given such coverage. Particularly in the light of others cases, I thought the Timothy McVeigh case, or that of the defendants on trial in Jasper, TX for dragging James Byrd behind their pickup truck until he was decapitated would have been better candidates for "trial of the century".

O.J. Simpson was, for all intent and purposes, forgotten by 1994 as a Heisman Trophy winner and NFL football player. Yet the broadcast networks control the celebrity domain and can revive anyone they choose.
However, with that said, I believe that the answers to many of your questions regarding ramifications may be found in Jack Olsen's authored book "Last Man Standing". As the underlying subtitle implies it was indeed a "tragedy and a triumph" relative to the California conspiracy to try and to frame Geronimo Pratt. Nothing has happened to anyone in those agencies.

As a side note, I would speculate that you are from Chicago based upon your comment about judges, lawyers, and other officials arrested for corruption, because there was a major case of note regarding that city which indirectly is tied to principals in the Simpson case.

The difference between the Simpson judicial malfeasance and that in the one that I refer to in Chicago is that the Feds were on the outside of the circle of corruption in the Chicago case. However, in the Simpson case, the prosecution, defense, D.A.'s office, Superior Court Judges, the coroner's office, and the FBI are implicated in serious malfeasance.

I inherently acknowledged the issue of defense involvement for pecuniary gain relative to stipulating to false evidence. Though those cases may appear to be unusual they do exist. We've found several cases where the court has spoken harshly in regard to that type of conduct when it is discovered.

Some of the prosecutors, as well as a few of the defense team, were paid multi-million dollar book deal advancements within a year of the trial's end.

$4.5M, M.Clark
$4.2M, J. Cochran, though I don't think that was his primary motive.
$2.0M, R. Shapiro
$1.5M, C. Darden
Wm Hodgeman, became one of three Assistant D.A.'s for Los Angeles County.

Although Judge Ito wasn't directly involved as the others, imo, he was aware of what was going on and tried to cover the malfeasance. He is a Superior Court Judge in L.A. County and as I have been told while in L.A., there is a certain insidious politic to getting there and staying there with mandatory allegiances to the LADA and LAPD organizations.

His wife Captain York was sitting at the rear of the sparsely attended L.A. court session listening to the proceedings when we had lawyers pursue on behalf of the plaintiff, Simpson, the replacement of those phone records back into his case file from the GTE archives in San Angelo Texas in 2000. GTE California was the very resistant defendant in that matter.

Nevertheless, nothing requires you to not to be an honorable person in this profession. I hope that you will pursue your place in this profession honorably and that you will maintain integrity and fairness as you move along in your career.

BB

Let me first thank you for the well wishes career wise. Having never been one of the haves, although their were times I was close, I do not think (always room for doubt, smile) that money will cause me to sell my integrity or alter my sense of fairness.

I know very little about the Pratt case but I did see one of his parole hearings, when he said he was a political prisoner. The one thing you can be sure of is that I am not from California, :). No, I am not from Chicago but the town in which I was raised was called little Chicago. It earned that name from another infamous characteristic of Chicago. I see that they had more in common than I realized.

One thing that I have wondered about is how so many who lost the case became rich writing books. I think that was the final straw in making my decision to become a lawyer. Where else can you be poor at your profession and become rich, :)?

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9098803][QUOTE=Big Ben;9098801][QUOTE=William Anthony;9098782]

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/phonebill.htm

Weezer, you are assigning credit to me for quotes made by someone else. I would recommend that you click the edit button and go to the top and remove one of the names that is not associated with making the quote. Once you edit the one that did not make the quote out, the rightful individual name will appear. I had to make that type of an edit once today myself because of a similiar occurrance.

BB

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE=Big Ben;9098851][QUOTE=William Anthony;9098803]



One thing that I have wondered about is how so many who lost the case became rich writing books. I think that was the final straw in making my decision to become a lawyer. Where else can you be poor at your profession and become rich, :)?

The last time I saw some of these people up close they looked bad, like death was riding their backs. I don't know if stress associated with the after effects of this case is related to so many bad appearances or what. Who knows, it could be bad karma for wrongdoing! If so, I would be cautious for what I wished for........

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9098832][QUOTE=William Anthony;9098803][QUOTE;9098801]

WEEZER

You have been relentless in your criticism of wagner. I think your discription of his was that he was a kook. Or some negative description. now you are posting a link to his wotk as proof of the issue of the phone records?
hahahahah

WM, the Weezer is fond of running out and grabbing this document. However, it was sent to our OMIG L.A. office first by Lou Brown in late 1999, after he had initially agreed to allow Doc Johnson and company to receive a replacement directly from the GTE Archive in San Angelo, TX. This is what he arranged to have Bill Hodgeman to finally send in place of the request that was initially made and agreed to by Brown four days earlier. He became unsually nervous and hostile when asked why he had changed his mind.

However, Doc Johnson and the OMIG officers told Brown that even without the problems that would ultimately surface on this document that they would not accept it as being a valid representation for the Exhibit 35 phone records removed in 1998 from Simpson's case file. That any replacement document should come from an unbiased third party, namely GTE, and not from Bill Hodgeman's residential garage after being removed for a year and a half.

Doc Johnson's group told Brown that once they were removed from the guardianship of the custodian of record for the Los Angeles County Superior Court they were no longer acceptable as a copy of the certified record that had been subpoenaed by the prosecutor's office in Case File 94-BA097211 People of The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson. Even Hodgeman upon request by OMIG officers wouldn't sign an affidavit affirming that what he had sent to Brown and onto Doc Johnson was an accurate copy of Exhibit 35, the Juditha Brown Phone Records.

Whatever these documents are claimed to be, they were surrepticiously removed by Deputy D.A. WM Hodgeman in April 1998, with an ex parte court order behind closed doors with Judge John Reid, with no signature for removal by Hodgeman on the Receipt Manifest in the L.A. County Superior Court Exhibit Department, and taken and placed in his own private storage facility and/or his private residence as alleged by the Custodian of Records, Marcie Proctor, for the L.A. Superior Court Exhibit Department in December of 1998 in a letter to OMIG.

You can look at what the Weezer has sent you to view in the Wagner link and see many questions of smudgy, indecernable, and inconsistent type (font) sizes. There are other problems as well that I need not speak of at this time. However, I would be ashamed if I were them to attempt to uphold my argument about a 9:37 PM and 9:40 PM JUditha Brown phone call by displaying this document as my verification.

All of this could have been avoided with a crisp clean document provided by the GTE Archive Department in TX, if not for the resistance of these clownish conspirators. It is this type of foolish behaviour that reduces the credibility of the California justice system in Los Angeles County to a level of complete baffoonery, imo.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=martin II;9098844][QUOTE=fbgweezer;9098832]

WM, the Weezer is fond of running out and grabbing this document. However, it was sent to our OMIG L.A. office first by Lou Brown in late 1999, after he had initially agreed to allow Doc Johnson and company to receive a replacement directly from the GTE Archive in San Angelo, TX. This is what he arranged to have Bill Hodgeman to finally send in place of the request that was initially made and agreed to by Brown four days earlier. He became unsually nervous and hostile when asked why he had changed his mind.

However, Doc Johnson and the OMIG officers told Brown that even without the problems that would ultimately surface on this document that they would not accept it as being a valid representation for the Exhibit 35 phone records removed in 1998 from Simpson's case file. That any replacement document should come from an unbiased third party, namely GTE, and not from Bill Hodgeman's residential garage after being removed for a year and a half.

Doc Johnson's group told Brown that once they were removed from the guardianship of the custodian of record for the Los Angeles County Superior Court they were no longer acceptable as a copy of the certified record that had been subpoenaed by the prosecutor's office in Case File 94-BA097211 People of The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson. Even Hodgeman upon request by OMIG officers wouldn't sign an affidavit affirming that what he had sent to Brown and onto Doc Johnson was an accurate copy of Exhibit 35, the Juditha Brown Phone Records.

Whatever these documents are claimed to be, they were surrepticiously removed by Deputy D.A. WM Hodgeman in April 1998, with an ex parte court order behind closed doors with Judge John Reid, with no signature for removal by Hodgeman on the Receipt Manifest in the L.A. County Superior Court Exhibit Department, and taken and placed in his own private storage facility and/or his private residence as alleged by the Custodian of Records, Marcie Proctor, for the L.A. Superior Court Exhibit Department in December of 1998 in a letter to OMIG.

You can look at what the Weezer has sent you to view in the Wagner link and see many questions of smudgy, indecernable, and inconsistent type (font) sizes. There are other problems as well that I need not speak of at this time. However, I would be ashamed if I were them to attempt to uphold my argument about a 9:37 PM and 9:40 PM JUditha Brown phone call by displaying this document as my verification.

All of this could have been avoided with a crisp clean document provided by the GTE Archive Department in TX, if not for the resistance of these clownish conspirators. It is this type of foolish behaviour that reduces the credibility of the California justice system in Los Angeles County to a level of complete baffoonery, imo.

I honestly can not see what is on what is alleged to be a copy of the original. However, I can think of one reason for an 11:00 call, which would be to see if she got the glasses. Of course, this would mean that Ronald Goldman was still with Nicole or either left and returned when the killer/killers came. I also saw where Wagner agreed there were irregularities on the copy. Those irregularities cause me some concern. This in connection with the partially thawed ice cream causes me to believe that she was alive later than the time of death presented by the prosecution and the defense.

[martin II]

Why would da Hodgeman be allowed to take file records to his home and store them in his garage?

[William Anthony]

Why would da Hodgeman be allowed to take file records to his home and store them in his garage?

For the same reasons Lang was allowed to take Simpson's sneakers home and Vannnatter to bring Simpson's blood to the crime scene, smile.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9098832][QUOTE=William Anthony;9098803][QUOTE=Big Ben;9098801]

WEEZER

You have been relentless in your criticism of wagner. I think your discription of his was that he was a kook. Or some negative description. now you are posting a link to his wotk as proof of the issue of the phone records?
hahahahah

I posted a link to the document being discussed. Do you have another link to the document?

[weezer]

*Snipped* WM, the Weezer is fond of running out and grabbing this document.

Since I don't put much stock in wagner's theories on the murders, I don't believe I've ever posted this link until now. I was simply posting a link to the document itself. Do you have another link to the document?

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9098832][QUOTE=William Anthony;9098803][QUOTE=Big Ben;9098801]

Weezer, you are assigning credit to me for quotes made by someone else. I would recommend that you click the edit button and go to the top and remove one of the names that is not associated with making the quote. Once you edit the one that did not make the quote out, the rightful individual name will appear. I had to make that type of an edit once today myself because of a similiar occurrance.

BB

you mean like your post that shows WM as having posted the link to wagner?

[William Anthony]

Least I forget. HAPPY MOTHERS DAY.:rose:

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE=Big Ben;9098860][QUOTE=fbgweezer;9098832][QUOTE=William Anthony;9098803]

you mean like your post that shows WM as having posted the link to wagner?

Almost Weezer, but turn it around. I think that you meant to say "you mean like WM's post that shows BB as having posted the link to wagner?"

Even this post is not showing you as the originator Weezer it seems like it wants to assign your words to WM.......There seems to be something wrong with the mechanics of the Message Board.

BB

[Big Ben]

Why would da Hodgeman be allowed to take file records to his home and store them in his garage?

That's what we all would like to know as well, martin. However, we had the Custodian of Records tell us in a writing the second time of what she initially told an OMIG investigator at the L.A. County Superior courthouse.

The judge seemed to be a piece of putty here, Judge John Reid, he granted the ex parte court order allowing Hodgman to remove all the Simpson Exhibits.

Judge Reid was also the one that sealed all records pertaining to DDA Lea D'Agostino when she filed a grievance with the civil service commission about being removed by Garcetti as the prosecutor in the Glen Rogers Trial.

Judge Reid also sealed all P.C. (penal code) 187 death row appeal files on Glen Rogers in the state of California.

D'Agostino was solely responsible for bringing Rogers back to California, which Garcetti and all considered to be virtually impossible because Rogers was already on death row in FLA. But she maneuvered around Garcetti and talked the Gov. of California a Republican to make an executive request.

However, due to Judge John Reid it was like Rogers was never back in California at all when he finished his activity of sealing everything.

That's when OMIG contacted Glen Rogers on death row in FLA and he admitted in his short letter that he knew all of the principals and they all knew him by the alias he had been using in the state of CA.

[Big Ben]

*Snipped*

Since I don't put much stock in wagner's theories on the murders, I don't believe I've ever posted this link until now. I was simply posting a link to the document itself. Do you have another link to the document?

No, I have no link.

We have the actual document at the OMIG offices that arrived 12/21/99 faxed by Lou Brown, but we don't aknowledge the document because OMIG asked Lou Brown originally for permission to receive their copy from the GTE Archive in San Angelo, TX and not from Hodgman's garage or attic. We felt that once the document had left the guardianship of the L.A. County Superior Court, Exhibit Dept., Custodian of Records it was no longer certifiable.

Lou Brown initially agreed to the request, then four days later changed his mind and insisted that OMIG must accept what you found on Wagner's link or else.....wouldn't be friends with OMIG no more, I guess?????

OMIG didn't want to lose communication with Brown so they said he could send it but that they would not accept it as a certified copy of the EX. 35 record "Juditha Brown Phone Record". But would be curious to see what Hodgman would send.

OMIG said that it would only accept the certified copy from the GTE Archive in San Angelo, TX.

GTE Texas was waiting for a reply because TX does not require anything beyond a subpoena, however, GTE California's lawyers were blocking because California requires that one comply with a Public Utility Law that requires the owners permission in addition to a court order to access utility records of someone.

For some of the very reasons that show up in the document that you've linked, OMIG told Brown these records are extremely problematic.
It doesn't look like the smudgy flaws were in transmission it looks like someone prior was manipulating the font (type) size in the crucial time lines of 9:37 PM and 9:40 PM.

Nevertheless, Gloria Alred ran down to the Fox News Network attempting to pass off this madness as being as acceptable as a certified copy of the official record.

Just for kicks, OMIG sent a certified letter to Hodgman asking that he send an affidavit certifying the accuracy of the document that he got out of his storage as being an accurate copy of the Juditha Brown Records. He has yet to answer.

BB

[bobaugust]

No, I have no link.

We have the actual document at the OMIG offices that arrived 12/21/99 faxed by Lou Brown, but we don't aknowledge the document because OMIG asked Lou Brown originally for permission to receive their copy from the GTE Archive in San Angelo, TX and not from Hodgman's garage or attic. We felt that once the document had left the guardianship of the L.A. County Superior Court, Exhibit Dept., Custodian of Records it was no longer certifiable.

Lou Brown initially agreed to the request, then four days later changed his mind and insisted that OMIG must accept what you found on Wagner's link or else.....wouldn't be friends with OMIG no more, I guess?????

OMIG didn't want to lose communication with Brown so they said he could send it but that they would not accept it as a certified copy of the EX. 35 record "Juditha Brown Phone Record". But would be curious to see what Hodgman would send.

OMIG said that it would only accept the certified copy from the GTE Archive in San Angelo, TX.

GTE Texas was waiting for a reply because TX does not require anything beyond a subpoena, however, GTE California's lawyers were blocking because California requires that one comply with a Public Utility Law that requires the owners permission in addition to a court order to access utility records of someone.

For some of the very reasons that show up in the document that you've linked, OMIG told Brown these records are extremely problematic.
It doesn't look like the smudgy flaws were in transmission it looks like someone prior was manipulating the font (type) size in the crucial time lines of 9:37 PM and 9:40 PM.

Nevertheless, Gloria Alred ran down to the Fox News Network attempting to pass off this madness as being as acceptable as a certified copy of the official record.

Just for kicks, OMIG sent a certified letter to Hodgman asking that he send an affidavit certifying the accuracy of the document that he got out of his storage as being an accurate copy of the Juditha Brown Records. He has yet to answer.

BB

Big Ben, you say you have the actual document that was faxed to you. If your copy is the same as what Wagner showed on his web site than you have a copy of the enlarged photocopy made from the original telephone bill. That's why your copy shows the imperfections resulting from enlarging the original.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, you say you have the actual document that was faxed to you. If your copy is the same as what Wagner showed on his web site than you have a copy of the enlarged photocopy made from the original telephone bill. That's why your copy shows the imperfections resulting from enlarging the original.

bobaugust


What proof do you have bobaugust that the enlarged copy was made from the original telephone phone bill?

Has GTE confirmed in a correspondence to you that the enlarged photocopy was made from the original telephone bill?

Have you even asked GTE to confirm for you that the enlarged photocopy was made from the original telephone phone bill?

Who are you citing to give expert opinion that what you have alleged was the original phone bill is in fact the original phone bill?

What explanation does the expert, assuming that you have spoken to one, say about the irregular font/type at the 9:40 ( we presume it must be 9:40 PM) position and the 9:37 PM position shown even on the Wagner document?

If Hodgman would not issue an affidavit of certification that the copy of this same document was not an accurate reflection of the actual Juditha Brown Telephone Record why would you presume that we should?

A doubt that you have ever received a telephone bill from a telephone company with these many irregularities within its body, your assertions for those irregularities I'm afraid does not pass the laugh test, bobaugust.

[bobaugust]

What proof do you have bobaugust that the enlarged copy was made from the original telephone phone bill?

Has GTE confirmed in a correspondence to you that the enlarged photocopy was made from the original telephone bill?

Have you even asked GTE to confirm for you that the enlarged photocopy was made from the original telephone phone bill?

Who are you citing to give expert opinion that what you have alleged was the original phone bill is in fact the original phone bill?

What explanation does the expert, assuming that you have spoken to one, say about the irregular font/type at the 9:40 ( we presume it must be 9:40 PM) position and the 9:37 PM position shown even on the Wagner document?

If Hodgman would not issue an affidavit of certification that the copy of this same document was not an accurate reflection of the actual Juditha Brown Telephone Record why would you presume that we should?

A doubt that you have ever received a telephone bill from a telephone company with these many irregularities within its body, your assertions for those irregularities I'm afraid does not pass the laugh test, bobaugust.

Tell me Big Ben have you visited a photocopy shop yet and learned about what happens when a printed document is enlarged to many times it's original size? Or what happens to a multiple generation photostat or photocopy? Evidently not since you still seem confused as why there are visible imperfections in the copy of the prosecution exhibit that is shown in a JPEG image on Wagner's web site.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Tell me Big Ben have you visited a photocopy shop yet and learned about what happens when a printed document is enlarged to many times it's original size? Or what happens to a multiple generation photostat or photocopy? Evidently not since you still seem confused as why there are visible imperfections in the copy of the prosecution exhibit that is shown in a JPEG image on Wagner's web site.

bobaugust

Our document does not appear to have been enlarged and the type is still either irregular and/or indiscernible particularly at the critical time locations of 9:37 PM and 9:40 PM. It is disgraceful for you or anyone else to attempt to hold this document up as being a representation of a certified legitimate document given the flaws that are associated with it.

The font irregularities are just problem number one of a document that our investigators were able to determine relative to this Hodgman document sent to Brown and finally on to Dr. Johnson at the OMIG L.A. office.

As far as your above questions, bobaugust, I have not and OMIG has not done any of those things that you have asked above because those were the very problems that OMIG warned Lou Brown about prior to his acquisition of this monstrosity from Hodgman.

These predetermined problems could have been avoided, and thus obviated the need for this debate with you, had OMIG and/or Dr. Johnson been granted the permission to receive a copy of the Brown records from the GTE Archives in San Angelo, Texas as initially requested of Brown.

The initial request was initially granted by Lou Brown but within four days he had, for some strange reason, changed his mind and chose not to sign the permission for release statement required by GTE California to be sent to the GTE Archives Department in San Angelo, TX.

IMO, we are still at the same place, only this time they've got counter propagandists like yourself attempting to explain away major problems in a terribly flawed document. Your valiant attempt to resurrect this laughable fabrication to a level of believability, I believe, falls well short of the mark.

You certainly are entitled to marks of excellence on some topics of discussion, bobaugust, but I'm afraid not for this one.

[bobaugust]

Our document does not appear to have been enlarged and the type is still either irregular and/or indiscernible particularly at the critical time locations of 9:37 PM and 9:40 PM. It is disgraceful for you or anyone else to attempt to hold this document up as being a representation of a certified legitimate document given the flaws that are associated with it.

The font irregularities are just problem number one of a document that our investigators were able to determine relative to this Hodgman document sent to Brown and finally on to Dr. Johnson at the OMIG L.A. office.

As far as your above questions, bobaugust, I have not and OMIG has not done any of those things that you have asked above because those were the very problems that OMIG warned Lou Brown about prior to his acquisition of this monstrosity from Hodgman.

These predetermined problems could have been avoided, and thus obviated the need for this debate with you, had OMIG and/or Dr. Johnson been granted the permission to receive a copy of the Brown records from the GTE Archives in San Angelo, Texas as initially requested of Brown.

The initial request was initially granted by Lou Brown but within four days he had, for some strange reason, changed his mind and chose not to sign the permission for release statement required by GTE California to be sent to the GTE Archives Department in San Angelo, TX.

IMO, we are still at the same place, only this time they've got counter propagandists like yourself attempting to explain away major problems in a terribly flawed document. Your valiant attempt to resurrect this laughable fabrication to a level of believability, I believe, falls well short of the mark.

You certainly are entitled to marks of excellence on some topics of discussion, bobaugust, but I'm afraid not for this one.

Big Ben, you say the document you have does not appear to have been enlarged yet you say it has the same irregularities and flaws as the enlarged version on the prosecution exhibit has.

Lets try and talk reality here Big Ben.
The prosecution obtained the Brown's original telephone bill showing the long distance calls that were made the night of the murders.
Those telephone records were given to the defense to examine and verify, which they did.
The prosecutors had a enlarged (photostat) version made of the Brown's original telephone bill to use on an exhibit to be shown to the jury.
The fact is that whenever a printed document is enlarged many times it's original size, tiny imperfections in the printed type and spacing not visible in it's original size are also enlarged and become noticeable in the larger version.
Despite these visible imperfections in the prosecution exhibit the defense stipulated that the times shown on that enlarged version were accurate and depicted the time phone calls were made.

If Hodgman had a smaller photocopy (not photostat) made of that enlarged version from the exhibit, instead of making a photocopy of the original telephone bill, and sent it to Lou Brown who in turn faxed it to you then all the visible irregularities that were noticeable on the enlarged version would be noticeable on the smaller version just as they are noticeable on the smaller JPEG image shown on Wagner's web site.

The question is why didn't Hodgman make a copy of the original telephone bill that was brought into court and the defense examined? Maybe for some reason he didn't have the original telephone bill. Maybe he didn't think it would matter. Only Hodgman knows that answer.

Why did Lou Brown supposedly change his mind about signing the permission for the release statement? Maybe someone advised him not to. Maybe he just didn't want to be involved with this issue anymore. Only Lou Brown knows that answer.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Big Ben, you say the document you have does not appear to have been enlarged yet you say it has the same irregularities and flaws as the enlarged version on the prosecution exhibit has.

Lets try and talk reality here Big Ben.
The prosecution obtained the Brown's original telephone bill showing the long distance calls that were made the night of the murders.
Those telephone records were given to the defense to examine and verify, which they did.
The prosecutors had a enlarged (photostat) version made of the Brown's original telephone bill to use on an exhibit to be shown to the jury.
The fact is that whenever a printed document is enlarged many times it's original size, tiny imperfections in the printed type and spacing not visible in it's original size are also enlarged and become noticeable in the larger version.
Despite these visible imperfections in the prosecution exhibit the defense stipulated that the times shown on that enlarged version were accurate and depicted the time phone calls were made.

If Hodgman had a smaller photocopy (not photostat) made of that enlarged version from the exhibit, instead of making a photocopy of the original telephone bill, and sent it to Lou Brown who in turn faxed it to you then all the visible irregularities that were noticeable on the enlarged version would be noticeable on the smaller version just as they are noticeable on the smaller JPEG image shown on Wagner's web site.

The question is why didn't Hodgman make a copy of the original telephone bill that was brought into court and the defense examined? Maybe for some reason he didn't have the original telephone bill. Maybe he didn't think it would matter. Only Hodgman knows that answer.

Why did Lou Brown supposedly change his mind about signing the permission for the release statement? Maybe someone advised him not to. Maybe he just didn't want to be involved with this issue anymore. Only Lou Brown knows that answer.

bobaugust


maby maby maby maby. I assume means you don't know.:rolleyes:

[bobaugust]

maby maby maby maby. I assume means you don't know.:rolleyes:

martin II, that's correct I do not know. That's why I said only Hodgman and Brown know the answer. Evidently you missed reading that part, right?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

martin II, that's correct I do not know. That's why I said only Hodgman and Brown know the answer. Evidently you missed reading that part, right?

bobaugust

I think that is what Big Ben was saying, there are too many questions about the records that only Hodgman and Brown know.

[bobaugust]

I think that is what Big Ben was saying, there are too many questions about the records that only Hodgman and Brown know.

Yes Big Ben has many questions regarding the telephone records including questions based on his supposed inability to understand why photocopies of the prosecution exhibit have type font and spacing irregularities on them. Big ben asked some questions, and I gave him what some answers. If you or martin would like to answer his questions feel free to do so.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Yes Big Ben has many questions regarding the telephone records including questions based on his supposed inability to understand why photocopies of the prosecution exhibit have type font and spacing irregularities on them. Big ben asked some questions, and I gave him what some answers. If you or martin would like to answer his questions feel free to do so.

bobaugust

I will answer them as best I can with my limited knowledge on the issue. It appears to me something wrong.

[bobaugust]

I will answer them as best I can with my limited knowledge on the issue. It appears to me something wrong.

I agree there is something wrong. Big Ben's claim there was an 11:00 PM telephone call from Juditha Brown to Nicole is absolutely wrong when in fact the evidence is that both Ron and Nicole were killed before 11:00 PM.

bobaugust.

[William Anthony]

I agree there is something wrong. Big Ben's claim there was an 11:00 PM telephone call from Juditha Brown to Nicole is absolutely wrong when in fact the evidence is that both Ron and Nicole were killed before 11:00 PM.

bobaugust.

I was speaking about the irregularities in the phone records. Personally, I did not put much store in the barking dog time line.

[bobaugust]

I was speaking about the irregularities in the phone records. Personally, I did not put much store in the barking dog time line.

If there was a problem with the telephone records I have no doubt that Simpson's attorneys would have made that fact known, instead Shapiro stipulated that the times of the telephone calls shown on the prosecution exhibit were accurate and Cochran stipulated that the times Juditha called the restaurant and last spoke with Nicole were correct. Defense witness Robert Heidstra and prosecution witnesses Louis Karpf, and Steven Schwab were the witnesses who testified to facts that tell us that the murders were committed before 11:00.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

If there was a problem with the telephone records I have no doubt that Simpson's attorneys would have made that fact known, instead Shapiro stipulated that the times of the telephone calls shown on the prosecution exhibit were accurate and Cochran stipulated that the times Juditha called the restaurant and last spoke with Nicole were correct. Defense witness Robert Heidstra and prosecution witnesses Louis Karpf, and Steven Schwab were the witnesses who testified to facts that tell us that the murders were committed before 11:00.

bobaugust

I thought you asked me to answer Ben's questions regarding the records, not to discuss what happened. Please, post where Karpf, Schwab, and Heidstra said the murders took place at this time.

[martin II]

martin II, that's correct I do not know. That's why I said only Hodgman and Brown know the answer. Evidently you missed reading that part, right?

bobaugust

Something wrong with Hodgman taking the records to his own garage.For wiat court purpose. Was it hodgman that made the video of Paretis at his home with telling the defense in adavnce?

[William Anthony]

I think the matters of the records may be off topic on this thread and belong on the Issues In The Criminal Trial thread. I only say this, because there might be some protestations by some about off topic or derailment. I have engaged in the conversation before I realized that it may be off topic. This is just a suggestion and not blaming.

[bobaugust]

I thought you asked me to answer Ben's questions regarding the records, not to discuss what happened. Please, post where Karpf, Schwab, and Heidstra said the murders took place at this time.

I was talking about the telephone records. Big Ben's claim is that Juditha Brown called and spoke with Nicole at 11:00 PM which would mean Nicole wasn't killed until after that telephone call proving that Simpson could not have killed her.

You ask me to post where Karpf, Schwab, and Heidstra said when the murders took place. I didn't say that, I said, "Defense witness Robert Heidstra and prosecution witnesses Louis Karpf, and Steven Schwab were the witnesses who TESTIFIED TO FACTS that tell us that the murders were committed before 11:00.

Heidstra testified to what he heard and saw that night that tells us when Ron Goldman arrived at Bundy and when Simpson left Bundy. Both Karpf and Schwab testified about their encounter with Nicole's dog after the murders. If you wish to discuss this then I will be more than happy to talk about it on the proper thread.

It seem this entire subject is off topic for this thread but this is where Big Ben has been posting so I responded.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

1. Despite these visible imperfections the defense stipulated that the times shown on that enlarged version were accurate and depicted the time phone calls were made.


2. Those telephone records were given to the defense to examine and verify, which they did.

3.
a. The question is why didn't Hodgman:
b. Maybe for some reason he didn't
c. Only Hodgman knows that answer.
d. Maybe someone advised him not to.
e. Maybe he just didn't want to be involved with this issue anymore.
f. Only Lou Brown knows that answer.

bobaugust



bobaugust, as to your statement number one and number two above, we have always presented the argument from OMIG to Simpson et al, that the Court's failure to address the conflicts in regard to the numerously revised statements on the telephone times of Juditha Brown and Nicole Brown Simpson were a violation of Simpson's rights under, but not exclusively, the 7th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and other federal statutes, particularly during his civil trial, which some part was still active when we initially were introduced.


All civil trials held in the U.S., pursuant to the 7the Amend. of the U.S. Const., must be conducted in accordance with the Rules of (English) Common Law, prior to 1791, the date for which the 7th amendment was adopted creating civil courts in the United States. This provision, imo, would have required that only a jury could examine evidence to determine the facts against the accused.

The antagonists in this trial, imo, both defense and prosecution members, violated the "trier of fact" provision which requires that all evidence that is in conflict, condradictory, or requires authentication must be submitted to the "trier of fact", hence the jury.

The issue surrounding the crucial, yet conflicting time of 11:00 PM, was critical and the lawyers second revised offer of stipulation, was equally as improper as the acceptance of all of the other revised statements associated with Simpson's whereabouts at 11:00 PM.

Steven Schwab initally told the police that he encountered the Akita dog with bloody paws after 11:00 PM, he revised his remarks, along with numerous others. Even the final 9:37 PM stipulation too was contradictory and thus should have fallen exclusively under the examination of the trier of fact (jury).

Your remarks under 1 and 2 above are also inappropriate from the standpoint that they advocate an apparent incomprehensible concept of supremacy that the founders of the common law court system were deeply committed to eliminating.

Trial by "trier of fact" made up of a jury of one's peers was the result of this struggle of freemen to remove this reprehensible conduct of the King or Judge of the King's Bench from acting to deprive the accused of his rights or his property from behind closed doors. Heretofore such practices were commonplace under a concept of supremacy entitled the "divine right of Kings".

Your continued assertion of what lawyers for the defense did behind closed doors, imo, is irrelevant. They have no formal recognition or status as to the structure of a common law court, they are only there to argue in favor of or against a position.


My position on your remarks under 3a. to 3.f is the following as stated previously:

"These predetermined problems could have been avoided, and thus obviated the need for this debate with you, had OMIG and/or Dr. Johnson been granted the permission to receive a copy of the Brown records from the GTE Archives in San Angelo, Texas as initially requested of Brown. "

[bobaugust]

bobaugust, as to your statement number one and number two above, we have always presented the argument from OMIG to Simpson et al, that the Court's failure to address the conflicts in regard to the numerously revised statements on the telephone times of Juditha Brown and Nicole Brown Simpson were a violation of Simpson's rights under, but not exclusively, the 7th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and other federal statutes, particularly during his civil trial, which some part was still active when we initially were introduced.


All civil trials held in the U.S., pursuant to the 7the Amend. of the U.S. Const., must be conducted in accordance with the Rules of (English) Common Law, prior to 1791, the date for which the 7th amendment was adopted creating civil courts in the United States. This provision, imo, would have required that only a jury could examine evidence to determine the facts against the accused.

The antagonists in this trial, imo, both defense and prosecution members, violated the "trier of fact" provision which requires that all evidence that is in conflict, condradictory, or requires authentication must be submitted to the "trier of fact", hence the jury.

The issue surrounding the crucial, yet conflicting time of 11:00 PM, was critical and the lawyers second revised offer of stipulation, was equally as improper as the acceptance of all of the other revised statements associated with Simpson's whereabouts at 11:00 PM.

Steven Schwab initally told the police that he encountered the Akita dog with bloody paws after 11:00 PM, he revised his remarks, along with numerous others. Even the final 9:37 PM stipulation too was contradictory and thus should have fallen exclusively under the examination of the trier of fact (jury).

Your remarks under 1 and 2 above are also inappropriate from the standpoint that they advocate an apparent incomprehensible concept of supremacy that the founders of the common law court system were deeply committed to eliminating.

Trial by "trier of fact" made up of a jury of one's peers was the result of this struggle of freemen to remove this reprehensible conduct of the King or Judge of the King's Bench from acting to deprive the accused of his rights or his property from behind closed doors. Heretofore such practices were commonplace under a concept of supremacy entitled the "divine right of Kings".

Your continued assertion of what lawyers for the defense did behind closed doors, imo, is irrelevant. They have no formal recognition or status as to the structure of a common law court, they are only there to argue in favor of or against a position.


My position on your remarks under 3a. to 3.f is the following as stated previously:

"These predetermined problems could have been avoided, and thus obviated the need for this debate with you, had OMIG and/or Dr. Johnson been granted the permission to receive a copy of the Brown records from the GTE Archives in San Angelo, Texas as initially requested of Brown. "

I have already specifically addressed your questions many times regarding some supposed conflicting time estimates made by some witnesses in conversations with the police. You just refuse to accept the reality that people make mistakes and then correct themselves.

The fact is that Simpson's attorneys were there to defend Simpson who was charged with the murders of two people. The fact is that Simpson's attorneys were given the Brown's original telephone records to examine and to check out, which they did. For you to suggest that if Simpson's attorneys had any credible evidence or even a hint that something was wrong with the Brown's telephone records that could be used to show Simpson was not the killer they would simply ignore it is completely preposterous.

Your claim there was an 11:00 PM telephone call from Juditha Brown to Nicole on the night of the murders is completely untrue.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

For you to suggest that if Simpson's attorneys had any credible evidence or even a hint that something was wrong with the Brown's telephone records that could be used to show Simpson was not the killer they would simply ignore it is completely preposterous.

Your claim there was an 11:00 PM telephone call from Juditha Brown to Nicole on the night of the murders is completely untrue.

bobaugust

Again, bobaugust, you are simply attempting to impose your own brand of supremacy and elitist mindset, by alleging that someone making a claim of an act of denial of due process to Simpson in the manner which I have alleged is "completely preposterous". You don't know what pecuniary incentives were in place to incite action upon this temptation.

Fortunately, the framers of the rights under the Magna Charta alleviated the issue from the further need for such arguments relative to presposterous presumptions under the Rules of Common Law. They eliminated the need for anyone to say that a claim against the word of the King was presposterous in a common law court. Only the trier of fact, the jury, could determine the evidence to either condemn or acquit the accused; not lawyers, nor judges, nor kings.

Suggesting that it is out of the question to presume that defense attornies could be coopted by the prosecution to participate in malfeasance, is completely and historically inaccurate. There are several cases on the record where lawyers have been caught perpetrating this type of infringement, with the misue of stipulations, into either the domain of the trier of fact or trier of law. In either case the court has been very strong and forth coming in it's admonishment and sanctions against those lawyers caught attempting to perpetrate this type of mutually unlawful activity during a trial.

I would recommend Wigamore On Evidence as a primer for an initial understanding to the misuse of stipulations at trial.

With that said you simply don't know if our allegations that there was an 11:00 PM phone call was untrue or not. There is certainly enough powerful circumstantial evidence that I was in deed an 11:00 PM telephone conversation between Nicole and Juditha Brown. Unfortunately, you haven't seen the phone records and neither has either of the rightful juries.


BB

[weezer]

*Snipped***". . .Suggesting that it is out of the question to presume that defense attornies could be coopted by the prosecution to participate in malfeasance, is completely and historically inaccurate. . ."

oh no -- tell me it ain't so -- not the magnificent -- not the dream team --:tongue:

[Big Ben]

*Snipped***

oh no -- tell me it ain't so -- not the magnificent -- not the dream team --:tongue:

I've got to call it the way that the evidence points, Weezer! It would have been nice to think that the Defense's, so called "Dream Team" was so virtuous, but we have the problem that they knew about the 11:00 PM phone call, and attempted to offer a compromise time of 10:17 PM in Judge K. Kennedy Powell's chambers on July 08, 1994.

I truly don't understand the need to have so many various statements regarding a phone record. Here, the record says................ and that's it.
But instead we've got Lou, Juditha, Shapiro, F.Lee, Johnnie C., all making changes relative to the Juditha Brown 11:00 PM phone records.

Steven Schwab changing his after 11:00 PM initial citing of the dog
Tia Gavin's changing her initial belief that the time clock hadn't been changed from PST to PDT.

Too many changes creating conflict as to the time that Simpson could have been available to commit the murders, and the judge should have acted on the issue of conflict to make sure that the jury examined actual documents and were satisfied with their findings. The jury didn't get a chance to do it and thus you have what we have today.........an argument.

[fgump2]

I think one of the best evidence that OJS was guilty of murder is that there are too many coincidences for him to be innocent. Many books have written about these coincidences, and few of the list all of them. I won’t attempt that here but will list a few, in terms of what I remember.
First of all NBS predicted that OJS would kill her, and gave a fairly accurate description of how he would do it. She said he would cut her throat, and keep on cutting after she was dead. This is about what happened. This type of murder is quite rare, and according to John Douglas, when a woman is killed in that manner, it usually means that the killer had a romantic relationship with the woman.
The gloves and shoes indicate that the killer was a rich man. The gloves were expensive leather dress gloves. LA is a warm weather city, and the few times it is cold, it is usually wet. These gloves weren't sold in California, so that indicates that the murderer probably had connections to another part of the country.
Very few LA men would own expensive leather dress gloves, and the few who do are probably rich.
The shoes were made out of suede and cost about $160 in 1994 prices, and were fairly new, no wear on the soles. It is obvious to me that most men who own shoes like this are probably rich. Middle class men and even poor men sometimes buy dress shoes (leather that can be polished) at this price level, but usaully not suede.
The fact that NBS predicted her murder wasn't entered was in the criminal trial, but it was available to the public, as was the evidence that the gloves and shoes indicates that a rich man did it.

[The R]

Hi. I agree with you that Simpson is guilty. The point you didn't raise is that of motive. Who else besides Simpson was stalking and beating Nicole? No-one. Who wanted to kill Goldman? No-one. He just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Who in NBS's life had a vile temper? Guess who? He displayed it last year in LV. Just because he was a good footballer doesn't mean he's a good person. He wasn't. He isn't. He had a better defence team, a poor prosecution team and a drama queen for a judge.
:rolleyes:



I couldn't have said it better. In the US there is an old saying that there are only poor people in jail. Money does wonders for your due process here.

ALLMO,
R

[William Anthony]

I couldn't have said it better. In the US there is an old saying that there are only poor people in jail. Money does wonders for your due process here.

ALLMO,
R

Thank you R and I agree. However, with that said, unfortunately money is not the only thing that enters into the equation of whether or not you will receive fairness in America. I have said that I have never heard the outrage against Edward Kennedy, after he drove his car into the lake and left a woman inside to die, went to his hotel room (IIRC) and did not report the alleged accident until the next morning. Today, Mr. Kennedy remains a senator. Did he receive Justice? I do not know? Did Simpson receive justice? I do not know. Was the outcry over the verdicts the same? Imho, no. They were both rich. What was the difference?

http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm

[William Anthony]

I think one of the best evidence that OJS was guilty of murder is that there are too many coincidences for him to be innocent. Many books have written about these coincidences, and few of the list all of them. I won’t attempt that here but will list a few, in terms of what I remember.
First of all NBS predicted that OJS would kill her, and gave a fairly accurate description of how he would do it. She said he would cut her throat, and keep on cutting after she was dead. This is about what happened. This type of murder is quite rare, and according to John Douglas, when a woman is killed in that manner, it usually means that the killer had a romantic relationship with the woman.
The gloves and shoes indicate that the killer was a rich man. The gloves were expensive leather dress gloves. LA is a warm weather city, and the few times it is cold, it is usually wet. These gloves weren't sold in California, so that indicates that the murderer probably had connections to another part of the country.
Very few LA men would own expensive leather dress gloves, and the few who do are probably rich.
The shoes were made out of suede and cost about $160 in 1994 prices, and were fairly new, no wear on the soles. It is obvious to me that most men who own shoes like this are probably rich. Middle class men and even poor men sometimes buy dress shoes (leather that can be polished) at this price level, but usaully not suede.
The fact that NBS predicted her murder wasn't entered was in the criminal trial, but it was available to the public, as was the evidence that the gloves and shoes indicates that a rich man did it.

With all due respect, your post seems to say that based on coincidence it is most likely that Simpson killed them. That is the standard for a civil trial. I am not rich but sometimes indulge myself in suede shoes, jackets, gloves and coats. I do not think that only a rich person would buy those gloves is enough to convict someone for murder. There was also other evidence that members of the public learned about those associated with the murders that some have posted. I did not keep the same interest in things after the civil verdict, so I will let others who have that knowledge respond. I do remember some questions about a Columbian necklace or necktie, relating to the cutting of the throats. It would seem that Nicole and Ronald were killed in almost the same manner. I think this would minimize the possibility that the murderer had a romantic relationship with Nicole, unless the murderer was bisexual. The fact that you said there were a few rich men is what allows the jury in a criminal proceeding to find reasonable doubt. As I have said, if those coincidences are taken into account to say it is most likely that Simpson killed them, then he was found liable in the civil trial. I do not understand why there is a constant need to try to prove this particular individual guilty of murder, as opposed to saying justice has been done.

[The R]

Thank you R and I agree. However, with that said, unfortunately money is not the only thing that enters into the equation of whether or not you will receive fairness in America. I have said that I have never heard the outrage against Edward Kennedy, after he drove his car into the lake and left a woman inside to die, went to his hotel room (IIRC) and did not report the alleged accident until the next morning. Today, Mr. Kennedy remains a senator. Did he receive Justice? I do not know? Did Simpson receive justice? I do not know. Was the outcry over the verdicts the same? Imho, no. They were both rich. What was the difference?

http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm


Good point(s) William re: outcry. There should've been more, I agree.

As far as the specific incidents are concerned there could be differences. The first thing that comes to mind is one was a brutal murder, the other a possible manslaughter or negligent homicide, which obviously addresses mens rea. Of course I'm not extremely up to date on either incident, so what I know about them is limited. I do feel however that Kennedy should not be serving as a senator due to this incident and have always felt that way.

These issues are why I do feel strongly about a theory in criminology called conflict theory. It pretty much states that in our CJ system justice is served along economic lines; that poor people won't get a fair shake because the rich control the system. I don't think the theory is far off the mark at all.

ALLMO,
R

[William Anthony]

Good point(s) William re: outcry. There should've been more, I agree.

As far as the specific incidents are concerned there could be differences. The first thing that comes to mind is one was a brutal murder, the other a possible manslaughter or negligent homicide, which obviously addresses mens rea. Of course I'm not extremely up to date on either incident, so what I know about them is limited. I do feel however that Kennedy should not be serving as a senator due to this incident and have always felt that way.

These issues are why I do feel strongly about a theory in criminology called conflict theory. It pretty much states that in our CJ system justice is served along economic lines; that poor people won't get a fair shake because the rich control the system. I don't think the theory is far off the mark at all.

ALLMO,
R

I see the differences in the severity of the crimes and I see the difference in the public outcry. The evidence is overwhelming, imho, that Kennedy was guilty of the crime of manslaughter of negligent homicide. However, he was allowed to plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident. I do not see the same amount of outcry from the public as there is about the Simpson verdict. I disagree that one is more brutal than the other. I think it is just as brutal to leave a woman struggling for her life, while drowning in a water filled sealed coffin that you put her in and not even stop to call for help but run to your motel and call your friends, who are more concerned about your future than saving her life. I think the circumstances are equivalent.

I remain convinced that there are more factors that go into the equation of the fair administration of justice than money.

[William Anthony]

Hi. I have no doubt that Kennedy was treated differently because of who he was and where he was but let's not get off topic. This is about Simpson. Not Kennedy.

;)

With all due respect, this is the 9/10 thread and this is the post that started the thread with the topics to be considered under this thread.

07-24-2006, 02:52 PM
garrison garrison is offline
Member

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6
garrison is an unknown quantity at this point
"Today, 9/10 black's agree "oj probably is guilty or involved"
Whites thought - he did it - but he should plead guilty and spare eveyone the budon of a trial". The facts proved he was guilty; and the facts were too solid and many to be explained away.

In this case there was a divide from the start. Rascim is such that all the layers of LE, media and white society can not see the reality of racsim in modern america. Sure they can recognize it when it's in-the-face ie N*** N***'! But it's about much more if you LOOK.

Why look at unpleasant things? So, we don't look.

Blacks thought - he did it - but took the White/Anglo justice system to heart, where a person is able to plead their innocence and inturn receive a fair trial. They said he was guilty but the case was typical of the way blacks get fixed up with extra evidence, some untruthful testimony by LE and drowned by the torrents of DAs, assistant DAs, departments, experts, pr & media, scientists and ability to reach the entire public.

They new that maybe oj could be the one to shake the whole LE system until white people noticed and had to look and see it for all its flaws, ingrained bias and failings. OJ was going to use the whiteman system to beat them off with if he could but the theme was about the ingrained abuses that exist.

OJ had to win however for the real message blacks needed to be heard. the support for oj today shows this - 9/10 blacks say he was involved."
Reply With Quote

As you can see it is about what the poster called the "white man system" and why blacks may show support for Simpson. Inevitably, that requires a comparison of how blacks are treated in the white man system. Ergo, this is not off topic. If you want to discuss Simpson and not others, who may have been treated differently, there are two threads, which may allow you to so do.

[The R]

I see the differences in the severity of the crimes and I see the difference in the public outcry. The evidence is overwhelming, imho, that Kennedy was guilty of the crime of manslaughter of negligent homicide. However, he was allowed to plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident. I do not see the same amount of outcry from the public as there is about the Simpson verdict. I disagree that one is more brutal than the other. I think it is just as brutal to leave a woman struggling for her life, while drowning in a water filled sealed coffin that you put her in and not even stop to call for help but run to your motel and call your friends, who are more concerned about your future than saving her life. I think the circumstances are equivalent.

I remain convinced that there are more factors that go into the equation of the fair administration of justice than money.

In fairness William, more differences would include the fact that Kennedy pled guilty to what amounts to a lesser charge and - no disrespect intended - no whites that I am aware of cheered on national TV on Kennedy's getting off easy. Of course media coverage was different then. As far as brutality is concerned, you and I wlill have to disagree. If what Kennedy says is even partly true, he did go back into the water to try and rescue the woman (I have no idea if this is true, but he even had friends that tried according to reports). This is a little different than slashing someone's throat intentionally to the point that they effectively have no chance of survival or rescue. There is a reason that murder is treated differently than manslaughter or negligent homicide. I'm surprised you'd argue that point even though I do understand that these deaths are unfortunate or wrong.

ALLMO,
R

[Kate Sachel]

With all due respect, your post seems to say that based on coincidence it is most likely that Simpson killed them. That is the standard for a civil trial. I am not rich but sometimes indulge myself in suede shoes, jackets, gloves and coats. I do not think that only a rich person would buy those gloves is enough to convict someone for murder. There was also other evidence that members of the public learned about those associated with the murders that some have posted. I did not keep the same interest in things after the civil verdict, so I will let others who have that knowledge respond. I do remember some questions about a Columbian necklace or necktie, relating to the cutting of the throats. It would seem that Nicole and Ronald were killed in almost the same manner. I think this would minimize the possibility that the murderer had a romantic relationship with Nicole, unless the murderer was bisexual. The fact that you said there were a few rich men is what allows the jury in a criminal proceeding to find reasonable doubt. As I have said, if those coincidences are taken into account to say it is most likely that Simpson killed them, then he was found liable in the civil trial. I do not understand why there is a constant need to try to prove this particular individual guilty of murder, as opposed to saying justice has been done.

Ron was literally hacked up and Nicole had multiple stab wounds to her head and neck. After reading the autopsy reports it seems clear to me that Ron's killing displayed evidence of rage, especially considering that the killer continued to stab him after he had already died.

When drug lords kill and use a columbian necktie as the method, history shows that no emotion is involved and the killing is a swift cut to the neck. The fact that both Ron and Nicole had their throats cut is the only similarity to a columbian necktie murder, the rest displays something much more personal.

Does anyone have something more concrete than hearsay to offer in an effort to prove that either Nicole or Ron were involved in a drug debt?

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I see the differences in the severity of the crimes and I see the difference in the public outcry. The evidence is overwhelming, imho, that Kennedy was guilty of the crime of manslaughter of negligent homicide. However, he was allowed to plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident. I do not see the same amount of outcry from the public as there is about the Simpson verdict. I disagree that one is more brutal than the other. I think it is just as brutal to leave a woman struggling for her life, while drowning in a water filled sealed coffin that you put her in and not even stop to call for help but run to your motel and call your friends, who are more concerned about your future than saving her life. I think the circumstances are equivalent.

I remain convinced that there are more factors that go into the equation of the fair administration of justice than money.

The law makes a distinction between an accident and leaving the scene and premeditated murder.

Yes, Ted Kennedy drove drunk into a lake and did nothing to save the woman with him. He did leave her to die and he should have served time. But I do think Kennedy's crime is far different from a crime that involves premeditated murder.

Kate

[William Anthony]

In fairness William, more differences would include the fact that Kennedy pled guilty to what amounts to a lesser charge and - no disrespect intended - no whites that I am aware of cheered on national TV on Kennedy's getting off easy. Of course media coverage was different then. As far as brutality is concerned, you and I wlill have to disagree. If what Kennedy says is even partly true, he did go back into the water to try and rescue the woman (I have no idea if this is true, but he even had friends that tried according to reports). This is a little different than slashing someone's throat intentionally to the point that they effectively have no chance of survival or rescue. There is a reason that murder is treated differently than manslaughter or negligent homicide. I'm surprised you'd argue that point even though I do understand that these deaths are unfortunate or wrong.

ALLMO,
R

Kennedy was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid a trial where all the circumstances surrounding the incident could have been exposed. The point that I was trying to make is not that no whites cheered on the fact that he was allowed to get off easy-it was that whites did not publicly express their outrage at the fact that he was allowed to get off easy.

Yes, there is a difference from manslaughter, negligent homicide and murder. This is why I am surprised that the public did not have the same amount of outcry, when Kennedy was allowed to avoid being tried and having the circumstances come out. It has been said that the Young lady was pregnant at the time of her death and their are some strange occurrences surrounding her autopsy. I will not go into them now. My point is that we may never know if it was manslaughter, negligent homicide or premeditated murder, because of how it was handled and there was not the public outcry as was in the Simpson trial where the public was allowed to hear all the evidence and reach a their own respective conclusions. That is my argument.

[William Anthony]

The law makes a distinction between an accident and leaving the scene and premeditated murder.

Yes, Ted Kennedy drove drunk into a lake and did nothing to save the woman with him. He did leave her to die and he should have served time. But I do think Kennedy's crime is far different from a crime that involves premeditated murder.

Kate

I think that, if you read my post to R, you will understand what I was trying to say. I would only add that Simpson was not charged with premeditated murder. Although, I think that anyone charged with murder should be charged with premeditated murder, because the person made a conscious choice to commit the murder. I think Kennedy made a conscious choice to leave the scene. The law allows some to plead to lesser charges because of who they are, imho.

[Kate Sachel]

I think that, if you read my post to R, you will understand what I was trying to say. I would only add that Simpson was not charged with premeditated murder. Although, I think that anyone charged with murder should be charged with premeditated murder, because the person made a conscious choice to commit the murder. I think Kennedy made a conscious choice to leave the scene. The law allows some to plead to lesser charges because of who they are, imho.

The law still makes a distinction between an accident and leaving the scene and murder.

Kennedy has nothing to excuse what he did that night; I can hardly stand the fact that he is in office. I do still think a large difference remains in the two scenarios.

You are absolutely correct in that who you are plays a prominent role in how you are charged.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Ron was literally hacked up and Nicole had multiple stab wounds to her head and neck. After reading the autopsy reports it seems clear to me that Ron's killing displayed evidence of rage, especially considering that the killer continued to stab him after he had already died.

When drug lords kill and use a columbian necktie as the method, history shows that no emotion is involved and the killing is a swift cut to the neck. The fact that both Ron and Nicole had their throats cut is the only similarity to a columbian necktie murder, the rest displays something much more personal.

Does anyone have something more concrete than hearsay to offer in an effort to prove that either Nicole or Ron were involved in a drug debt?

Kate

There is evidence that Ronald put up a struggle, which might explain the many stab wounds and the rage. My point was to the similarities in the manner of death and the leap to the conclusion that it showed that the killer had a romantic involvement with Nicole and the same, could, therefore, be said about Ronald and the Killer. I said I do not know enough about the Columbian necktie thing. I mentioned it because it was brought up in the trial and posters have discussed it. While it may be a clean cut, it may not be if the person who is being murdered it struggling.

I am not saying either happened. I am saying that the conclusion does not naturally follow that the murderer had a romantic relationship with Nicole.

[William Anthony]

The law still makes a distinction between an accident and leaving the scene and murder.

Kennedy has nothing to excuse what he did that night; I can hardly stand the fact that he is in office. I do still think a large difference remains in the two scenarios.

You are absolutely correct in that who you are plays a prominent role in how you are charged.

Kate

I think that we have reached an agreement in that yes there is a difference between the charges and who is charged with what.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9099956]I think one of the best evidence that OJS was guilty of murder is that there are too many coincidences for him to be innocent. Many books have written about these coincidences, and few of the list all of them. QUOTE]

1.) "This type of murder is quite rare, and according to John Douglas, when a woman is killed in that manner, it usually means that the killer had a romantic relationship with the woman."

fgump, Did Douglas come to the same conclusion as the medical examiner who actually performed the autopsies, Dr. Irwin Golden. Did he find that the exit wounds on the victims bodies indicated that two distinctive types of knife wounds were found, one; a single edge knife and two: a double edge knife (a dagger)?

Dr. Henry S. Johnson, an L.A. medical doctor, and author of Double Crossed for Blood goes further in his review and interpretation of Dr. Golden's autopsy reports. In it he says that the exit wounds indicate that NBS, besides almost being decapitated, had 4 deep stab wounds to the left side of her neck, the exit wounds indicating an attack with a single edge blade with the sharp edge facing over her left shoulder. The implication is that the knife used to attack NBS was more than likely weilded by a left hand assailant.

Ron Goldman wounds mirrored NBS, he received approximately 23 superficial stab wounds on the right side of his face and neck, the exit wounds indicate a double edge knife attack weiled by a right handed assailant.
Besides several slashes to the bottom of his boots, indicating Ron's attempt to fight back, Dr. Johnson book points to a fatal wound in Dr. Golden's autopsy report delivered to the right side of Goldman's Torso, piercing the rib cage and nicking the bottom of the aorta thus causing massive internal bleeding. The exit wound to the right side, he says, carries the signature of a single edge knife with the sharp edge facing the attacker. The conclusion is that Ron was initially attacked by a right hand assailant weilding a dagger however the fatal injury came from the attacker who was left handed and delivered a left hook with the knife to Ron Golman's right side with a single edge knife.

The serious implication here is that multiple assailants were involved in the attack on Ron and Nicole and that the prosecutors attempted to conceal this by dismissing the original, more experienced medical examiner, for the chief medical examiner to testify though he had not performed the autopsies, or visited the murder sight until 6 months after the murders took place.

[The R]

I see the differences in the severity of the crimes and I see the difference in the public outcry. The evidence is overwhelming, imho, that Kennedy was guilty of the crime of manslaughter of negligent homicide. However, he was allowed to plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident. I do not see the same amount of outcry from the public as there is about the Simpson verdict. I disagree that one is more brutal than the other. I think it is just as brutal to leave a woman struggling for her life, while drowning in a water filled sealed coffin that you put her in and not even stop to call for help but run to your motel and call your friends, who are more concerned about your future than saving her life. I think the circumstances are equivalent.

I remain convinced that there are more factors that go into the equation of the fair administration of justice than money.


And I remain convinced that the reason OJ was found not guilty and Kennedy was seemingly allowed to plead to a lesser charge was due to the influence or availibilty of money and its benefits.

ALLMO,
R

[Big Ben]

I think .........
The gloves and shoes indicate that the killer was a rich man. The gloves were expensive leather dress gloves. LA is a warm weather city, and the few times it is cold, it is usually wet. These gloves weren't sold in California, so that indicates that the murderer probably had connections to another part of the country.

Very few LA men would own expensive leather dress gloves, and the few who do are probably rich.

The shoes were made out of suede and cost about $160 in 1994 prices, and were fairly new, no wear on the soles. It is obvious to me that most men who own shoes like this are probably rich. Middle class men and even poor men sometimes buy dress shoes (leather that can be polished) at this price level, but usaully not suede.


1.)"The shoes were made out of suede and cost about $160 in 1994 prices, and were fairly new, no wear on the soles. It is obvious to me that most men who own shoes like this are probably rich."

Would it change your opinion if you found out that the soles of the $160 shoes that you are speaking about could be found on thousands of other shoes due to the fact that the same shoe soles were provided to 19 other various shoe brands around the world besides the expensive Bruno Magli label.

The shoe soles that the FBI Agent used during the Simpson trial for the Italian Bruno Magli shoe were sent to him by the national police of Japan shoe sample dept. for shoe soles worn in Japan, and the brand plug said LORD not Bruno Magli.

2.) "The gloves and shoes indicate that the killer was a rich man.
The gloves were expensive leather dress gloves.
LA is a warm weather city, and the few times it is cold, it is usually wet.
These gloves weren't sold in California,
Very few LA men would own expensive leather dress gloves,
and the few who do are probably rich.
so that indicates that the murderer probably had connections to
another part of the country.

What is a few? How many does a few represent anyway. California has approximately 10% of the U.S. population close to 30 million people and could easily be a stand alone nation by itself. States like Delaware, North Dakota, Montana, Utah, Minnesota, may come to mind and fit the description to some degree when you use the adjective "FEW" but not California and certainly not L.A. County, or Los Angeles, itself. A "few" rich men in southern California could possible represent the total population of Delaware, Rhode Island. or North Dakota, so what's your point?

Do you rule out the possiblity that other indivduals could have crossed into the borders of the U.S. by plane, boat, automobile, or walking wearing U2887 SILGA shoe soles on the bottom of their shoes. Remember, we're only talking about the bottom of someones foot, not the suede or lether, etc., etc.

[Big Ben]

Does anyone have something more concrete than hearsay to offer in an effort to prove that either Nicole or Ron were involved in a drug debt?

Kate

Until L.A. County decides to open up Ron Goldman's criminal case files for

The People vs. Ronald Lyle Goldman for case file numbers
91C00362; 91S001189; 90M152830; 90M145037; 91S009252
90M098400; 91S005338;91S006635

and stop prohibiting access to his arrest photos and public examination of his criminal record by citing restrictions pursuant to Cal. Gov't. Code 6254(f), which protects the records of confidential informants

we are going to continue to presume that Ron was involved in very serious illegal activities.

The allegations that brought us to this point of the investigation was that he, Nicole, and Faye were trafficking in narcotics around the Cheviot Hills Tennis Courts where Ron was the alleged tennis instructor.

All city employee records and requests for drivers license information on Goldman have been denied as well.

BB

[William Anthony]

And I remain convinced that the reason OJ was found not guilty and Kennedy was seemingly allowed to plead to a lesser charge was due to the influence or availibilty of money and its benefits.

ALLMO,
R

If you read my post carefully or perhaps I did not state it clearly enough. I have not denied that influence and availability are a part of the equation that prevents the fair administration of justice, only that they are not the only things in the equation, which when a person considers the other factor it helps one understand the lack of public out cry on one case and the enormous amount of public outcry on the other case.

If you want to put it bluntly, I will.

[weezer]

Until L.A. County decides to open up Ron Goldman's criminal case files for

The People vs. Ronald Lyle Goldman for case file numbers
91C00362; 91S001189; 90M152830; 90M145037; 91S009252
90M098400; 91S005338;91S006635

and stop prohibiting access to his arrest photos and public examination of his criminal record by citing restrictions pursuant to Cal. Gov't. Code 6254(f), which protects the records of confidential informants

we are going to continue to presume that Ron was involved in very serious illegal activities.

The allegations that brought us to this point of the investigation was that he, Nicole, and Faye were trafficking in narcotics around the Cheviot Hills Tennis Courts where Ron was the alleged tennis instructor.

All city employee records and requests for drivers license information on Goldman have been denied as well.

BB

what a lousy and unfounded accusation!

[martin II]

what a lousy and unfounded accusation!

how would you know?

[martin II]

I think one of the best evidence that OJS was guilty of murder is that there are too many coincidences for him to be innocent. Many books have written about these coincidences, and few of the list all of them. I won’t attempt that here but will list a few, in terms of what I remember.
First of all NBS predicted that OJS would kill her, and gave a fairly accurate description of how he would do it. She said he would cut her throat, and keep on cutting after she was dead. This is about what happened. This type of murder is quite rare, and according to John Douglas, when a woman is killed in that manner, it usually means that the killer had a romantic relationship with the woman.
The gloves and shoes indicate that the killer was a rich man. The gloves were expensive leather dress gloves. LA is a warm weather city, and the few times it is cold, it is usually wet. These gloves weren't sold in California, so that indicates that the murderer probably had connections to another part of the country.
Very few LA men would own expensive leather dress gloves, and the few who do are probably rich.
The shoes were made out of suede and cost about $160 in 1994 prices, and were fairly new, no wear on the soles. It is obvious to me that most men who own shoes like this are probably rich. Middle class men and even poor men sometimes buy dress shoes (leather that can be polished) at this price level, but usaully not suede.
The fact that NBS predicted her murder wasn't entered was in the criminal trial, but it was available to the public, as was the evidence that the gloves and shoes indicates that a rich man did it.

Bloomingdales sold the gloves for $45.00 or $55.00 not very expensive. $160.00 is not expensive for good shoes.

[William Anthony]

Bloomingdales sold the gloves for $45.00 or $55.00 not very expensive. $160.00 is not expensive for good shoes.

Only $55.00. I might have bought two pair, because I have a tendency to loose them (pun intended). Maybe, I should ask MF if he has seen them (pun intended), :).

[weezer]

Only $55.00. I might have bought two pair, because I have a tendency to loose them (pun intended). Maybe, I should ask MF if he has seen them (pun intended), :).

do you also 'lose' them? (pun intended)

[William Anthony]

do you also 'lose' them? (pun intended)

I usually loose them before I lose them (pun intended). :)

[William Anthony]

Was the cheering of the verdict an appreciation for the verdict or an appreciation for the concept of fairness?

[William Anthony]

IIRC, the actor George Hamilton was granted immunity from serving in the armed forces, during the Vietnam War, as he was the sole surviving son, at a time he was either engaged to or dating President Lydon Johnson's daughter. It was rumored that his mother was an independent millionaires. However, Mohammed Ali was stripped of his tile and sentenced to jail because he claimed conscientious objector status. I think events like these were what led to the cheering of the verdict as it could be viewed as fairness. Here is a link to the Court's decision in Ali's case.

http://www.aavw.org/protest/ali_alivus_abstract08_full.html

[tv]

Was the cheering of the verdict an appreciation for the verdict or an appreciation for the concept of fairness?I did hear on Greta or Nancy Grace the other night that when OJ Simpson came into the courtroom everyday he exchanged waves with the jury. Don't you think that's inappropriate?

[William Anthony]

I did hear on Greta or Nancy Grace the other night that when OJ Simpson came into the courtroom everyday he exchanged waves with the jury. Don't you think that's inappropriate?

I heard that too from Kato on Greta. I think that, if that was truly happening, the judge would have objected and the prosecution would have strenuously protested. Don't you?

[tv]

IIRC, the actor George Hamilton was granted immunity from serving in the armed forces, during the Vietnam War, as he was the sole surviving son, at a time he was either engaged to or dating President Lydon Johnson's daughter. It was rumored that his mother was an independent millionaires. However, Mohammed Ali was stripped of his tile and sentenced to jail because he claimed conscientious objector status. I think events like these were what led to the cheering of the verdict as it could be viewed as fairness. Here is a link to the Court's decision in Ali's case.

http://www.aavw.org/protest/ali_alivus_abstract08_full.htmlI've always disagreed with stripping Mohammed Ali of his title. To me, one has nothing to do with the other. Title or not, he'll always be the greatest. I used to love boxing and followed it closely but haven't for a long while. Was Mike Tyson stripped of anything for his conviction? As for George Hamilton, apparently most of that surviving son exemption is a myth. It only applies during peacetime. During wartime it applies to combat zones according to this link. :rolleyes:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/f/faqsole.htm

[William Anthony]

I did hear on Greta or Nancy Grace the other night that when OJ Simpson came into the courtroom everyday he exchanged waves with the jury. Don't you think that's inappropriate?

Do you think this is appropriate?

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1311

[William Anthony]

I've always disagreed with stripping Mohammed Ali of his title. To me, one has nothing to do with the other. Title or not, he'll always be the greatest. I used to love boxing and followed it closely but haven't for a long while. Was Mike Tyson stripped of anything for his conviction? As for George Hamilton, apparently most of that surviving son exemption is a myth. It only applies during peacetime. During wartime it applies to combat zones according to this link. :rolleyes:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/f/faqsole.htm

The battle in Vietnam was not recognized as a war at that time, nor was it a national emergency. It was called a conflict, IIRC. Therefore, I do not know if it was considered a peacetime conflict at that time. Honestly, I am not sure if Tyson held the title at the time of his conviction.

[tv]

Do you think this is appropriate?

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1311William, I don't think racism in any form is appropriate. It seems to me that you're saying it was okay for blacks to feel elated about the OJ Simpson criminal trial verdict because of past mistreatment. Unfortunately, OJ Simpson didn't deserve a pass based on that because he was a coddled celebrity with the world at his feet who didn't mingle with the average person in the black community. Two wrongs don't make a right -- it's still two wrongs.

[William Anthony]

I've always disagreed with stripping Mohammed Ali of his title. To me, one has nothing to do with the other. Title or not, he'll always be the greatest. I used to love boxing and followed it closely but haven't for a long while. Was Mike Tyson stripped of anything for his conviction? As for George Hamilton, apparently most of that surviving son exemption is a myth. It only applies during peacetime. During wartime it applies to combat zones according to this link. :rolleyes:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/f/faqsole.htm

Here is a link on the myth.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NlzvUKVoSr4C&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=actor+george+hamilton+deferred+from+draft&source=web&ots=ZHskktWwwY&sig=BOOoE2SqQTf7IOX2CuNAZk4R8as&hl=en

[tv]

The battle in Vietnam was not recognized as a war at that time, nor was it a national emergency. It was called a conflict, IIRC. Therefore, I do not know if it was considered a peacetime conflict at that time. Honestly, I am not sure if Tyson held the title at the time of his conviction.I don't know the details of how George Hamilton escaped the draft but a lot of rich boys were able to do that. I was just curious about Mike Tyson.

[tv]

Here is a link on the myth.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NlzvUKVoSr4C&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=actor+george+hamilton+deferred+from+draft&source=web&ots=ZHskktWwwY&sig=BOOoE2SqQTf7IOX2CuNAZk4R8as&hl=enThank you. :)

[William Anthony]

William, I don't think racism in any form is appropriate. It seems to me that you're saying it was okay for blacks to feel elated about the OJ Simpson criminal trial verdict because of past mistreatment. Unfortunately, OJ Simpson didn't deserve a pass based on that because he was a coddled celebrity with the world at his feet who didn't mingle with the average person in the black community. Two wrongs don't make a right -- it's still two wrongs.

I have not said that it was right or wrong. There seems to be some protestation over the fact that some cheered the verdict. As I have said before, fairness and justice are not always the same. Two wrongs do not make a right, but as someone else said (a news celebrity, I can't recall who), it might make us even. This is the sad perception that some hold due to America's history on racial issues that some want to ignore and cast blame without considering the causes.

[William Anthony]

I don't know the details of how George Hamilton escaped the draft but a lot of rich boys were able to do that. I was just curious about Mike Tyson.

Ali was rich. I think he remarked that, if he continued to box, his taxes could build four battle ships.

[tv]

I have not said that it was right or wrong. There seems to be some protestation over the fact that some cheered the verdict. As I have said before, fairness and justice are not always the same. Two wrongs do not make a right, but as someone else said (a news celebrity, I can't recall who), it might make us even.William, I don't think you'll ever think it's even. Think of poor Ron and Nicole not receiving their due justice to repay an injustice that can never be fully satisfied. You've said in another thread what you think hatred does to a person if they don't let go of it -- you might consider heeding your own advice and I mean that in the kindest way.

[tv]

Ali was rich. I think he remarked that, if he continued to box, his taxes could build four battle ships.Good for him because he earned every penny of it.

[William Anthony]

William, I don't think you'll ever think it's even. Think of poor Ron and Nicole not receiving their due justice to repay an injustice that can never be fully satisfied. You've said in another thread what you think hatred does to a person if they don't let go of it -- you might consider heeding your own advice and I mean that in the kindest way.

I do take it in the kindest way and contrary to what you and others might think I do not hate. The subject being discussed is the cheering of the verdict. I simply offered a possible explanation for the cheering. I think any intelligent discussion on an issue must look to the possible causes for the action. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think that if we look at those equal and opposite reactions, then we begin to understand the difference between justice and fairness. Please, do not think that everyone that points to America's history does so out of hatred, as opposed to trying to achieve some understanding, or if you will, explanations for and not excuses for reactions, and I mean that in the kindest way.

[tv]

I do take it in the kindest way and contrary to what you and others might think I do not hate. The subject being discussed is the cheering of the verdict. I simply offered a possible explanation for the cheering. I think any intelligent discussion on an issue must look to the possible causes for the action. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think that if we look at those equal and opposite reactions, then we begin to understand the difference between justice and fairness. Please, do not think that everyone that points to America's history does so out of hatred, as opposed to trying to achieve some understanding, or if you will, explanations for and not excuses for reactions, and I mean that in the kindest way.I'm not making excuses but I don't think color should always be a factor. I didn't say everyone that points to America's history does so out of hatred and I'm sorry if you took it that way.

[William Anthony]

Good for him because he earned every penny of it.

I will avoid the obvious response and not revisit the subject that has been of so much discord to the community. :)

[The R]

Was the cheering of the verdict an appreciation for the verdict or an appreciation for the concept of fairness?


LOL! Your question looks like one of those false dilemma deals that people like detectives ask suspects.

As to your question, I'd answer neither.

IMO, and as I've stated here before, cheering a verdict shows a real lack of class.

R

[William Anthony]

I'm not making excuses but I don't think color should always be a factor. I didn't say everyone that points to America's history does so out of hatred and I'm sorry if you took it that way.

I was speaking of myself as part of that everyone and only, indicating that my reference to America's history is not from hatred. At the same time I cannot ignore it and the repercussions it may have on today's society. I point to it as a possible explanation for actions. I think that no nobler words have been written than those in the Preamble. Because I see law as the means to give those words the actuality of their sentiments, is why I have chosen the law and, if I am in some manner able to bring the actuality of those words into a more perfect existence, then I have accomplished making America a better country and validated my existence by promoting equality and harmony, imho.

[The R]

Good for him because he earned every penny of it.

And the poor guy is still paying for it. It's a bit ironic that he'd make that statement considering he wouldn't spend time on a battleship though. Of course that was his right also and I don't want to go O/T really....just an observation. :patriot:


ALLMO,
R

[William Anthony]

LOL! Your question looks like one of those false dilemma deals that people like detectives ask suspects.

As to your question, I'd answer neither.

IMO, and as I've stated here before, cheering a verdict shows a real lack of class.

R

I would rather think of it a lawyer's question. :)

Class or classless, imho, is irrelevant as to why the cheering took place. The obvious question then would be what do you think caused, as you call it a classless display, the cheering the verdict.

It is fair for you to give your opinion of what transpired but my question dealt more with the cause.

[tv]

LOL! Your question looks like one of those false dilemma deals that people like detectives ask suspects.

As to your question, I'd answer neither.

IMO, and as I've stated here before, cheering a verdict shows a real lack of class.

RThat reminds me that I really dislike the cheering outside of prisons during executions also. It's something that has always bothered me.

[William Anthony]

And the poor guy is still paying for it. It's a bit ironic that he'd make that statement considering he wouldn't spend time on a battleship though. Of course that was his right also and I don't want to go O/T really....just an observation. :patriot:


ALLMO,
R

I understand and I should place the remark in context. It was made after they wanted to strip him and he had stated his conscientious objections. He was saying that he could better serve the country, in light of his objections to the conflict or war, if his money was used to build battleships for those who did not hold the same objections as he did. This was his way of serving America in troubled times, imho.

[tv]

I would rather think of it a lawyer's question. :)

Class or classless, imho, is irrelevant as to why the cheering took place. The obvious question then would be what do you think caused, as you call it a classless display, the cheering the verdict.

It is fair for you to give your opinion of what transpired but my question dealt more with the cause.I think part of the cause was the callous disregard for the lives of Ron and Nicole.

[tv]

I understand and I should place the remark in context. It was made after they wanted to strip him and he had stated his conscientious objections. He was saying that he could better serve the country, in light of his objections to the conflict or war, if his money was used to build battleships for those who did not hold the same objections as he did. This was his way of serving America in troubled times, imho.Hmmm...I would think it would be against his priciples to finance a battleship also. Just thinking...

[tv]

I will avoid the obvious response and not revisit the subject that has been of so much discord to the community. :)William, please tell me what I said wrong this time. Muhammed Ali is one of my all time favorite athletes and if I've been politically incorrect in some way I want you to enlighten me.

[William Anthony]

That reminds me that I really dislike the cheering outside of prisons during executions also. It's something that has always bothered me.

I think the cheering in those instances can rightly be explained, in that they probably believe the right sentence was imposed on the right person for a despicable crime.

[tv]

I think the cheering in those instances can rightly be explained, in that they probably believe the right sentence was imposed on the right person for a despicable crime.Sorry, I think it's inappropriate.

[William Anthony]

William, please tell me what I said wrong this time. Muhammed Ali is one of my all time favorite athletes and if I've been politically incorrect in some way I want you to enlighten me.

Nothing wrong. There was just a response to the earned comment that I could have posted but decided not to.:)

[The R]

Kennedy was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid a trial where all the circumstances surrounding the incident could have been exposed. The point that I was trying to make is not that no whites cheered on the fact that he was allowed to get off easy-it was that whites did not publicly express their outrage at the fact that he was allowed to get off easy.
Yes, there is a difference from manslaughter, negligent homicide and murder. This is why I am surprised that the public did not have the same amount of outcry, when Kennedy was allowed to avoid being tried and having the circumstances come out. It has been said that the Young lady was pregnant at the time of her death and their are some strange occurrences surrounding her autopsy. I will not go into them now. My point is that we may never know if it was manslaughter, negligent homicide or premeditated murder, because of how it was handled and there was not the public outcry as was in the Simpson trial where the public was allowed to hear all the evidence and reach a their own respective conclusions. That is my argument.


One other thing I wanted to point out here William in all fairness is that I'm not sure how you can actually gauge the outcry at the time of this incident involving Kennedy. The incident happened almost 40 years ago, so unless you were alive at that time, the only thing you'd have to go on is print media and word of mouth. I do remember as a child (unfortunately :) old enough) there being a good bit of outcry over this thing. When you compare this incident to OJ's trial that took place in the modern court of public opinion through the sensation of the media coverage, I'm not sure that a comparison is really a valid one.

To me anyway Kennedy is an enigma. I have no idea how he continues to be re-elected and I hold him in the same esteem as I do OJ to be honest.

I think that both Kennedy's case and OJ's support what I said about criminology's conflict theory and the privileges of money. Kennedy's even shows that the powerful can change the laws to suit their needs while the poor suffer the full punishment of breaking the law.


ALLMO,
R

[William Anthony]

Sorry, I think it's inappropriate.

Again, I was not addressing appropriateness but offering an explanation.

[The R]

I would rather think of it a lawyer's question. :)

Class or classless, imho, is irrelevant as to why the cheering took place. The obvious question then would be what do you think caused, as you call it a classless display, the cheering the verdict.

It is fair for you to give your opinion of what transpired but my question dealt more with the cause.


and truthfully your thoughts on the cheering and it causes are also only your opinion and it's fine by me if you have them.

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

That reminds me that I really dislike the cheering outside of prisons during executions also. It's something that has always bothered me.


I wholeheartedly agree.

[tv]

Nothing wrong. There was just a response to the earned comment that I could have posted but decided not to.:)Please do. Put me in my place...I'm ready. :)

[tv]

Again, I was not addressing appropriateness but offering an explanation.William, I think I had already figured out why people do it. I just don't like it. I might change my mind if it involved a murdered loved one of mine but I hope that I wouldn't.

[William Anthony]

One other thing I wanted to point out here William in all fairness is that I'm not sure how you can actually gauge the outcry at the time of this incident involving Kennedy. The incident happened almost 40 years ago, so unless you were alive at that time, the only thing you'd have to go on is print media and word of mouth. I do remember as a child (unfortunately :) old enough) there being a good bit of outcry over this thing. When you compare this incident to OJ's trial that took place in the modern court of public opinion through the sensation of the media coverage, I'm not sure that a comparison is really a valid one.

To me anyway Kennedy is an enigma. I have no idea how he continues to be re-elected and I hold him in the same esteem as I do OJ to be honest.

I think that both Kennedy's case and OJ's support what I said about criminology's conflict theory and the privileges of money. Kennedy's even shows that the powerful can change the laws to suit their needs while the poor suffer the full punishment of breaking the law.


ALLMO,
R

You need not have been alive to see, as you say, the enigma. The simple fact that he has served for 40 years in the Senate tells us that the outcry was not the same. Thirteen years later we are sill discussing Simpson while Kennedy was reelected several times and the incident long since forgotten for any measuarable amount.

[tv]

One other thing I wanted to point out here William in all fairness is that I'm not sure how you can actually gauge the outcry at the time of this incident involving Kennedy. The incident happened almost 40 years ago, so unless you were alive at that time, the only thing you'd have to go on is print media and word of mouth. I do remember as a child (unfortunately :) old enough) there being a good bit of outcry over this thing. When you compare this incident to OJ's trial that took place in the modern court of public opinion through the sensation of the media coverage, I'm not sure that a comparison is really a valid one.

To me anyway Kennedy is an enigma. I have no idea how he continues to be re-elected and I hold him in the same esteem as I do OJ to be honest.

I think that both Kennedy's case and OJ's support what I said about criminology's conflict theory and the privileges of money. Kennedy's even shows that the powerful can change the laws to suit their needs while the poor suffer the full punishment of breaking the law.


ALLMO,
RThank you, R. I'm also old :( enough to remember when it happened and there was a lot of outrage from people. This is just another illustration of how money and influence can buy justice just like in the OJ Simpson case.

[William Anthony]

Please do. Put me in my place...I'm ready. :)

No. I am enjoying the discussion and do not want to incite others into making false accusations. :)

[tv]

You need not have been alive to see, as you say, the enigma. The simple fact that he has served for 40 years in the Senate tells us that the outcry was not the same. Thirteen years later we are sill discussing Simpson while Kennedy was reelected several times and the incident long since forgotten for any measuarable amount.If it happened today the outcry would be the same. Politicians aren't as protected as they used to be and the media would leave no stone unturned.

[tv]

No. I am enjoying the discussion and do not want to incite others into making false accusations. :) False accusations?

[William Anthony]

Thank you, R. I'm also old :( enough to remember when it happened and there was a lot of outrage from people. This is just another illustration of how money and influence can buy justice just like in the OJ Simpson case.

That died all too soon, imho, as compared to the Simpson case. You seem to have forgotten the remark you so frequently post about the jury taking care of one of their own.

[The R]

You need not have been alive to see, as you say, the enigma. The simple fact that he has served for 40 years in the Senate tells us that the outcry was not the same. Thirteen years later we are sill discussing Simpson while Kennedy was reelected several times and the incident long since forgotten for any measuarable amount.

sorry....when I said you, I didn't mean you specifically in my post. Like I said, I don't think much of Kennedy and I sure as heck wouldn't vote for him....neither would I vote for OJ and evidently there is nothing that would keep him from running if he wanted to. I understand Trump was considering putting him on Apprentice. Trump evidently understands the power of the media. That would be a hoot IMO.

ALLMO,
R

[William Anthony]

If it happened today the outcry would be the same. Politicians aren't as protected as they used to be and the media would leave no stone unturned.

I see it was the media's fault and people should not hold people accountable unless the media says to so do. People 40 years ago had not developed the intellect to think for themselves or to be repulsed by what they heard to the same degree as they are today. :)

[tv]

That died all too soon, imho, as compared to the Simpson case. You seem to have forgotten the remark you so frequently post about the jury taking care of one of their own.It's a direct quote from a jury member. I didn't make it up. William, the Kennedy family is a powerful political machine and was even more powerful at that time. Yes, they took care of their own, I'm not denying that. Do you think I'm defending Ted Kennedy?

[William Anthony]

sorry....when I said you, I didn't mean you specifically in my post. Like I said, I don't think much of Kennedy and I sure as heck wouldn't vote for him....neither would I vote for OJ and evidently there is nothing that would keep him from running if he wanted to. I understand Trump was considering putting him on Apprentice. Trump evidently understands the power of the media. That would be a hoot IMO.

ALLMO,
R

In fairness to Kennedy, he seems to have made some accomplishments in the Senate. I might vote for Kennedy but not for any of the others.

[tv]

I see it was the media's fault and people should not hold people accountable unless the media says to so do. People 40 years ago had not developed the intellect to think for themselves or to be repulsed by what they heard to the same degree as they are today. :)I see you're becoming sarcastic, nitpicky and argumentative. Time for me to take a break. :)

[William Anthony]

It's a direct quote from a jury member. I didn't make it up. William, the Kennedy family is a powerful political machine and was even more powerful at that time. Yes, they took care of their own, I'm not denying that. Do you think I'm defending Ted Kennedy?

No, I am saying that there was an additional factor, or at least in the perception of some, that entered into the difference in the amount of outcry.

[William Anthony]

I see you're becoming sarcastic, nitpicky and argumentative. Time for me to take a break. :)

Not really, just trying to understand. Don't blame your work schedule on me. :)

[William Anthony]

False accusations?

You know I frequently get accused of things that aren't true. :)

[The R]

That died all too soon, imho, as compared to the Simpson case. You seem to have forgotten the remark you so frequently post about the jury taking care of one of their own.

I suspect that in a few years that outcry on the Simpson case will also die down, not maybe as quickly as the Kennedy case but then again maybe. People tend to forget the emotion attached to criminal cases and remember the history of them whether accurate or not.

ALLMO,
R

[William Anthony]

I suspect that in a few years that outcry on the Simpson case will also die down, not maybe as quickly as the Kennedy case but then again maybe. People tend to forget the emotion attached to criminal cases and remember the history of them whether accurate or not.

ALLMO,
R

I hope that you are right about the outcry.

[William Anthony]

I think part of the cause was the callous disregard for the lives of Ron and Nicole.

I do not think it was a callous disregard for life. I think it was more from a sentiment that there was a chance for the playing field to be leveled in some cases, imho. I am sure that blacks and whites felt the utmost remorse for the deaths. I think America's history was paramount in understanding the difference in the reactions to the verdict.

[SlowHandSam]

I think part of the cause was the callous disregard for the lives of Ron and Nicole.

I agree with you on this. I think the way they were ambushed and butchered showed absolutely nothing other than a cold, calculated rage with absolutely no regard to their lives or those that love them.

It was more than callous, imo.

[Kate Sachel]

Until L.A. County decides to open up Ron Goldman's criminal case files for

The People vs. Ronald Lyle Goldman for case file numbers
91C00362; 91S001189; 90M152830; 90M145037; 91S009252
90M098400; 91S005338;91S006635

and stop prohibiting access to his arrest photos and public examination of his criminal record by citing restrictions pursuant to Cal. Gov't. Code 6254(f), which protects the records of confidential informants

we are going to continue to presume that Ron was involved in very serious illegal activities.

The allegations that brought us to this point of the investigation was that he, Nicole, and Faye were trafficking in narcotics around the Cheviot Hills Tennis Courts where Ron was the alleged tennis instructor.

All city employee records and requests for drivers license information on Goldman have been denied as well.

BB

I'm asking for something more concrete than presumptions.

I believe the discussion was already had that the particular code you are referring to protects more than confidential informants. And, if he was a confidential informant does that necessarily mean it had something to do with drugs?

Kate

[weezer]

I'm asking for something more concrete than presumptions.

I believe the discussion was already had that the particular code you are referring to protects more than confidential informants. And, if he was a confidential informant does that necessarily mean it had something to do with drugs?

Kate

I can't find where that code discusses 'confidential informants.' http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/6250-6270.html

IIRC, when this discussion once before on this board, it was determined that Ron had traffic tickets and court dates re those tickets. There is and has never been any indication and/or evidence that Ron had anything to do with drugs.

Am I wrong?

[William Anthony]

I agree with you on this. I think the way they were ambushed and butchered showed absolutely nothing other than a cold, calculated rage with absolutely no regard to their lives or those that love them.

It was more than callous, imo.

There seems to be some misunderstanding. I was saying that, imho, the cheering of the verdict did not absolutely show a disregard for the lives lost.

[martin II]

If other citizens records are available, why would Ron Goldman's not be?
That is the quesiton.

[William Anthony]

I can't find where that code discusses 'confidential informants.' http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/6250-6270.html

IIRC, when this discussion once before on this board, it was determined that Ron had traffic tickets and court dates re those tickets. There is and has never been any indication and/or evidence that Ron had anything to do with drugs.

Am I wrong?

"6254. Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in
this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records
that are any of the following:
(a) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency
memoranda that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary
course of business, if the public interest in withholding those
records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
(b) Records pertaining to pending litigation to which the public
agency is a party, or to claims made pursuant to Division 3.6
(commencing with Section 810), until the pending litigation or claim
has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.
(c) Personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which
would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(d) Contained in or related to any of the following:
(1) Applications filed with any state agency responsible for the
regulation or supervision of the issuance of securities or of
financial institutions, including, but not limited to, banks, savings
and loan associations, industrial loan companies, credit unions, and
insurance companies.
(2) Examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on
behalf of, or for the use of, any state agency referred to in
paragraph (1).
(3) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency
communications prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, any
state agency referred to in paragraph (1).
(4) Information received in confidence by any state agency
referred to in paragraph (1).
(e) Geological and geophysical data, plant production data, and
similar information relating to utility systems development, or
market or crop reports, that are obtained in confidence from any
person.
(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or
records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the
office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, and any
state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files
compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any
investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local
agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes.
However, state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the
names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than
confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any
property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all
diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the
statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to
the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof,
an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made,
and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss,
as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire,
explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or
a crime as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 13951, unless the
disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person
involved in the investigation, or unless disclosure would endanger
the successful completion of the investigation or a related
investigation. However, nothing in this division shall require the
disclosure of that portion of those investigative files that reflects
the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.

[martin II]

I did hear on Greta or Nancy Grace the other night that when OJ Simpson came into the courtroom everyday he exchanged waves with the jury. Don't you think that's inappropriate?

IF this was reported by either and IF it was true, the prosecution must have given their approval, otherwise i do not believe it ever happened.:cool:
MARTIN II

[martin II]

I can't find where that code discusses 'confidential informants.' http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/6250-6270.html

IIRC, when this discussion once before on this board, it was determined that Ron had traffic tickets and court dates re those tickets. There is and has never been any indication and/or evidence that Ron had anything to do with drugs.

Am I wrong?

There was a investigative report that reported that it was true.I have posted it before.imo
martin II

[martin II]

I can't find where that code discusses 'confidential informants.' http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/6250-6270.html

IIRC, when this discussion once before on this board, it was determined that Ron had traffic tickets and court dates re those tickets. There is and has never been any indication and/or evidence that Ron had anything to do with drugs.

Am I wrong?

Under normal situations when a defendant does not show up in court more than one time a bench warrant is issued against him. Sometime after the first
no show.imo

[weezer]

There was a investigative report that reported that it was true.I have posted it before.imo
martin II

I'm going to assume the 'investigative report' was never able to show that Ron Goldman trafficked in drugs.

[weezer]

Under normal situations when a defendant does not show up in court more than one time a bench warrant is issued against him. Sometime after the first
no show.imo

oh geez martin --

[tv]

IF this was reported by either and IF it was true, the prosecution must have given their approval, otherwise i do not believe it ever happened.:cool:
MARTIN IIKato Kaelin made that statement a few days ago. It's up to you whether or not to believe him but it would be easy to verify since he wasn't the only one in the court room. I doubt the prosecution gave their approval for the black power salute either but it happened.

[socaldiva]

Kato Kaelin made that statement a few days ago. It's up to you whether or not to believe him but it would be easy to verify since he wasn't the only one in the court room. I doubt the prosecution gave their approval for the black power salute either but it happened.


I heard Kaelin say that on Nancy Grace the other day & I seem to recall hearing years ago as well. Ito had no backbone, why would he listen to the prosecution?

[William Anthony]

The salute happened after the verdict. Let us not forget that Ito removed a juror. He had enough backbone to do that. Any lawyer watches the jury to gage their reactions. If this took place on a daily basis, I am sure the prosecution would have been up in arms and would have made a case in front of the camera.

[William Anthony]

Fox has a show on about interracial intolerance in America. The host said it would make your blood boil. I will watch it. The UN is going to investigate racism in America. Laura Ingram said that there were so many "real problems" for the UN to investigate.
__________________

[martin II]

Kato Kaelin made that statement a few days ago. It's up to you whether or not to believe him but it would be easy to verify since he wasn't the only one in the court room. I doubt the prosecution gave their approval for the black power salute either but it happened.

I don't doubt Kato said something like this but Kato as a witness was not even in the court room everyday so how would he know?
No way Clarke/Darden would have allowed this daily.
martinii

[SlowHandSam]

The salute happened after the verdict. Let us not forget that Ito removed a juror. He had enough backbone to do that. Any lawyer watches the jury to gage their reactions. If this took place on a daily basis, I am sure the prosecution would have been up in arms and would have made a case in front of the camera.

he removed juror(s), sure. But the one juror took forever and a near coup from the other jurors before he'd remove that juror. I spent hours reading the testimony last week while sitting in various airports across this country and it seems to me that the only reason Ito finally did remove the final juror was because there was a near revolt from the others.

[William Anthony]

he removed juror(s), sure. But the one juror took forever and a near coup from the other jurors before he'd remove that juror. I spent hours reading the testimony last week while sitting in various airports across this country and it seems to me that the only reason Ito finally did remove the final juror was because there was a near revolt from the others.

I found this link, which indicates that the revolt was for another reason. I still do not think that either the prosecution or Ito would have stood for the jury waving to Simpson on an everyday basis.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n26_v87/ai_16858797

[William Anthony]

This is just a brief look at how the Simpson criminal verdict impacted the justice system. There is another article from NAM on the same trial that relates the rise in the prison population after the verdict, with blacks composing 50% of the population. It is exactly these type of events, if motivated by the verdict, that will not allow America to heal.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2007/12/post_81.html

Here is the one from NAM

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=734c72601f3aeec254e83 10d62c99620

[William Anthony]

Last night I happened to catch a show on the murder trial of Robert Blake, who like Simpson was found not guilty. There was evidence in the trial that Blake had gunshot residue on his hands, had parked behind the dumpster where his wife was killed, had attempted to hire people to kill his wife, and that she was killed while he went back to the restaurant to get his gun that he forgot. Also, like Simpson he was found liable for wrongful death and the jury awarded a large amount for damages. Blake claimed to be bankrupt. I have not heard the same amount of outcry over the circumstances in this case as there is with Simpson.
They were both celebrities, both rich. What is the difference?

[tv]

I don't doubt Kato said something like this but Kato as a witness was not even in the court room everyday so how would he know?
No way Clarke/Darden would have allowed this daily.
martiniiAfter he testified he was allowed in the court room. I don't know how you can say Clarke and Darden wouldn't have allowed it. Remember these two allowed a murder defendant to decide if a piece of evidence fit him.

[tv]

Last night I happened to catch a show on the murder trial of Robert Blake, who like Simpson was found not guilty. There was evidence in the trial that Blake had gunshot residue on his hands, had parked behind the dumpster where his wife was killed, had attempted to hire people to kill his wife, and that she was killed while he went back to the restaurant to get his gun that he forgot. Also, like Simpson he was found liable for wrongful death and the jury awarded a large amount for damages. Blake claimed to be bankrupt. I have not heard the same amount of outcry over the circumstances in this case as there is with Simpson.
They were both celebrities, both rich. What is the difference?We've been over this before. Robert Blake never had the kind of following and celebrity status that OJ Simpson did. He was never a beloved sports figure. The case itself is not nearly as intriguing and whether it's fair or not the victim doesn't have the same kind of sympathetic appeal as Ron and Nicole. If you want to make analogies to other cases, how about Scott Peterson? He was convicted on no forensic evidence and got the death penalty. Why is there no outcry about that?

[weezer]

This is just a brief look at how the Simpson criminal verdict impacted the justice system. There is another article from NAM on the same trial that relates the rise in the prison population after the verdict, with blacks composing 50% of the population. It is exactly these type of events, if motivated by the verdict, that will not allow America to heal.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2007/12/post_81.html

Here is the one from NAM

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=734c72601f3aeec254e83 10d62c99620

http://www.hhscenter.org/bonbedit2.html "BLACK ON BLACK CRIME STATISTICS -- While African Americans comprise 12% of the U.S. population, 45% of all murder victims in 2002 were African American, 91% of whom were killed by African Americans. Nationally, homicide is the leading cause of death for black men and second leading cause of death for black women ages 15-24. There have been over 250 homicides reported over the last 5-6 years in Pulaski County. United States spends an average of over $4.5 billion on emergency and physical/occupational therapy associated with crime-related injuries/deaths."

Black Victims of Violent Crime
Presents findings about violent crime experienced by non-Hispanic blacks. Data on nonfatal violent victimization (rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault) are drawn from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Data on homicides are drawn from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s Supplementary Homicide Reports. Comparisons are made with the victimization experience of other racial/ethnic groups. Findings include violent victimization rates by victim characteristics. Also examined are crime characteristics, including weapon use, offender race, police reporting, and police response to violent crime incidents. Trends in violent victimization are also discussed. Highlights include the following:

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/abstract/bvvc.htm "Blacks were victims of an estimated 805,000 nonfatal violent crimes and of about 8,000 homicides in 2005.
Blacks accounted for 13% of the U.S. population in 2005, but were victims in 15% of all nonfatal violent crimes and nearly half of all homicides.
During the 5-year period from 2001 to 2005, the average annual rate of nonfatal violent victimization against blacks was 29 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. For whites the rate was 23 per 1,000, and for Hispanics, 24 per 1,000."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Although slightly less true now than before, most murders are intraracial
From 1976 to 2005 --
86% of white victims were killed by whites
94% of black victims were killed by blacks

[William Anthony]

After he testified he was allowed in the court room. I don't know how you can say Clarke and Darden wouldn't have allowed it. Remember these two allowed a murder defendant to decide if a piece of evidence fit him.

With all due respect, they did not allow it and Darden objected strenuously. However, they did cause it.

[William Anthony]

We've been over this before. Robert Blake never had the kind of following and celebrity status that OJ Simpson did. He was never a beloved sports figure. The case itself is not nearly as intriguing and whether it's fair or not the victim doesn't have the same kind of sympathetic appeal as Ron and Nicole. If you want to make analogies to other cases, how about Scott Peterson? He was convicted on no forensic evidence and got the death penalty. Why is there no outcry about that?

How do you compare who followed who? Robert Blake was a celebrity from his early childhood. Why is the case not as intriguing? With all due respect, we are not talking about people, who were proven guilty of murder. We are talking about those, who were proven not guilty, and the difference in the amount of outcry against those verdicts.

[weezer]

How do you compare who followed who? Robert Blake was a celebrity from his early childhood. Why is the case not as intriguing? With all due respect, we are not talking about people, who were proven guilty of murder. We are talking about those, who were proven not guilty, and the difference in the amount of outcry against those verdicts.

this isn't all that hard to figure out -- it's the same principle as to why some people become successful, tv shows/movies are hits, etc -- Robert Blake wasn't as well known/successful as orenthal. Blake's reputation was already less than stellar and the circumstances of his marriage to Bonnie Blake had ran the gammit of the talk shows/magazines/tabloids.

[William Anthony]

http://www.hhscenter.org/bonbedit2.html "BLACK ON BLACK CRIME STATISTICS -- While African Americans comprise 12% of the U.S. population, 45% of all murder victims in 2002 were African American, 91% of whom were killed by African Americans. Nationally, homicide is the leading cause of death for black men and second leading cause of death for black women ages 15-24. There have been over 250 homicides reported over the last 5-6 years in Pulaski County. United States spends an average of over $4.5 billion on emergency and physical/occupational therapy associated with crime-related injuries/deaths."

Black Victims of Violent Crime
Presents findings about violent crime experienced by non-Hispanic blacks. Data on nonfatal violent victimization (rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault) are drawn from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Data on homicides are drawn from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s Supplementary Homicide Reports. Comparisons are made with the victimization experience of other racial/ethnic groups. Findings include violent victimization rates by victim characteristics. Also examined are crime characteristics, including weapon use, offender race, police reporting, and police response to violent crime incidents. Trends in violent victimization are also discussed. Highlights include the following:

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/abstract/bvvc.htm "Blacks were victims of an estimated 805,000 nonfatal violent crimes and of about 8,000 homicides in 2005.
Blacks accounted for 13% of the U.S. population in 2005, but were victims in 15% of all nonfatal violent crimes and nearly half of all homicides.
During the 5-year period from 2001 to 2005, the average annual rate of nonfatal violent victimization against blacks was 29 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. For whites the rate was 23 per 1,000, and for Hispanics, 24 per 1,000."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Although slightly less true now than before, most murders are intraracial
From 1976 to 2005 --
86% of white victims were killed by whites
94% of black victims were killed by blacks

With all due respect, I think your links and statistics are irrelevant to the topic. The topic being discussed is the impact that the Simpson criminal verdict had on the public and the justice system. The point is how the justice Simpson may have convicted and sentenced blacks due to the outrage over the Simpson verdict.

[William Anthony]

this isn't all that hard to figure out -- it's the same principle as to why some people become successful, tv shows/movies are hits, etc -- Robert Blake wasn't as well known/successful as orenthal. Blake's reputation was already less than stellar and the circumstances of his marriage to Bonnie Blake had ran the gammit of the talk shows/magazines/tabloids.

I think that they were equally well known, imho. The idea that Blake's marriage had ran the gamut, not "gammit", shows to me that he was well known. So, therefore, I reiterate, why is the Simpson case intriguing.

[weezer]

I think that they were equally well known, imho. The idea that Blake's marriage had ran the gamut, not "gammit", shows to me that he was well known. So, therefore, I reiterate, why is the Simpson case intriguing.

you're the one that said: "How do you compare who followed who?"

you keep insisting that they were equally well known -- I am agreeing that that may be so but the personality and reputation of the 'man' sets them apart. Most people knew of Blake's dark side -- Most people were surprised when orenthal's was exposed.

thanks for the correction --

[William Anthony]

you're the one that said: "How do you compare who followed who?"

you keep insisting that they were equally well known -- I am agreeing that that may be so but the personality and reputation of the 'man' sets them apart. Most people knew of Blake's dark side -- Most people were surprised when orenthal's was exposed.

thanks for the correction --

I just thought I should return a favor. :) I think most people know that people have a dark side. So, what made the Simpson case more intriguing was that his dark side was exposed, correct?

[martin II]

After he testified he was allowed in the court room. I don't know how you can say Clarke and Darden wouldn't have allowed it. Remember these two allowed a murder defendant to decide if a piece of evidence fit him.

tv

1. Vanhatter was the first witness on 1/31 Kato did not testify until 3/21 so he was not in the court room every day to see anything.imo

Usually the defandant is seated when the judge calls the jury in so how could oj wave at the jury when he/they came in.

i watched this trial daily and i only saw oj makeing notes on a yellow pad or wispwering to his lawyers. imo

Clarke/Darden objected to everything they thought was unfair and to a lot to try to confuse issues so i am sure they would not allow what Kato or Nancy claimed.imo

[weezer]

With all due respect, I think your links and statistics are irrelevant to the topic. The topic being discussed is the impact that the Simpson criminal verdict had on the public and the justice system. The point is how the justice Simpson may have convicted and sentenced blacks due to the outrage over the Simpson verdict.

with all due respect, my links and statistics are very relevant to the topic. Do you think it's odd that the group with the highest percentage as offenders is also the group with the highest prison population? You may need to think through your process here.

at any rate, since I have no interest in promulgating the 'I'm a victim" mentality, I'll just say :seeya:

imo

[weezer]

tv

1. Vanhatter was the first witness on 1/31 Kato did not testify until 3/21 so he was not in the court room every day to see anything.imo

Usually the defandant is seated when the judge calls the jury in so how could oj wave at the jury when he/they came in.

i watched this trial daily and i only saw oj makeing notes on a yellow pad or wispwering to his lawyers. imo

Clarke/Darden objected to everything they thought was unfair and to a lot to try to confuse issues so i am sure they would not allow what Kato or Nancy claimed.imo

didn't Kato just say that WHEN he was there, he saw the jurors waving to orenthal?

[martin II]

this isn't all that hard to figure out -- it's the same principle as to why some people become successful, tv shows/movies are hits, etc -- Robert Blake wasn't as well known/successful as orenthal. Blake's reputation was already less than stellar and the circumstances of his marriage to Bonnie Blake had ran the gammit of the talk shows/magazines/tabloids.

Blake was a child movie star and his tv personality in that long running show made him a very well known celiberty in America. More than most.

[martin II]

didn't Kato just say that WHEN he was there, he saw the jurors waving to orenthal?

NO


Originally Posted by tvdinner
I did hear on Greta or Nancy Grace the other night that when OJ Simpson came into the courtroom everyday he exchanged waves with the jury. Don't you think that's inappropriate?

[weezer]

NO


Originally Posted by tvdinner
I did hear on Greta or Nancy Grace the other night that when OJ Simpson came into the courtroom everyday he exchanged waves with the jury. Don't you think that's inappropriate?

:shrug:

[William Anthony]

with all due respect, my links and statistics are very relevant to the topic. Do you think it's odd that the group with the highest percentage as offenders is also the group with the highest prison population? You may need to think through your process here.

at any rate, since I have no interest in promulgating the 'I'm a victim" mentality, I'll just say :seeya:

imo

I think your links were to violent crime and what groups perpetrate those acts against blacks. It had nothing to do with which race commits the most crime.

[weezer]

I think your links were to violent crime and what groups perpetrate those acts against blacks. It had nothing to do with which race commits the most crime.

This is not the proper forum to discuss this topic. I would suggest you look for another forum where you can discuss being a victim. imo

[William Anthony]

This is not the proper forum to discuss this topic. I would suggest you look for another forum where you can discuss being a victim. imo

I posted links to the impact of the Simpson case on the justice system and this thread is concerned with how blacks view the justice system in context of the cheering of the verdict and the alleged sentiment that 9/10 blacks believe he was involved. I agree that your links are off topic, since neither of the victims were black and no one has said that a white or Hispanic has killed a black. Ergo, I did not understand your reason for posting your link.

My link was directly involved with the verdict. I have not used the word victim but you have. Perhaps, you might be best served to follow your own advice.

[weezer]

I posted links to the impact of the Simpson case on the justice system and this thread is concerned with how blacks view the justice system in context of the cheering of the verdict and the alleged sentiment that 9/10 blacks believe he was involved. I agree that your links are off topic, since neither of the victims were black and no one has said that a white or Hispanic has killed a black. Ergo, I did not understand your reason for posting your link.

My link was directly involved with the verdict. I have not used the word victim but you have. Perhaps, you might be best served to follow your own advice.

Dude! you okay? I don't have a clue what you're posting about --

[tv]

I just thought I should return a favor. :) I think most people know that people have a dark side. So, what made the Simpson case more intriguing was that his dark side was exposed, correct?I already told you why I think the Simpson case is more intriguing and weezer explained why she thinks it is. Why do you keep asking?

[tv]

NO


Originally Posted by tvdinner
I did hear on Greta or Nancy Grace the other night that when OJ Simpson came into the courtroom everyday he exchanged waves with the jury. Don't you think that's inappropriate?Geez, martin, let me reword. Kato said he saw the exchange of waves when he was in the court room. How could he know what happened on the days he wasn't there?

[William Anthony]

Dude! you okay? I don't have a clue what you're posting about --

Oh, I think you do.

[martin II]

Geez, martin, let me reword. Kato said he saw the exchange of waves when he was in the court room. How could he know what happened on the days he wasn't there?

tv

i think a better idea would be for you to post the source of Katos comments, this way you would not have to change what you originally posted.

i never saw any such thing when i watched the trial.

[weezer]

tv

i think a better idea would be for you to post the source of Katos comments, this way you would not have to change what you originally posted.

i never saw any such thing when i watched the trial.

martin, did they have split screens? I mean, did they show orenthal and the jury? the jury and the witness? etc?

[tv]

tv

i think a better idea would be for you to post the source of Katos comments, this way you would not have to change what you originally posted.

i never saw any such thing when i watched the trial.martin, I'm looking for it and will post it when and if I find it. I'm sorry you don't believe me but I understand.

[tv]

martin, I'm looking for it and will post it when and if I find it. I'm sorry you don't believe me but I understand.Here is the link to Kato Kaelin talking to Nancy Grace.


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/05/13/grace.simpson.confess.cnn?iref=videosearch

[weezer]

Here is the link to Kato Kaelin talking to Nancy Grace.


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/05/13/grace.simpson.confess.cnn?iref=videosearch

YEP -- I heard the same thing you did -- for the days he was in the courtroom, he saw members of the jury waving hello to orenthal.

[William Anthony]

YEP -- I heard the same thing you did -- for the days he was in the courtroom, he saw members of the jury waving hello to orenthal.

I also heard him say that Simpson waved back. I wonder why the cameras, the prosecution or the judge never caught that, especially, the cameras.

[tv]

I also heard him say that Simpson waved back. I wonder why the cameras, the prosecution or the judge never caught that, especially, the cameras.Why don't you just say you think Kato is lying?

[William Anthony]

Why don't you just say you think Kato is lying?

I am not like some on the board. He may have just had a false memory.

[weezer]

I am not like some on the board. He may have just had a false memory.

LOL -- or not.

[weezer]

I also heard him say that Simpson waved back. I wonder why the cameras, the prosecution or the judge never caught that, especially, the cameras.

I'm surprised that you would think the cameras could show the jury.

[William Anthony]

I'm surprised that you would think the cameras could show the jury.

I am surprised to see you post that I could think the cameras could show the jury. They could and did show Simpson and I never saw him wave at the jury until after the trial was over.

[William Anthony]

I'm surprised that you would think the cameras could show the jury.

I am surprised at your post or where you just baiting. This is the one of which I speak.

"martin, did they have split screens? I mean, did they show orenthal and the jury? the jury and the witness? etc?

[martin II]

martin, I'm looking for it and will post it when and if I find it. I'm sorry you don't believe me but I understand.

tv
it is not that i don't believe you, you first posted that it was EVERYDAY that the waves were seen.After some discussion on tht issue you changed your post to that it is now.

[martin II]

I also heard him say that Simpson waved back. I wonder why the cameras, the prosecution or the judge never caught that, especially, the cameras.

Kato will go with the flow if interviewed like someone like nancy.I watched the trial live daily and never saw this and never heard any media comments about. Never saw Clarke complain so. i guess i will have to say Kato believed he saw something most othere did not see or he LIED.IMO

[martin II]

martin, did they have split screens? I mean, did they show orenthal and the jury? the jury and the witness? etc?

I cannot say they had split screens or not but i do not remember ever seeing the jury in court. OJ sat at the defense table taking notes and talking to his lawyers and there was a lot of talk about what he may have been writing but
he was always seated.

[weezer]

I cannot say they had split screens or not but i do not remember ever seeing the jury in court. OJ sat at the defense table taking notes and talking to his lawyers and there was a lot of talk about what he may have been writing but
he was always seated.

oh okay -- the way I read your post was that you were able to see the jury and others at the same time. I knew I had never seen or heard of the jury being shown so I was surprised.

[William Anthony]

I cannot say they had split screens or not but i do not remember ever seeing the jury in court. OJ sat at the defense table taking notes and talking to his lawyers and there was a lot of talk about what he may have been writing but
he was always seated.

I guess some thought you had a special feed to your television set.:)

[weezer]

I guess some thought you had a special feed to your television set.:)

I don't know what your problem is today but you need back off. ;)