Today, 9/10 black's agree "oj probably is guilty or involved" [Archive] - Page 3

William Anthony

05-20-2008, 08:07 PM

Dude! you okay? I don't have a clue what you're posting about --

Let me clarify, since you posted that it was not surprising that the prison population reflects those that committed the most crimes. Your links, which I think are irrelevant, talk about blacks being victims of crimes. They give statistics on the issue of blacks who are victims of violent crimes. They do not give statistics on which race commits the greatest percentage of crimes, or if they did, I did not read them.

My link was on the alleged impact the criminal verdict had on blacks that were accused of crimes. My link concerned the reasons why allegedly 9/10 blacks believe Simpson was in someway involved in the murders and the cheering of the verdict. Since neither of the victims were alleged to be black, I do not understand how your links are relevant or your reason for posting them. Please, explain, if you will?

martin II

05-20-2008, 08:07 PM

For me the bottom line is the jury was never shown in court and KATO LIED.

William Anthony

05-20-2008, 08:09 PM

Weezer
maby you need to stop giving those kind of orders to other posters.Really.

Thank you. I take this as your way of wanting to improve the quality of postings in this community, correct?

weezer

05-20-2008, 08:12 PM

Before the jury arrived and after the jury left.

Are you a prosecutor and i am a witness?

I wasn't interrogating you -- LOL

I'm only trying to put into context that you said you never saw orenthal interact with the jury and what Kato stated.

You've answered my question. thanks.

martin II

05-20-2008, 08:23 PM

weezer

05-20-2008, 08:25 PM

I think it best that you take my post as it is written.Not as it seems to you or as you would like to make it read.Thanks.IMO
MARTIN ii

:punch: :seeya:

martin II

05-20-2008, 08:28 PM

I wasn't interrogating you -- LOL

I'm only trying to put into context that you said you never saw orenthal interact with the jury and what Kato stated.

You've answered my question. thanks.

I watched this trial every day from the tv across from my desk. I saw oj enter, stay and leave the court room. I never saw a picture of any jury member during the trial and If Kato said what has been reported he said, i believe he lied on the tv interview with Nancy.Maby she baught his lunch and a beer. Who knows. But it means nothing for me.imo

martin II

05-20-2008, 08:34 PM

Thank you. I take this as your way of wanting to improve the quality of postings in this community, correct?

yes
martinii

William Anthony

05-20-2008, 08:39 PM

yes
martinii

I am pleased to see that you share in this vision. There are others who have expressed that same desire. I think we will be able to set this community apart from some of the others, agreeing to disagree without being disagreeable, with equality and fairness for all. :patriot:

05-20-2008, 10:29 PM

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.I didn't use quotation marks so there was no reason for you to assume that I was quoting Kato exactly. I was relating the general idea of his statement which you have found out is a correct representation.

05-20-2008, 10:31 PM

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.IMOKato didn't go with the flow in that interview. He disagreed with Nancy Grace about Simpson's drug use and even put him in a favorable light in that regard.

martin II

05-20-2008, 10:39 PM

Kato didn't go with the flow in that interview. He disagreed with Nancy Grace about Simpson's drug use and even put him in a favorable light in that regard.

If just don't believe that oj did what kato said he did and the media did not comment on it or the prosecution did not jump up and raise holy hell.
So, Kato lied imo

martin II

05-20-2008, 10:44 PM

Kato didn't go with the flow in that interview. He disagreed with Nancy Grace about Simpson's drug use and even put him in a favorable light in that regard.

tv
do you believe the media just decided to not comment on this issue? Did the prosecution let it slip ON THE DAYS KATO WAS IN THE COURT ROOM,Did the judge think it was ok?
Why is it that there was no media comment on these waves that Kato said he saw.?

05-20-2008, 10:46 PM

If just don't believe that oj did what kato said he did and the media did not comment on it or the prosecution did not jump up and raise holy hell.
So, Kato lied imoYou only accuse someone of lying when they say something unfavorable to OJ Simpson. I've heard before that the jury waved at Simpson so it wasn't too surprising to me.

05-20-2008, 10:56 PM

tv
do you believe the media just decided to not comment on this issue? Did the prosecution let it slip ON THE DAYS KATO WAS IN THE COURT ROOM,Did the judge think it was ok?
Why is it that there was no media comment on these waves that Kato said he saw.?Now are you the prosecutor and I'm the witness? I'll try to answer -- #1 I don't know, #2 I don't know, #3 Unless it was harmful to the defense he probably didn't mind.

Kate Sachel

05-21-2008, 08:44 AM

I am pleased to see that you share in this vision. There are others who have expressed that same desire. I think we will be able to set this community apart from some of the others, agreeing to disagree without being disagreeable, with equality and fairness for all. :patriot:

If martin so cares to change the tone of this community I might suggest that he start with himself and not be as concerned with the tone of others on this forum until he concerns himself with his own and gets on track.

Thus far, in sifting through this nonsense I have seen little of constructive posting from martin and a whole lot of saracsm, blaming, and baiting.

Kate

William Anthony

05-21-2008, 08:51 AM

If martin so cares to change the tone of this community I might suggest that he start with himself and not be as concerned with the tone of others on this forum until he concerns himself with his own and gets on track.

Thus far, in sifting through this nonsense I have seen little of constructive posting from martin and a whole lot of saracsm, blaming, and baiting.

Kate

I must say that you have for the most part been an exception to the type of posts that some of us, who want to raise the level of posting in this community, are speaking of. Of course there are some issues that some feel more strongly and passionate about than others. The tendency is to express those emotions and sometimes in the heat of passion they are not expressed quite appropriately. I think that most of us have been guilty of that at sometime. I think we have a chance to make a new beginning. America may not be ready for change but lets hope this board is.:)

Kate Sachel

05-21-2008, 09:41 AM

I must say that you have for the most part been an exception to the type of posts that some of us, who want to raise the level of posting in this community, are speaking of. Of course there are some issues that some feel more strongly and passionate about than others. The tendency is to express those emotions and sometimes in the heat of passion they are not expressed quite appropriately. I think that most of us have been guilty of that at sometime. I think we have a chance to make a new beginning. America may not be ready for change but lets hope this board is.:)

I have always lived my life practicing tolerance and patience, and I slip at times because at the end of the day I am only human.

With that said, I draw a line at hypocrisy. It is difficult for me to see an individual pick at every flaw they see in another individual while ignoring all flaws of their own and without making an effort to work on their own conduct.

I would also like to point out that there is quite a large difference between the expression of one's self in the heat of passionate discussion and outright daily rudeness.

Kate

William Anthony

05-21-2008, 09:55 AM

I have always lived my life practicing tolerance and patience, and I slip at times because at the end of the day I am only human.

With that said, I draw a line at hypocrisy. It is difficult for me to see an individual pick at every flaw they see in another individual while ignoring all flaws of their own and without making an effort to work on their own conduct.

I would also like to point out that there is quite a large difference between the expression of one's self in the heat of passionate discussion and outright daily rudeness.

Kate

I have lived my life believing that I am equal to every man and superior to none. However, there are comments that are disrespectful to anyone, such as a poster saying they have no respect for another poster. In my hopes for a brighter community, I unrealistically expected other members to comment on this type of posting. Sometimes old scars do not heal, especially when it seems that some can go about posting whatever uncivil, rude, impolite, disrespectful and obnoxious posts without fear of severe punishment.

This seeming inequality may be the cause of long lasting effects that are reflected in posts. I think that you Martin and others interested in improving the quality of posting in this community can bury the hatchet and move forward in a light that will shine brightly reflecting civility, politeness, respect, tolerance and equality. This is my hope for this community. I think some humor may help to eliminate some tensions.

martin II

05-21-2008, 12:32 PM

I must say that you have for the most part been an exception to the type of posts that some of us, who want to raise the level of posting in this community, are speaking of. Of course there are some issues that some feel more strongly and passionate about than others. The tendency is to express those emotions and sometimes in the heat of passion they are not expressed quite appropriately. I think that most of us have been guilty of that at sometime. I think we have a chance to make a new beginning. America may not be ready for change but lets hope this board is.:)

Some time ago i decided on a personal policy to pick and choose which posters post i respond to. When i see personal negative referances to Martin II consistantly from one poster i just ignore them and i never respond. I don't know what the fixation is, but for me it does not matter. my non response has not stopped these negative post from continuing but it has allowed me to ignore them and focus on more interesting post that add value to the discussion such as those from TV.
ALL MY OPINION.
MARTIN II

martin II

05-21-2008, 12:38 PM

Now are you the prosecutor and I'm the witness? I'll try to answer -- #1 I don't know, #2 I don't know, #3 Unless it was harmful to the defense he probably didn't mind.

tv
You know i am defense orientated and would never like to be identified with a prosecutor. So a big apology to you for sounding like one.:beer: This pepsi.

William Anthony

05-21-2008, 12:40 PM

Some time ago i decided on a personal policy to pick and choose which posters post i respond to. When i see personal negative referances to Martin II consistantly from one poster i just ignore them and i never respond. I don't know what the fixation is, but for me it does not matter. my non response has not stopped these negative post from continuing but it has allowed me to ignore them and focus on more interesting post that add value to the discussion such as those from TV.
ALL MY OPINION.
MARTIN II

I understand. I take personal attacks personally. I believe that we must elevate the manner of posting or this community will become equivalent to some others, that do not enforce the rules equally, imho.

05-21-2008, 01:18 PM

tv
You know i am defense orientated and would never like to be identified with a prosecutor. So a big apology to you for sounding like one.:beer: This pepsi.martin, there isn't anything wrong with being defense oriented but if we didn't have prosecutors this country would be in sad shape, don't you agree? BTW, thanks for the pepsi. :)

martin II

05-21-2008, 04:27 PM

martin, there isn't anything wrong with being defense oriented but if we didn't have prosecutors this country would be in sad shape, don't you agree? BTW, thanks for the pepsi. :)

i don' t like the ones that lie and hold back evidence against defendants like that one did in dallas for all those years and convicted those men illegally.

05-21-2008, 06:20 PM

i don' t like the ones that lie and hold back evidence against defendants like that one did in dallas for all those years and convicted those men illegally.I agree, like Nifong withholding DNA test results from the defendants in the Durham rape case.

martin II

05-21-2008, 08:04 PM

martin II

05-22-2008, 05:24 AM

I agree, like Nifong withholding DNA test results from the defendants in the Durham rape case.

Like the Central Park Jogger case DA that caused those teenagers to spend all that time in jail by witholding the DNA evidence. Same as the Dallas Texas DA did for all those men for all those years.Thankls to Barry Scheck's (sp) group they are being released or given new trials.

William Anthony

05-22-2008, 07:27 AM

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9098716]I would argue that Simpson did not kill his children's mother, although he may have been a bully and abuser, because he was a coward.

Hi. I've started to re-read the original trial transcripts and have a look at what has been posted on this site. It makes interesting reading. This is from one of the 'defence' posters. I agree with the last part of his statement.

I am neither a defence or defense poster, although I will admit that, in my view, they were the superior lawyers, Uelmen excluded. I support the fact that there was reasonable doubt and the jury determined the issue of reasonable doubt correctly.

The only reason, imho, that a coward would kill you is out of fear, i.e. he was afraid of the person and backed into a corner with no place to run. Since you are reading the original trial transcripts, I do not think anything in them supports such a scenario that I have described.

William Anthony

05-22-2008, 08:42 AM

I think that I need to clarify myself on Uelmen. I never meant to imply that he had little knowledge of the law, or to trivialize his accomplishments. My posts only were meant to indicate that he did not have to use his skills as a lawyer, one who practices law in trials, because he had not been tried a case in several years. I would only wish that I could equal his accomplishments.

05-22-2008, 12:36 PM

Like the Central Park Jogger case DA that caused those teenagers to spend all that time in jail by witholding the DNA evidence. Same as the Dallas Texas DA did for all those men for all those years.Thankls to Barry Scheck's (sp) group they are being released or given new trials.Anytime a person is wrongfully imprisioned it's a tragedy but there are unethical defense attorneys as well.

William Anthony

05-22-2008, 01:45 PM

Anytime a person is wrongfully imprisioned it's a tragedy but there are unethical defense attorneys as well.

Would you agree that a prosecutor is held to a higher ethical standard?

weezer

05-22-2008, 01:53 PM

Would you agree that a prosecutor is held to a higher ethical standard?

no one but crooks and defense attorneys are going to agree to that -- LOL

William Anthony

05-22-2008, 02:13 PM

no one but crooks and defense attorneys are going to agree to that -- LOL

That's sad that prosecutors will not. :)

weezer

05-22-2008, 02:33 PM

That's sad that prosecutors will not. :)

really? I think it's sad that most defense attorneys believe they have no ethical standard to uphold.

William Anthony

05-22-2008, 02:46 PM

really? I think it's sad that most defense attorneys believe they have no ethical standard to uphold.

Most that I know take seriously their oath to give their clients the best defense possible. The job of both the prosecution and the defense should be to ensure that a person is not wrongly convicted? Don't you think?

weezer

05-22-2008, 03:05 PM

Most that I know take seriously their oath to give their clients the best defense possible. The job of both the prosecution and the defense should be to ensure that a person is not wrongly convicted? Don't you think?

I believe that EVERYBODY should play by the rules. ;)

I do not believe in 'win at all cost' -- either for the prosecution or the defense.

William Anthony

05-22-2008, 03:07 PM

I believe that EVERYBODY should play by the rules. ;)

Agreed, even if they do not like the rules. :rolleyes:

William Anthony

05-22-2008, 03:19 PM

Here is a link on some of the defenses' duties.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/hand_it_over/

William Anthony

05-22-2008, 03:26 PM

Here is a link on the prosecution's duty.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oic/smaltz/briefs/101797bradyopp.htm

Do you think the prosecution is held to a higher standard?

William Anthony

05-22-2008, 05:45 PM

Here is a link to investigations the Simpson trial sired into LE conduct.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pshell/gammage/testimonies/testilying-la.html

weezer

05-22-2008, 09:08 PM

William Anthony

05-23-2008, 07:30 AM

william, I understand your interest in all things law but honestly this is the way wrong thread. except for one or two posters, I don't believe anyone posting on this thread beleive for one moment that orenthal's cases can be used as a platform for this discussion. except for the one or two posters, I don't believe anyone posting on this thread believe orenthal was in any shape or form not treated right by LE.

I will try to answer both your and Mr. Bell's post in one response. It seems that you want to limit the discussion, or at least that is what I gleaned from Mr. Bell's post, to a one-sided discussion that Simpson is guilty. I think that Mr. Bell should start a poll and I am sure he will be pleased with the results.

This is a message board and this thread deals with the alleged fact that 9/10 of the blacks feel that Simpson was somehow involved in the murders. I have posted the post that started this thread which dealt with the difference in how blacks and whites view the system. You have called the jury by some unkind names and stated that their verdict was due to racial animus. The discussion is pertinent to LE misconduct and the way that blacks see that misconduct. My last link showed that the Simpson case spawned investigations into LE misconduct. Contrary, to your assertion the links I post are relevant material and germane to the issues being discussed. Let us not forget that the discussions here started after a trial. A trial is a test of the application of the law and the evidence to the charges. I think that there are members in this community, who are interested in examining those applications and not just offering opinions without considering other relevant material and germane factors.

This community has a history of allowing different opinions and discussion of legal topics related to the threads and issues that spring up on that thread. I see no need to fix something that is not broken. Perhaps, you and Mr. Bell might want to start a new thread or a poll or become members of a community (I think there is one) that will allow for one-sided opinions that are not based on anything pertaining to the trial, the law and the evidence and will allow one-sided opinions to be reinforced by like thinking individuals. There seems to be an interest in this community as to the applicable laws and I have had many interesting and thought-provoking discussions on this board with other members, you included. I do not think that the purpose of this community is simply to accuse or defend. I think the purpose of this community is to discuss, offer opinions (that are supported by information, the law and the evidence), and to consider opposing view points based on the posts. In short, I see this community as a learning experience promoted through open, honest, civil, polite, respectful discussions of relevant, material and germane posts that are related to the threads and issues being discussed on them.

Sometimes posters may unintentionally post irrelevant material,as with the post about blacks committing violent crimes against blacks and other races that commit violent crimes against blacks, when neither of the victims in this case were black. I did not see the relevance to the post and asked the poster to explain. I think that is the proper way to handle a post that a poster may think is irrelevant to the topic. The poster may be able to link (pun intended) it up. You have posted several posts on the law. With all due respect, this is like the pot calling the kettle black. The fact is that the defense argued there was evidence of planting. Whether or not you believe that argument is a subject for discussion and the case spawned investigations into LE corruption.
I do not believe that anyone will call planting of evidence as fair treatment, which helps to explain why 9/10 of blacks allegedly believe that Simpson was somehow involved in the murders but cheered the verdict. Certainly, you nor Mr. Bell aren't trying to curtail my and other posters' Constitutional rights to express an unpopular opinion. I think that you may find one forum that will allow that. I hope and pray that this community is better than that.

weezer

05-23-2008, 09:03 AM

Kate Sachel

05-23-2008, 09:21 AM

Here is a link on the prosecution's duty.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oic/smaltz/briefs/101797bradyopp.htm

Do you think the prosecution is held to a higher standard?

A prosecutor is held to a much higher standard.

A prosecutor is representing the government and the Supreme Court has stated that the government’s interest “in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” It is interesting to note that because a prosecutor is representing the government as a whole, which includes all citizens, this means that they are actually representing the defendant's interests as well. This requires that a prosecutor protect the rights of the very defendant they are seeking to convict.

Kate

William Anthony

05-23-2008, 12:08 PM

William Anthony

05-23-2008, 12:09 PM

A prosecutor is held to a much higher standard.

A prosecutor is representing the government and the Supreme Court has stated that the government’s interest “in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” It is interesting to note that because a prosecutor is representing the government as a whole, which includes all citizens, this means that they are actually representing the defendant's interests as well. This requires that a prosecutor protect the rights of the very defendant they are seeking to convict.

Kate

Agreed. Be careful you are referring to case law, smile.

Kate Sachel

05-23-2008, 12:12 PM

Agreed. Be careful you are referring to case law, smile.

Meaning?

Kate

William Anthony

05-23-2008, 12:22 PM

Meaning?

Kate

"william, I understand your interest in all things law but honestly this is the way wrong thread. except for one or two posters,...":)

William Anthony

05-24-2008, 08:15 AM

oh dear -- no one is trying to limit the discussion to only their beliefs. I was respectfully pointing out that orenthal's case may not be the platform to further your argument since 9/10 people believe he murdered Ron and Nicole and that LE didn't plant evidence. imo

You get on with your bad self and post away about how corrupt LE is -- :seeya:

I do not know where you got your statistics that 9/10 "people believe he murdered Ron and Nicole." This thread deals with the fact that 9/10 blacks feel he was somehow involved. I read the first post and still do not understand how the word guilty got into the title.

Credibility is an issue in any trial. I had the pleasure of representing myself in an administrative hearing. The other side was represented by a lawyer, who referred to the administrative judge by his first name, although not during the proceeding. I thought by the way the hearing went that I had lost, although I was sure that the judge knew the other side was telling lies. Much to my suprise, the decision went in my favor. I point to this, because of my link on LE's tendency to tell lies on the stand. In the Simpson case, many of the Prosecution's witnesses changed their story. Whether it was from human error or mistakes, it may have reinforced the belief of many people that LE will lie on the stand. Thus, the jury may have discredit the mistakes, human errors or lies. I do not know of any statics that say that 9/10 of people believe the glove wasn't planted. On the issue of credibility we have the detective, who allegedly found the golve, being caught in a lie and testimony of a witness in regard to his racial animus toward interracial couples.

Even though of those surveyed 9/10 blacks believe he may have been in someway involved, the cheering of the verdict may have meant that it was the right verdict based upon the concept of reasonable doubt.

William Anthony

05-24-2008, 08:29 AM

A prosecutor is held to a much higher standard.

A prosecutor is representing the government and the Supreme Court has stated that the government’s interest “in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” It is interesting to note that because a prosecutor is representing the government as a whole, which includes all citizens, this means that they are actually representing the defendant's interests as well. This requires that a prosecutor protect the rights of the very defendant they are seeking to convict.

Kate

Thank you for what is, imho, and honest and well supported post.

weezer

05-24-2008, 05:43 PM

I do not know where you got your statistics that 9/10 "people believe he murdered Ron and Nicole." This thread deals with the fact that 9/10 blacks feel he was somehow involved. I read the first post and still do not understand how the word guilty got into the title.

Credibility is an issue in any trial. I had the pleasure of representing myself in an administrative hearing. The other side was represented by a lawyer, who referred to the administrative judge by his first name, although not during the proceeding. I thought by the way the hearing went that I had lost, although I was sure that the judge knew the other side was telling lies. Much to my suprise, the decision went in my favor. I point to this, because of my link on LE's tendency to tell lies on the stand. In the Simpson case, many of the Prosecution's witnesses changed their story. Whether it was from human error or mistakes, it may have reinforced the belief of many people that LE will lie on the stand. Thus, the jury may have discredit the mistakes, human errors or lies. I do not know of any statics that say that 9/10 of people believe the glove wasn't planted. On the issue of credibility we have the detective, who allegedly found the golve, being caught in a lie and testimony of a witness in regard to his racial animus toward interracial couples.

Even though of those surveyed 9/10 blacks believe he may have been in someway involved, the cheering of the verdict may have meant that it was the right verdict based upon the concept of reasonable doubt.

irregardless of race, I believe the statistics on who believes orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole would stand at 9 out of 10.

I beat a fat girl at tennis one time and I didn't think I was ready to take on the pros.

there was defense attorneys who lied and hid evidence to the point that they were sanctioned. There were defense witnesses who lied and defense witnesses who had to plead the 5th to protect themselves -- I haven't noticed you discussing any of that. There is and has never been any credible evidence that LE did anything to frame orenthal.

William Anthony

05-24-2008, 07:15 PM

irregardless of race, I believe the statistics on who believes orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole would stand at 9 out of 10.

I beat a fat girl at tennis one time and I didn't think I was ready to take on the pros.

there was defense attorneys who lied and hid evidence to the point that they were sanctioned. There were defense witnesses who lied and defense witnesses who had to plead the 5th to protect themselves -- I haven't noticed you discussing any of that. There is and has never been any credible evidence that LE did anything to frame orenthal.

I understand now that it is not statistics upon which you rely but just your opinion on whom you believe thinks Simpson is guilty. Perhaps, you should have stated it as your opinion.

If I had only represented myself once in an administrative hearing and never in court, I would feel the same way as you about beating a fat girl. I know I am not ready to take on the pros, which is why I am placing myself in that position. Did you turn tennis pro?

Credibility was for the jury to determine, which was my point in relating my most recent experience. Although in my assessment, I did not think the trier of fact (in this case the administrative judge) would go to my side even though I believed he knew the other side way lying, I was much surprised by his findings, which decided every issue in my favor. I think that the jury must have decided that there was credible evidence of planting and that the prosecution witnesses could not be believed, either because they were mistaken, made human errors or were lying. I think the verdict tells us that they reasonably doubted the case put on by the prosecution.

weezer

05-24-2008, 09:56 PM

*Snipped*I understand now that it is not statistics upon which you rely but just your opinion on whom you believe thinks Simpson is guilty. Perhaps, you should have stated it as your opinion.

I stated: "irregardless of race, I believe the statistics on who believes orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole would stand at 9 out of 10."

William Anthony

05-25-2008, 06:29 AM

*Snipped*

I stated: "irregardless of race, I believe the statistics on who believes orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole would stand at 9 out of 10."

yes, you stated this in second post but did you forget you first post which should have been stated as an opinion, imho.

"oh dear -- no one is trying to limit the discussion to only their beliefs. I was respectfully pointing out that orenthal's case may not be the platform to further your argument since 9/10 people believe he murdered Ron and Nicole and that LE didn't plant evidence. imo

You get on with your bad self and post away about how corrupt LE is -- "

William Anthony

05-25-2008, 06:30 AM

I don't know who the moderator is on this thread but surely enough is enough. Let's have an OJ is innocent thread and an OJ is guilty thread or something along those lines. Otherwise, do the humane thing and put this thread down.

You can start those threads, if you like. There seems to be enough interest in this thread from other members to keep it alive. Thanks.

William Anthony

05-25-2008, 08:07 AM

I reiterate. OJ innocent. OJ guilty. This thread is pointless.

With all due respect, it is pointless, imho, for you to speak for all members of this community and your opinion that this thread is pointless should have been expressed as an opinion. Imho, it is also pointless for you to continue to post on a thread that you consider pointless and not start the threads that you feel are needed. I reiterate there are some members of this community who are interested in the issues on this thread and have conducted themselves in a polite, civil and respectful manner when addressing those issues. In short, they have agreed to disagree without becoming disagreeable. I reiterate, there is no need to fix something that is not broken and you may end up doing more damage by trying to fix a non-existent problem.

weezer

05-25-2008, 09:58 AM

yes, you stated this in second post but did you forget you first post which should have been stated as an opinion, imho.

"oh dear -- no one is trying to limit the discussion to only their beliefs. I was respectfully pointing out that orenthal's case may not be the platform to further your argument since 9/10 people believe he murdered Ron and Nicole and that LE didn't plant evidence. imo

You get on with your bad self and post away about how corrupt LE is -- "

hellooooo -- I did:

"oh dear -- no one is trying to limit the discussion to only their beliefs. I was respectfully pointing out that orenthal's case may not be the platform to further your argument since 9/10 people believe he murdered Ron and Nicole and that LE didn't plant evidence. imo

You get on with your bad self and post away about how corrupt LE is -- "

William Anthony

05-25-2008, 10:11 AM

hellooooo -- I did:

"oh dear -- no one is trying to limit the discussion to only their beliefs. I was respectfully pointing out that orenthal's case may not be the platform to further your argument since 9/10 people believe he murdered Ron and Nicole and that LE didn't plant evidence. imo

You get on with your bad self and post away about how corrupt LE is -- "

That is alright. We all sometimes forget.

rph3664

05-25-2008, 02:07 PM

I haven't read this entire thread, nor do I plan to do so, but during the OJ trial, I read a commentary by a woman (who, incidentally, is white) who did volunteer work at the local jail with a literacy program. She said that EVERY black inmate with whom she had discussed the OJ case (adding, "and they call themselves black, NOT African-American) believed he was guilty.

:beer:

:patriot:

William Anthony

05-25-2008, 03:23 PM

rph3664

05-25-2008, 03:45 PM

Hearsay. Link please.

Sure, it was hearsay, and I doubt if there's a link because it was in a self-published zine. But this was not a woman who would make something like that up.

William Anthony

05-25-2008, 05:08 PM

Sure, it was hearsay, and I doubt if there's a link because it was in a self-published zine. But this was not a woman who would make something like that up.

If we accept this as true, then why do you think the verdict was cheered by blacks?

martin II

05-25-2008, 05:43 PM

Sure, it was hearsay, and I doubt if there's a link because it was in a self-published zine. But this was not a woman who would make something like that up.

And you know that how?

martin II

05-25-2008, 05:47 PM

martin II

05-25-2008, 05:54 PM

*Snipped*

I stated: "irregardless of race, I believe the statistics on who believes orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole would stand at 9 out of 10."

Too bad the CJS could not allow all of these people to be on the jury where media sound bites did not count and they would be forced to HEAR and see the witnesses testify and all the defense cross. Many people when polled, thought it was a good idea for us to go to war.THEN HAHA

martin II

05-25-2008, 06:03 PM

I don't know who the moderator is on this thread but surely enough is enough. Let's have an OJ is innocent thread and an OJ is guilty thread or something along those lines. Otherwise, do the humane thing and put this thread down.

I believe that was a thread some time ago that followed along the lines that you believe should be activated now.I am not sure of the exact title.Those that have been around for a while may remember that thread.:rolleyes:

martin II

05-25-2008, 06:09 PM

*Snipped*

I stated: "irregardless of race, I believe the statistics on who believes orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole would stand at 9 out of 10."

I am not sure there has ever been a link to support the thread claims.Not by the original poster at least.

weezer

05-25-2008, 10:42 PM

That is alright. We all sometimes forget.

and some of us obviously can't read - ;)

weezer

05-25-2008, 10:44 PM

The u.s. Justice Department thought "SOMETHING WRONG" when they became involved with lapd.

maybe you can tell us what the justice dept came up with that involved the orenthal james simpson trial and LE's participation in it?

weezer

05-25-2008, 10:45 PM

Too bad the CJS could not allow all of these people to be on the jury where media sound bites did not count and they would be forced to HEAR and see the witnesses testify and all the defense cross. Many people when polled, thought it was a good idea for us to go to war.THEN HAHA

you think the war is funny? :cuss:

martin II

05-26-2008, 07:33 AM

maybe you can tell us what the justice dept came up with that involved the orenthal james simpson trial and LE's participation in it?

weezer
my post was in response to your comment below.

"You get on with your bad self and post away about how corrupt LE is -- "

martin II

05-26-2008, 07:41 AM

you think the war is funny? :cuss:

NO

The 9/10 claim can be just as wrong as peoples opinion about going to war and shows how easy it is to fool the public with wrong info as happened with the info the public was fed on why we should go to war buy our leaders.
Public opinion is not allways the truth.It is only opinions at a given time.:cool:

William Anthony

05-26-2008, 11:36 AM

and some of us obviously can't read - ;)

I read your first post that was stated as a fact and then, after I pointed it out to you, you wanted to change it to your belief. Some of us read better than others. :cool:

weezer

05-26-2008, 12:01 PM

I read your first post that was stated as a fact and then, after I pointed it out to you, you wanted to change it to your belief. Some of us read better than others. :cool:

please show me where I stated it as fact in my first post.

William Anthony

05-26-2008, 12:15 PM

please show me where I stated it as fact in my first post.

Oh, I guess you are going to claim that the imo in your post pertained to the entirety of you post, and not simply to planting of evidence.

weezer

05-26-2008, 12:50 PM

Oh, I guess you are going to claim that the imo in your post pertained to the entirety of you post, and not simply to planting of evidence.

I'm not 'going to claim' anything -- the 'imo' followed the sentence. Since you have wrongly accused me of not following the rules, I believe you owe this community an apology.

William Anthony

05-26-2008, 01:05 PM

I'm not 'going to claim' anything -- the 'imo' followed the sentence. Since you have wrongly accused me of not following the rules, I believe you owe this community an apology.

I did not wrongly accuse you of anything, imho. As you have the propensity to act as resident corrector/editor of the board, I know that you can appreciate the source of my confusion. Your statements in your original posts was followed by a period. I am sure that you are aware that a period is followed by a capital letter. I am also sure that your are aware that, if a capital letter is not followed by a period, then it is safe to assume that the poster meant to make a comma. I am sure that you are aware that imo is not a complete thought and is a prepositional phrase. So, I do not think I owe the community an apology based on the aforementioned circumstances or rules of grammar, if you will. :)

weezer

05-26-2008, 01:24 PM

NO

The 9/10 claim can be just as wrong as peoples opinion about going to war and shows how easy it is to fool the public with wrong info as happened with the info the public was fed on why we should go to war buy our leaders.
Public opinion is not allways the truth.It is only opinions at a given time.:cool:

does this have anything to do with "9/10 blacks agree 'oj probably is guilty or involved"?

weezer

05-26-2008, 01:26 PM

I did not wrongly accuse you of anything, imho. As you have the propensity to act as resident corrector/editor of the board, I know that you can appreciate the source of my confusion. Your statements in your original posts was followed by a period. I am sure that you are aware that a period is followed by a capital letter. I am also sure that your are aware that, if a capital letter is not followed by a period, then it is safe to assume that the poster meant to make a comma. I am sure that you are aware that imo is not a complete thought and is a prepositional phrase. So, I do not think I owe the community an apology based on the aforementioned circumstances or rules of grammar, if you will. :)

quite the BS answer but I especially liked: ". . .I am also sure that your are aware that, if a capital letter is not followed by a period, then it is safe to assume that the poster meant to make a comma. . ." ;)

William Anthony

05-26-2008, 01:33 PM

quite the BS answer but I especially liked: ". . .I am also sure that your are aware that, if a capital letter is not followed by a period, then it is safe to assume that the poster meant to make a comma. . ." ;)

No, BS. I was just trying to understand what you meant.

martin II

05-26-2008, 02:15 PM

does this have anything to do with "9/10 blacks agree 'oj probably is guilty or involved"?

yes that public opinion as referanced in the 9/10 claim is not always based on truth just as the publics opinions to go to war was based on untruths but received public support.:cool:

rph3664

05-26-2008, 04:37 PM

If we accept this as true, then why do you think the verdict was cheered by blacks?

Not any of the blacks I know.

I've always thought those were setups for the camera.

martin II

05-26-2008, 06:02 PM

Not any of the blacks I know.

I've always thought those were setups for the camera.

you did?

William Anthony

05-26-2008, 07:35 PM

Not any of the blacks I know.

I've always thought those were setups for the camera.

Oh, so you think that the media had signs saying cheer. I know quite a few blacks. Of those I know, I would say the percentage was 70 to 30 that believed he was somehow involved and 60-40 that believed he did it, although when I ask most of them admit they did not watch the trial. I find very few who know about the issues in the trial and most say that the prosecution messed up with the glove demonstration.

rph3664

05-27-2008, 12:34 AM

The one person with whom I have discussed this who did not believe OJ did it was a white guy who thought his son did it.

:shrug:

martin II

05-27-2008, 12:44 AM

Not any of the blacks I know.

I've always thought those were setups for the camera.

Where were these blacks "set up for cameras" you saw.

martin II

05-27-2008, 12:48 AM

The one person with whom I have discussed this who did not believe OJ did it was a white guy who thought his son did it.

:shrug:

so
martin II

William Anthony

05-27-2008, 05:57 AM

The one person with whom I have discussed this who did not believe OJ did it was a white guy who thought his son did it.

:shrug:

So, could the statement be made that 100% of the whites you talked to believe that Simpson is innocent?

Kate Sachel

05-27-2008, 12:58 PM

I don't know who the moderator is on this thread but surely enough is enough. Let's have an OJ is innocent thread and an OJ is guilty thread or something along those lines. Otherwise, do the humane thing and put this thread down.

With all due respect, the very reason why this forum was created was to allow individuals of all opinions - guilty, not, undecided, and everything in between - to have a place to gather to discuss and debate all aspects of the case.

I personally fall into the "guilty" category but would find no pleasure or education in discussing this case only with people who share my same opinion.

Certainly begin the threads you mentioned and invite others to join the discussions, but this thread deserves to be here and I personally have learned much from the content.

Kate

William Anthony

05-27-2008, 01:13 PM

With all due respect, the very reason why this forum was created was to allow individuals of all opinions - guilty, not, undecided, and everything in between - to have a place to gather to discuss and debate all aspects of the case.

I personally fall into the "guilty" category but would find no pleasure or education in discussing this case only with people who share my same opinion.

Certainly begin the threads you mentioned and invite others to join the discussions, but this thread deserves to be here and I personally have learned much from the content.

Kate

Thank you and we are in total agreement. We have the opportunity to discuss and learn not just feelings about the case but also the issues involved in the case and how different members of American society react to those issues.

The R

05-28-2008, 12:00 PM

I agree, like Nifong withholding DNA test results from the defendants in the Durham rape case.

It is good those boys did not go to jail.Onr of the black men in Dallas was in jail for 26 years based on a criminal DA There were several more including 1-2 white guys that served many years in jail based on a crooked DA that did anything to win for years.And he was never charged for any of it.

I agree with these comments and these are the types of issues that should serve as a catalyst for change in the way we do court. I know not many have agreed with me on the issue of change, but I feel that if a DA withholds evidence intentionally, then the DA should serve the time that was called for in the original sentence. If the defendent was sentenced to 20 years in a case where evidence was withheld, then the DA prosecuting the case should receive 20 yrs once implicated and tried.

I know full well this type of action towards prosecution would stop such impropriety and illegal action.

ALLMO,
R

weezer

05-28-2008, 12:20 PM

I agree with these comments and these are the types of issues that should serve as a catalyst for change in the way we do court. I know not many have agreed with me on the issue of change, but I feel that if a DA withholds evidence intentionally, then the DA should serve the time that was called for in the original sentence. If the defendent was sentenced to 20 years in a case where evidence was withheld, then the DA prosecuting the case should receive 20 yrs once implicated and tried.

I know full well this type of action towards prosecution would stop such impropriety and illegal action.

ALLMO,
R

that sounds reasonable. can we also assume you feel the same way about defense attorneys?

William Anthony

05-28-2008, 12:33 PM

that sounds reasonable. can we also assume you feel the same way about defense attorneys?

I think I posted on what a defense attorney's ethical and legal obligations were as opposed to the prosecution's.

The R

05-28-2008, 03:33 PM

that sounds reasonable. can we also assume you feel the same way about defense attorneys?

That's an excellent question. The short answer would have to be no.

ALLMO,
R

William Anthony

05-28-2008, 07:23 PM

That's an excellent question. The short answer would have to be no.

ALLMO,
R

Excellent answer, imho.

martin II

05-28-2008, 09:29 PM

Excellent answer, imho.

i agree

The R

05-29-2008, 11:19 PM

Excellent answer, imho.

hey thanks....if you get a minute, give me a link to your post about defense responsibilities!

Thanks!
R

William Anthony

05-30-2008, 11:32 AM

hey thanks....if you get a minute, give me a link to your post about defense responsibilities!

Thanks!
R

You're welcome. I think this is the link.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/hand_it_over/

William Anthony

06-17-2008, 09:02 AM

Today is the 14th anniversary of Simpson's arrest, which lead to the trial that exposed America's racial divide and played a part in exposing rampant police corruption, imho.

SlowHandSam

06-17-2008, 09:26 AM

weezer

06-17-2008, 09:27 AM

Today is the 14th anniversary of Simpson's arrest, which lead to the trial that exposed America's racial divide and played a part in exposing rampant police corruption, imho.

so maybe you can post a link to ANY LE corruption in the simpson case that was exposed? Riiiiiiiiight!

William Anthony

06-17-2008, 10:19 AM

I disagree with you, completely.

I find it disgusting that you trivialize the MURDER of two innocent people. Not just the MURDER but the butchering and slaughter of a mother to two small children and a young man that had his entire life ahead of him.

Absolutely disgusting.

I have not trivialized anything, if this post was meant for me. I did not mention the brutality of the murders or the victims. My post was relevant to the title and what the arrest and subsequent trial exposed. I find it disgusting that you would try to twist the meaning of my post to suit, imho, some other agenda. With that said, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:

William Anthony

06-17-2008, 10:22 AM

so maybe you can post a link to ANY LE corruption in the simpson case that was exposed? Riiiiiiiiight!

Already did. Read the transcripts and remember the tapes.

weezer

06-17-2008, 11:11 AM

Already did. Read the transcripts and remember the tapes.

NOPE -- lines from a screenplay. you said you offered rampart to show corruption in LE. good. now show where any of the investigations -- including rampart -- showed LE corruption in the simpson case.

06-17-2008, 11:40 AM

NOPE -- lines from a screenplay. you said you offered rampart to show corruption in LE. good. now show where any of the investigations -- including rampart -- showed LE corruption in the simpson case.He can't do it because the evidence doesn't exist. All the defense had was a lot of what ifs, could haves, how comes and maybes.

martin II

06-17-2008, 12:48 PM

NOPE -- lines from a screenplay. you said you offered rampart to show corruption in LE. good. now show where any of the investigations -- including rampart -- showed LE corruption in the simpson case.

The Justice department thought there were problem throughtout the lapd which is why they interveined. Same for Judicial Watch in their report.imo

06-17-2008, 12:58 PM

The Justice department thought there were problem throughtout the lapd which is why they interveined. Same for Judicial Watch in their report.imoWeezer asked you to show that their investigations showed corruption in the Simpson case which is what we're supposed to be discussing.

William Anthony

06-17-2008, 01:08 PM

weezer

06-17-2008, 01:15 PM

Let me respond to posts ###620, 621 and 623, in one post. You may believe they were in the context of a screen play and others, like myself, can believe MF was describing actual events. The evidence is that MF only lied when he was under oath. Let's not forget that he told Laura she could not use one incident, because the statute of limitations had not expired or that, if he went down the case went down. Let me anticipate the response that he said he did not plant the glove. I do not think that even he was dumb enough to admit that at that time. The poster asked for a link and I have previously posted the testimony and the evidence which supports the position that there was corruption in this case.
I think one of the jurors thought that Simpson probably did it and that the evidence was planted, which is why she voted not guilty, because she believed that someone should not be convicted on tainted evidence.

there is no credible evidence to support the accusations that there was LE corruption in the simpson case. the simpson defense preyed on the mindset of the jury to invoke jury nullification -- letting the jury believe they could right all the alledged wrongs done to their community by LAPD. as far as any one specific juror, I believe that they voted because they wanted to believe the defense -- not because their vote was supported by evidence. your post does not support your argument on corruption -- it only states the position that the defense took.

06-17-2008, 01:17 PM

there is no credible evidence to support the accusations that there was LE corruption in the simpson case. the simpson defense preyed on the mindset of the jury to invoke jury nullification -- letting the jury believe they could right all the alledged wrongs done to their community by LAPD. as far as any one specific juror, I believe that they voted because they wanted to believe the defense -- not because their vote was supported by evidence. your post does not support your argument on corruption -- it only states the position that the defense took.

Perfect. :beer:

William Anthony

06-17-2008, 01:30 PM

Allow me to respond to posts ##625 and 626 in one post. Credibility depends on how one views the evidence. With all due respect the jury was charged with determining credibility, not you nor I. The jury sat through the trial and listened to all the evidence and then entered into 4 hours of jury deliberations. Based on the short period of time and the verdict, it is reasonable to conclude that they did not find the prosecution's evidence credible. Judging from the one juror, who thought that Simpson was probably the murderer, but believed the evidence was planted, it is reasonable to conclude that the sophisticated jury understood the evidence as it was presented and the concept of reasonable doubt. You are free to believe that the evidence was not credible and others, like myself, are free to believe that the evidence of corruption was more credible. The rampart investigation exposed the rampant corruption in LAPD. Let's not forget the evidence of motive, means and opportunity.

06-17-2008, 01:47 PM

William Anthony

06-17-2008, 01:58 PM

The rampart investigation exposed rampant corruption in one anti-gang unit of the LAPD not the entire LAPD. This has zero relevance to the OJ Simpson case.

I think you need to reread the link I posted. The Rampart investigation was only one part of the link. Someone posted that VB said there was only one incident of a frame up. The truth is that we will never know how many instances there were but we do know what MF said and his remark about the him going down and the case going down, along with his comment on the statue of limitations speaks volumes about this case and LE's tendencies. What would he have to go down for that would cause the case to go down?

weezer

06-17-2008, 01:58 PM

weezer

06-17-2008, 02:01 PM

I think you need to reread the link I posted. The Rampart investigation was only one part of the link. Someone posted that VB said there was only one incident of a frame up. The truth is that we will never know how many instances there were but we do know what MF said and his remark about the him going down and the case going down, along with his comment on the statue of limitations speaks volumes about this case and LE's tendencies. What would he have to go down for that would cause the case to go down?

william, there is NO credible evidence of LE planting evidence or framing orenthal for the murders. there were multiple investigations into the simpson case and nothing, nada, zip. to continue to beat that drum is silly.

06-17-2008, 02:04 PM

I think you need to reread the link I posted. The Rampart investigation was only one part of the link. Someone posted that VB said there was only one incident of a frame up. The truth is that we will never know how many instances there were but we do know what MF said and his remark about the him going down and the case going down, along with his comment on the statue of limitations speaks volumes about this case and LE's tendencies. What would he have to go down for that would cause the case to go down?The Rampart scandal took place years after the OJ Simpson case. I doubt VB could see into the future and predict the Rampart case. This has no relevance to the Simpson case.

William Anthony

06-17-2008, 02:04 PM

there is and has never been any credible evidence to support the claims that LE planted and/or framed orenthal for the murders. orenthal's hair, blood, fibers, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints were at the murder scene. orenthal had spent 18 years abusing Nicole and that culminated in him murdering her. Ron Goldman was collateral damage to orenthal's rage. imo

What would MF have to go down for that would cause the case to go down?

William Anthony

06-17-2008, 02:06 PM

The Rampart scandal took place years after the OJ Simpson case. I doubt VB could see into the future and predict the Rampart case. This has no relevance to the Simpson case.

I did not hear you tell the poster that VB had no relevance to the Simpson case.
Reread my link. What would MF have to go down for that would cause the case to go down?

06-17-2008, 02:10 PM

I did not hear you tell the poster that VB had no relevance to the Simpson case.
Reread my link. What would MF have to go down for that would cause the case to go down?Stop twisting. I meant the rampart case has no relevance to the Simpson case. Vincent Bugliosi's only connection to the case is the very intelligent book he wrote on the subject.

William Anthony

06-17-2008, 02:24 PM

Stop twisting. I meant the rampart case has no relevance to the Simpson case. Vincent Bugliosi's only connection to the case is the very intelligent book he wrote on the subject.

Stop accusing and make your posts clear. Another poster posted that VB said there was only one incident of LE corruption. You can call that intelligent. Reread my link. What would MF have to go down for that would cause the case to go down?

weezer

06-17-2008, 02:35 PM

Stop accusing and make your posts clear. Another poster posted that VB said there was only one incident of LE corruption. You can call that intelligent. Reread my link. What would MF have to go down for that would cause the case to go down?

speaking of twisting -- what case was he talking about? you keep referring to 'the' case

martin II

06-17-2008, 04:36 PM

Stop twisting. I meant the rampart case has no relevance to the Simpson case. Vincent Bugliosi's only connection to the case is the very intelligent book he wrote on the subject.

The Rodney King case just showed what lapd was doing to citizens long before his beating and long after. During the oj case and after that case.
It was a big problem then and is one now.
See The Warren Christopher report on lapd.

VB was a spectator in the oj case when he thought he should have been the prosecutor. He was just making money for Vanity Fair.

martin II

06-17-2008, 04:41 PM

william, there is NO credible evidence of LE planting evidence or framing orenthal for the murders. there were multiple investigations into the simpson case and nothing, nada, zip. to continue to beat that drum is silly.

What some define as credible evidence i believe the jury and others described as garbage and a cut & past effort.imo

William Anthony

06-17-2008, 05:33 PM

speaking of twisting -- what case was he talking about? you keep referring to 'the' case

The Simpson case in which Simpson was accused of double murder.

weezer

06-17-2008, 07:50 PM

The Simpson case in which Simpson was accused of double murder.

how did you make that leap? why did it have to be the simpson case? and why, do you insist on believing only the parts of his statement?

William Anthony

06-17-2008, 08:36 PM

how did you make that leap? why did it have to be the simpson case? and why, do you insist on believing only the parts of his statement?

Perhaps, you have forgotten his entire statement and do not take this verbatim. MF proclaimed that he was the most important witness in the Simpson case, which Clark tried to refute, if you will recall, and that if he went down the case went down, which she also tried to refute. What would MF have to go down for that would cause the case to go down? As to why I believe some parts of MF's statements-that's easy. He wasn't under oath when he gave them.

Big Ben

06-18-2008, 02:23 AM

there is no credible evidence to support the accusations that there was LE corruption in the simpson case.

Weezer, amongst other things, you have MF, a LE officer, who as an officer of the court is sworn under oath to uphold the guaranteed protections under the Constitutional of the United States of America.

This LE officer, and public servant, was preparing to act under the color of authority to inform a world wide viewing audience, many having great admiration for his professional decorum, about crucial evidence that he, himself, found at Simpson's residence.

Then you have this same LE officer on world wide TV subsequently proclaiming his right under the 5th Amendment to not have to trestify as it may result in his being charged with perjury and thus incriminating himself.

However, if I understand you correctly, you apparently see this spectacle performed by MF as something other than the surreal event it turned out to be from a global view point.

If I understand you, unlike so many commentators around the world who watched this trial, you don't see MF's unusual behavior as credible evidence in support of there being corruption with LE in the Simpson case?

weezer

06-18-2008, 08:13 AM

Weezer, amongst other things, you have MF, a LE officer, who as an officer of the court is sworn under oath to uphold the guaranteed protections under the Constitutional of the United States of America.

This LE officer, and public servant, was preparing to act under the color of authority to inform a world wide viewing audience, many having great admiration for his professional decorum, about crucial evidence that he, himself, found at Simpson's residence.

Then you have this same LE officer on world wide TV subsequently proclaiming his right under the 5th Amendment to not have to trestify as it may result in his being charged with perjury and thus incriminating himself.

However, if I understand you correctly, you apparently see this spectacle performed by MF as something other than the surreal event it turned out to be from a global view point.

If I understand you, unlike so many commentators around the world who watched this trial, you don't see MF's unusual behavior as credible evidence in support of there being corruption with LE in the Simpson case?

you are correct. whether or not 'many' believe that Fuhrman is a racist does not equate to credible evidence that LE planted evidence and/or framed orenthal for the murders he committed.

William Anthony

06-18-2008, 08:24 AM

you are correct. whether or not 'many' believe that Fuhrman is a racist does not equate to credible evidence that LE planted evidence and/or framed orenthal for the murders he committed.

I agree that the fact that the prosecution conceded MF was a racist, does not show evidence that he attempted to frame Simpson. However, when you add that to the other evidence it becomes overwhelming evidence that the convicted perjurer, genocidal speaking, as supported by the evidence, evidence planting, as supported by the evidence, interracial couple hating, as supported by the evidence, had motive, means and opportunity, as supported by the evidence to frame Simpson and lied about doing so, as supported by the evidence.

weezer

06-18-2008, 08:52 AM

I agree that the fact that the prosecution conceded MF was a racist, does not show evidence that he attempted to frame Simpson. However, when you add that to the other evidence it becomes overwhelming evidence that the convicted perjurer, genocidal speaking, as supported by the evidence, evidence planting, as supported by the evidence, interracial couple hating, as supported by the evidence, had motive, means and opportunity, as supported by the evidence to frame Simpson and lied about doing so, as supported by the evidence.

whatever you want to believe william -- the fact is it still does not equate to credible evidence that Fuhrman and/or LE planted evidence and/or framed orenthal james simpson for the murder of two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. In fact, there is and has never been any credible evidence that there was planted evidence and/or any attempt to frame orenthal.

Kate Sachel

06-18-2008, 09:15 AM

Weezer, amongst other things, you have MF, a LE officer, who as an officer of the court is sworn under oath to uphold the guaranteed protections under the Constitutional of the United States of America.

This LE officer, and public servant, was preparing to act under the color of authority to inform a world wide viewing audience, many having great admiration for his professional decorum, about crucial evidence that he, himself, found at Simpson's residence.

Then you have this same LE officer on world wide TV subsequently proclaiming his right under the 5th Amendment to not have to trestify as it may result in his being charged with perjury and thus incriminating himself.

However, if I understand you correctly, you apparently see this spectacle performed by MF as something other than the surreal event it turned out to be from a global view point.

If I understand you, unlike so many commentators around the world who watched this trial, you don't see MF's unusual behavior as credible evidence in support of there being corruption with LE in the Simpson case?

What about the injustices within our justice system?

I find it interesting to order that a police officer's use of a racial slur from within ten years prior has relevance whereas incidents of the accused murderer's battering of his ex-wife who ended up dead from that same time period were ordered inadmissible.

Kate

Big Ben

06-18-2008, 05:36 PM

What about the injustices within our justice system?

I find it interesting to order that a police officer's use of a racial slur from within ten years prior has relevance whereas incidents of the accused murderer's battering of his ex-wife who ended up dead from that same time period were ordered inadmissible.

Kate

Kate, there is only one noted instance on record of Simpson having been arrested for his involvement in a physical altercation involving his wife and that was the incident in the police report of 1988. If you have no other recorded instances of such abuse your hearsay certainly does not rise to the level of the injury that MF caused for the credibility of American LE. Whether American LE is as conniving as MF made it appear, his needless lying on the witness stand did more harm in the eyes of many around the world to believe that all American LE is corrupt.

You appear to be viewing the significance of its importance as myopically as the Weezer. You must not forget, given America's proclivity to threaten invasion of other nations on the basis of bringing democracy and "American Values", assuming they have no WMD's, the world is watching your "impartial" conduct.

You cannot say, MF may be a despicable scoundrel but not in the case of Simpson. Once he's diminished the credibility of the Police department by his needless and reckless conduct he has no right to any exemption, this is not Mayberry. The world is watching America's LE conduct and its continual preoccupation with O.J. Simpson.

A police officer's conduct is supposed to be, exemplary, and reflective of his obligation to protect the Constitutional guarantees of the republic that protect all its citizens.

What is strange and even more repugnant than MF's vile use of a multitude of racial slurs was his untiring insistence on denying that he had used such words. His denial, to any professional officer viewing his conduct, was shameful because it needlessly diminished the credibility of the department.

Better to have said, "due to the stressful nature of the job it has unfortunately caused me to use racial epitaths". This is what the black jurors even said. MF got into trouble not because he used racial slurs but because he needlessly and recklessly lied about using racial slurs. If he would needlessly lie about that triviality then what else might he be willing to lie about? That is the question, Kate.

06-18-2008, 06:02 PM

Kate, there is only one noted instance on record of Simpson having been arrested for his involvement in a physical altercation involving his wife and that was the incident in the police report of 1988. If you have no other recorded instances of such abuse your hearsay certainly does not rise to the level of the injury that MF caused for the credibility of American LE. Whether American LE is as conniving as MF made it appear, his needless lying on the witness stand did more harm in the eyes of many around the world to believe that all American LE is corrupt.

You appear to be viewing the significance of its importance as myopically as the Weezer. You must not forget, given America's proclivity to threaten invasion of other nations on the basis of bringing democracy and "American Values", assuming they have no WMD's, the world is watching your "impartial" conduct.

You cannot say, MF may be a despicable scoundrel but not in the case of Simpson. Once he's diminished the credibility of the Police department by his needless and reckless conduct he has no right to any exemption, this is not Mayberry. The world is watching America's LE conduct and its continual preoccupation with O.J. Simpson.

A police officer's conduct is supposed to be, exemplary, and reflective of his obligation to protect the Constitutional guarantees of the republic that protect all its citizens.

What is strange and even more repugnant than MF's vile use of a multitude of racial slurs was his untiring insistence on denying that he had used such words. His denial, to any professional officer viewing his conduct, was shameful because it needlessly diminished the credibility of the department.

Better to have said, "due to the stressful nature of the job it has unfortunately caused me to use racial epitaths". This is what the black jurors even said. MF got into trouble not because he used racial slurs but because he needlessly and recklessly lied about using racial slurs. If he would needlessly lie about that triviality then what else might he be willing to lie about? That is the question, Kate.This is true because he had been babied by LE for years. Many people close to Nicole and Simpson reported incidents of violence by Simpson against Nicole. In Nicole's own words during a 911 call she says LE never does anything with him.

It wouldn't have mattered if Mark Fuhrman stood up and quoted the bible the jurors weren't going to believe anything he said. I believe it was the foreperson of the jury who said she thought Mark Fuhrman looked like a skin head with hair when he walked into the court room.

Big Ben

06-18-2008, 06:30 PM

you are correct. whether or not 'many' believe that Fuhrman is a racist does not equate to credible evidence that LE planted evidence and/or framed orenthal for the murders he committed.

I think that you are parsing straws, Weezer. Unfortunately you are not able to make such remarks in a vacuum, the world continues to watch and examine the reckless attitude of many of you towards justice in America.

I, for one, was never overly concerned whether MF or any other off duty white folk were or were not racist. However the evidence clearly indicates that MF willfully lied after having placed his hand on the bible and taken the witness stand as a police officer, sworn by oath. That type of misconduct is unquestionably troubling for me, Weezer.

FYI, the LADA and LAPD have maintained an apparent on-going activity of planting evidence, fabricating, and supressing evidence, over the years both pre and post Simpson.

I give you their direct involvement in the reprehensible and fraudulent COINTELPRO trial in 1972 that sent one of Johnnie Cochran's first criminal clients, Elmer Gerard "Geronimo" Pratt, away for life without parole until set free 26 years later by the mutual effort of Stuart Hanlon and Johnnie Cochran. He was sent away with planted evidence, protection of snitches/confidential informants and suppressed evidence. Those actions do sound familiar to me, Weezer, how about you? Read Last Man Standing.

Then we have all of the police brutality cases that Cochran was finally noted for winning based upon police lies and inconsistencies in autopsy protocols; read Journey to Justice.

Then we have the Simpson debacle, again planted evidence, suppressed evidence, and false testimony playing a key role.

Then we have the Ramparts scandal that first began to take on legs with the Simpson interview and headline in the Los Angeles Times, year 2000, "From Ramparts to Rockingham". Here they were again involved in framing thousands of innocent men and sending them off to prison for long prison sentences based upon false police testimony, planted and suppressed evidence. Some of the Ramparts officers were even later alleged to have been over at Simpson's house the night the bloody glove was discovered.

You continue to attempt to spray perfume on a skunk and try to convince whomever that nothing is wrong. Get over it, you cannot sanitize the onerous stench of misconduct, Weezer.

Big Ben

06-18-2008, 06:54 PM

1. This is true because he had been babied by LE for years. Many people close to Nicole and Simpson reported incidents of violence by Simpson against Nicole. In Nicole's own words during a 911 call she says LE never does anything with him.

2. It wouldn't have mattered if Mark Fuhrman stood up and quoted the bible the jurors weren't going to believe anything he said.

3. I believe it was the foreperson of the jury who said she thought Mark Fuhrman looked like a skin head with hair when he walked into the court room.

1. Whether Simpson was babied by LE or not does not prove that Simpson Committed murder. What you and others have done is allow your emotions to blur the liklihood that Simpson was on a flight to Chicago while his wife was still alive. You in essence want to attempt to turn a feeble domestic abuse case based upon hearsay into a murder case. No can do!

You have no imperical evidence that there was ongoing physical abuse of Nicole by Simpson. There's no police reports, the woman still remained in the man's life, and from other reports was not an easy going person herself to get along with. Nicole was moving around in a circle of bad characters well beyond O.J. Simpson.

2. Some of the female black jurors said that they did believe MF when he first began to testify, because he looked so believable and professional as a police officer. It wasn't until the racial epitaths began to surface that the jurors had, and rightfully so, second thoughts about MF.

3. Well, even if your allegation is correct, that juror would not have been that far off from the truth would she, considering the fact that the defense attorneys had affidavits and/or depositions of MF's fellow LAPD officers who claimed that he had NAZI swastikas and other German SS paraphenalia in and on his locker. In J.C. closing argument he recited statements that were attributed to MF that he would like to see all blacks stacked up in a pile and burned.

Kinda sounds a little skin headish to me, don't you think, TV?

weezer

06-18-2008, 08:09 PM

Kayleighjo

06-18-2008, 10:38 PM

Kate, there is only one noted instance on record of Simpson having been arrested for his involvement in a physical altercation involving his wife and that was the incident in the police report of 1988. If you have no other recorded instances of such abuse your hearsay certainly does not rise to the level of the injury that MF caused for the credibility of American LE. Whether American LE is as conniving as MF made it appear, his needless lying on the witness stand did more harm in the eyes of many around the world to believe that all American LE is corrupt.

You appear to be viewing the significance of its importance as myopically as the Weezer. You must not forget, given America's proclivity to threaten invasion of other nations on the basis of bringing democracy and "American Values", assuming they have no WMD's, the world is watching your "impartial" conduct.

You cannot say, MF may be a despicable scoundrel but not in the case of Simpson. Once he's diminished the credibility of the Police department by his needless and reckless conduct he has no right to any exemption, this is not Mayberry. The world is watching America's LE conduct and its continual preoccupation with O.J. Simpson.

A police officer's conduct is supposed to be, exemplary, and reflective of his obligation to protect the Constitutional guarantees of the republic that protect all its citizens.

What is strange and even more repugnant than MF's vile use of a multitude of racial slurs was his untiring insistence on denying that he had used such words. His denial, to any professional officer viewing his conduct, was shameful because it needlessly diminished the credibility of the department.

Better to have said, "due to the stressful nature of the job it has unfortunately caused me to use racial epitaths". This is what the black jurors even said. MF got into trouble not because he used racial slurs but because he needlessly and recklessly lied about using racial slurs. If he would needlessly lie about that triviality then what else might he be willing to lie about? That is the question, Kate.

Come on, really? Wow, your world must be awesome to live in. You know, the one where you can pick and choose relevance to suit your own needs in justifying how you feel about the world.

Ben, the fact of the matter is that Katherine Bell's testimony regarding things she claimed Fuhrman said to her at the recruiting station or whatever was the same as would be the testimony of all of those people who claimed to have witnessed abuse against Nicole by Simpson ... it was her word and nothing more ... she had no other evidence to back it up. But she was allowed to testify, apparently her words held relevance in the eyes of Ito. So why didn't the words of those speaking out of Simpson's abuse hold equal relevance? I mean, everyone says that the character of a witness is important but what could be more important than determining the character of the very defendant on trial for murder? Or is that too much for you to handle so you'd rather conveniently sweep that one under the rug?

Do you actually believe your own bull?

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 12:22 AM

06-19-2008, 02:24 AM

06-19-2008, 02:47 AM

1. Whether Simpson was babied by LE or not does not prove that Simpson Committed murder. What you and others have done is allow your emotions to blur the liklihood that Simpson was on a flight to Chicago while his wife was still alive. You in essence want to attempt to turn a feeble domestic abuse case based upon hearsay into a murder case. No can do!

You have no imperical evidence that there was ongoing physical abuse of Nicole by Simpson. There's no police reports, the woman still remained in the man's life, and from other reports was not an easy going person herself to get along with. Nicole was moving around in a circle of bad characters well beyond O.J. Simpson.

The truth of the matter is that just because there is no lengthy record of arrests for spousal abuse doesn't mean it wasn't going on. Simpson wasn't charged for these crimes because he was being coddled by LE.

Aside from his one conviction for spousal abuse, by definition empirical evidence is exactly what we have when it comes to the evidence of Simpson's wife beating tendencies. There are 911 calls, photographs and eye witness accounts by many other people.

2. Some of the female black jurors said that they did believe MF when he first began to testify, because he looked so believable and professional as a police officer. It wasn't until the racial epitaths began to surface that the jurors had, and rightfully so, second thoughts about MF.

Sure.

3. Well, even if your allegation is correct, that juror would not have been that far off from the truth would she, considering the fact that the defense attorneys had affidavits and/or depositions of MF's fellow LAPD officers who claimed that he had NAZI swastikas and other German SS paraphenalia in and on his locker. In J.C. closing argument he recited statements that were attributed to MF that he would like to see all blacks stacked up in a pile and burned. Kinda sounds a little skin headish to me, don't you think, TV

It is no allegation. She made that statement in the book she wrote after the trial. Who are these people that said he had these things in and on his locker? I'd be interested in seeing the testimony to refresh my memory.

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 06:42 AM

Just like a judge found OJ Simpson to be a wife beater five years before the murders.

While you may look at this as character evidence, which in a way it is, it was allowed under an exception to the character evidence rule called prior bad acts. As I am sure you are aware, Dr. Walker testified that Simpson, while an abuser, did not demonstrate the potential to be a murderer.

Kate Sachel

06-19-2008, 08:55 AM

Character evidence is not normally a part of a criminal trial, unless it deals with a witness' ability to be truthful. This was not about MF's character. It was about MF's credibility, which a judge found he committed perjury.

That are many excpetions to Rule 404, which for those who may not know, states that character evidence is not admissible to prove conduct of a defendant. But Rule 404 also states that character can be used to prove motive, opportunity, and intent.

In this particular case the history of OJ's prior abuse upon Nicole could be seen as relevant because it can be argued that a pattern of abuse against a homicide victim shows motive and intent.

Character evidence is often also part of a criminal trial when the defendant introduces evidence of his good character. Once the defendant does so, it allows the prosecution to introduce evidence of bad character to counter argue.

Kate

Kate Sachel

06-19-2008, 09:25 AM

Kate, there is only one noted instance on record of Simpson having been arrested for his involvement in a physical altercation involving his wife and that was the incident in the police report of 1988. If you have no other recorded instances of such abuse your hearsay certainly does not rise to the level of the injury that MF caused for the credibility of American LE. Whether American LE is as conniving as MF made it appear, his needless lying on the witness stand did more harm in the eyes of many around the world to believe that all American LE is corrupt.

You appear to be viewing the significance of its importance as myopically as the Weezer. You must not forget, given America's proclivity to threaten invasion of other nations on the basis of bringing democracy and "American Values", assuming they have no WMD's, the world is watching your "impartial" conduct.

You cannot say, MF may be a despicable scoundrel but not in the case of Simpson. Once he's diminished the credibility of the Police department by his needless and reckless conduct he has no right to any exemption, this is not Mayberry. The world is watching America's LE conduct and its continual preoccupation with O.J. Simpson.

A police officer's conduct is supposed to be, exemplary, and reflective of his obligation to protect the Constitutional guarantees of the republic that protect all its citizens.

What is strange and even more repugnant than MF's vile use of a multitude of racial slurs was his untiring insistence on denying that he had used such words. His denial, to any professional officer viewing his conduct, was shameful because it needlessly diminished the credibility of the department.

Better to have said, "due to the stressful nature of the job it has unfortunately caused me to use racial epitaths". This is what the black jurors even said. MF got into trouble not because he used racial slurs but because he needlessly and recklessly lied about using racial slurs. If he would needlessly lie about that triviality then what else might he be willing to lie about? That is the question, Kate.

"If he would needlessly lie about that triviality then what else might he be willing to lie about?"

I ask that too; When OJ, in a civil court of law, looked at photos of a beaten Nicole and said he never once slapped, hit, or kicked her I wondered what else might he be willing to lie about.

Interesting how that works.

I enjoy the fact that you seem to believe that what it boils down too is that I'm viewing the signifigance of the matter myopically, when in fact I never argued that it didn't have signifigance. I asked only why a history of abuse against the homicide victim by the accused perpetrator appeared to hold no signifigance when in fact it really does. It can speak greatly toward motive and intent.

Unfortunately, people such as yourself who place such little signifigance on such important factors contributes to the fact that domestic violence remains one of the most commonly committed crimes in our country, which in my eyes is as much a travesty as police corruption.

Perhaps corrective lenses may help to fix your own myopic vision.

Kate

SlowHandSam

06-19-2008, 09:44 AM

"If he would needlessly lie about that triviality then what else might he be willing to lie about?"

I ask that too; When OJ, in a civil court of law, looked at photos of a beaten Nicole and said he never once slapped, hit, or kicked her I wondered what else might he be willing to lie about.

Interesting how that works.

I enjoy the fact that you seem to believe that what it boils down too is that I'm viewing the signifigance of the matter myopically, when in fact I never argued that it didn't have signifigance. I asked only why a history of abuse against the homicide victim by the accused perpetrator appeared to hold no signifigance when in fact it really does. It can speak greatly toward motive and intent.

Unfortunately, people such as yourself who place such little signifigance on such important factors contributes to the fact that domestic violence remains one of the most commonly committed crimes in our country, which in my eyes is as much a travesty as police corruption.

Perhaps corrective lenses may help to fix your own myopic vision.

Kate

Kate, I've often wondered the same thing about prior abuse. I recall reading (or perhaps seeing in a documentary) that spousal abuse generally wasn't limited to a one-time incident. Often times it is on-going and escalating.

For me, it plays a huge part in the big picture of things. If there had been a history of abuse, physical abuse, then why is it so far stretched to believe that this was just one more incident that occurred and perhaps escalated out of control?

I'm not sure anyone will ever learn if OJ purposefully went to Nicole's to murder her that night. Surely he didn't know Ron would be there, I would guess. But, that doesn't change the fact that he'd had a history of physical abuse against his own wife.

I think prior acts, in any crime, should be valued and weighed because it speaks to the character and behavior (past and present) of the accused.

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 09:48 AM

That are many excpetions to Rule 404, which for those who may not know, states that character evidence is not admissible to prove conduct of a defendant. But Rule 404 also states that character can be used to prove motive, opportunity, and intent.

In this particular case the history of OJ's prior abuse upon Nicole could be seen as relevant because it can be argued that a pattern of abuse against a homicide victim shows motive and intent.

Character evidence is often also part of a criminal trial when the defendant introduces evidence of his good character. Once the defendant does so, it allows the prosecution to introduce evidence of bad character to counter argue.

Kate

Yes, I said character evidence was not normally a part of a criminal trial and noted one exception, which I believe was relevant in this situation. That exception was prior bad conduct, imho. The reason that I do not feel that a successful argument could be made about the pattern of abuse is because it was not allowed. IIRC, the jury heard about the 911 call, which amounted to verbal abuse, imho and about an incident, in which he was drinking and he grabbed Nicole's behind, IIRC. They also hear about his arrest for physically abusing Nicole. The exclusion of testimony on any other examples, except the incident where he was arrested and arguably when he grabbed her behind are, imho, insufficient to successfully argue a pattern of abuse, showing an intent to murder her.

I do not think that Simpson placed any evidence of his good character into issue and, therefore, was not the subject of proper rebuttal.

SlowHandSam

06-19-2008, 09:55 AM

Yes, I said character evidence was not normally a part of a criminal trial and noted one exception, which I believe was relevant in this situation. That exception was prior bad conduct, imho. The reason that I do not feel that a successful argument could be made about the pattern of abuse is because it was not allowed. IIRC, the jury heard about the 911 call, which amounted to verbal abuse, imho and about an incident, in which he was drinking and he grabbed Nicole's behind, IIRC. They also hear about his arrest for physically abusing Nicole. The exclusion of testimony on any other examples, except the incident where he was arrested and arguably when he grabbed her behind are, imho, insufficient to successfully argue a pattern of abuse, showing an intent to murder her.

I do not think that Simpson placed any evidence of his good character into issue and, therefore, was not the subject of proper rebuttal.

I'm not sure that one would have to prove an intent to murder while arguing there had been a history of abuse.

Surely, had he intended to murder her during the previous abuse events - he would have done so.

For me, the fact that his has the history and propensity to commit physical violence against another is what is important. Whether or not he has the inclination to escalate that to murder ... OR to lose control of himself and cause a death isn't the issue, IMO.

Kate Sachel

06-19-2008, 09:58 AM

Yes, I said character evidence was not normally a part of a criminal trial and noted one exception, which I believe was relevant in this situation. That exception was prior bad conduct, imho. The reason that I do not feel that a successful argument could be made about the pattern of abuse is because it was not allowed. IIRC, the jury heard about the 911 call, which amounted to verbal abuse, imho and about an incident, in which he was drinking and he grabbed Nicole's behind, IIRC. They also hear about his arrest for physically abusing Nicole. The exclusion of testimony on any other examples, except the incident where he was arrested and arguably when he grabbed her behind are, imho, insufficient to successfully argue a pattern of abuse, showing an intent to murder her.

I do not think that Simpson placed any evidence of his good character into issue and, therefore, was not the subject of proper rebuttal.

And that is my argument, that many more instances should have been allowed that were not.

People view domestic violence statistics incorrectly. In the grand scheme of things, considering the fact that approximately three million women (that we know of) are battered in the United States per year, it may seem that it is a small number of those who are murdered as a result of that violence. But, if you take those who are in fact murdered, the majority of them were murdered by the individual who had been battering them.

There was apparently quite a history of abuse against Nicole by OJ. She was murdered. The reg flag needs to rise on that one. The evidence was relevant of past incidents regarding abuse.

I've heard the argument that Lenore Walker stated that OJ didn't fit the pattern of an abuser who goes on to kill, but I don't take that statement as a means to be able to say that because one doesn't fulfill the traits in a particular profile means that one is incapable of doing such an act regardless.

Kate

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 10:07 AM

I'm not sure that one would have to prove an intent to murder while arguing there had been a history of abuse.

Surely, had he intended to murder her during the previous abuse events - he would have done so.

For me, the fact that his has the history and propensity to commit physical violence against another is what is important. Whether or not he has the inclination to escalate that to murder ... OR to lose control of himself and cause a death isn't the issue, IMO.

This was not a domestic violence case. It was a murder case. Intent is an element of every crime. I agree that the history of abuse heard by the jury was insufficient to establish a pattern, as a pattern or to establish and an intent to commit murder, which, imho, is why it was not allowed.

I must agree with whether or not he had the inclination to escalate to murder was not an issue. The issue the jury was called upon to decide beyond a reasonable doubt was whether there was evidence that Simpson committed those murders. This was the issue, imho. This is why the abuse evidence was deemed to be irrelevant, imho. However, the prosecution tried to make that assertion, which was rebutted by Dr. Walker.

Kate Sachel

06-19-2008, 10:15 AM

This was not a domestic violence case. It was a murder case. Intent is an element of every crime. I agree that the history of abuse heard by the jury was insufficient to establish a pattern, as a pattern or to establish and an intent to commit murder, which, imho, is why it was not allowed.

I must agree with whether or not he had the inclination to escalate to murder was not an issue. The issue the jury was called upon to decide beyond a reasonable doubt was whether there was evidence that Simpson committed those murders. This was the issue, imho. This is why the abuse evidence was deemed to be irrelevant, imho. However, the prosecution tried to make that assertion, which was rebutted by Dr. Walker.

William, this where you are incorrect. Judge Ito did allow some instances of abuse, and he used a prior California ruling that stated that previous abuses against the homicide victim were relevant in attempting to establish a plan or pattern for murder as his justification for allowing the incidents that he did. Were he going to allow some, he should have allowed all. By only allowing some, he cut the legs off of the very argument that he was going to allow the prosecution to make.

Kate

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 10:29 AM

William, this where you are incorrect. Judge Ito did allow some instances of abuse, and he used a prior California ruling that stated that previous abuses against the homicide victim were relevant in attempting to establish a plan or pattern for murder as his justification for allowing the incidents that he did. Were he going to allow some, he should have allowed all. By only allowing some, he cut the legs off of the very argument that he was going to allow the prosecution to make.

Kate

Yes and those that were allowed were incidents of prior bad acts, not evidence of character, imho, which is why I believe he allowed them. As I am sure you are aware, abuse usually happens behind close doors. The incident that Denise was allowed to testify to was because she observed it directly. Most were excluded because of hearsay, with the barometer being more prejudicial than probative.

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 10:38 AM

And that is my argument, that many more instances should have been allowed that were not.

People view domestic violence statistics incorrectly. In the grand scheme of things, considering the fact that approximately three million women (that we know of) are battered in the United States per year, it may seem that it is a small number of those who are murdered as a result of that violence. But, if you take those who are in fact murdered, the majority of them were murdered by the individual who had been battering them.

There was apparently quite a history of abuse against Nicole by OJ. She was murdered. The reg flag needs to rise on that one. The evidence was relevant of past incidents regarding abuse.

I've heard the argument that Lenore Walker stated that OJ didn't fit the pattern of an abuser who goes on to kill, but I don't take that statement as a means to be able to say that because one doesn't fulfill the traits in a particular profile means that one is incapable of doing such an act regardless.

Kate

The question was not put to the jury as to how many abusers go on to murder the victims of their abuse. The question put to them was whether or not there was sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson committed the murders.

I did not take Dr. Walker's testimony to mean that either. I took it to mean that it was her opinion that Simpson did not commit the murders, because her evaluation concluded he lacked the trait to have murdered her. I think the jury then had to weigh and give credibility to her testimony.

Kate Sachel

06-19-2008, 10:46 AM

Yes and those that were allowed were incidents of prior bad acts, not evidence of character, imho, which is why I believe he allowed them. As I am sure you are aware, abuse usually happens behind close doors. The incident that Denise was allowed to testify to was because she observed it directly. Most were excluded because of hearsay, with the barometer being more prejudicial than probative.

They were actually allowed as character evidence, which is why the defense argued strenuously against their allowance. They were admitted as character evidence based on the fact that the prosecution was using those incidents as a means to argue motive and intent.

Kate

Kate Sachel

06-19-2008, 10:57 AM

The question was not put to the jury as to how many abusers go on to murder the victims of their abuse. The question put to them was whether or not there was sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson committed the murders.

I did not take Dr. Walker's testimony to mean that either. I took it to mean that it was her opinion that Simpson did not commit the murders, because her evaluation concluded he lacked the trait to have murdered her. I think the jury then had to weigh and give credibility to her testimony.

Lenore Walker did not testify in the criminal trial, the defense dropped her from their list of witnesses.

It does not matter whether that was the question put to the jury, my argument encompasses far more than that. Incidents of consistent prior abuse are relevant in determing motive and intent.

Kate

weezer

06-19-2008, 11:03 AM

Kayleighjo

06-19-2008, 11:18 AM

Yes and those that were allowed were incidents of prior bad acts, not evidence of character, imho, which is why I believe he allowed them. As I am sure you are aware, abuse usually happens behind close doors. The incident that Denise was allowed to testify to was because she observed it directly. Most were excluded because of hearsay, with the barometer being more prejudicial than probative.

And the barometer wasn't more prejudicial than probabtive with Fuhrman?

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 11:22 AM

They were actually allowed as character evidence, which is why the defense argued strenuously against their allowance. They were admitted as character evidence based on the fact that the prosecution was using those incidents as a means to argue motive and intent.

Kate

I think this will help in resolving our differences. I do not see this as evidence of character but I do see it as evidence of prior bad acts or conduct, if you will.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2008/06/prior-rapist-in.html

I read a link from courttv case files, which state the abuse evidence was necessary to prove motive and intent but did not say whether it was admitted as character of past bad acts. In that article, I cannot remember if the defense argued it was inadmissible because it was character or whether it was unsubstantiated. I will look for it again.

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 11:25 AM

Lenore Walker did not testify in the criminal trial, the defense dropped her from their list of witnesses.

It does not matter whether that was the question put to the jury, my argument encompasses far more than that. Incidents of consistent prior abuse are relevant in determing motive and intent.

Kate

Accordingly, it was argued and presented and the jury ruled.

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 11:28 AM

And the barometer wasn't more prejudicial than probabtive with Fuhrman?

MF made his credibility and the evidence against it more probative than prejudicial when he lied under oath on the stand.

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 11:30 AM

they weren't hearsay -- the witnesses stated what they saw.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDC123EF93AA25752C0A9639582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Kate Sachel

06-19-2008, 11:32 AM

Accordingly, it was argued and presented and the jury ruled.

Do you agree that you posted in error that Dr. Walker testified in the trial and that the jury weighed her testimony?

Again, you are missing the point in my argument. I am not talking about what was argued once it was determined what could in fact be argued. I'm talking about what should have been allowed to be argued.

Kate

Kate Sachel

06-19-2008, 11:35 AM

I think this will help in resolving our differences. I do not see this as evidence of character but I do see it as evidence of prior bad acts or conduct, if you will.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2008/06/prior-rapist-in.html

I read a link from courttv case files, which state the abuse evidence was necessary to prove motive and intent but did not say whether it was admitted as character of past bad acts. In that article, I cannot remember if the defense argued it was inadmissible because it was character or whether it was unsubstantiated. I will look for it again.

Thus far I have found articles that claim that the defense argued it was character evidence and others than claim that the defense argued that it was unsubstaniated.

I haven't been able to locate the actual ruling. If I do, I will post it and if you should happen to find it could you do the same?

Kate

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 11:36 AM

Lenore Walker did not testify in the criminal trial, the defense dropped her from their list of witnesses.

It does not matter whether that was the question put to the jury, my argument encompasses far more than that. Incidents of consistent prior abuse are relevant in determing motive and intent.

Kate

You are correct. She did not testify in the criminal case. I stand corrected.

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 11:39 AM

Thus far I have found articles that claim that the defense argued it was character evidence and others than claim that the defense argued that it was unsubstaniated.

I haven't been able to locate the actual ruling. If I do, I will post it and if you should happen to find it could you do the same?

Kate

Certainly.

Kayleighjo

06-19-2008, 11:39 AM

MF made his credibility and the evidence against it more probative than prejudicial when he lied under oath on the stand.

He lied under oath on a question that had no relevance.

Many argue that just because Simpson abused Nicole doesn't mean he killed her. Just as many of us argue that just because Fuhrman said the N word doesn't mean he planted evidence.

Like Darden correctly said - "the only N word that should have had meaning in this trial is Nicole".

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 11:41 AM

Do you agree that you posted in error that Dr. Walker testified in the trial and that the jury weighed her testimony?

Again, you are missing the point in my argument. I am not talking about what was argued once it was determined what could in fact be argued. I'm talking about what should have been allowed to be argued.

Kate

I think the link I posted to fbgweezer's post might answer that.

Kate Sachel

06-19-2008, 11:41 AM

Certainly.

Thank you ... and also for being able to stand corrected. Rest assured, I will do the same when that time undoubtedly comes my way.

Kate

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 11:48 AM

He lied under oath on a question that had no relevance.

Many argue that just because Simpson abused Nicole doesn't mean he killed her. Just as many of us argue that just because Fuhrman said the N word doesn't mean he planted evidence.

Like Darden correctly said - "the only N word that should have had meaning in this trial is Nicole".

This is what started the discussion.

Originally Posted by Kayleighjo View Post
And the barometer wasn't more prejudicial than probabtive with Fuhrman?

MF made his credibility and the evidence against it more probative than prejudicial when he lied under oath on the stand.

A witness' proclivity to tell the truth is always an issue and becomes probative. A judge found it was relevant and materially false.

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 11:52 AM

Thank you ... and also for being able to stand corrected. Rest assured, I will do the same when that time undoubtedly comes my way.

Kate

You're welcome and I will do my best to make it sooner than later. :)

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Kayleighjo View Post
He lied under oath on a question that had no relevance.

Many argue that just because Simpson abused Nicole doesn't mean he killed her. Just as many of us argue that just because Fuhrman said the N word doesn't mean he planted evidence.

Like Darden correctly said - "the only N word that should have had meaning in this trial is Nicole".

Wonder whay Darden did not say the only R word that should have had meaning in this trial is Ronald?

Kate Sachel

06-19-2008, 12:15 PM

You're welcome and I will do my best to make it sooner than later. :)

I don't doubt it, you have proven me wrong before.

Kate

Big Ben

06-19-2008, 12:44 PM

facts are facts. there is evidence that orenthal abused, stalked and threatened Nicole -- right up to the night of her death.

facts are facts. there is and has never been credible proof that Fuhrman and/or LE planted evidence or framed orenthal for the murders -- only the very fertile imagination of a few who NEED to push their agenda.

Facts are facts and hearsay is hearsay, Weezer, in regard to Simpson's abuse of Nicole.

I continue to refer to something higher in principle than your necessity to parse straws in regard to the credible proof that MF planted evidence.

MF as an officer of the court is psychologically perceived to be held at a higher moral standard than the average 'Joe Blow' off the street. Once he recklessly and needlessly undermined that standard, which often gives police officers the benefit of the doubt in court, his credibility was shot through and through, he in essence was done, stick a fork in him.

No amount of CPR that you attempt to give to this man's credibility is going to revive it. He almost single handedly turned the perception of American LE into a joke, a bunch of keystone saps, in the eyes of the world. It's hard for me to believe how you continue a valiant attempt to ressurect this clown's credibility for the purpose of proving whatever Simpson point you're trying to make. I would allow MF's credibility to R.I.P.

Everytime you invoke his name it simply torpedoes whatever point that you are attempting to make, IMO. MF, one could see, was comfortable telling a lie while using the cloak of his authority. That has become a serious problem in America and if America wants to regain its credibility in the world community it must put a stop to this comfortability of DA's and PD's nationwide framing innocent people for personal, selfish, and unjust reasons. MF was just broadcast worldwide, but he, as we now can see, was only the tip of the iceberg so to speak.

weezer

06-19-2008, 12:52 PM

This is what started the discussion.

MF made his credibility and the evidence against it more probative than prejudicial when he lied under oath on the stand.

A witness' proclivity to tell the truth is always an issue and becomes probative. A judge found it was relevant and materially false.

I've always thought it was interesting that:

the original question from flee was whether or not Fuhrman had called someone that and was changed to 'referred' to.

that there were pictures, police file, tape recordings, witnesses, and writings that orenthal did in fact abuse Nicole but the criminal jury and NG's dismiss all of it and proclaim to believe orenthal and his story.

I've never heard/seen/read where the NG's questioned the fact that cowlings plead the 5th in order not to testify in the criminal trial.

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 08:03 PM

I've always thought it was interesting that:

the original question from flee was whether or not Fuhrman had called someone that and was changed to 'referred' to.

that there were pictures, police file, tape recordings, witnesses, and writings that orenthal did in fact abuse Nicole but the criminal jury and NG's dismiss all of it and proclaim to believe orenthal and his story.

I've never heard/seen/read where the NG's questioned the fact that cowlings plead the 5th in order not to testify in the criminal trial.

Taking the fifth and getting on the stand and lying under oath are two vastly different events. People may want to compare the two but one was convicted of perjury. I do not think your are correct in stating that Cowlings took the 5th during the criminal trial. I am speaking of what evidence was presented to the jury, as it pertains to their finding of not guilty.

The questions were not changed. It was a follow-up question. He asked had he called an African American a N in the last ten years and then asked, if witnesses took the stand and testified that he had referred to an African American as an N in the last ten years, they would all be lying, IIRC.

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 08:14 PM

Facts are facts and hearsay is hearsay, Weezer, in regard to Simpson's abuse of Nicole.

I continue to refer to something higher in principle than your necessity to parse straws in regard to the credible proof that MF planted evidence.

MF as an officer of the court is psychologically perceived to be held at a higher moral standard than the average 'Joe Blow' off the street. Once he recklessly and needlessly undermined that standard, which often gives police officers the benefit of the doubt in court, his credibility was shot through and through, he in essence was done, stick a fork in him.

No amount of CPR that you attempt to give to this man's credibility is going to revive it. He almost single handedly turned the perception of American LE into a joke, a bunch of keystone saps, in the eyes of the world. It's hard for me to believe how you continue a valiant attempt to ressurect this clown's credibility for the purpose of proving whatever Simpson point you're trying to make. I would allow MF's credibility to R.I.P.

Everytime you invoke his name it simply torpedoes whatever point that you are attempting to make, IMO. MF, one could see, was comfortable telling a lie while using the cloak of his authority. That has become a serious problem in America and if America wants to regain its credibility in the world community it must put a stop to this comfortability of DA's and PD's nationwide framing innocent people for personal, selfish, and unjust reasons. MF was just broadcast worldwide, but he, as we now can see, was only the tip of the iceberg so to speak.

Isn't it ironic that the only person convicted of anything as a result of the Simpson criminal trial was MF? I sometimes wonder if those, who refuse to accept the fact that he was convicted of perjury and call his perjured testimony irrelevant, have a not so clandestine agenda.

weezer

06-19-2008, 09:31 PM

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 09:45 PM

oh not so ironic -- after all, it wasn't a murder trial -- it was LE on trial. riiiiiiiight

Isn't that what a trial is about-testing whether the evidence that was gathered by LE and offered by the prosecution can withstand scrutiny?

weezer

06-19-2008, 09:46 PM

*SNIPPED*Taking the fifth and getting on the stand and lying under oath are two vastly different events. People may want to compare the two but one was convicted of perjury. I do not think your are correct in stating that Cowlings took the 5th during the criminal trial. . ."

I just find it ironic that the NG's have never questioned why cowlings felt he needed to plead the 5th. I mean, surely he wasn't involved. . .;)

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 09:50 PM

*SNIPPED*

I just find it ironic that the NG's have never questioned why cowlings felt he needed to plead the 5th. I mean, surely he wasn't involved. . .;)

Does this mean you were wrong when you posted he plead the 5th in the criminal trial. Jurors are instructed not to speculate when a witness takes the 5th. However, I am aware that the so-called court of public opinion has different rules. That court can speculate as to whether or not Cowlings was involved but the ironical thing is that there is no need to speculate as to the fact that MF was convicted of perjury.

weezer

06-19-2008, 09:51 PM

Isn't that what a trial is about-testing whether the evidence that was gathered by LE and offered by the prosecution can withstand scrutiny?

but you see william, that's where your argument falls apart for me. the criminal jury said they didn't consider the DNA (they actually thought orenthal's blood could have been one of the childrens or even Mazzola's -- LOL), didn't consider the prior abuse, stalking or threats, but they did think the gloves fit. I guess they were busy convicting LE. so I'm at a loss as to what exactly they did use to find orenthal not guilty in his murder trial. oh wait -- I know the answer. this wasn't a murder trial and orenthal wasn't on trial -- LE was. :eek:

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 09:56 PM

but you see william, that's where your argument falls apart for me. the criminal jury said they didn't consider the DNA (they actually thought orenthal's blood could have been one of the childrens or even Mazzola's -- LOL), didn't consider the prior abuse, stalking or threats, but they did think the gloves fit. I guess they were busy convicting LE. so I'm at a loss as to what exactly they did use to find orenthal not guilty in his murder trial. oh wait -- I know the answer. this wasn't a murder trial and orenthal wasn't on trial -- LE was. :eek:

With all due respect, my argument does not fail, simply because you did not see or understand what the jury saw and understood and gave weight and credibility. With all due respect, you do not have to agree with the verdict but, imho, you should accept it with the same gusto that you accept the verdict in the other trial with the different standard of proof (didn't want to say the name for fear of someone yelling this is off-topic, :) ).

weezer

06-19-2008, 10:17 PM

Does this mean you were wrong when you posted he plead the 5th in the criminal trial. Jurors are instructed not to speculate when a witness takes the 5th. However, I am aware that the so-called court of public opinion has different rules. That court can speculate as to whether or not Cowlings was involved but the ironical thing is that there is no need to speculate as to the fact that MF was convicted of perjury.

I guess in a way I was wrong -- cowlings did not plead IN the courtroom. he didn't have to. he told the prosecution that he would plead the 5th if called to testify. wonder why he needed to do that?

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 10:19 PM

I guess in a way I was wrong -- cowlings did not plead IN the courtroom. he didn't have to. he told the prosecution that he would plead the 5th if called to testify. wonder why he needed to do that?

I think he exercised his right. Wonder why MF did not and chose to commit perjury?

weezer

06-19-2008, 10:20 PM

With all due respect, my argument does not fail, simply because you did not see or understand what the jury saw and understood and gave weight and credibility. With all due respect, you do not have to agree with the verdict but, imho, you should accept it with the same gusto that you accept the verdict in the other trial with the different standard of proof (didn't want to say the name for fear of someone yelling this is off-topic, :) ).

which one of us can't see the evidence and truth because an agenda that has nothing to do with justice for two human beings murdered by orenthal james simpson? you, william. only you.

I will accept the criminal jury on the day you accept the civil verdict. ;)

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 10:25 PM

I guess in a way I was wrong -- cowlings did not plead IN the courtroom. he didn't have to. he told the prosecution that he would plead the 5th if called to testify. wonder why he needed to do that?

The fact that MF did what he did left a long lasting if not permanent stain on LAPD, imho, and further unraveled the frayed case of the prosecution, imho.

weezer

06-19-2008, 10:25 PM

I think he exercised his right. Wonder why MF did not and chose to commit perjury?

because Fuhrman wasn't involved in the murders (or the aftermath) but cowlings was?

you seem to put a lot of stock in and take great pleasure from Fuhrman's perjury conviction -- odd. did you forget that the trial was suppose to be orenthal on trial for murder?

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 10:31 PM

which one of us can't see the evidence and truth because an agenda that has nothing to do with justice for two human beings murdered by orenthal james simpson? you, william. only you.

I will accept the criminal jury on the day you accept the civil verdict. ;)

How many times must I repeat that I accept that verdict and believe that jury reached the only possible verdict they could reach, based on the evidence that was included and excluded and the rulings. I think we have a different definition of justice. I believe justice was served in both trials, whether or not the verdicts were right or wrong. I can question the rulings in both cases but I do not yet have the legal expertise to say that justice was not done in either case. I think there will always be disputes about rulings and questions of whether, in that context, justice was done.

William Anthony

06-19-2008, 10:37 PM

because Fuhrman wasn't involved in the murders (or the aftermath) but cowlings was?

you seem to put a lot of stock in and take great pleasure from Fuhrman's perjury conviction -- odd. did you forget that the trial was suppose to be orenthal on trial for murder?

It remains to be seen who was involved in the murders and the aftermath, imho. I think that justice was done in the legal since as it pertains to MF and that he was exposed during the trial for being a perjurer, by direct evidence, genocidal speaking, as supported by the evidence, evidence planting, by direct evidence, detective. The trial was not supposed to be about Simpson. The trial was about whether or not the prosecution could produce evidence and persuade a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simpson was guilty of the charges brought against him.

weezer

06-20-2008, 08:29 AM

It remains to be seen who was involved in the murders and the aftermath, imho. I think that justice was done in the legal since as it pertains to MF and that he was exposed during the trial for being a perjurer, by direct evidence, genocidal speaking, as supported by the evidence, evidence planting, by direct evidence, detective. The trial was not supposed to be about Simpson. The trial was about whether or not the prosecution could produce evidence and persuade a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simpson was guilty of the charges brought against him.

You have a strange opinion of what the trial was about and have seemed to missed the point that two human beings were murdered. the trial was not about game playing and who could out-manuever who in the courtroom. as shown by time, the evidence did prove beyond a reasonable doubt that orenthal james simpson butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. imo

William Anthony

06-20-2008, 08:44 AM

You have a strange opinion of what the trial was about and have seemed to missed the point that two human beings were murdered. the trial was not about game playing and who could out-manuever who in the courtroom. as shown by time, the evidence did prove beyond a reasonable doubt that orenthal james simpson butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. imo

My opinion of what a trial is about is not limited to this case but includes all criminal cases, although we were specifically speaking about this case. How could I have missed the point? If two people weren't murdered and no one was charged with those murders, this trial would not have happened. Any trial, by its nature, is an adversarial contest between two or more parties involving an actual dispute. The way that the dispute is resolved is by the trier of fact listening to the admissible evidence, giving weight and credibility to that evidence and reaching a verdict as to whether or not the party bringing the cause of action has presented sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty as charged. As difficult as it may be a jury is supposed to and the judge is supposed to try to limit the emotional appeal of the evidence so that the parties receive a fair trial based on the evidence presented. I think this is why Ito limited what was heard on the McKinney tapes and why the abuse evidence was limited. The jury spoke and a verdict was rendered. You and I may disagree as to whether or not there was reasonable doubt but the trier of fact found there was.

William Anthony

06-20-2008, 08:49 AM

Finally, you admit that you are not the be all and the end all. Yeh!!!

Good morning again Mr. Bell. I was raised to reciprocate people's salutations. However, I realize that my rearing is not the same as others. I was just disappointed that we could not exchange pleasantries before you began your attacks on me. With that said, I see that you have no interest in being pleasant or discussing the case. So, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool: .

William Anthony

06-20-2008, 09:12 AM

William Anthony

06-20-2008, 09:14 AM

Hi William. Actually, it's good night for me because I'm just about to go to bed. No 'attacks' man. Don't you understand yet? It's nothing personal! We stand at opposite ends of the Simpson spectrum. :)

Then if that is your position, I would suggest you offer something about the case and things that would support your position, as opposed to inflammatory and personal remarks about posters who differ with your position. Have a good rest. :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:

Kayleighjo

06-20-2008, 09:58 AM

Isn't it ironic that the only person convicted of anything as a result of the Simpson criminal trial was MF? I sometimes wonder if those, who refuse to accept the fact that he was convicted of perjury and call his perjured testimony irrelevant, have a not so clandestine agenda.

Somebody had to be the scapegoat.

Wonder away William, because everytime you say things like you did here it calls into question just how fair and just you really are. I see more prejudice in you than I see in anybody else on this board.

I would question those who don't accept that he was convicted of perjury since that's just a fact but I'd say without a doubt that it's okay to believe that his perjured testimony was irrelevant. Because just like you say that Simpson's abuse of Nicole doesn't prove he killed her, I say that Fuhrmans' use of racial slurs doesn't mean he framed and that's the only part of his testimony that perjury charges were brought on.

William Anthony

06-20-2008, 10:07 AM

I hope I sleep well. I've had an incredibly busy week..but not so bad that I still don't agree with you William. i don't post personal remarks about you. Man, you should visit some of the other sites I post on. Wow!!!

Anyway, I'm gone now and i hopeto have a good rest. ;)

I have no desire to track your postings and I tend to post on things that interest me. I am not unaccustomed to being disagreed with and relish the opportunity for you to express and reinforce your opinions so that we may discuss our varying points of views.

William Anthony

06-20-2008, 10:18 AM

Somebody had to be the scapegoat.

Wonder away William, because everytime you say things like you did here it calls into question just how fair and just you really are. I see more prejudice in you than I see in anybody else on this board.

I would question those who don't accept that he was convicted of perjury since that's just a fact but I'd say without a doubt that it's okay to believe that his perjured testimony was irrelevant. Because just like you say that Simpson's abuse of Nicole doesn't prove he killed her, I say that Fuhrmans' use of racial slurs doesn't mean he framed and that's the only part of his testimony that perjury charges were brought on.

Allow me to explain. There was a post made about NGs having an agenda as it relates to the evidence exposed regarding MF. I posted in response, if it might be said that those, who support MF, might have an agenda. That was my wonderment. What I did not do is to launch into a personal attack, calling them prejudiced, despite any personal feelings I may have. It seems to be a rather frequent and odd occurrence that happens, when someone points out that the same could be said about some other posters' statements, which is that those things are pointed out there is an immediate response in a personal manner by some other posters that agree with the first poster's statement.

MF's credibility was an issue and the idea that he planted evidence was offered and the jury could find falsus onus,falsus omnibus.

Kayleighjo

06-20-2008, 10:28 AM

Allow me to explain. There was a post made about NGs having an agenda as it relates to the evidence exposed regarding MF. I posted in response, if it might be said that those, who support MF, might have an agenda. That was my wonderment. What I did not do is to launch into a personal attack, calling them prejudiced, despite any personal feelings I may have. It seems to be a rather frequent and odd occurrence that happens, when someone points out that the same could be said about some other posters' statements, which is that those things are pointed out there is an immediate response in a personal manner by some other posters that agree with the first poster's statement.

MF's credibility was an issue and the idea that he planted evidence was offered and the jury could find falsus onus,falsus omnibus.

Your gall makes me laugh every time. It's such a sorry excuse after all this time to see you still trying to disguise your animosity and prejudice.

You can "attempt" to "explain" over and over again but your words were just that - that you wonder about the agenda of anyone who thinks Fuhrman's perjured testimony is irrelevant.

You try so hard to disguise your true self, but over time it's been shown. And what it is to me is someone who is extremely smart, but also prejudiced and harboring a little more animosity than is healthy.

06-20-2008, 10:37 AM

Allow me to explain. There was a post made about NGs having an agenda as it relates to the evidence exposed regarding MF. I posted in response, if it might be said that those, who support MF, might have an agenda. That was my wonderment. What I did not do is to launch into a personal attack, calling them prejudiced, despite any personal feelings I may have. It seems to be a rather frequent and odd occurrence that happens, when someone points out that the same could be said about some other posters' statements, which is that those things are pointed out there is an immediate response in a personal manner by some other posters that agree with the first poster's statement.

MF's credibility was an issue and the idea that he planted evidence was offered and the jury could find falsus onus,falsus omnibus.

Understanding that Mark Fuhrman committed perjury and that it was irrelevant to the issues in the trial is not the same as supporting him. You've taken exception in the past when I've said you are a Simpson supporter stating (paraphrased) that you are only a supporter of the jury and reasonable doubt. In the criminal trial, I'm a supporter of the evidence offered by the prosecution, the work of LE and justice for Ron and Nicole.

William Anthony

06-20-2008, 10:40 AM

Understanding that Mark Fuhrman committed perjury and that it was irrelevant to the issues in the trial is not the same as supporting him. You've taken exception in the past when I've said you are a Simpson supporter stating (paraphrased) that you are only a supporter of the jury and reasonable doubt. In the criminal trial, I'm a supporter of the evidence offered by the prosecution, the work of LE and justice for Ron and Nicole.

I said it might be said that they supported MF. I am a supporter of the evidence in its totality and justice for all the parties involved.

06-20-2008, 11:03 AM

I said it might be said that they supported MF. I am a supporter of the evidence in its totality and justice for all the parties involved.William, I have to disagree. The way your sentence is constructed it says it might be said that those who support Mark Fuhrman might have an agenda -- not that it might be said that they support Mark Fuhrman.

weezer

06-20-2008, 01:24 PM

William Anthony

06-20-2008, 11:18 PM

Your gall makes me laugh every time. It's such a sorry excuse after all this time to see you still trying to disguise your animosity and prejudice.

You can "attempt" to "explain" over and over again but your words were just that - that you wonder about the agenda of anyone who thinks Fuhrman's perjured testimony is irrelevant.

You try so hard to disguise your true self, but over time it's been shown. And what it is to me is someone who is extremely smart, but also prejudiced and harboring a little more animosity than is healthy.

I have never tried to disguise my animosity and prejudice. I have said that I do not hate anyone but hate their actions. That is the case with MF.

This was the posts that started the discussion.

"there is and has never been credible proof that Fuhrman and/or LE planted evidence or framed orenthal for the murders -- only the very fertile imagination of a few who NEED to push their agenda."

This was my response.

"There was a post made about NGs having an agenda as it relates to the evidence exposed regarding MF. I posted in response, if it might be said that those, who support MF, might have an agenda."

Let me thank you for the compliment, although I may not be deserving of it. I will say that I have animosity and ask you to define prejudice, because I use it to mean that someone dislikes someone else for no valid reason, such as some like thin people as opposed to robust. I have animosity, because MF broke two oaths. It was the breaking of the oaths that made me dislike his conduct. Therefore, I feel I have a valid reason to dislike his conduct and, therefore, I would not say I was prejudiced.

William Anthony

06-20-2008, 11:44 PM

William, I have to disagree. The way your sentence is constructed it says it might be said that those who support Mark Fuhrman might have an agenda -- not that it might be said that they support Mark Fuhrman.

You are correct on what I said. With that said, imho, anyone who thinks a witness credibility is not an issue in a trial and, when the witness tells a lie under oath and is subsequently convicted of perjury, thinks that the witness' lie was irrelevant, even though a court found that it was relevant and materially false, is a supporter of that witness, imho. What they are saying is that the court was wrong and the witness told a lie that did not matter. Therefore, the jury should not have found him to be not credible. I think this must be seen as supporting the witness.

William Anthony

06-21-2008, 12:26 AM

Big Ben

06-21-2008, 04:18 PM

A rather unique dynamic is playing out across America. A Black voice in the wilderness is crying out for harmony, unity and change, which has been thus far resonated and met with astounding acceptance by America's younger generation. However, the Simpson case seems to point to America's racial division.

WM Anthony, you seem to be an intelligent fellow, and I have no problem with your observation regarding race. However, as a black man, I will tell you this, if MF was under my command, his complexion or so called race as you people like to speak of, would have made no difference whatsoever.

I could have cared less whether he was white, black, red, brown or yellow, I would have had him summarily executed for impugning the integrity of the oath that he was sworn to uphold. MF, violated a sworn oath, people, as an officer of the court sworn to protect the guarantees under your Constitution. His dismissal was light punishment, as has been the norm in America for lying police, or DA's from time immemorial.

He's lucky, imo, he should have paid a heavier penalty. The integrity of law enforcement, an apparatus of the state, must be held at a higher standard. The standard of LE should be no different from the standards expected of Ceasar's wife; it "must be beyond suspicion".

Once that integrity has been tarnished, you have no more opportunity to be given the benefit of the doubt as a sworn officer of the court, imo.

William Anthony

06-21-2008, 04:23 PM

WM Anthony, you seem to be an intelligent fellow, and I have no problem with your observation regarding race. However, as a black man, I will tell you this, if MF was under my command, his complexion or so called race as you people like to speak of, would have made no difference whatsoever.

I could have cared less whether he was white, black, red, brown or yellow, I would have had him summarily executed for impugning the integrity of the oath that he was sworn to uphold. MF, violated a sworn oath, people, as an officer of the court sworn to protect the guarantees under your Constitution. His dismissal was light punishment, as has been the norm in America for lying police, or DA's from time immemorial.

He's lucky, imo, he should have paid a heavier penalty. The integrity of law enforcement, an apparatus of the state, must be held at a higher standard. The standard of LE should be no different from the standards expected of Ceasar's wife; it "must be beyond suspicion".

Once that integrity has been tarnished, you have no more opportunity to be given the benefit of the doubt as a sworn officer of the court, imo.

I agree but he seemed to be more easily inclined to violate his oath when it came to Blacks.

06-21-2008, 04:29 PM

I agree but he seemed to be more easily inclined to violate his oath when it came to Blacks.William, I just wanted to set the record straight about Mark Fuhrman being dismissed -- no dismissal -- he retired. :)

Big Ben

06-21-2008, 04:34 PM

I agree but he seemed to be more easily inclined to violate his oath when it came to Blacks.

Unfortunately your 300 year escapade with Blacks in America has damaged what other nations have longed and cherished; the thought that you people actually believed in "Equal protection of the laws" under the 14th Amendment of your Constitution for all its citizens.

A review of history indicates that the perception was no more than an unfortunate mirage, it appears.

William Anthony

06-21-2008, 04:41 PM

Unfortunately your 300 year escapade with Blacks in America has damaged what other nations have longed and cherished; the thought that you people actually believed in "Equal protection of the laws" under the 14th Amendment of your Constitution for all its citizens.

A review of history indicates that the perception was no more than an unfortunate mirage, it appears.

I am also a Black man and I still believe it the principles set forth in the Preamble, although I believe that America has proven by that 300 year escapade that the founding forefathers misspoke and should have said privileges when they said rights.

martin II

06-21-2008, 08:11 PM

William, I just wanted to set the record straight about Mark Fuhrman being dismissed -- no dismissal -- he retired. :)

Again, he got off easy. He should have been measured for a orange jumpsuit.imo

weezer

06-21-2008, 09:16 PM

Again, he got off easy. He should have been measured for a orange jumpsuit.imo

wow -- a little extreme for writing a screenplay don't you think?

William Anthony

06-21-2008, 10:40 PM

wow -- a little extreme for writing a screenplay don't you think?

Was Murder in Brentwood a screenplay?

martin II

06-21-2008, 10:50 PM

wow -- a little extreme for writing a screenplay don't you think?

He turned what was suppose to be a play about women in the lapd into a account of his personal experiences as a lapd copper not serving and not protecting and then peacocked to the witness box and told a big lie.

William Anthony

06-21-2008, 10:54 PM

He turned what was suppose to be a play about women in the lapd into a account of his personal experiences as a lapd copper not serving and not protecting and then peacocked to the witness box and told a big lie.

He might have peacocked his way into the witness box but he snaked his way out. The funniest thing I've ever seen is a flee pick a peacock clean.

weezer

06-21-2008, 11:05 PM

He might have peacocked his way into the witness box but he snaked his way out. The funniest thing I've ever seen is a flee pick a peacock clean.

you were laughing? I thought it made you mad. :confused:

William Anthony

06-21-2008, 11:11 PM

you were laughing? I thought it made you mad. :confused:

I was mad that MF disregarded his oaths, which showed his true colors but I thought it was funny the way FLee picked apart his lies.

martin II

06-22-2008, 06:08 AM

It showed his true colors? Now I'm getting confused.:tongue:

Thats where you started right

William Anthony

06-22-2008, 08:01 AM

It showed his true colors? Now I'm getting confused.:tongue:

Marrow, content of his character, the stuff MF was made of, understand?

William Anthony

06-22-2008, 08:10 AM

Um, for someone who lives 'in peace everlasting' your 1st statement:I have never tried to disguise my animosity and prejudice is revealing. From what I have read of your posts it comes across that 'whites' are racist and prejudiced against other peoples. You admit that you are prejudiced. So your staunch backing of Simpson lies not because he was innocent but because he was black.

Perhaps, because you do not live in peace everlasting, you may never understand. Having peace is coming to grips with what you feel and moving forward, with an eye on the past to guide your future. I never meant to say that all whites are prejudiced against other people. I admitted that I had animosity toward certain conduct. I tend to judge a person by how they treat me and do not jump to conclusions about them or automatically dislike them for their physical characteristics. Believe me, if I was prejudiced or retained animosity, I would not be answering your post.

I do not back Simpson, because I believe he was innocent or because he is black. I back the verdicts, because I am passionate about the law, respect and equality and because I believe there was reasonable doubt. I have said this over and over and I find, imho, that when people won't accept this it is usually because of their own feelings about Simpson being black and the not guilty verdict combined with the race of the victims.

martin II

07-14-2008, 04:09 AM

William Anthony

07-14-2008, 04:25 AM

Good point. :D

CAN YOU COME UP WITH ONE?

William Anthony

07-14-2008, 04:39 AM

Absolutely correct. Well posted fb. Long before I joined you and I both knew the truth.:beer:

SWEETIE, "AS YOU ARE JUDGED BY THE ENGLISH YOU SPEAK, SO ARE YOU JUDGED BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP."

William Anthony

07-14-2008, 04:50 AM

The point was to you W. As ever.

THAT ISSUE WAS RESOLVED BUT YOU WANT TO BRING IT BACK UP. DON'T GET JEALOUS BECAUSE I GET MORE POSTS ADDRESSED TO ME. PERHAPS, IF YOU ADDED SOMETHING OF VALUE AND SOMETHING NEW TO THE DISCUSSIONS, YOU COULD GET RESPONDED TO, OTHER THAN BY THOSE YOU OFFEND WITH YOUR INSENSITIVE, UNCIVIL, INCITING AND INFLAMMATORY POSTS. BTW, THIS POST IS ADDRESSED TO YOU. ONE OF THOSE, I THINK YOU SET OUT TO OFFEND.

William Anthony

07-14-2008, 10:26 AM

I am going to ask all posters to drop all past grudges and start posting anew in a civil and respectful manner.

William Anthony

08-04-2008, 07:59 AM

rph3664

08-04-2008, 11:01 AM

There is another relatively new member that has violated the rules and posted a link to their home page on reverse speech. I was disgusted to see the blatant posting of the most vile and reprehensible word in the English language, imho, posted on his home page on the link to Michelle Obama. I would ask the community to take a stand on this.

I can think of several words that fit your description. OTOH, that link wouldn't have been as disgusting as the spammer who was posting porn on this board over the past few days.

:flamemad:

William Anthony

08-04-2008, 11:54 AM

I can think of several words that fit your description. OTOH, that link wouldn't have been as disgusting as the spammer who was posting porn on this board over the past few days.

:flamemad:

I do not know what OTOH means. However, this is not a place to a place to discuss several words or to make a comparison of what is most disgusting, vile and reprehensible. The point is that both are wrong and need to be addressed. If you are mad, about the porn then you should be mad about the word, imho.

weezer

08-04-2008, 12:08 PM

I do not know what OTOH means. However, this is not a place to a place to discuss several words or to make a comparison of what is most disgusting, vile and reprehensible. The point is that both are wrong and need to be addressed. If you are mad, about the porn then you should be mad about the word, imho.

OTOH = on the other hand

we can be mad about the porn because 'it' was 'brought' to the board.

William Anthony

08-04-2008, 12:22 PM

OTOH = on the other hand

we can be mad about the porn because 'it' was 'brought' to the board.

I have no qualm with those who are mad about the porn. I feel the same way about posters who post a link to their website on this board and when you go to it you see the N word. That was brought to this board also, irrespective of how clandestinely it was done.

weezer

08-04-2008, 12:32 PM

I have no qualm with those who are mad about the porn. I feel the same way about posters who post a link to their website on this board and when you go to it you see the N word. That was brought to this board also, irrespective of how clandestinely it was done.

no william it is not the same. YOU went to the site and YOU brought the porn to the board.

William Anthony

08-04-2008, 12:39 PM

no william it is not the same. YOU went to the site and YOU brought the porn to the board.

Is there any truth to your words? I never went to the site nor did I bring the porn to the board. There are several posters who know the truth, as I believe you do. It is one thing to argue with me about the case, even though you have been rude, uncivil and made racial comments in so doing, and quite another to falsely accuse me and then not to apologize. I understand your motivation behind wanting to say I brought it to the board. However, if you form more logical arguments about the case, you will not have to make false accusations, imho.

weezer

08-04-2008, 12:56 PM

Is there any truth to your words? I never went to the site nor did I bring the porn to the board. There are several posters who know the truth, as I believe you do. It is one thing to argue with me about the case, even though you have been rude, uncivil and made racial comments in so doing, and quite another to falsely accuse me and then not to apologize. I understand your motivation behind wanting to say I brought it to the board. However, if you form more logical arguments about the case, you will not have to make false accusations, imho.

did your post have porno pictures or not?

William Anthony

08-04-2008, 01:12 PM

did your post have porno pictures or not?

No and I never brought them to the board. My post was "Not interested or interesting." Your character is showing through and that lack of a defense as well.

weezer

08-04-2008, 01:24 PM

No and I never brought them to the board. My post was "Not interested or interesting." Your character is showing through and that lack of a defense as well.

Again with the lies -- your post DID have porno pictures included whether or not you said 'not interested or interesting.' It isn't my character showing william but rather yours.

I've only done this one other time on this board but I think I'm going to exercise my option for 'Ignore'.

William Anthony

08-04-2008, 01:28 PM

Again with the lies -- your post DID have porno pictures included whether or not you said 'not interested or interesting.' It isn't my character showing william but rather yours.

I've only done this one other time on this board but I think I'm going to exercise my option for 'Ignore'.

Let me begin at the end. Great.

Now, you want to change it to included. That was not my post and Martin has informed you whose post it was as did the top of my response. You falsely accused me of bringing porn to the board. You have not apologized and you started calling me names. I relish being ignored by you.

martin II

08-04-2008, 06:18 PM

did your post have porno pictures or not?

i think you should just quit twisting the facts. it sounds silly and more like a teenager talking and making false accusations.imo

weezer

08-04-2008, 06:29 PM

i think you should just quit twisting the facts. it sounds silly and more like a teenager talking and making false accusations.imo

no martin it doesn't. william said I made a false accusation and demanded an apology. william is the one who owes the apology.

William Anthony

08-04-2008, 06:33 PM

i think you should just quit twisting the facts. it sounds silly and more like a teenager talking and making false accusations.imo

My post did not have porn pictures. If a poster says that Simpson is guilty and I respond not true, then the poster post will show up and my response, which is my post as she very well knows and she knows that I was not "the one who brought porn to the board." She will no apologize because of who I am, imho.

martin II

08-05-2008, 07:09 AM

no martin it doesn't. william said I made a false accusation and demanded an apology. william is the one who owes the apology.

Your claim that he brought porn to this board is false and most all know this.
your agenda is false and your claim is childlike.imo

William Anthony

08-05-2008, 07:41 AM

Your claim that he brought porn to this board is false and most all know this.
your agenda is false and your claim is childlike.imo

Martin,

There are posters here, who have minimized MF's vile remarks, defended the name calling and the racial innuendos, claiming all the while to be unprejudiced. The only one, except for the poster I believe to be very honest, who has come close to expressing their true feelings on the issue has been fbgweezer, imho. Although there is a discrepancy as to when her feelings changed,she honestly admits her feelings. Although she conducts herself in a rude, uncivil, disrespectful manner, and stoops to name calling and false accusations, she has the honesty to say the way she actually feels. I do not appreciate her feelings and conduct but I do appreciate her honesty.

weezer

08-05-2008, 03:54 PM

Your claim that he brought porn to this board is false and most all know this.
your agenda is false and your claim is childlike.imo

martin, when I opened the board to catch up on posts, william's post was the one containing porno. Now, whether either of you like it, that is the fact. william knows how the 'quote' works in responding to posts -- he does it almost everytime he posts and since he has been borderline offensive in the past, I do indeed believe he knew what he was doing. I'm done with this conversation.

martin II

08-05-2008, 04:49 PM

martin, when I opened the board to catch up on posts, william's post was the one containing porno. Now, whether either of you like it, that is the fact. william knows how the 'quote' works in responding to posts -- he does it almost everytime he posts and since he has been borderline offensive in the past, I do indeed believe he knew what he was doing. I'm done with this conversation.

The pictures posted by the original poster were still posted above any response post that william made. That is how the thread works. If you had looked above willians reply you would have seen the pictures of the original poster and you would have known that william was not the opriginal posted of the porm and that he was posting a reply.Like you frequantly do.

So any other excuse you try to give for wrongly accusing him for bringing porn to the thread is pure nonsense and your attempt to accuse him of something he did not do is not acceptable.imo
Ps if there has been anyone that has been borderline offensive on a regular basis it is you. imo

martinIi

martin II

08-05-2008, 05:57 PM

martin, when I opened the board to catch up on posts, william's post was the one containing porno. Now, whether either of you like it, that is the fact. william knows how the 'quote' works in responding to posts -- he does it almost everytime he posts and since he has been borderline offensive in the past, I do indeed believe he knew what he was doing. I'm done with this conversation.

WEEZER

what is strange about your post is that you have not posted one post attacking the original poster of the porm.
You have made false claims towards william but not one post objecting to the original poster. This shows that your agenda is just to try to find a way to attack him and not the original poster responsible for posting this garbage in the first place.
you need to apologize but i doubt that you will.imo

martin II