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

[garrison]

Whites thought - he did it - but he should plead guilty and spare eveyone the budon of a trial". The facts proved he was guilty; and the facts were too solid and many to be explained away.

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

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

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

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

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

[jotun]

Freshwater-All
Shouldn't this RACIST GARBAGE be on the race thread????????
jotun

[garrison]

Whites hate to consider rasicim, we do not what to think such a thing still exists. It still does.

It was whole 2nd glove/Furhman debacle. It shoved rasicim in our white faces and we hated it. We called everything the race card toward them (as if Rodney King was white - we said the jury was an all black female jury - yeah sisters always let murdering brothers of all the time!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


those ignorant jurors.


Socal,

Now your saying the jurors, based their decision on MF solely?

[weezer]

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

And we all know that their decision was not based on the evidence or facts of the case.

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by fbgweezer

*Snipped*

And we all know that their decision was not based on the evidence or facts of the case.


fbg,

I cannot disagree with you more, and just how wrong this statement is!

1. Abuse: Was not, what it was made out to be!
2. Gloves: Were they left by the killer(s), or someone else?
3. Blood: How did OJ sustain the cut to his finger, and when?

The evidence could not withstand the challenge, and it wasn't because the defense was deception, it was because it wasn't presented legitimately...

I want all my G's to do me a favor: I know in your heart of heart you believe OJ is guilty.. Take the evidence and ask yourself how can this evidence be viewed in favor of OJ's innocense?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty




2. Gloves: Were they left by the killer(s), or someone else?
3. Blood: How did OJ sustain the cut to his finger, and when?

I want all my G's to do me a favor: I know in your heart of heart you believe OJ is guilty.. Take the evidence and ask yourself how can this evidence be viewed in favor of OJ's innocense?


nettathirty, ask yourself how can this evidence be viewed in favor of Simpson's innocence? It can't.

2. Gloves: All of the evidence of Simpson wearing the exact same gloves, where they were found, and all of the blood and trace evidence found on them point to Simpson and only Simpson. Nothing points to anyone else.

3. Blood: It's not necessary to know how Simpson cut his finger. Only Simpson can tell us that and he's not going to tell the truth. As to when he was cut, we know that it was when he was at Bundy. That's where he first left his blood drops.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

It can't.

2. Gloves: All of the evidence of Simpson wearing the exact same gloves, where they were found, and all of the blood and trace evidence found on them point to Simpson and only Simpson. Nothing points to anyone else.

3. Blood: It's not necessary to know how Simpson cut his finger. Only Simpson can tell us that and he's not going to tell the truth. As to when he was cut, we know that it was when he was at Bundy. That's where he first left his blood drops.

bobaugust


August,

Your not trying...

You didn't follow my instructions, Using the glove, can you tell the class how the gloves that OJ wore could give us a different explanation than the plain O' their expensive he's rich and so you know the rest..

Try this on for size (no pund intended), the gloves didn't belong to the killer(s)!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

Your not trying...

You didn't follow my instructions, Using the glove, can you tell the class how the gloves that OJ wore could give us a different explanation than the plain O' their expensive he's rich and so you know the rest..

Try this on for size (no pund intended), the gloves didn't belong to the killer(s)!


nettathirty, you're trying to play some game that honestly I'm not interested in playing.

The fact is that Simpson wore the killer's gloves. The gloves were the exact same kind and size that he was shown wearing many times before. The gloves were his. The blood on one of the gloves was his blood. There were fibers on that glove that came from his Bronco carpeting. There were fibers on that glove that came from the clothing he wore that night.

If you want to imagine fantasies that have nothing to do with the reality of the evidence and these murders than go right ahead, you're not alone. Other posters who like you refuse to face the truth post the same kind of fantasies.

Posters who understand that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole rely on the reality of the known facts and evidence. I certainly don't speak for all of those posters here but the fact is we argue the truth, we don't play silly games. Maybe someone else might want to play along with you but I'll pass, thank you.

bobaugust

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by nettathirty



*snip*

I want all my G's to do me a favor: I know in your heart of heart you believe OJ is guilty.. Take the evidence and ask yourself how can this evidence be viewed in favor of OJ's innocense?

Hi Netta,

The only way to make this work towards OJ's innocence is to use hypothetical (unsupported) theories. The evidence found on the glove points to OJ. EVERYTHING points to OJ. You want us to consider that the glove was planted......what evidence tells us it was? That Mark Fuhrman use the "n" word in the last 10 years before the murders?

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by tazzybaby

*Snipped*

That Mark Fuhrman use the "n" word in the last 10 years before the murders?


- Where did this come from, I never mentioned MF.. Why do you keep obsessing over MF, his role in this case went beyond the N-word.. Unless your saying the Criminal Jury reendered it's decision solely on race? Where is your proof?

[nettathirty]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tazzybaby
[B]
*Snipped*

The only way to make this work towards OJ's innocence is to use hypothetical (unsupported) theories.


Tazzy,

No!

OJ altered the crime scene at Bundy in the isotoner gloves that he was photographed wearing at the Football game.. He placed Nicoles' feet underneath the gate were they were found by the police.. He also moved Goldman's body into the alcove, off the pathway.

OJ removed his glove to check and see if Goldman had a pulse.. The cap, I have no ideal why it was removed, or even if he wore one.. He either left it behind unintentionally or deliberately, not sure yet!

OJ then placed the menu from the Mezzaluna in the middle of the 2 victims.. Someone else left the finger print on the glasses.. We know the cut to OJs finger didn't happen with a knife, so I'm of the mindset it was a re-injury that happened during his rearrangment of the bodies...

The deaths occurred shortly after 10pm, which means when Mandel and Aaronson passed the condo Nicole and Ron were dead, and Oj was happening upon the scene.. Heidstra did see the white colored vehicle but he didn't hear anything come from Nicoles' condo... Because Nicole's next door neighbor would have heard the same noises, since they were up and closest to 875 Bundy... and not in some alley across the street..


This is what I'm talking about!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tazzybaby
[B]
*Snipped*

The only way to make this work towards OJ's innocence is to use hypothetical (unsupported) theories.


Tazzy,

No!

OJ altered the crime scene at Bundy in the isotoner gloves that he was photographed wearing at the Football game.. He placed Nicoles' feet underneath the gate were they were found by the police.. He also moved Goldman's body into the alcove, off the pathway.

OJ removed his glove to check and see if Goldman had a pulse.. The cap, I have no ideal why it was removed, or even if he wore one.. He either left it behind unintentionally or deliberately, not sure yet!

OJ then placed the menu from the Mezzaluna in the middle of the 2 victims.. Someone else left the finger print on the glasses.. We know the cut to OJs finger didn't happen with a knife, so I'm of the mindset it was a re-injury that happened during his rearrangment of the bodies...

The deaths occurred shortly after 10pm, which means when Mandel and Aaronson passed the condo Nicole and Ron were dead, and Oj was happening upon the scene.. Heidstra did see the white colored vehicle but he didn't hear anything come from Nicoles' condo... Because Nicole's next door neighbor would have heard the same noises, since they were up and closest to 875 Bundy... and not in some alley across the street..


This is what I'm talking about!



nettathirty, you're fantasizing.

Not only is there no evidence that what you fantasized happened, there is evidence that contradicts your fantasy.

There is no evidence Simpson moved either body. They died where they fell.
There is no evidence Simpson removed his glove to check Ron's pulse. Simpson is right handed if he were to check anything he most likely would have removed his right hand glove, not his left hand glove. And if he did remove it he would not have left it behind.
There is no evidence that the menu was deliberately placed between the bodies
There was no evidence there was a finger print on the eyeglasses
You don't know that Simpson didn't cut his finger on the knife.
The murders were committed after 10:30. Mandel and Aaronson didn't see anything out of the ordinary before 10:30 because there was nothing to see.
Heidstra did hear the two voices come from Nicole's condo. There was nothing or no one that ever contradicted his testimony.

What you are talking about is pure imagined b.s.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust




nettathirty, you're fantasizing.

Not only is there no evidence that what you fantasized happened, there is evidence that contradicts your fantasy.

There is no evidence Simpson moved either body. They died where they fell.
There is no evidence Simpson removed his glove to check Ron's pulse. Simpson is right handed if he were to check anything he most likely would have removed his right hand glove, not his left hand glove. And if he did remove it he would not have left it behind.
There is no evidence that the menu was deliberately placed between the bodies
There was no evidence there was a finger print on the eyeglasses
You don't know that Simpson didn't cut his finger on the knife.
The murders were committed after 10:30. Mandel and Aaronson didn't see anything out of the ordinary before 10:30 because there was nothing to see.
Heidstra did hear the two voices come from Nicole's condo. There was nothing or no one that ever contradicted his testimony.

What you are talking about is pure imagined b.s.

bobaugust

August,

So, your saying Nicole's next door neighbors would not have been in a better position than Heidstra, who was across the street in the alley?

Neither the states attorneys nor the plantiffs attorneys would even say anything about the cut in either trial... Other than it being a coincident that OJ was bleeding, "NOT CUT" on the same night of the murders...

The glove at Bundy, was removed one finger at a time. Most people, probably not you will rely on the strongest hand, so it would be natural for right handed people to remove their left hand glove first.. (Observe people removing their gloves, and see)

Oj made 2 trips down the path at Bundy, did he realize he had forgotten (NOT LOST) his left hand glove.. OJ has staged the bodies, and goes to leave and realizes he's (FORGOT) not (LOST) his glove and returns to the bodies.. Could this be when OJ reinjuries his finger, which may explain why his blood was know where near either victims...

Mandel and Aaronson walking pass the Condo shortly after 10:30p. Nicole and Ron lay dead (QUIETLY), and according to them there is NO barking dog. Why would their attention be drawn to the front porch of Nicoles condo?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


August,

So, your saying Nicole's next door neighbors would not have been in a better position than Heidstra, who was across the street in the alley?

Neither the states attorneys nor the plantiffs attorneys would even say anything about the cut in either trial... Other than it being a coincident that OJ was bleeding, "NOT CUT" on the same night of the murders...

The glove at Bundy, was removed one finger at a time. Most people, probably not you will rely on the strongest hand, so it would be natural for right handed people to remove their left hand glove first.. (Observe people removing their gloves, and see)

Oj made 2 trips down the path at Bundy, did he realize he had forgotten (NOT LOST) his left hand glove.. OJ has staged the bodies, and goes to leave and realizes he's (FORGOT) not (LOST) his glove and returns to the bodies.. Could this be when OJ reinjuries his finger, which may explain why his blood was know where near either victims...

Mandel and Aaronson walking pass the Condo shortly after 10:30p. Nicole and Ron lay dead (QUIETLY), and according to them there is NO barking dog. Why would their attention be drawn to the front porch of Nicoles condo?


nettathirty, the fact is that Nicole's neighbors never heard Ron and Simpson yell at each other. All they heard was the dog barking, so they weren't in a better position. Nicole's closest neighbor was Eva Stein and she testified she went to sleep about 10:00 and was later awaken by dogs barking.

No one knows how Simpson cut himself but the fact is that Simpson had to have cut himself to have left his blood at the murder scene. Once again something you can't seem to grasp, a logical reasonable inference.

Your claim about the glove is ridiculous. First of all the glove did not have to be removed finger by finger. If you had watched the end of the glove demonstration you would have seen Simpson snap each glove in a fraction of a second. Besides the fact your comment that right handed people remove their right hand first is irrelevant. Simpson never intentionally took of one glove let alone two. And if he did remove one glove to check for a pulse he would have taken off his right glove since he was right handed. And if he had intentionally taken his left glove off he certainly would not have left it there or thrown it under one of the plants in the dark garden area.

Simpson may have returned to Ron to make sure he was dead. Simpson had no idea what it took to kill someone. Or Simpson may have returned looking for his glove and hat but never saw them and didn't want to spend any more time looking. He had to get back home as quickly as possible.

You ask why would Mandel and Aaronson's attention be drawn to the front porch of Nicole's condo? Because if the murders had already been committed the front gate would have been open and her body would have been clearly visible from from the sidewalk just like it was when it was seen about two and half hours later by Sukru Boztep and Bettina Rasmussen.

bobaugust

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by nettathirty



- Where did this come from, I never mentioned MF.. Why do you keep obsessing over MF, his role in this case went beyond the N-word.. Unless your saying the Criminal Jury reendered it's decision solely on race? Where is your proof?

I am NOT obsessed over MF. You said that the defense was not deceptive. THEY said that MF planted the glove.

:rolleyes:

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by nettathirty
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tazzybaby
[B]
*Snipped*

The only way to make this work towards OJ's innocence is to use hypothetical (unsupported) theories.


Tazzy,

No!

*snip*

This is what I'm talking about!

This whole post is exactly what I'm talking about. hypothetical (unsupported) theories.

How do you know that OJ moved the menu? How do you know that he "positioned" her legs?

You don't.

Please explain to me how you came to the conclusions that you did. I don't want a big exchange of sarcastic remarks. If you want me to consider your theory, then please explain.

[msldystrkr]

OJ didn't kill Ron and Nicole... He would not have with his 2 children asleep upstairs with the possibility of them waking up and discovering their mother killed in such a horrible way.

Also the killer could not have left this scene without being splashed in blood.

Someone else is definately involved in this murder.

Was OJ involved... that is entirely another discussion.

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva

*Snipped*

There was NO evidence that anyone other than Orenthal committed these murders.


Socal,

There was NO evidence that the man arrested and taken into custody in the Ramsey case committed her murder????????

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


What on earth are you talking about now? :confused:

Looks like Netta is serving up apples & oranges again. :tongue:


Socal,

You and the other (G's) say, well if there was evidence of someone other than OJ and the 2 victims at Bundy, where is it.. I think the Ramsey's case prove that you can have a horrible situation like this and apparently there not be evidence of the killer..

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


There was unidentified DNA left at the Ramsey crime scene. LE put it in the FBI database & did not come back with a match.

Being that you want to draw a parallel here, where is the unidentified DNA at Bundy?


There was blond hair on the glove, that wasn't Nicoles..

The unidentified finger print on the Bundy gate..

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Who knows WHEN the blonde hair fell

.

The blonde hair was found on the glove.. You might want to reconsider that answer, or think it through?

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by X Richmonder


You mean like DNA in John Bennett's panties?:shrug:

Who is John Bennett?

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by X Richmonder
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nettathirty


Who is John Bennett? [/QUOTE
Jon Benet, you know who I'm talking about. Just respond to the post which was about the DNA in her panties.


Oh, i'm sorry! That is news to me.. I'll have to research it!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



There was blond hair on the glove, that wasn't Nicoles..

The unidentified finger print on the Bundy gate..



nettathirty, it's comical when you try to argue facts when you have no idea what you're talking about.

There was no blond hair found on the killer's glove, there was one short light brown Caucasian hair. Deedrick testified that hair may very well have come from Ron Goldman.

Fuhrman and Roberts thought there was a possible fingerprint in the blood on the brass deadbolt on the rear gate. If it was a fingerprint it probably was Simpson's since all of the other relevant physical evidence in this case tells us that there were only three people at Bundy that night. The two victims and Simpson. And we pretty much know that when Simpson left Bundy he was wearing only one glove and bleeding from a cut on his bare left hand.

June 29, 1995
MS. CLARK: Okay. Of all of the samples that you compared, including those of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, was there any one sample that did come close to exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as those in the short light brown Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: The only sample that had an area of the hair that was close was the known sample from Ronald Goldman, and that would have been the proximal portion of the hair only, that nearest the root.

MS. CLARK: And that hair on the Rockingham glove, that was naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was naturally shed and it was about an inch long, right, and his hairs were about five or so, five and a half.

MS. CLARK: And you had no naturally shed hairs from the Coroner's office for Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



There was blond hair on the glove, that wasn't Nicoles..

The unidentified finger print on the Bundy gate.. The hair belonged to Nicole and there was no unidentified fingerprint on the gate.

[Simpsonese]

That blond hair WASN'T hers. Neither was the handprint that WAS indentified.

I swear to freaking God, the haters will simply say anything to prove Simpson's "Guilt".

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Simpsonese
That blond hair WASN'T hers. Neither was the handprint that WAS indentified.

I swear to freaking God, the haters will simply say anything to prove Simpson's "Guilt".


Simpsonese, there was no blond hair found on the killer's glove. There was no hand print ever found.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

MS. CLARK: And that hair on the Rockingham glove, that was naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was naturally shed and it was about an inch long, right, and his hairs were about five or so, five and a half.

MS. CLARK: And you had no naturally shed hairs from the Coroner's office for Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

bobaugust


August,

Talking comical

This says the hair found shed naturally, and Goldman's hair did not! That means the hair wasn't Goldman's and it wasn't Nicole's and it wasn't from an African American..

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Simpsonese, there was no blond hair found on the killer's glove. There was no hand print ever found.

bobaugust


Simpsonese,

What August is saying, this evidence existed it just works against their fantasy theories!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

Talking comical

This says the hair found shed naturally, and Goldman's hair did not! That means the hair wasn't Goldman's and it wasn't Nicole's and it wasn't from an African American..


nettathirty, yes you do talk comical.

Deedrick said he had no naturally shed hair from Ron to compare with but that the light brown caucasian hair did come close to exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics near the root of the hair as other samples of Ron's hairs. That in no way eliminates the hair coming from Ron. That suggests that hair could have come from Ron.

It's always funny when someone as uninformed of the facts, the evidence, and what witnesses testified to like you are makes claims that the defense attorneys never made. Good job.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Simpsonese,

What August is saying, this evidence existed it just works against their fantasy theories!


nettathirty, no what I'm saying is that there was no blond hair ever found on the glove. There was no palm print ever found in blood.

There was a light brown Caucasian hair found on the glove.
There was a possible finger print seen in blood on the brass deadbolt of the rear gate at Bundy.
The only palm print found in this case was found on Nicole's black Cherokee Jeep on the outside of the passenger side rear fender.

I simply stated the facts. I leave the fantasy theories for you and other posters to make who can't seem to understand the truth of these murders.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*SNIPPED*

. That suggests that hair could have come from Ron.

bobaugust


August,

All the Prosecution Expert (PAID) witness needed to do was get a sample of Goldmans hair and compare it! He didn't, why?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

All the Prosecution Expert (PAID) witness needed to do was get a sample of Goldmans hair and compare it! He didn't, why?


nettathirty, Deedrick was not a "paid" witness. He was a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, unit chief in the hairs and fibers unit of the scientific analysis section.

It was not his responsibility to get additional hairs, he only examined the hair evidence and samples that were provided to him.

Instead of asking me that question you should be asking Simpson's defense attorneys. But then again they never made the claims you make.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, Deedrick was not a "paid" witness. He was a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, unit chief in the hairs and fibers unit of the scientific analysis section.

It was not his responsibility to get additional hairs, he only examined the hair evidence and samples that were provided to him.

Instead of asking me that question you should be asking Simpson's defense attorneys. But then again they never made the claims you make.

bobaugust


August,

So we agree, the hair wasn't Goldmans...

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by X Richmonder


Bob, I admire you fortitude. I just hope you aren't too upset when you find out all the people you have been debating are between 11 and 14 years of age. :seeya:


X Richmond,

Rise above the NG's tactics of evading the real issues, and resulting to mudd slinging! Your G' , you guys answer the tough questions!:lol:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

So we agree, the hair wasn't Goldmans...


nettathirty, no we don't agree. The light brown Caucasian hair could very well have come from Ron Goldman.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, no we don't agree. The light brown Caucasian hair could very well have come from Ron Goldman.

bobaugust


August,

It could have very well been someone else's!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

It could have very well been someone else's!


nettathirty, and it was more likely that it was Ron Goldman's.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, and it was more likely that it was Ron Goldman's.

bobaugust


August,

Then, why not have it tested?

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva
It might have been a hair without a root containing mitochondrial DNA for testing.

Socal,

That's the opposite of what Deedrick said!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I seriously doubt that. If they had mitochondrial DNA for testing, they could have included or excluded Ron Goldman as a source. I think you are wrong. Again.


Socal,

The States resources could have made it possible to know who's the source of the hair!

[weezer]

*SnippedOriginally posted by nettathirty
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tazzybaby
[B]OJ then placed the menu from the Mezzaluna in the middle of the 2 victims.. What Mezzaluna menu? IIRC, there was a flyer from a Chinese restaurant found in the area. More misinformation.

[weezer]

Originally posted by Simpsonese
That blond hair WASN'T hers. Neither was the handprint that WAS indentified.

I swear to freaking God, the haters will simply say anything to prove Simpson's "Guilt". O.J. Unmasked; M.L. Rantala; p5: "The Rockingham glove had on it fibers from Ron Goldman's shirt, hair from Nicole, carpet fibers matching the carpeting in Simpson's Bronco, and the blood of Nicole, Ron, and Simpson."

Marsha Clark closing argument (Transcript, 26 September 1995): "So what do we find on the Rockingham glove, the one he (Simpson) drops? We find everything. Everything. We find fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt. We find the hair of Ron. We find the hair of Nicole. We find the blood of Ron Goldman. We find the blood of Nicole Brown. And we find the blood of the defendant. And we find Bronco fiber from the defendant's Bronco. We find blue black botton fibers just like those found on the shirt of Ron Goldman and on the socks of the defendant in his bedroom. And on this glove he is tied to every aspect of the murder; to Ron Goldman, to Nicole Brown, to the car, and of course that is why the defense has to say that the glove is planted, because if they don't everything about this glove convicts the defendant, where it is found, what is found on it, what is found in it, even a black limb hair found inside the glove. Everything about it convicts him."

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by X Richmonder

*Snipped*

Innocent men don't lie or leave their blood at a murder scene.


Mark Fuhrman lied, and he lied about something totally irrevelant to the case... Are you saying, MF planted the Rockingham glove?

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva

*Snipped*

I think you are confused again.

.


The poster said, if OJ was innocent why would he lie!

I said if that's the case, then MF lied to cover up his evidence planting! That's what I said, I guess the confused one would be you, but that ain't news now is it!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by X Richmonder
I think the most damaging evidence is the size 12 Bruno Magli shoe prints with a trail of blood dripping to the left of them and OJ owned a pair of size 12 Bruno Magli and had a cut on his left finger. He lied about the shoes. Innocent men don't lie or leave their blood at a murder scene.

No your facts: Good Grief!

1. The shoe sole made the print, not the shoe! The paid expert by Petrocelli could not produce another shoe like the one speculated at Bundy... The sole print at Bundy was just like that of the Bruno Magli, the Bruno Magli is rare, the sole isn't!

2. It was not a cut on OJ's finger it was a injury.. OJ did not cut himself at Bundy, and neither of the attorneys for the state or the plantiffs would say that he did! They all implied it was a coincident that OJ BLED on the same night of the murders, August and the media said it was a cut.. What's the difference, ask Petrocelli, Clark and Darden!

3. The gloves, Clark Darden and Petrocelli all implied came from the killer(s). We know both gloves were NOT inside out, which means the gloves were patiently removed 1 finger at a time! Goldman did not remove the left glove in a struggle, whoever suggested such a "idiotic fantasy" should not be taken seriously!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Nope, I'm not the confused one. By your own admission, you stated that MF's lie was irrevelant to the murder.

If he lied about planting a glove, that wouldn't be irrelevant, would it? :rolleyes:

.


MF lied about nothing, are your suggesting that he would be truthful when it comes to something relevant? GimmeAbreak!

"Do you solemly swear to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth so HELP YOU GOD"?

MF: Yes!,

You may be seated!

Knowing full well the defense has a audio tape of him using the "N" word a thousand times in one sentence, and 2 witnesses who heard him refer to a black man, in such a way.. HE KNEW THIS EVIDENCE EXISTED, Clark, Darden and MFs own attorneys knew!

FLeeBailey, have you used the "N" word in the past 10 years?

MF: No!

You have GOTZ to be JOKING!!!!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by socaldiva


You have posted MANY times that you thought that MF was on the up & up IIRC, now you are recanting & switching back into a mode of pursuiting MF? You have "GOTZ" to be joking :rolleyes:

His "lie" about the "n" word being used in the past had no bearing on this case & it shouldn't have been allowed in. There was no proof MF planted anything.

What's your excuse for Orenthal's MANY lies? Hmmm???:seeya:

It is clear to me that you are here just to bait & argue & you seem to have no respect for the truth, so :seeya:



My position on the MF matter still holds true.. However, when your poster buddies make an asertion that OJ lied, to cover his guilt.. I simply point out, that you have to make the same argument in the Fuhrman instance...

The truth, you can't HANDLE the truth!

[limakey]

Netta,

I don't believe the DA's knew about the tapes nor do I think the defense did. The defense already had many witnesses who would testify about their encounters with Mark Fuhrman. They were going to testify until the tapes became known.

IMO, while I believe the DA's used Fuhrman as their scapegoat which protected their case, I don't think they knew about the tapes.

I remember when Fuhrman said that he forgotten all about the tapes, until I heard him bragging about the glove and what he knew what would happen if he went down---and so did Clark.

I do believe that the DA's office knew right away Fuhrman was going to be a problem but they used it to their advantage in the trial.

It is very easy for many people to blame Fuhrman for the loss of the case but to be honest, he was the perfect cover up for the rest of the evidence.

IMO, if you took Fuhrman's race challenged views away from this case, it doesn't change a thing about the glove or the other evidence. IMO.

If MF planted the glove, IMO, it was to get in the case of the life time and show up those goons who refused his promotions and his transfer into the elite unit. I also think that his past relationship and knowledge of the Simpsons' led him to believe that OJ was the prime suspect---as it should have. To find out that he left town? Yeah, I'm looking for him too for the murders. Again, IMO.

[Osuzzanna]

People still yakking about OJ? Why?
He was acquitted by a jury.
Mark Fuhrman was proven to be a racist cop ( who loved the N word)
Dr. Henry Lee said "something wrong"
Detective Vanatter carried a blood vile around instead of turning it in to the lab
Dennis Fung had a trainee on the job ( and actually shook OJ's hand after his testimony)

It's OVER.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


No your facts: Good Grief!

1. The shoe sole made the print, not the shoe! The paid expert by Petrocelli could not produce another shoe like the one speculated at Bundy... The sole print at Bundy was just like that of the Bruno Magli, the Bruno Magli is rare, the sole isn't!

2. It was not a cut on OJ's finger it was a injury.. OJ did not cut himself at Bundy, and neither of the attorneys for the state or the plantiffs would say that he did! They all implied it was a coincident that OJ BLED on the same night of the murders, August and the media said it was a cut.. What's the difference, ask Petrocelli, Clark and Darden!

3. The gloves, Clark Darden and Petrocelli all implied came from the killer(s). We know both gloves were NOT inside out, which means the gloves were patiently removed 1 finger at a time! Goldman did not remove the left glove in a struggle, whoever suggested such a "idiotic fantasy" should not be taken seriously!


nettathirty, either you're deliberately lying or you still can't comprehend what Bodziak testified to.

1. Bodziak brought a Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoe with a Silga sole to court and it was entered into evidence.
The Silga sole was made exclusively for the Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoe.

2. Of course Simpson cut himself at Bundy. How else could he have dripped his blood there if not from a cut? How else could he have left his blood splattered all over the inside of his Bronco if not from a cut? How else could he have left his blood on his driveway and his foyer floor if not from a cut?

3. Simpson's left hand glove found at Bundy could very well have been pulled off his hand by Goldman grabbing Simpson's fingers and pulling. The glove would not have been inside out. If you had watched the end of the glove demonstration in the criminal trial when Simpson dropped his hands and pulled each of his gloves off in a fraction of a section with out them being inside out, you would understand this. Evidently you never saw that.

June 19, 1995
THE COURT: All right. The box and contents, Bruno Magli shoes, 375.
(Peo's 375 for id = box & contents/shoes)
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm going to write a little "375" on the top of the box.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you People's 375 for identification, can you tell us what that is?
MR. BODZIAK: Exhibit 375 are the two shoes, the Lyon or Lyon and the Lorenzo, which were submitted to me by Mr. Peter Grueterich and which were left over from the shipment or distribution of those shoes in 1991 and 1992.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if you can hold up one of them again, I think it is the Lorenzo, it appears to be faded a little bit on one side?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The left side of this shoe is much darker than the right side, which appears to maybe have been in a window and is somewhat discolored.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is that the condition they were in when you got them?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, it is.

January 16. 1997
The independent construction in one factory for Bruno Magli of this upper, combined with the independent design of this contoured sole with these features, in another factory combined, makes this unique.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You say in another factory. You're saying the soles were made in one factory and the tops were made in another?
A. For Bruno Magli, and then assembled together.
Q. Based on your -- you were at the factory, weren't you?
A. Yes.
The upper was made at the 4C factory; the sole was made at the Silga factory. And they were made by Bruno Magli through those factories and assembled in the 4C factory.
Q. As part of your opinion in your investigation, did you make a determination whether the dye used to make the upper was used in any other shoe?
A. I was told these were not. These were specifically made -- the soles for the bottom of the shoe and the uppers were specifically made for that design and are no longer used.
Q. By each separate factory?
A. Yes, sir. Yes.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by msldystrkr
OJ didn't kill Ron and Nicole... He would not have with his 2 children asleep upstairs with the possibility of them waking up and discovering their mother killed in such a horrible way.

Also the killer could not have left this scene without being splashed in blood.

Someone else is definately involved in this murder.

Was OJ involved... that is entirely another discussion.

You obviously have not taken into consideration Nicole's dog, Kato the Akita, or you would not state "Someone else is definitely involved in this murder."

Yes, OJ WAS involved and it is being thoroughly discussed by posters (G's and NG's alike) on every Thread on this Board.

JMO and MOO!!

[Osuzzanna]

As a Black woman I have discussed, debated, listened, and opined the OJ Simpson case.
The majority of Black people still have the same opinion... OJ might have been involved BUT he did not commit the actual crime.
This topic has been the focus of barbecues, picnic's, church sermons, the water cooler at work, neighborhood gatherings..etc.
The next time you choose to post what Black people think..PM me or just drop on by. :seeya:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Osuzzanna
As a Black woman I have discussed, debated, listened, and opined the OJ Simpson case.
The majority of Black people still have the same opinion... OJ might have been involved BUT he did not commit the actual crime.
This topic has been the focus of barbecues, picnic's, church sermons, the water cooler at work, neighborhood gatherings..etc.
The next time you choose to post what Black people think..PM me or just drop on by. :seeya:


Osuzzanna, in these discussions you have been in, how many people who believe Simpson was involved but didn't commit the crime are knowledgeable about the actual facts and evidence in this case? How many of these people are aware of all the new information that became known from the many depositions for the civil trial? How many of these people are aware of the new evidence, and new tests results that became available in the civil trial? And how many of these people are aware of all the lies Simpson told when he testified in the civil trial?

bobaugust

[limakey]

Oz,

I do not believe Mr. Simpson was involved in the murders. I do believe that he knows more then what he has said but I don't believe he was involved in the murders. IMO.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Oz,

I do not believe Mr. Simpson was involved in the murders. I do believe that he knows more then what he has said but I don't believe he was involved in the murders. IMO.


limakey, what do you base your belief that Simpson was not involved in the murders?

Certainly not the relevant physical evidence, since it all points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer.
Certainly not what any of the witnesses testified to, since they all testified to facts that incriminated Simpson.
Certainly not Simpson's testimony, since he lied about everything he said he did during the time of the murders.
Certainly not on Simpson's behavior after the murders, unless you are extremely gullible and believe his acting and lies after the tried to commit suicide.
Certainly not on anything you know of that eliminates Simpson from being the killer, since there is nothing legitimate that eliminates Simpson.
Certainly not the false claim that Simpson was framed, since no one knew Simpson didn't have an airtight alibi the night of the murders.

So tell us, what do you base your beliefs on?

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust



limakey, what do you base your belief that Simpson was not involved in the murders?

Certainly not the relevant physical evidence, since it all points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer.
Certainly not what any of the witnesses testified to, since they all testified to facts that incriminated Simpson.
Certainly not Simpson's testimony, since he lied about everything he said he did during the time of the murders.
Certainly not on Simpson's behavior after the murders, unless you are extremely gullible and believe his acting and lies after the tried to commit suicide.
Certainly not on anything you know of that eliminates Simpson from being the killer, since there is nothing legitimate that eliminates Simpson.
Certainly not the false claim that Simpson was framed, since no one knew Simpson didn't have an airtight alibi the night of the murders.

So tell us, what do you base your beliefs on?

bobaugust


August,

It's the lack of a solid alibi, tells me OJ isn't the killer..
Gloves found, NOT Inside out.. tells us the gloves weren't from the killer
The timeline totally exonerates OJ ..
OJs inability to convince us he didn't have firsthand knowledge of the crime, but his willingness to come back from Chicago, was another sign he wasn't guilty..
OJ voluntarily, and without both his attorneys present speaking with Lange and Vannatter, having his blood drawn.. Which 2cc came up missing later..
The video tape of OJ at the recital, shows OJ with a BLACK OUTFIT w/ short sleeves.. Shively saying she saw OJ's arm when he yelled at her "Phantom Nissan Driver".. Tells us Kato was off on his description of the outfit, and that OJ was still wearing the same clothes when he arrived at Bundy from the Recital.. Another point, the fibers weren't found in the Bronco nor the Bentley, not even the other sock.. Just the sock the Police had possession of.. hmmmm
The bloody shoe print leaving the crime scene, is not from the killer. The bloody print was made in blood that was at least 15 -20 minutes on the ground prior to the person walking through it..
Heidstra claiming the gate slam, was an indication Goldmans arrival at Bundy is just plain "DUMB"..
a) We don't know if Goldman entered through the rear gate?
b) With 38 gated yards in the immediate area, HELLO!!!!
c) The gate was opened when the bodies were discovered, yet Heidstra heard a gate SLAM, how dumb is that!

I could go on, but hey!

[jotun]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

It's the lack of a solid alibi, tells me OJ isn't the killer..
Gloves found, NOT Inside out.. tells us the gloves weren't from the killer
The timeline totally exonerates OJ ..
OJs inability to convince us he didn't have firsthand knowledge of the crime, but his willingness to come back from Chicago, was another sign he wasn't guilty..
OJ voluntarily, and without both his attorneys present speaking with Lange and Vannatter, having his blood drawn.. Which 2cc came up missing later..
The video tape of OJ at the recital, shows OJ with a BLACK OUTFIT w/ short sleeves.. Shively saying she saw OJ's arm when he yelled at her "Phantom Nissan Driver".. Tells us Kato was off on his description of the outfit, and that OJ was still wearing the same clothes when he arrived at Bundy from the Recital.. Another point, the fibers weren't found in the Bronco nor the Bentley, not even the other sock.. Just the sock the Police had possession of.. hmmmm
The bloody shoe print leaving the crime scene, is not from the killer. The bloody print was made in blood that was at least 15 -20 minutes on the ground prior to the person walking through it..
Heidstra claiming the gate slam, was an indication Goldmans arrival at Bundy is just plain "DUMB"..
a) We don't know if Goldman entered through the rear gate?
b) With 38 gated yards in the immediate area, HELLO!!!!
c) The gate was opened when the bodies were discovered, yet Heidstra heard a gate SLAM, how dumb is that!

I could go on, but hey!

Netta
Right you are.
GO ON....
jotun

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



August,

It's the lack of a solid alibi, tells me OJ isn't the killer..
Gloves found, NOT Inside out.. tells us the gloves weren't from the killer
The timeline totally exonerates OJ ..
OJs inability to convince us he didn't have firsthand knowledge of the crime, but his willingness to come back from Chicago, was another sign he wasn't guilty..
OJ voluntarily, and without both his attorneys present speaking with Lange and Vannatter, having his blood drawn.. Which 2cc came up missing later..
The video tape of OJ at the recital, shows OJ with a BLACK OUTFIT w/ short sleeves.. Shively saying she saw OJ's arm when he yelled at her "Phantom Nissan Driver".. Tells us Kato was off on his description of the outfit, and that OJ was still wearing the same clothes when he arrived at Bundy from the Recital.. Another point, the fibers weren't found in the Bronco nor the Bentley, not even the other sock.. Just the sock the Police had possession of.. hmmmm
The bloody shoe print leaving the crime scene, is not from the killer. The bloody print was made in blood that was at least 15 -20 minutes on the ground prior to the person walking through it..
Heidstra claiming the gate slam, was an indication Goldmans arrival at Bundy is just plain "DUMB"..
a) We don't know if Goldman entered through the rear gate?
b) With 38 gated yards in the immediate area, HELLO!!!!
c) The gate was opened when the bodies were discovered, yet Heidstra heard a gate SLAM, how dumb is that!

I could go on, but hey!


nettathirty, you've just summed up in one post why you will never be able to grasp the simple truth of these murders.

Your list shows a complete ignorance of the reality of the facts and the evidence in this case and some of the most ridiculous interpretations and speculation I've ever read offered all in one post.

Good job

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

<snipped>

c) The gate was opened when the bodies were discovered, yet Heidstra heard a gate SLAM, how dumb is that!

I could go on, but hey!

If this has been discussed before, I have not read the posts. What if the gate slamming that Heidstra heard was OJ leaving out of the back gate? Just curious. Any comments?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


If this has been discussed before, I have not read the posts. What if the gate slamming that Heidstra heard was OJ leaving out of the back gate? Just curious. Any comments?


2LB 4A D8, Heidstra testified that he heard Nicole's front gate slam after he heard the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo.

I posted excerpts from the criminal trial transcripts of a conversation between Douglas and Ito about the gate slamming where they discussed the possibility that I have suggested that when a metal gate is slammed hard it may bounce back open without latching. That's most likely why Nicole's front gate was found open. Nettathirty still can't understand this simple reality since he has no life experience about metal gates.

August 17, 1995
THE COURT: My recollection of the crime scene photos is that the rear six-foot gate on the Bundy alleyway, on the west alleyway, was opened.
MR. DOUGLAS: That--
THE COURT: And that the gate at--where Miss Brown Simpson was found was also opened, so the only other gate that would have been slammed closed would be the mid-gate, but that gate was opened as well is my recollection.
MR. DOUGLAS: I do think, however, your Honor, a couple things that comes to mind. First, the slamming action is the clanging of metal against metal and not necessarily the clanging of the door locking into its metal jam; therefore, in optimum fairness it would probably be best for us to recreate each of the gates and to have Mr. Heidstra identify that sound which best replicates what he heard those gates--
THE COURT: Did you--
MR. DOUGLAS: You can slam a gate, your Honor.
THE COURT: I know you can slam a gate and you can slam it hard enough that it won't have time to latch.
MR. DOUGLAS: Correct. That is exactly my point.
THE COURT: I have slammed gates before myself.

bobaugust

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

I posted excerpts from the criminal trial transcripts of a conversation between Douglas and Ito about the gate slamming where they discussed the possibility that I have suggested that when a metal gate is slammed hard it may bounce back open without latching. That's most likely why Nicole's front gate was found open. Nettathirty still can't understand this simple reality since he has no life experience about metal gates.


bobaugust


August,

You have got to be the most stubborness person on the face of this earth.. Concede, the gate being opened is proof Heidstra was off in his testimony, or as you like to say "HE GOT IT WRONG"..

BTW:
Twisting Douglas's sidebar with Ito to support your one sided way of thinking my friend is just down right LOW..

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by bobaugust

2LB 4A D8, Heidstra testified that he heard Nicole's front gate slam after he heard the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo.

<snipped>

bobaugust

Thanks Bob. I knew that I could count on you to set me straight!

[nettathirty]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Thanks Bob. I knew that I could count on you to set me straight!


WOW!!!

Heidstra got it WRONG..

[limakey]

Mr. August,

IMO, I was convinced Mr. Simpson was the killer, until the prelim hearing. Then I knew that he would never be convicted because of the testimony of the detectives and the testimony of the doctor who did the autopsies. I can't remember, was it Dr. Golden?

During the trial, is when I came to believe that not only would he not be convicted, there was a chance, a very good chance that he may be innocent or that he didn't act alone.

Of course the "evidence" only points to Mr. Simpson, because after Marcia Clark's press conferences and Gil Garcetti's round of interviews, before the prelim hearing, said it was only Simpson and then they said it was too late to change from that.

Mr. August, at least be honest enough to admit that any and all of Mr. Simpson's actions that night could be painted either way, it depends on how you see the case. I believe I started the thread, "acting guilty or acting innocent".

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

WOW!!!

Heidstra got it WRONG..

I really don't think that we need anymore of your snide comments/posts! Not only do they waste bandwidth, but they are completely irrelevant!

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

IMO, I was convinced Mr. Simpson was the killer, until the prelim hearing. Then I knew that he would never be convicted because of the testimony of the detectives and the testimony of the doctor who did the autopsies. I can't remember, was it Dr. Golden?

During the trial, is when I came to believe that not only would he not be convicted, there was a chance, a very good chance that he may be innocent or that he didn't act alone.

Of course the "evidence" only points to Mr. Simpson, because after Marcia Clark's press conferences and Gil Garcetti's round of interviews, before the prelim hearing, said it was only Simpson and then they said it was too late to change from that.

Mr. August, at least be honest enough to admit that any and all of Mr. Simpson's actions that night could be painted either way, it depends on how you see the case. I believe I started the thread, "acting guilty or acting innocent".



limakey, I have no idea what you think Dr. Golden said that would convince you that Simpson couldn't be the killer.
Nothing Dr. Golden testified to eliminated Simpson as the killer.

All of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. Nothing points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates Simpson. Nothing Clark, Garcetti or any attorney said or did had anything to do with those facts.

Simpson's actions that night can only be seen one way based on all the lies he told. Simpson was trying to act as normal as possible but couldn't do it. There's plenty of evidence something was wrong with him that night.

It was not normal that Simpson showed no concern about a possible intruder that Kaelin was so obviously scared and nervous about. If he was acting normal he would have called the police to check it out, but he never even considered it because he knew he was the one who had been behind Kaelin's room.

It was not normal for Simpson not to set his house alarm before going to the airport. It was not normal for Simpson to later call Kaelin to set the alarm by giving him his alarm code. Kaelin never did that before and normally Simpson would never have given Kaelin his alarm code.

Simpson lied about almost everything he said he did that night. Lies that were contradicted by both Allan Park and Kato Kaelin. They both agreed that Kaelin attempted to get the small dark colored knapsack that was on the ground behind the Bentley when Simpson stopped him, telling him that he would get that himself. Simpson lied denying that ever happened.

Simpson also lied saying he went out to his Bronco during that time. Either Park or Kaelin was with Simpson or in sight of Simpson in that ten minutes or so before leaving for the airport and neither saw or heard Simpson open the Rockingham gate and go out to his Bronco let alone open it a second time to return.

All of those actions and lies can't be seen any other way than one way.

bobaugust

[The R]

interesting thread.

I find it scary that blacks felt as they did about OJ's trial outcome. Not that they don't have justification in their beliefs about blacks being unfairly treated by the CJ system, etc. but that a more than likely guilty man would be supported by and cheered on by his race because of the history of the system.

To me it's sad that OJ's case was viewed as an important one for black equality in the CJ system and was a poor example of any justification. Equality in the CJ system shouldn't even be an issue....all should be treated equally w/o thought but unfortunately that hasn't been the case.

It's just a shame that a scumbag like OJ was a rallying point for some blacks in their angst against the unfairness of the CJ system.

ALLMO,
R

[William Anthony]

interesting thread.

I find it scary that blacks felt as they did about OJ's trial outcome. Not that they don't have justification in their beliefs about blacks being unfairly treated by the CJ system, etc. but that a more than likely guilty man would be supported by and cheered on by his race because of the history of the system.

To me it's sad that OJ's case was viewed as an important one for black equality in the CJ system and was a poor example of any justification. Equality in the CJ system shouldn't even be an issue....all should be treated equally w/o thought but unfortunately that hasn't been the case.

It's just a shame that a scumbag like OJ was a rallying point for some blacks in their angst against the unfairness of the CJ system.

ALLMO,
R

Imho, the evidence did not support a finding of guilty and the blacks rallied, because they saw this case as a case in which justice was color blind.

[martin II]

i am wondering where these figures of 9/10 blacks think oj was involve came from.

[William Anthony]

i am wondering where these figures of 9/10 blacks think oj was involve came from.

I am wondering where the word guilty came from in the title of this thread.

[Jayme K]

I am wondering where the word guilty came from in the title of this thread.

It seems to come from expression of opinion "o.j. PROBABLY guilty". Nothing in the thread title says he was FOUND guilty so relax.

[William Anthony]

It seems to come from expression of opinion "o.j. PROBABLY guilty". Nothing in the thread title says he was FOUND guilty so relax.

You misunderstand. This is what I am talking about from the first post.

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

[One2Snoop]

I thought this was an interesting article -

Barack Obama Thought OJ Was Guilty
March 20th, 2008

The OJ Simpson trial was one of the most racially divisive issues in America during the 1990’s with many whites believing he was guilty and many blacks arguing in favor of his innocence. Now, during a time of racial strife in Senator Obama’s campaign spawned by his pastor Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American and anti-white comments, Barack Obama thought O.J. did ithe admits that he had always personally thought that Simpson was guilty of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson.

“You remember when, during the O.J. trial … black and white culture just had these completely opposite reactions and nobody understood it. I’m somebody who was pretty clear that O.J. was guilty,” Obama told “Nightline’s” Terry Moran.

He continued: “And I was ashamed for my own community to respond in that way, but I also understood what was taking place, which was that reaction had more to do with a sense that somehow the criminal justice system historically had been biased so profoundly that a defeat of that justice system was somehow a victory.”
Not to sound cynical but this is a pretty blatant stretch to try and reach out to white voters in a time of campaign crisis. He mentioned it during his speech and elaborated it on Nightline. If this were the 1996 elections it would be a major deal but now, well, who cares? Is this the plan for reaching out to middle ages white voters? Is there a Rodney King thought somewhere too?

http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2008/03/20/barack-obama-thought-oj-was-guilty/

[William Anthony]

I thought this was an interesting article -

Barack Obama Thought OJ Was Guilty
March 20th, 2008

The OJ Simpson trial was one of the most racially divisive issues in America during the 1990’s with many whites believing he was guilty and many blacks arguing in favor of his innocence. Now, during a time of racial strife in Senator Obama’s campaign spawned by his pastor Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American and anti-white comments, Barack Obama thought O.J. did ithe admits that he had always personally thought that Simpson was guilty of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson.

“You remember when, during the O.J. trial … black and white culture just had these completely opposite reactions and nobody understood it. I’m somebody who was pretty clear that O.J. was guilty,” Obama told “Nightline’s” Terry Moran.

He continued: “And I was ashamed for my own community to respond in that way, but I also understood what was taking place, which was that reaction had more to do with a sense that somehow the criminal justice system historically had been biased so profoundly that a defeat of that justice system was somehow a victory.”
Not to sound cynical but this is a pretty blatant stretch to try and reach out to white voters in a time of campaign crisis. He mentioned it during his speech and elaborated it on Nightline. If this were the 1996 elections it would be a major deal but now, well, who cares? Is this the plan for reaching out to middle ages white voters? Is there a Rodney King thought somewhere too?

http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2008/03/20/barack-obama-thought-oj-was-guilty/

I think the article is interesting, also. This is the first time I can recall the mainstream media criticizing a black for thinking Simpson was guilty.

[martin II]

I am wondering where the word guilty came from in the title of this thread.

maby we will get the link to the stats reported and named of the link to 9/10 black say oj was involved. i would like to read that and see who did this polling imo
martin II

[martin II]

interesting thread.

I find it scary that blacks felt as they did about OJ's trial outcome. Not that they don't have justification in their beliefs about blacks being unfairly treated by the CJ system, etc. but that a more than likely guilty man would be supported by and cheered on by his race because of the history of the system.

To me it's sad that OJ's case was viewed as an important one for black equality in the CJ system and was a poor example of any justification. Equality in the CJ system shouldn't even be an issue....all should be treated equally w/o thought but unfortunately that hasn't been the case.

It's just a shame that a scumbag like OJ was a rallying point for some blacks in their angst against the unfairness of the CJ system.

ALLMO,
R

What about the idea that blacks were just pleased that oj, having been judge
to have been guilty by 85% of the white public BEFORE the trial started,
were just pleased to hear that the prosecution had not proven their claims beyond a reasonable dounb and that oj was not guilty of the charges.

[weezer]

What about the idea that blacks were just pleased that oj, having been judge
to have been guilty by 85% of the white public BEFORE the trial started,
were just pleased to hear that the prosecution had not proven their claims beyond a reasonable dounb and that oj was not guilty of the charges.

martin, why do you think it is so outrageous that people believed orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole based on information before the trial?

[martin II]

martin, why do you think it is so outrageous that people believed orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole based on information before the trial?

For me it indicated a bias against oj as no testimony or evidence had been presented when 85% of white people voiced their opinions of guilt before the trial so i see no basic for those opinions other than bias.

[weezer]

For me it indicated a bias against oj as no testimony or evidence had been presented when 85% of white people voiced their opinions of guilt before the trial so i see no basic for those opinions other than bias.

but you don't see any bias from the ones that found LE guilty before they knew they evidence? go figure.

[martin II]

but you don't see any bias from the ones that found LE guilty before they knew they evidence? go figure.

I don't know who you speak of however, lapd had a wide spread reputation of abuse of citizens long before the oj trial started so if citizens expressed these opinions it was proberly well deserved as a result of past lape activity in the comminuty.:cool:

[martin II]

interesting thread.

I find it scary that blacks felt as they did about OJ's trial outcome. Not that they don't have justification in their beliefs about blacks being unfairly treated by the CJ system, etc. but that a more than likely guilty man would be supported by and cheered on by his race because of the history of the system.

To me it's sad that OJ's case was viewed as an important one for black equality in the CJ system and was a poor example of any justification. Equality in the CJ system shouldn't even be an issue....all should be treated equally w/o thought but unfortunately that hasn't been the case.

It's just a shame that a scumbag like OJ was a rallying point for some blacks in their angst against the unfairness of the CJ system.

ALLMO,
R

I have come to the conclusion that the idea that blacks only reason for thinking oj was not guiltry was that they had some beef with the LA cjs is just a media invented reason attatched to blacks to infer that the prosecution did prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that black were focused on this bogus beef and not interested in the fact that the prosecution did not prove their case.

[SlowHandSam]

I don't know who you speak of however, lapd had a wide spread reputation of abuse of citizens long before the oj trial started so if citizens expressed these opinions it was proberly well deserved as a result of past lape activity in the comminuty.:cool:

do you not believe that there is some level of responsibility of *those* citizens that could have resulted in the way LAPD responded?

I do.

[William Anthony]

do you not believe that there is some level of responsibility of *those* citizens that could have resulted in the way LAPD responded?

I do.

Members of LE take an oath to protect and serve. They should be held to that standard. If they are unable to fulfill their oath, for whatever reason, then it is time for them to change jobs or retire. They of all people should not be taking the law in their own hands by opening old scars on a junkie's arm to make them "appear" fresh. They should not let their prejudice due to the color of one's skin make them target certain individuals. They should uphold, rather than hate, people's right to associate, marry, and date who they choose, so long as the individuals are above the age of legal consent.

[William Anthony]

I have come to the conclusion that the idea that blacks only reason for thinking oj was not guiltry was that they had some beef with the LA cjs is just a media invented reason attatched to blacks to infer that the prosecution did prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that black were focused on this bogus beef and not interested in the fact that the prosecution did not prove their case.

I will post this link on this thread as I believe it answers the question.

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

[Kate Sachel]

For me it indicated a bias against oj as no testimony or evidence had been presented when 85% of white people voiced their opinions of guilt before the trial so i see no basic for those opinions other than bias.

Good Morning Everyone. I'm sorry to have missed out on discussion for an extended period of time. My father took ill and I took a leave of absence to go back home to Boston to be with my family. Unfortunately, my father passed away on April 21st.

Moving on, the bottom line on this point is that everyone, and I do mean everyone, forms an immediate opinion at the onset of a case. That is human nature and there is no escape from that. Even you martin, said that at the beginning of this case while the Bronco chase was occurring that you thought he was probably guilty.

The key, and the goal of which everyone should strive for, is to be open enough to re-evaluate your thoughts and opinions as time moves on and evidence is presented. That is the best that we can do.

On the flip side of polls showing that some 85 percent of white americans thought OJ guilty before the trial, you must also note that polling was done at the same time regarding black americans and those polls showed that the majority thought him not guilty. Thus, those black americans made the same rush to judgment as the white americans you wish to condemn. The only difference between the two was the opinion they rushed to form.

Kindly,
Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Members of LE take an oath to protect and serve. They should be held to that standard. If they are unable to fulfill their oath, for whatever reason, then it is time for them to change jobs or retire. They of all people should not be taking the law in their own hands by opening old scars on a junkie's arm to make them "appear" fresh. They should not let their prejudice due to the color of one's skin make them target certain individuals. They should uphold, rather than hate, people's right to associate, marry, and date who they choose, so long as the individuals are above the age of legal consent.

I agree with this post in its entirety. Very eloquently voiced.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Good Morning Everyone. I'm sorry to have missed out on discussion for an extended period of time. My father took ill and I took a leave of absence to go back home to Boston to be with my family. Unfortunately, my father passed away on April 21st.

Moving on, the bottom line on this point is that everyone, and I do mean everyone, forms an immediate opinion at the onset of a case. That is human nature and there is no escape from that. Even you martin, said that at the beginning of this case while the Bronco chase was occurring that you thought he was probably guilty.

The key, and the goal of which everyone should strive for, is to be open enough to re-evaluate your thoughts and opinions as time moves on and evidence is presented. That is the best that we can do.

On the flip side of polls showing that some 85 percent of white americans thought OJ guilty before the trial, you must also note that polling was done at the same time regarding black americans and those polls showed that the majority thought him not guilty. Thus, those black americans made the same rush to judgment as the white americans you wish to condemn. The only difference between the two was the opinion they rushed to form.

Kindly,
Kate

I understand your point and I know we will disagree. However, the presumption rests with the opinion of innocence until proven guilty.

[William Anthony]

I agree with this post in its entirety. Very eloquently voiced.

Kate

Thank you.

[Kate Sachel]

I understand your point and I know we will disagree. However, the presumption rests with the opinion of innocence until proven guilty.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty does not apply outside of a courtroom. If it did, law enforcement would not be able to arrest on probable cause.

Are you telling me that you have never formed an opinion on a case prior to a trial?

Kate

[tv]

Good Morning Everyone. I'm sorry to have missed out on discussion for an extended period of time. My father took ill and I took a leave of absence to go back home to Boston to be with my family. Unfortunately, my father passed away on April 21st.

Moving on, the bottom line on this point is that everyone, and I do mean everyone, forms an immediate opinion at the onset of a case. That is human nature and there is no escape from that. Even you martin, said that at the beginning of this case while the Bronco chase was occurring that you thought he was probably guilty.

The key, and the goal of which everyone should strive for, is to be open enough to re-evaluate your thoughts and opinions as time moves on and evidence is presented. That is the best that we can do.

On the flip side of polls showing that some 85 percent of white americans thought OJ guilty before the trial, you must also note that polling was done at the same time regarding black americans and those polls showed that the majority thought him not guilty. Thus, those black americans made the same rush to judgment as the white americans you wish to condemn. The only difference between the two was the opinion they rushed to form.

Kindly,
KateKate, I'm so sorry to hear of your father's passing. You were missed while you were absent and I'm glad to see you back. :)

[Kate Sachel]

Kate, I'm so sorry to hear of your father's passing. You were missed while you were absent and I'm glad to see you back. :)

Thank you for your condolences and for expressing that you missed my presence, I greatly appreciate both. He was a good man, and my grieving process will take quite awhile.

Kate

[weezer]

Good Morning Everyone. I'm sorry to have missed out on discussion for an extended period of time. My father took ill and I took a leave of absence to go back home to Boston to be with my family. Unfortunately, my father passed away on April 21st.

Moving on, the bottom line on this point is that everyone, and I do mean everyone, forms an immediate opinion at the onset of a case. That is human nature and there is no escape from that. Even you martin, said that at the beginning of this case while the Bronco chase was occurring that you thought he was probably guilty.

The key, and the goal of which everyone should strive for, is to be open enough to re-evaluate your thoughts and opinions as time moves on and evidence is presented. That is the best that we can do.

On the flip side of polls showing that some 85 percent of white americans thought OJ guilty before the trial, you must also note that polling was done at the same time regarding black americans and those polls showed that the majority thought him not guilty. Thus, those black americans made the same rush to judgment as the white americans you wish to condemn. The only difference between the two was the opinion they rushed to form.

Kindly,
Kate

my condolences on your loss -- you were missed.

as always, your post is right on target.

[weezer]

I understand your point and I know we will disagree. However, the presumption rests with the opinion of innocence until proven guilty.

the presumption of innocence rests within the CJS -- it has nothing to do with private opinions.

[FDInLaw]

Good Morning Everyone. I'm sorry to have missed out on discussion for an extended period of time. My father took ill and I took a leave of absence to go back home to Boston to be with my family. Unfortunately, my father passed away on April 21st.

Moving on, the bottom line on this point is that everyone, and I do mean everyone, forms an immediate opinion at the onset of a case. That is human nature and there is no escape from that. Even you martin, said that at the beginning of this case while the Bronco chase was occurring that you thought he was probably guilty.

The key, and the goal of which everyone should strive for, is to be open enough to re-evaluate your thoughts and opinions as time moves on and evidence is presented. That is the best that we can do.

On the flip side of polls showing that some 85 percent of white americans thought OJ guilty before the trial, you must also note that polling was done at the same time regarding black americans and those polls showed that the majority thought him not guilty. Thus, those black americans made the same rush to judgment as the white americans you wish to condemn. The only difference between the two was the opinion they rushed to form.

Kindly,
KateWelcome back Kate!

I'm sorry to hear that your Father has passed away.:rose:

It's great to see you posting again. Hugs ~ FD

[William Anthony]

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty does not apply outside of a courtroom. If it did, law enforcement would not be able to arrest on probable cause.

Are you telling me that you have never formed an opinion on a case prior to a trial?

Kate

The opinion I formed is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. I may have said that there is something wrong with the story a person gives and suspect that more happened. I would not say that person is guilty.

The presumption of innocence remains when a person is arrested. The concept of probable cause only means that the police have a valid reason to arrest that person, because there is enough prima facie evidence to belief that person committed the crime and charges should be brought. It does not mean because he was arrested he is guilty. The presumption still applies and that is why a trial is necessary. I will not speak to the public's view, because they may or may not have any or very little respect for legal principles.

[Kate Sachel]

The opinion I formed is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. I may have said that there is something wrong with the story a person gives and suspect that more happened. I would not say that person is guilty.

The presumption of innocence remains when a person is arrested. The concept of probable cause only means that the police have a valid reason to arrest that person, because there is enough prima facie evidence to belief that person committed the crime and charges should be brought. It does not mean because he was arrested he is guilty. The presumption still applies and that is why a trial is necessary. I will not speak to the public's view, because they may or may not have any or very little respect for legal principles.

That opinion varies between all of the attorneys I work with. Many agree with your thoughts and an equal number disagree; in fact this particular topic stirs quite a bit of controversy in the legal world. Many see it as you do and many see it as the idea that an arrest occurs because there is probable cause to believe that person guilty of committing the crime for which he is being arrested which in turn translates for some into being arrested on the presumption of being guilty.

Kate

[William Anthony]

That opinion varies between all of the attorneys I work with. Many agree with your thoughts and an equal number disagree; in fact this particular topic stirs quite a bit of controversy in the legal world. Many see it as you do and many see it as the idea that an arrest occurs because there is probable cause to believe that person guilty of committing the crime for which he is being arrested which in turn translates for some into being arrested on the presumption of being guilty.

Kate

I do understand the thinking of those who feel opposite as I do. However, I see the GJ and the preliminary hearing as a means to sustain the arrest and the trial as a means of proving the arrested guilty. I am of the opinion that throughout those respective processes the presumption of innocence remains with the accused, although I will admit that it is easy to get the GJ to indict a ham sandwich. I see the former two processes as simply a means to say that there was enough evidence to believe that the accused committed the crime at the time the arrest was made, but that evidence is not enough to say beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did the crime. Therefore, the accused is still presumed innocent.

[martin II]

I do understand the thinking of those who feel opposite as I do. However, I see the GJ and the preliminary hearing as a means to sustain the arrest and the trial as a means of proving the arrested guilty. I am of the opinion that throughout those respective processes the presumption of innocence remains with the accused, although I will admit that it is easy to get the GJ to indict a ham sandwich. I see the former two processes as simply a means to say that there was enough evidence to believe that the accused committed the crime at the time the arrest was made, but that evidence is not enough to say beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did the crime. Therefore, the accused is still presumed innocent.

A popular opinion in our society is that the accused at the time of arrest "must be guilty otherwise le would not have arrsted him/her.
Add this to the onesided GJ proceedings(prosecution advantage) and the defendant enters the trial presumed to be guilty by many.imo

[martin II]

kate

sorry to hear about your father.:rose::rose: :rose:

[William Anthony]

A popular opinion in our society is that the accused at the time of arrest "must be guilty otherwise le would not have arrsted him/her.
Add this to the onesided GJ proceedings(prosecution advantage) and the defendant enters the trial presumed to be guilty by many.imo

There is much validity in what you say and what Kate said about the thinking of those in the legal profession. Pragmatically, it may be true that some feel that way and the system works that way. For the sake of liberty, I believe that it should work in the opposite manner, and am optimistic that it does. I do not think that legal theory on the presumption of innocence means much to the incarcerated. However, I hope and pray that it means something to our citizens that might be chosen as jurors and to those in the legal profession who are trying the case.

[martin II]

do you not believe that there is some level of responsibility of *those* citizens that could have resulted in the way LAPD responded?

I do.

When i look at the history of lapd 'RAMPART' activities. NO.
There are legal procedures for making arrest of suspect.They do not include abuse.

The U.S. Justice Department actions against LAPD proves this for me.

[The R]

I thought this was an interesting article -

Barack Obama Thought OJ Was Guilty
March 20th, 2008

The OJ Simpson trial was one of the most racially divisive issues in America during the 1990’s with many whites believing he was guilty and many blacks arguing in favor of his innocence. Now, during a time of racial strife in Senator Obama’s campaign spawned by his pastor Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American and anti-white comments, Barack Obama thought O.J. did ithe admits that he had always personally thought that Simpson was guilty of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson.

“You remember when, during the O.J. trial … black and white culture just had these completely opposite reactions and nobody understood it. I’m somebody who was pretty clear that O.J. was guilty,” Obama told “Nightline’s” Terry Moran.
He continued: “And I was ashamed for my own community to respond in that way, but I also understood what was taking place, which was that reaction had more to do with a sense that somehow the criminal justice system historically had been biased so profoundly that a defeat of that justice system was somehow a victory.”
Not to sound cynical but this is a pretty blatant stretch to try and reach out to white voters in a time of campaign crisis. He mentioned it during his speech and elaborated it on Nightline. If this were the 1996 elections it would be a major deal but now, well, who cares? Is this the plan for reaching out to middle ages white voters? Is there a Rodney King thought somewhere too?

http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2008/03/20/barack-obama-thought-oj-was-guilty/





This is basically the issue I was referring to in my post. I also have a black college professor, well respected member of the faculty where I attend, says the same thing; that OJ was guilty and that he thought the evidence showed that. In addition to that, I also have black co-workers whom I respect that say the same thing. So...that's why I asked the question. I know that the obvious thing is these people did not sit on O.J.'s jury, but all feel he was guilty none the less. My concern remains. Why would blacks generally speaking, cheer a not guilty verdict even if it appeared OJ could be guilty? That's where my concern lies.

If we have an pretty much entire group of people in our system that so distrusts the courts, should we change the way we administer the law?
Are blacks, or any other minority justified in their belief that the system doesn't work for them because of bias or demographic?

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

Good Morning Everyone. I'm sorry to have missed out on discussion for an extended period of time. My father took ill and I took a leave of absence to go back home to Boston to be with my family. Unfortunately, my father passed away on April 21st.

Moving on, the bottom line on this point is that everyone, and I do mean everyone, forms an immediate opinion at the onset of a case. That is human nature and there is no escape from that. Even you martin, said that at the beginning of this case while the Bronco chase was occurring that you thought he was probably guilty.

The key, and the goal of which everyone should strive for, is to be open enough to re-evaluate your thoughts and opinions as time moves on and evidence is presented. That is the best that we can do.

On the flip side of polls showing that some 85 percent of white americans thought OJ guilty before the trial, you must also note that polling was done at the same time regarding black americans and those polls showed that the majority thought him not guilty. Thus, those black americans made the same rush to judgment as the white americans you wish to condemn. The only difference between the two was the opinion they rushed to form.

Kindly,
Kate

I kinda agree with the Bronco thing. People usually assume that if you are under suspicion or are wanted for questioning by the authorities, then you have a reason for running away or avoiding them. It's kinda self-explanatory. I can however also see the distrust that a black man or woman would have for the LAPD as well. But in the end, running from the police isn't rational, esp. if you had the resources that OJ had legally.


ALLMO,
R

[The R]

I have come to the conclusion that the idea that blacks only reason for thinking oj was not guiltry was that they had some beef with the LA cjs is just a media invented reason attatched to blacks to infer that the prosecution did prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that black were focused on this bogus beef and not interested in the fact that the prosecution did not prove their case.

I appreciate your view on this. Is it your opinion that this reaction to the verdict is not endemic or doesn't really exist nation wide? That the reactions we saw from the televised verdict was more of a media creation?

Thanks,
R

[The R]

do you not believe that there is some level of responsibility of *those* citizens that could have resulted in the way LAPD responded?

I do.

No disrespect intended but in most of these cases, the issue is not one of probable cause but is one of the use of excessive force. It does exist obviously and we as citizens shouldn't allow it.

ALLMO,
R

[William Anthony]

This is basically the issue I was referring to in my post. I also have a black college professor, well respected member of the faculty where I attend, says the same thing; that OJ was guilty and that he thought the evidence showed that. In addition to that, I also have black co-workers whom I respect that say the same thing. So...that's why I asked the question. I know that the obvious thing is these people did not sit on O.J.'s jury, but all feel he was guilty none the less. My concern remains. Why would blacks generally speaking, cheer a not guilty verdict even if it appeared OJ could be guilty? That's where my concern lies.

If we have an pretty much entire group of people in our system that so distrusts the courts, should we change the way we administer the law?
Are blacks, or any other minority justified in their belief that the system doesn't work for them because of bias or demographic?

ALLMO,
R

I think the recent Supreme Court ruling that it was unfair on the issue that people who used or sold crack cocaine got more time than people who used or sold cocaine answers that question. It is my belief that the sentencing was not an issue the Supreme Court wanted to address until a large number or whites were sentenced for using or selling crack.

I think that a book, written about blacks' treatment in the legal system, titled, In The Matter of Color, written by a professor of law, Leroy Higginbottom, IIRC, will answer that question.

[Kate Sachel]

kate

sorry to hear about your father.:rose::rose: :rose:

martin,

Thank you very much, this means alot to me and I do appreciate it.

Kate

[The R]

I think the recent Supreme Court ruling that it was unfair on the issue that people who used or sold crack cocaine got more time than people who used or sold cocaine answers that question. It is my belief that the sentencing was not an issue the Supreme Court wanted to address until a large number or whites were sentenced for using or selling crack.

I think that a book, written about blacks' treatment in the legal system, titled, In The Matter of Color, written by a professor of law, Leroy Higginbottom, IIRC, will answer that question.


Thanks very much for that reference. I have no doubt however that blacks and probably other minorities have been treated poorly in some or many instances by the CJ system.

I guess what I'd like to see more than anything though is a proper, unbiased assessment of where we are today in the administration of justice. Do these biases exist today as they did in the past? If so, how can we correct them?
Is it OK to acquit a defendant in a court of law because of past social injustice to the demographic he belongs to?

History is an important tool to be sure, but is dwelling on what's happened in the past productive at all?(sorry:) I know I'm being hypocritical here...) At what point do we decide to get over things and move on? I for one am at that point, and would like to see some positive change.

ALLMO,
R

[SlowHandSam]

No disrespect intended but in most of these cases, the issue is not one of probable cause but is one of the use of excessive force. It does exist obviously and we as citizens shouldn't allow it.

ALLMO,
R

None taken. I guess the point I was attempting to make is that LE respond and adapt to what the environment necessitates. I believe this is true for most professions, actually.

I think when you take the landscape of how world was/is in that particular area, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a different response from the police. While I agree they should be held to a higher standard because of their oath, I do also believe they are human and can only take *so much*, if that makes sense at all?

I don't condone excessive force, but when the community chooses to not respect LE over the course of MANY years and use violence in retaliation to LE and the community ... is it that unbelievable they respond the way they do?

[William Anthony]

Thanks very much for that reference. I have no doubt however that blacks and probably other minorities have been treated poorly in some or many instances by the CJ system.

I guess what I'd like to see more than anything though is a proper, unbiased assessment of where we are today in the administration of justice. Do these biases exist today as they did in the past? If so, how can we correct them?
Is it OK to acquit a defendant in a court of law because of past social injustice to the demographic he belongs to?

History is an important tool to be sure, but is dwelling on what's happened in the past productive at all?(sorry:) I know I'm being hypocritical here...) At what point do we decide to get over things and move on? I for one am at that point, and would like to see some positive change.

ALLMO,
R

I think I understand what you are saying. The problem is, as I see it, that before there is any change that can be made in a positive manner, there must be more than an acknowledgment that there was wrong done, there must be more than apologies made, there must be an understanding of the cause of the problems and a concrete solution offered.

[William Anthony]

Thanks very much for that reference. I have no doubt however that blacks and probably other minorities have been treated poorly in some or many instances by the CJ system.

I guess what I'd like to see more than anything though is a proper, unbiased assessment of where we are today in the administration of justice. Do these biases exist today as they did in the past? If so, how can we correct them?
Is it OK to acquit a defendant in a court of law because of past social injustice to the demographic he belongs to?

History is an important tool to be sure, but is dwelling on what's happened in the past productive at all?(sorry:) I know I'm being hypocritical here...) At what point do we decide to get over things and move on? I for one am at that point, and would like to see some positive change.

ALLMO,
R

I know that I did not offer a solution and the only one that I can see has to do with what America has left out of schools and the Pledge of Allegiance. I do not want to start a debate that may never end. I will simply say that I see God as the solution.

[William Anthony]

None taken. I guess the point I was attempting to make is that LE respond and adapt to what the environment necessitates. I believe this is true for most professions, actually.

I think when you take the landscape of how world was/is in that particular area, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a different response from the police. While I agree they should be held to a higher standard because of their oath, I do also believe they are human and can only take *so much*, if that makes sense at all?

I don't condone excessive force, but when the community chooses to not respect LE over the course of MANY years and use violence in retaliation to LE and the community ... is it that unbelievable they respond the way they do?

The key words are excessive force, such as shooting someone 50 times, who was on his cell phone. I do not think anyone is suggesting that LE does not have the right to defend themselves. What we are speaking of, I think, is the tendency of LE to make generalities about people, because of who they are or where they live, and to act in a manner that violates the oath they are sworn to uphold. I think that once a member of LE realizes that they have violated their oath, it is time for them to reassess their ability to perform their job so that incidents like the one mentioned above will not be repeated.

[Kate Sachel]

I do understand the thinking of those who feel opposite as I do. However, I see the GJ and the preliminary hearing as a means to sustain the arrest and the trial as a means of proving the arrested guilty. I am of the opinion that throughout those respective processes the presumption of innocence remains with the accused, although I will admit that it is easy to get the GJ to indict a ham sandwich. I see the former two processes as simply a means to say that there was enough evidence to believe that the accused committed the crime at the time the arrest was made, but that evidence is not enough to say beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did the crime. Therefore, the accused is still presumed innocent.

Your point of view is the ideal, and were I accused of a crime I know that I would rely heavily on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

However, the real terminology reads that a suspect is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". For that reason, though I don't necessarily agree, I do believe that the presumption of innocence is meant soley to exist in a courtoom. It is my opinion that the presumption of innocence begins at the time that the defendant enters his plea. Obviously, it he pleads guilty he is admitting such and it is not neccessary to ponder further. When the plea of not guilty is entered, it is then that the presumption of innocence truly shall begin.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I kinda agree with the Bronco thing. People usually assume that if you are under suspicion or are wanted for questioning by the authorities, then you have a reason for running away or avoiding them. It's kinda self-explanatory. I can however also see the distrust that a black man or woman would have for the LAPD as well. But in the end, running from the police isn't rational, esp. if you had the resources that OJ had legally.


ALLMO,
R

I do generally see fleeing as a red flag. The issue that comes into play with he Bronco chase is that there are those that question whether or not he was fleeing authorities or simply had a more innocent intent.

I personally don't see anything in the Bronco chase that would lead me to believe he had an innocent motive. When someone is wanted for questioning and is driving from police with cash, a passport, and a disguise it becomes clear that the intent is not innocent in my opinion.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

A popular opinion in our society is that the accused at the time of arrest "must be guilty otherwise le would not have arrsted him/her.
Add this to the onesided GJ proceedings(prosecution advantage) and the defendant enters the trial presumed to be guilty by many.imo

You're absolutely right, but that still does not remove the fact that every individual not sworn to uphold an oath in law enforcement or a court of law has the right to make those assumptions. If we were not allowed our freedom to form opinions and offer those opinions freely then we would not have much of anything at all.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Your point of view is the ideal, and were I accused of a crime I know that I would rely heavily on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

However, the real terminology reads that a suspect is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". For that reason, though I don't necessarily agree, I do believe that the presumption of innocence is meant soley to exist in a courtoom. It is my opinion that the presumption of innocence begins at the time that the defendant enters his plea. Obviously, it he pleads guilty he is admitting such and it is not neccessary to ponder further. When the plea of not guilty is entered, it is then that the presumption of innocence truly shall begin.

Kate

I see your point and thank you for posting the terminology. The terminology reinforces my philosophical view of how the presumption was intended to work. As you posted, the accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and until that happens he remains an innocent suspect. Thus, the presumption would apply throughout the processes, including arrest and arraignment. Of course, this is just a philosophical understanding which does not address the pragmatic effect. I am happy to see your return and enjoy our civil, polite and cordial discussions and insights.

[William Anthony]

You're absolutely right, but that still does not remove the fact that every individual not sworn to uphold an oath in law enforcement or a court of law has the right to make those assumptions. If we were not allowed our freedom to form opinions and offer those opinions freely then we would not have much of anything at all.

Kate

While the instruction that you are not to form an opinion of the accused's guilt or innocence until you have heard all the evidence applies to the jury, I think it should be the standard for the public and the media so as to ensure that the accused receives a fair trail based on the evidence presented. This does not mean that the media should not report on the trial; only that they should show caution as to not voice their opinion on guilt or non guilt until the verdict has been rendered, imho.

[Kate Sachel]

While the instruction that you are not to form an opinion of the accused's guilt or innocence until you have heard all the evidence applies to the jury, I think it should be the standard for the public and the media so as to ensure that the accused receives a fair trail based on the evidence presented. This does not mean that the media should not report on the trial; only that they should show caution as to not voice their opinion on guilt or non guilt until the verdict has been rendered, imho.

You cannot have that without stripping the general public, including members of the media, of their rights to form opinions and right to express those opinions.

It can be difficult to weigh the options. You must ask what you are willing to give up in order to gain something else. I personally would never be willing to give up the rights that I mentioned above.

Kate

[William Anthony]

You cannot have that without stripping the general public, including members of the media, of their rights to form opinions and right to express those opinions.

It can be difficult to weigh the options. You must ask what you are willing to give up in order to gain something else. I personally would never be willing to give up the rights that I mentioned above.

Kate

I am sorry if I was not clear. I was not taking or suggesting that anyone's rights be taken away; only indicating that there is a time and place to express those rights in view of the accused's right to a fair trial. There is a balancing act that must be considered.

[Kate Sachel]

I am sorry if I was not clear. I was not taking or suggesting that anyone's rights be taken away; only indicating that there is a time and place to express those rights in view of the accused's right to a fair trial. There is a balancing act that must be considered.

No apology required, I interpreted it in such a manner because you seperated the "public" and the "media" and I took that to mean that you thought the general public should be required to withhold any opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Thank you for your clarification.

Kate

[William Anthony]

No apology required, I interpreted it in such a manner because you seperated the "public" and the "media" and I took that to mean that you thought the general public should be required to withhold any opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Thank you for your clarification.

Kate

I think it is a natural tendency of humans to quickly form and express their opinions. However, as far as the media is concerned, I feel that they must suppress that natural tendency, so as not to taint members of a potential jury pool, in light of the chance of a successful appeal or a hung jury in accordance with the right of the accused. We have reached a new era in broadcasting where members of the media come on television and express their opinions on news channels, stating that they are not journalists but talk shows.

[The R]

None taken. I guess the point I was attempting to make is that LE respond and adapt to what the environment necessitates. I believe this is true for most professions, actually.

I think when you take the landscape of how world was/is in that particular area, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a different response from the police. While I agree they should be held to a higher standard because of their oath, I do also believe they are human and can only take *so much*, if that makes sense at all?

I don't condone excessive force, but when the community chooses to not respect LE over the course of MANY years and use violence in retaliation to LE and the community ... is it that unbelievable they respond the way they do?


I do agree with you; seems you are saying there are two sides to every story? People should remember that LE is in harm's way most of the time and will react in ways that don't always seem restrained.

I think we need to ensure that our LE people are well trained and are paid better. They also should have pretty extensive ethics training. I'd also like to see LE better police themselves when it comes to ridding the profession of bad seeds.

ALLMO,
R

[SlowHandSam]

I do agree with you; seems you are saying there are two sides to every story? People should remember that LE is in harm's way most of the time and will react in ways that don't always seem restrained.

I think we need to ensure that our LE people are well trained and are paid better. They also should have pretty extensive ethics training. I'd also like to see LE better police themselves when it comes to ridding the profession of bad seeds.

ALLMO,
R

I think you got the gist of what I was trying to say.

My only comment is that while perhaps they might be "paid better" (in comparison to??) doesn't remove the fact that they are normal people too. Make sense?

I agree, I'd love to see LE better police themselves as well - especially in ensuring that their colleagues are held to a similar line. That said, I'd really love to see the public held accountable for their excessive behavior as well. I just think we're too easy on them and it's created this cyclical process that just feeds off each other.

While terribly off topic to the conversation, I think it help explains why I feel the reaction of the criminal jury to LE and the evidence presented.

[William Anthony]

I do agree with you; seems you are saying there are two sides to every story? People should remember that LE is in harm's way most of the time and will react in ways that don't always seem restrained.

I think we need to ensure that our LE people are well trained and are paid better. They also should have pretty extensive ethics training. I'd also like to see LE better police themselves when it comes to ridding the profession of bad seeds.

ALLMO,
R

The person, who was on his cell phone calling for assistance from the FBI, will never be able to tell his side of the story as he was shot to death with 50 gun shot wounds. How much pay do you think they should receive? Don't always seem restrained? The words out of control, unrestrained, uncalled for, and criminal (not in the legal sense) come to mind. I think they may have had criminal charges dropped.

[William Anthony]

I think you got the gist of what I was trying to say.

My only comment is that while perhaps they might be "paid better" (in comparison to??) doesn't remove the fact that they are normal people too. Make sense?

I agree, I'd love to see LE better police themselves as well - especially in ensuring that their colleagues are held to a similar line. That said, I'd really love to see the public held accountable for their excessive behavior as well. I just think we're too easy on them and it's created this cyclical process that just feeds off each other.

While terribly off topic to the conversation, I think it help explains why I feel the reaction of the criminal jury to LE and the evidence presented.

I do not think the conversation is off topic, because it relates to what some believe explains the criminal jury verdict in light of the feeling that Simpson was somehow involved in the murders and the trial's venue. Many have claimed that it is wrong to blame the victim, when comments were made about Nicole's alleged behavior. I think the same holds true for the public, who are victims of those who are sworn to protect and serve. If your comments are meant as an explanation for LE's conduct and not an excuse, then I understand.

[Kate Sachel]

I do not think the conversation is off topic, because it relates to what some believe explains the criminal jury verdict in light of the feeling that Simpson was somehow involved in the murders and the trial's venue. Many have claimed that it is wrong to blame the victim, when comments were made about Nicole's alleged behavior. I think the same holds true for the public, who are victims of those who are sworn to protect and serve. If your comments are meant as an explanation for LE's conduct and not an excuse, then I understand.

I agree that it is not off topic, and I also very much agree with reaffirming the neccessity of personal responsibility.

Law enforcement is indeed in harm's way daily, and there are moments when the window of time to evaluate a situation and react accordingly is very slim. However, shooting someone 50 times is excessive in my eyes regardless of the situation.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I agree that it is not off topic, and I also very much agree with reaffirming the neccessity of personal responsibility.

Law enforcement is indeed in harm's way daily, and there are moments when the window of time to evaluate a situation and react accordingly is very slim. However, shooting someone 50 times is excessive in my eyes regardless of the situation.

Kate

Agreed that the window of time is very narrow and that LE are in harm's way daily, which is why I never considered that profession. To me, the law of self-preservation or the preservation of my loved one's is my strongest instinct. I know that, if I felt that my loved ones' lives or my life was in danger, I would not hesitate momentarily to do what I thought necessary to protect them. I could not live with myself, knowing that I had killed someone who meant me no harm. I do not believe in collateral damage. That is why I believe that all are not cut out to be LE and those that are not should not be in a position to serve and protect.

[SlowHandSam]

I do not think the conversation is off topic, because it relates to what some believe explains the criminal jury verdict in light of the feeling that Simpson was somehow involved in the murders and the trial's venue. Many have claimed that it is wrong to blame the victim, when comments were made about Nicole's alleged behavior. I think the same holds true for the public, who are victims of those who are sworn to protect and serve. If your comments are meant as an explanation for LE's conduct and not an excuse, then I understand.

Perhaps one could also argue that LE is also a victim or a violent society (in some places)? That isn't to say I am excusing their behavior, but I am looking to offer a broader look into it.

I loathe the idea of blaming the victim, in any case, generally speaking. HOWEVER, that said, I would say that blaming the victim for the outcome in some cases is right on point. It goes back to what Kate suggested about taking personal responsibility. For example, if I run into a courthouse wielding knives at folks and lunge at someone, do I have a reasonable expectation to not be harmed? Or, if I lead LE on a car chase, with gun in hand and then shoot at LE vehicles during that pursuit, do I have a reasonable expectation to have no harm?

Adrenaline takes over and the priority to protect the public from these types of criminals.

I don't offer an excuse for anyone's actions other than my own (or my kid) because I hold no personal responsibilities for those actions. I offered it as a comment/explanation to why some believe the way we do.

[William Anthony]

Perhaps one could also argue that LE is also a victim or a violent society (in some places)? That isn't to say I am excusing their behavior, but I am looking to offer a broader look into it.

I loathe the idea of blaming the victim, in any case, generally speaking. HOWEVER, that said, I would say that blaming the victim for the outcome in some cases is right on point. It goes back to what Kate suggested about taking personal responsibility. For example, if I run into a courthouse wielding knives at folks and lunge at someone, do I have a reasonable expectation to not be harmed? Or, if I lead LE on a car chase, with gun in hand and then shoot at LE vehicles during that pursuit, do I have a reasonable expectation to have no harm?

Adrenaline takes over and the priority to protect the public from these types of criminals.

I don't offer an excuse for anyone's actions other than my own (or my kid) because I hold no personal responsibilities for those actions. I offered it as a comment/explanation to why some believe the way we do.

I do not think that anyone suggests that the police should not protect the public from the type of individuals described in your example. The discussion began with abuses committed by police on innocent members of society or the excessive use of force on people who have either been subdued or are not using any force against the police.

As I understood your point it was the idea that police may overact because of the experiences in a community. This would be a viable explanation for their actions, imho. This would not excuse their actions.

There may be law abiding citizens of a particular race that live in a crime ridden community and, for whatever reasons, are not able or want to relocate. Does that mean that, because there are criminals in that neighborhood of the same race, that the law abiding citizen should be treated as a criminal? I think the avoidance these are the stereotypical actions that the oath police take are designed to eliminate.

There is nothing wrong with adrenaline taking over when adrenaline is called for. They just had a replay of when the police overacted on May Day in Los Angeles last year. They admitted that there was excessive force and that the police needed retraining. These are the types of incidents that I think made the criminal jury from inner city Los Angeles more receptive of the argument that there was police corruption in the Simpson case. Unfortunately, there is a commonality of black experiences with police all across America.

I do not know if I shared this with the board before but there was a judge at the airport in my hometown, who had a problem getting his bags, and made the remark, this is what happens when you give a N***** a job. Unfortunately, this is what blacks perceive as their possible treatment in the cjs. I think that much more must be done in correcting the situation in the struggle for equality, which might add validity to the perception of some of verdicts.

[martin II]

I appreciate your view on this. Is it your opinion that this reaction to the verdict is not endemic or doesn't really exist nation wide? That the reactions we saw from the televised verdict was more of a media creation?

Thanks,
R

The media sent their cameras to Howard University In Washing DC. and taped what was actually a room of black college kids showing approval of the verdict.

Does the fact that many blacks approved of the verdict mean that the medias story that they did so because of some le beef was true? Why does the idea that they followed the trial as many others did and agreed with the verdict have to be rejected by those that came to another opinion.
Another poster stated that blacks were just pretending that oj was not guilty.I ask, pretending to who and for what reason.

[martin II]

I do not think that anyone suggests that the police should not protect the public from the type of individuals described in your example. The discussion began with abuses committed by police on innocent members of society or the excessive use of force on people who have either been subdued or are not using any force against the police.

As I understood your point it was the idea that police may overact because of the experiences in a community. This would be a viable explanation for their actions, imho. This would not excuse their actions.

There may be law abiding citizens of a particular race that live in a crime ridden community and, for whatever reasons, are not able or want to relocate. Does that mean that, because there are criminals in that neighborhood of the same race, that the law abiding citizen should be treated as a criminal? I think the avoidance these are the stereotypical actions that the oath police take are designed to eliminate.

There is nothing wrong with adrenaline taking over when adrenaline is called for. They just had a replay of when the police overacted on May Day in Los Angeles last year. They admitted that there was excessive force and that the police needed retraining. These are the types of incidents that I think made the criminal jury from inner city Los Angeles more receptive of the argument that there was police corruption in the Simpson case. Unfortunately, there is a commonality of black experiences with police all across America.

I do not know if I shared this with the board before but there was a judge at the airport in my hometown, who had a problem getting his bags, and made the remark, this is what happens when you give a N***** a job. Unfortunately, this is what blacks perceive as their possible treatment in the cjs. I think that much more must be done in correcting the situation in the struggle for equality, which might add validity to the perception of some of verdicts.


Without getting into all the details.Three black men left a social club and walked about a block and half to their car.Undercover cops had been in the club in attempts investigate alleged prosecution.The three were celebrating as one was to be married the next day.
several undercover cops in plain clothes followed them. One cop thought they were going to get a gun.
four plain clothes cops that for some reason had forgot to hang their police shields in view and according to another cop did not identify themselves as cops. AS the three black persons reached their car and was pulling away
a undercover police appeared in front of the car and started shooting at all three and the other two cops joined in . total shots fired 50. i dead two shot up. cops said they THOUGHT one person was reaching for a gun. NO GUN
was found . cops decide not to have a jury trial and op for a judge trial.
a 70 year white judge scheduled to retire at end of the year found all of the cops not guilty.This happened in a black neighborhood.

[William Anthony]

I do not think that anyone suggests that the police should not protect the public from the type of individuals described in your example. The discussion began with abuses committed by police on innocent members of society or the excessive use of force on people who have either been subdued or are not using any force against the police.

As I understood your point it was the idea that police may overact because of the experiences in a community. This would be a viable explanation for their actions, imho. This would not excuse their actions.

There may be law abiding citizens of a particular race that live in a crime ridden community and, for whatever reasons, are not able or want to relocate. Does that mean that, because there are criminals in that neighborhood of the same race, that the law abiding citizen should be treated as a criminal? I think the avoidance these are the stereotypical actions that the oath police take are designed to eliminate.

There is nothing wrong with adrenaline taking over when adrenaline is called for. They just had a replay of when the police overacted on May Day in Los Angeles last year. They admitted that there was excessive force and that the police needed retraining. These are the types of incidents that I think made the criminal jury from inner city Los Angeles more receptive of the argument that there was police corruption in the Simpson case. Unfortunately, there is a commonality of black experiences with police all across America.

I do not know if I shared this with the board before but there was a judge at the airport in my hometown, who had a problem getting his bags, and made the remark, this is what happens when you give a N***** a job. Unfortunately, this is what blacks perceive as their possible treatment in the cjs. I think that much more must be done in correcting the situation in the struggle for equality, which might add validity to the perception of some of verdicts.

correction.

I think that avoidance of these improper actions by the police is why they take the oath in order to eliminate those actions, due to stereotypes of citizens. Hope that is clearer.

[William Anthony]

Without getting into all the details.Three black men left a social club and walked about a block and half to their car.Undercover cops had been in the club in attempts investigate alleged prosecution.The three were celebrating as one was to be married the next day.
several undercover cops in plain clothes followed them. One cop thought they were going to get a gun.
four plain clothes cops that for some reason had forgot to hang their police shields in view and according to another cop did not identify themselves as cops. AS the three black persons reached their car and was pulling away
a undercover police appeared in front of the car and started shooting at all three and the other two cops joined in . total shots fired 50. i dead two shot up. cops said they THOUGHT one person was reaching for a gun. NO GUN
was found . cops decide not to have a jury trial and op for a judge trial.
a 70 year white judge scheduled to retire at end of the year found all of the cops not guilty.This happened in a black neighborhood.

A black teenager was running from the police and was shot in the back and killed. The story of the police who shot him was that he heard a shot and thought the teenager was shooting at them. What he actually heard was a shot from his police partner who shot at the teenager. The teenager did not have a gun. The policeman was not found criminally responsible.

[Kate Sachel]

A black teenager was running from the police and was shot in the back and killed. The story of the police who shot him was that he heard a shot and thought the teenager was shooting at them. What he actually heard was a shot from his police partner who shot at the teenager. The teenager did not have a gun. The policeman was not found criminally responsible.

The stories shared by you and martin are horrible and I would never take away from that fact. I think we are all aware that racism is still thriving, even in places we rightfully expect it not to.

But, injustices such as though happen everywhere and they happen to white people as well. In North Carolina, a woman's husband tied her up and beat her for hours. He then tied her to their bed and videotaped himself raping her repeatedly and cutting her breasts and face. The video was admitted and played in court. The jury aquitted.

The above is only one example, and has nothing to do with law enforcement actions, but is just as much a travesty as the stories you have shared. I want us to remember that injustices come in all sizes and colors and in every location.

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

The stories shared by you and martin are horrible and I would never take away from that fact. I think we are all aware that racism is still thriving, even in places we rightfully expect it not to.

But, injustices such as though happen everywhere and they happen to white people as well. In North Carolina, a woman's husband tied her up and beat her for hours. He then tied her to their bed and videotaped himself raping her repeatedly and cutting her breasts and face. The video was admitted and played in court. The jury aquitted.

The above is only one example, and has nothing to do with law enforcement actions, but is just as much a travesty as the stories you have shared. I want us to remember that injustices come in all sizes and colors and in every location.

Kate

well said, Kate. It's easy to forget that there are horrible crimes done against all races, all the time. Some just don't get the publicity as much as others.

Racism is an awful thing and it comes in ALL colors and shapes. White against Black, Black against White, Black against Chicano, White against Chicano ... I could go on and on. For me, however, as I'm raising my son my priority is to teach tolerance and acceptance of ALL people and not just with race.

I just don't believe that any racism and/or discrimination is more awful than the other. I can think of a few B/W issues that have occurred in LA where the victim wasn't a black citizen, but instead the perpetrator. My point is that it goes both ways and just because it doesn't make it to the 9 o'clock news, doesn't mean it isn't happening in equal or similar amounts.

MHO, of course.

[William Anthony]

The stories shared by you and martin are horrible and I would never take away from that fact. I think we are all aware that racism is still thriving, even in places we rightfully expect it not to.

But, injustices such as though happen everywhere and they happen to white people as well. In North Carolina, a woman's husband tied her up and beat her for hours. He then tied her to their bed and videotaped himself raping her repeatedly and cutting her breasts and face. The video was admitted and played in court. The jury aquitted.

The above is only one example, and has nothing to do with law enforcement actions, but is just as much a travesty as the stories you have shared. I want us to remember that injustices come in all sizes and colors and in every location.

Kate

I totally agree. The fact, unfortunately, is that people's biases play a part in any decision. It is so sad, when those, who are sworn to protect and serve, or to ensure that a trial is fair, or to render an impartial verdict, let those biases play into their decision making processes.

I do not think any person is completely unbiased. However, there are certain professions and positions that require a person to disregard the bias.

[Kate Sachel]

I totally agree. The fact, unfortunately, is that people's biases play a part in any decision. It is so sad, when those, who are sworn to protect and serve, or to ensure that a trial is fair, or to render an impartial verdict, let those biases play into their decision making processes.

I do not think any person is completely unbiased. However, there are certain professions and positions that require a person to disregard the bias.

I'm glad to see that we reside in the same community on this thought process as I am in complete agreement with your posting.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I'm glad to see that we reside in the same community on this thought process as I am in complete agreement with your posting.

Kate

I think that we have a chance to improve this community and I hope my light does not fade. I guess I unrealistically expected all of us to act in a manner that is polite, civil, and respectful. Although I have been guilty of such conduct in the past, I think it is 2008 and we should all raise the level of our postings in an effort to make this community something to be proud of with the concept of fairness and equality as our beacon.

[The R]

well said, Kate. It's easy to forget that there are horrible crimes done against all races, all the time. Some just don't get the publicity as much as others.

Racism is an awful thing and it comes in ALL colors and shapes. White against Black, Black against White, Black against Chicano, White against Chicano ... I could go on and on. For me, however, as I'm raising my son my priority is to teach tolerance and acceptance of ALL people and not just with race.

I just don't believe that any racism and/or discrimination is more awful than the other. I can think of a few B/W issues that have occurred in LA where the victim wasn't a black citizen, but instead the perpetrator. My point is that it goes both ways and just because it doesn't make it to the 9 o'clock news, doesn't mean it isn't happening in equal or similar amounts.

MHO, of course.


I think that you make a good point and that thought is what I was referring to in an earlier post where I was talking about moving on and finding how the problems we face can be ironed out. At some point people have to let go of the emotion involved in atrocious things like the 'holocaust' or 'slavery' and move on in a productive manner. Not that we should ever forget these things happen, we should remember events but not negative emotions. When we dwell on the emotions, it is difficult to make progress towards a better place.
I know this all seems a little pollyanna-ish, but I think separating the emotion from the event is critical to progress in pretty much any situation.


Just MO,
R

[William Anthony]

I think that you make a good point and that thought is what I was referring to in an earlier post where I was talking about moving on and finding how the problems we face can be ironed out. At some point people have to let go of the emotion involved in atrocious things like the 'holocaust' or 'slavery' and move on in a productive manner. Not that we should ever forget these things happen, we should remember events but not negative emotions. When we dwell on the emotions, it is difficult to make progress towards a better place.
I know this all seems a little pollyanna-ish, but I think separating the emotion from the event is critical to progress in pretty much any situation.


Just MO,
R

I agree that emotion must be removed and until an open and honest discussion of the emotions are is put forth the emotions will remain, imho.

[Kate Sachel]

I think that you make a good point and that thought is what I was referring to in an earlier post where I was talking about moving on and finding how the problems we face can be ironed out. At some point people have to let go of the emotion involved in atrocious things like the 'holocaust' or 'slavery' and move on in a productive manner. Not that we should ever forget these things happen, we should remember events but not negative emotions. When we dwell on the emotions, it is difficult to make progress towards a better place.
I know this all seems a little pollyanna-ish, but I think separating the emotion from the event is critical to progress in pretty much any situation.


Just MO,
R

Pollyanna-ish or not, you make an excellent point.

Kate

[Jayme K]

I appreciate your view on this. Is it your opinion that this reaction to the verdict is not endemic or doesn't really exist nation wide? That the reactions we saw from the televised verdict was more of a media creation?

Thanks,
R

I think the media feeds off it but I think that react existed.

Never mind the fact I think it sucks to cheer a not guilty for a guy that's obviously a piece of crap even if he didn't kill two people.

[William Anthony]

Pollyanna-ish or not, you make an excellent point.

Kate

I too think the poster's point was excellent. I just was saying that the way to rid ourselves of senseless emotions is to openly and honestly discuss the subject, acknowledging the emotions and to be willing to disagree without being disagreeable, imho. I see validity on both sides of the issue, especially that one does not want to be blamed for the sins of his ancestors, but, at the same time, by saying that it should not be used to negate the feelings of others on the other side and be dismissive by saying move on, its in the past. What the issue concerns is our mutual future, imho.

[SlowHandSam]

I totally agree. The fact, unfortunately, is that people's biases play a part in any decision. It is so sad, when those, who are sworn to protect and serve, or to ensure that a trial is fair, or to render an impartial verdict, let those biases play into their decision making processes.

I do not think any person is completely unbiased. However, there are certain professions and positions that require a person to disregard the bias.

William, would the same be true for those who are defending a criminal (or alleged criminal)? If the wish is to not have race be a key factor, shouldn't the defense also not use this as a reasoning or excuse or explanation for the alleged crime?

[William Anthony]

William, would the same be true for those who are defending a criminal (or alleged criminal)? If the wish is to not have race be a key factor, shouldn't the defense also not use this as a reasoning or excuse or explanation for the alleged crime?

I truly have difficulty understanding what you are saying. If you are saying that a lawyer should give a defendant the best defense possible, regardless of the defendant's race, then, yes. If a member of LE is a racist and has allegedly found evidence that would convict the defendant and, if the racist LE member has admitted on tapes that he planted/fabricated/invented evidence, and, if the defense finds evidence that the LE member has a particular hatred for interracial couples and the defendant was married to and dates women outside his race, and there is evidence to indicated that the evidence was placed someplace as opposed to being dropped by the defendant, then the defense would be grossly negligent in providing the best defense possible to the defendant, imho. In fact, if the defense withheld such evidence, especially after the LE member denied being a racist under oath, then there would most likely be an appellate issue due to ineffective assistance of counsel and the counsel should face disbarment, imho. If you are thinking of the Ferguson case, the black shooter, who shot the people on the subway, and the defense wanted to use black rage, which Ferguson would not allow, I think the black rage defense was an attempt at an insanity defense. I think that the defense should have been insanity period and not black rage, which Ferguson showed he was, even though he did not use it. In that case, I think the only way race was a factor was in trying to explain why he could not control his impulse, even though he knew his actions were wrong. When I watched the trial, I was not sure whether he knew his actions were wrong or whether he was the shooter. I think the defense in that case could have avoided race altogether and simply demonstrated that Ferguson was criminally insane. Race or gender identity would always be a factor in a hate crime case. I have tried to explain the situation as best I could from my understanding of your question. If there is something that I have not considered, please, let me know. I guess what I am saying is that race should not be made a factor unless it is a factor to an issue related to the crime. I don't know that I explained it clearly.

[SlowHandSam]

I truly have difficulty understanding what you are saying. If you are saying that a lawyer should give a defendant the best defense possible, regardless of the defendant's race, then, yes. If a member of LE is a racist and has allegedly found evidence that would convict the defendant and, if the racist LE member has admitted on tapes that he planted/fabricated/invented evidence, and, if the defense finds evidence that the LE member has a particular hatred for interracial couples and the defendant was married to and dates women outside his race, and there is evidence to indicated that the evidence was placed someplace as opposed to being dropped by the defendant, then the defense would be grossly negligent in providing the best defense possible to the defendant, imho. In fact, if the defense withheld such evidence, especially after the LE member denied being a racist under oath, then there would most likely be an appellate issue due to ineffective assistance of counsel and the counsel should face disbarment, imho. If you are thinking of the Ferguson case, the black shooter, who shot the people on the subway, and the defense wanted to use black rage, which Ferguson would not allow, I think the black rage defense was an attempt at an insanity defense. I think that the defense should have been insanity period and not black rage, which Ferguson showed he was, even though he did not use it. In that case, I think the only way race was a factor was in trying to explain why he could not control his impulse, even though he knew his actions were wrong. When I watched the trial, I was not sure whether he knew his actions were wrong or whether he was the shooter. I think the defense in that case could have avoided race altogether and simply demonstrated that Ferguson was criminally insane. Race or gender identity would always be a factor in a hate crime case. I have tried to explain the situation as best I could from my understanding of your question. If there is something that I have not considered, please, let me know. I guess what I am saying is that race should not be made a factor unless it is a factor to an issue related to the crime. I don't know that I explained it clearly.

I agree that a valid defense should be given. However, my question was a simple one and not meant to illicit opinions about MF. It really is as simple as if the belief is that race should not be a factor and not used as an excuse (by LE or alleged criminal) then should the defense also make a valid conscious effort to not use this as his/her "defense"?

There are so many trials outside of oj's that this applies to, imo. And I would even venture so far to say that it isn't even just about race. Same is true for any type of discrimination.

Ultimately, for me, the murder of Nicole and Ron was not race crime. It was rage. Violent, uncontrolled rage. At the end of the day, I really don't believe that they were murdered because they were white. And I don't believe oj murdered them (because I do believe this is the case) because he is black.

So, it takes me back to the question that if we agree that steps are needed to remove the "race factor" and stop putting so much weight on it and start to view people as PEOPLE, Nicole Brown Simpson versus the white wife of oj Simpson, or oj Simpson versus the black husband of Nicole Brown Simpson, we'd make significant progress.

I'm realistic to know that there will always be people who have strong opinions about race and those who are not similar to them. I just believe that for this particular case it shouldn't have been put on trial. The trial should have focused on the murders. Plain and simple.

[William Anthony]

I agree that a valid defense should be given. However, my question was a simple one and not meant to illicit opinions about MF. It really is as simple as if the belief is that race should not be a factor and not used as an excuse (by LE or alleged criminal) then should the defense also make a valid conscious effort to not use this as his/her "defense"?

There are so many trials outside of oj's that this applies to, imo. And I would even venture so far to say that it isn't even just about race. Same is true for any type of discrimination.

Ultimately, for me, the murder of Nicole and Ron was not race crime. It was rage. Violent, uncontrolled rage. At the end of the day, I really don't believe that they were murdered because they were white. And I don't believe oj murdered them (because I do believe this is the case) because he is black.

So, it takes me back to the question that if we agree that steps are needed to remove the "race factor" and stop putting so much weight on it and start to view people as PEOPLE, Nicole Brown Simpson versus the white wife of oj Simpson, or oj Simpson versus the black husband of Nicole Brown Simpson, we'd make significant progress.

I'm realistic to know that there will always be people who have strong opinions about race and those who are not similar to them. I just believe that for this particular case it shouldn't have been put on trial. The trial should have focused on the murders. Plain and simple.

I did not understand if your question was a general statement or one specific to the case. Since it is about this case, then I see race as a relevant and material issue to the issue of planting as it relates to motive to plant and the defense would not have done their job if they did not expose that motivation. There was another motivation to cover up, which involved winning and becoming famous, imho.

I do not think anyone made the argument or feel that Simpson killed Ron and Nicole because they were white and he was black. I think the prosecution was smart enough to not use that argument. People may not like the fact that race was put into the trial because it was relative to an issue in the case, but it was, imho, and the defense was obligated to expose it after the prosecution called MF as a witness.

[SlowHandSam]

I did not understand if your question was a general statement or one specific to the case. Since it is about this case, then I see race as a relevant and material issue to the issue of planting as it relates to motive to plant and the defense would not have done their job if they did not expose that motivation. There was another motivation to cover up, which involved winning and becoming famous, imho.

I do not think anyone made the argument or feel that Simpson killed Ron and Nicole because they were white and he was black. I think the prosecution was smart enough to not use that argument. People may not like the fact that race was put into the trial because it was relative to an issue in the case, but it was, imho, and the defense was obligated to expose it after the prosecution called MF as a witness.

Originally it was meant as a general question but when you used specific examples from oj's trial, I turned to that as a way to better articulate my point.

Again, I disagree that it was necessary or important to turn it about race. I don't believe that MF was responsible for their murders nor do I think that LE was responsible for their murders, but Cochran and team turned it to be a trial against MF and LE and imo, that was wrong.

I don't subscribe to the belief that MF planted any evidence and his personal beliefs about other people are irrelevant in my eyes.

[The R]

Originally it was meant as a general question but when you used specific examples from oj's trial, I turned to that as a way to better articulate my point.

Again, I disagree that it was necessary or important to turn it about race. I don't believe that MF was responsible for their murders nor do I think that LE was responsible for their murders, but Cochran and team turned it to be a trial against MF and LE and imo, that was wrong.

I don't subscribe to the belief that MF planted any evidence and his personal beliefs about other people are irrelevant in my eyes.

You don't believe MF's credibility as a witness was important? Or maybe that his views on race weren't?

I believe OJ's $ paid off for him when he hired the team he had, esp Johnny Cochran. Coupled with the clown judge, they made a powerful case for the defendant.

ALLMO,
R

[William Anthony]

Originally it was meant as a general question but when you used specific examples from oj's trial, I turned to that as a way to better articulate my point.

Again, I disagree that it was necessary or important to turn it about race. I don't believe that MF was responsible for their murders nor do I think that LE was responsible for their murders, but Cochran and team turned it to be a trial against MF and LE and imo, that was wrong.

I don't subscribe to the belief that MF planted any evidence and his personal beliefs about other people are irrelevant in my eyes.

As I have said it is the duty of the defense to give the defendant the best defense possible. If they point to the mistakes of LE in handling and processing the evidence and the consequences thereof, they are doing their job. If the point to evidence to show that the evidence is not trustworthy as presented by the prosecution, they are doing their job. If they show evidence that a detective in the case, espoused genocidal racists comments and admitted to planting/inventing/fabricating evidence, they did their job. They did not call MF as a witness. In short if it does not fit.... To fail to cross examine MF about these issues would have been grossly negligent, imho. I think that, if any of us where charged with a crime, we would be happy to have the dream team as our defense team.

[William Anthony]

You don't believe MF's credibility as a witness was important? Or maybe that his views on race weren't?

I believe OJ's $ paid off for him when he hired the team he had, esp Johnny Cochran. Coupled with the clown judge, they made a powerful case for the defendant.

ALLMO,
R

MF made the best case in Simpson's favor, imho.

[SlowHandSam]

As I have said it is the duty of the defense to give the defendant the best defense possible. If they point to the mistakes of LE in handling and processing the evidence and the consequences thereof, they are doing their job. If the point to evidence to show that the evidence is not trustworthy as presented by the prosecution, they are doing their job. If they show evidence that a detective in the case, espoused genocidal racists comments and admitted to planting/inventing/fabricating evidence, they did their job. They did not call MF as a witness. In short if it does not fit.... To fail to cross examine MF about these issues would have been grossly negligent, imho. I think that, if any of us where charged with a crime, we would be happy to have the dream team as our defense team.

We weren't talking about the alleged mishandling of evidence by LE. We were discussing using race as an excuse for murdering two people. I take issue with stating MF's personal beliefs equate to "genocidal racist comments". I think that is a bit of a stretch, quite honestly.

I hear your points, but they were off target for what we were discussing in the last few threads.

Let's just say, for argument sake, that there was no glove or hat. The blood is still a big piece of this. Add that to the peculiar behavior of oj and not being home when his limo arrived, the noise outside Kato's room, the blood in the house, the peculiar behavior of Arnelle, the Bronco "chase", the money and disguise, the airport nonsense ... there are so many other things that had absolutely nothing to do with race, but this trial was turned into a race trial. And that is where I take issue because it shouldn't have been about race. It should have been about convicting a person who brutally murdered two people because of an uncontrolled rage.

With the items outside of the blood and glove and hat ... there is still reasonable suspicion that oj murdered these two folks. Then to imply that alleged mistakes my LE were race related is just mind boggling to me. LE and criminalists are humans just like you and I. I know, in my high stress job, I've been known to make a mistake or two. It's unfortunate but it's reality. And it doesn't necessarily mean that it's because of the color of one person or the other.

I just can't stomach the idea that what should have been justice for two PEOPLE was turned into a big race card trial.

[SlowHandSam]

As I have said it is the duty of the defense to give the defendant the best defense possible. If they point to the mistakes of LE in handling and processing the evidence and the consequences thereof, they are doing their job. If the point to evidence to show that the evidence is not trustworthy as presented by the prosecution, they are doing their job. If they show evidence that a detective in the case, espoused genocidal racists comments and admitted to planting/inventing/fabricating evidence, they did their job. They did not call MF as a witness. In short if it does not fit.... To fail to cross examine MF about these issues would have been grossly negligent, imho. I think that, if any of us where charged with a crime, we would be happy to have the dream team as our defense team.

I can unequivocally say that I would not want Cochran or his colleagues to represent me in a trial. I believe, for them, it was just as much about the glory and the publicity as it was about fabricating a defense. I don't respect people who twist and distort the issue and the problem. Face it head on and be clear and succinct.

[SlowHandSam]

You don't believe MF's credibility as a witness was important? Or maybe that his views on race weren't?

I believe OJ's $ paid off for him when he hired the team he had, esp Johnny Cochran. Coupled with the clown judge, they made a powerful case for the defendant.

ALLMO,
R

I don't believe his personal beliefs were important, no. The only thing that should have been important was his documented personnel file and record as to his credibility as a LE officer. Nothing more, nothing less. A person can be a phenomenal LE officer and have really whacked out views. Actually, a person can be phenomenal and respected at any profession and have whacked out views. I just take issue with putting the way an individual thinks/feels in his/her personal life on trial when it has nothing to do with what is at the core of the issue.

If oj really believes MF planted evidence to wrongly convict him, I have wondered why oj didn't file a civil suit against him and the LAPD? Something to ponder.

[William Anthony]

We weren't talking about the alleged mishandling of evidence by LE. We were discussing using race as an excuse for murdering two people. I take issue with stating MF's personal beliefs equate to "genocidal racist comments". I think that is a bit of a stretch, quite honestly.

I hear your points, but they were off target for what we were discussing in the last few threads.

Let's just say, for argument sake, that there was no glove or hat. The blood is still a big piece of this. Add that to the peculiar behavior of oj and not being home when his limo arrived, the noise outside Kato's room, the blood in the house, the peculiar behavior of Arnelle, the Bronco "chase", the money and disguise, the airport nonsense ... there are so many other things that had absolutely nothing to do with race, but this trial was turned into a race trial. And that is where I take issue because it shouldn't have been about race. It should have been about convicting a person who brutally murdered two people because of an uncontrolled rage.

With the items outside of the blood and glove and hat ... there is still reasonable suspicion that oj murdered these two folks. Then to imply that alleged mistakes my LE were race related is just mind boggling to me. LE and criminalists are humans just like you and I. I know, in my high stress job, I've been known to make a mistake or two. It's unfortunate but it's reality. And it doesn't necessarily mean that it's because of the color of one person or the other.

I just can't stomach the idea that what should have been justice for two PEOPLE was turned into a big race card trial.

I understand what you are saying but a jury is sworn to listen to all the evidence and not parts of it. They are called to do so, because they are required to state whether or not the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. They may not have given the evidence you rely on the same weight that you do, and could have considered it untrustworthy, not because of race but, because of its sufficiency. I think it is easy to say that they reached the verdict they did because of race, without realizing that how the evidence was presented it did not fit.

[William Anthony]

I can unequivocally say that I would not want Cochran or his colleagues to represent me in a trial. I believe, for them, it was just as much about the glory and the publicity as it was about fabricating a defense. I don't respect people who twist and distort the issue and the problem. Face it head on and be clear and succinct.

I am not sure but I believe members of the prosecution wrote more books about the case. I do not think they twisted or distorted anything. They exposed the evidence for what it was. I think that was respectable, according to my definition. They faced the evidence head on. It was the prosecution that was forced to offer "several" alleged "innocent explanations." I for one would love to have a defense team that was capable of getting the prosecution to do this in front of a fair and impartial jury.

[martin II]

We weren't talking about the alleged mishandling of evidence by LE. We were discussing using race as an excuse for murdering two people. I take issue with stating MF's personal beliefs equate to "genocidal racist comments". I think that is a bit of a stretch, quite honestly.

I hear your points, but they were off target for what we were discussing in the last few threads.

Let's just say, for argument sake, that there was no glove or hat. The blood is still a big piece of this. Add that to the peculiar behavior of oj and not being home when his limo arrived, the noise outside Kato's room, the blood in the house, the peculiar behavior of Arnelle, the Bronco "chase", the money and disguise, the airport nonsense ... there are so many other things that had absolutely nothing to do with race, but this trial was turned into a race trial. And that is where I take issue because it shouldn't have been about race. It should have been about convicting a person who brutally murdered two people because of an uncontrolled rage.

With the items outside of the blood and glove and hat ... there is still reasonable suspicion that oj murdered these two folks. Then to imply that alleged mistakes my LE were race related is just mind boggling to me. LE and criminalists are humans just like you and I. I know, in my high stress job, I've been known to make a mistake or two. It's unfortunate but it's reality. And it doesn't necessarily mean that it's because of the color of one person or the other.

I just can't stomach the idea that what should have been justice for two PEOPLE was turned into a big race card trial.

I think your opinios of some events don't line up with the facts.Or you may be making assumptions based on your opinions.
Either way the jury did not see what you state as fact and stated that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
:cool:

[martin II]

I can unequivocally say that I would not want Cochran or his colleagues to represent me in a trial. I believe, for them, it was just as much about the glory and the publicity as it was about fabricating a defense. I don't respect people who twist and distort the issue and the problem. Face it head on and be clear and succinct.

That may be because you may not have ever been arrested. But if you ever are, your prime instruction to your lawyer may be 'GET ME OFF"

[SlowHandSam]

I think your opinios of some events don't line up with the facts.Or you may be making assumptions based on your opinions.
Either way the jury did not see what you state as fact and stated that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
:cool:

I disagree. I don't think my view and interpretation of the events are off. You have your interpretation and I have mine.

The jury found him non-guilty because they were incapable of understanding the evidence presented to them. Any reasonable educated person would have understood it and made the right verdict.

[William Anthony]

I think your opinios of some events don't line up with the facts.Or you may be making assumptions based on your opinions.
Either way the jury did not see what you state as fact and stated that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
:cool:

I have noticed a rather disturbing tendency. The majority of people, who have been educated in the law, admit that the prosecution failed to prove it case even though they may believe Simpson did it, while those uneducated in the law tend to blame the jury and fail to see the prosecution's failure, imho.

[martin II]

I disagree. I don't think my view and interpretation of the events are off. You have your interpretation and I have mine.

The jury found him non-guilty because they were incapable of understanding the evidence presented to them. Any reasonable educated person would have understood it and made the right verdict.

The jury understood the evidence better than most.they understood that the prosecution screwed up there case, had too many "MISTAKSE' in witness testimony and eventually failed to give them what they required to issue a guilty verdict.It was what it was.A failed case.
imo

[weezer]

The jury understood the evidence better than most.they understood that the prosecution screwed up there case, had too many "MISTAKSE' in witness testimony and eventually failed to give them what they required to issue a guilty verdict.It was what it was.A failed case.
imo

what evidence do you believe the criminal jury understood?

[martin II]

what evidence do you believe the criminal jury understood?

ALL that was required for them to issue a not guilty verdict indicating that the
prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.imo

[Kate Sachel]

You don't believe MF's credibility as a witness was important? Or maybe that his views on race weren't?

I believe OJ's $ paid off for him when he hired the team he had, esp Johnny Cochran. Coupled with the clown judge, they made a powerful case for the defendant.

ALLMO,
R

Any witness's credibility is important, but their views on race are not necessarily. With Mark Fuhrman I remain unconvinced that his past or present issues with race, either real or imagined, meant that he had framed OJ Simpson in this case. I have thus far found no plausible evidence that supports such a view.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I too think the poster's point was excellent. I just was saying that the way to rid ourselves of senseless emotions is to openly and honestly discuss the subject, acknowledging the emotions and to be willing to disagree without being disagreeable, imho. I see validity on both sides of the issue, especially that one does not want to be blamed for the sins of his ancestors, but, at the same time, by saying that it should not be used to negate the feelings of others on the other side and be dismissive by saying move on, its in the past. What the issue concerns is our mutual future, imho.

I don't think it is an issue of expecting anyone to forget the past. History is how we learn. I think the key is in recognizing that history cannot be changed and that the best we can do is move forward in a manner that is equal on all sides, without blame and victimization.

I personally don't want to hear any white american hold themselves superior over another, nor do I want to hear any black american tell me that I owe them something because of my ancestors.

The bottom line is that we all owe one another the respect that should come with simply being human and living together in one country.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Any witness's credibility is important, but their views on race are not necessarily. With Mark Fuhrman I remain unconvinced that his past or present issues with race, either real or imagined, meant that he had framed OJ Simpson in this case. I have thus far found no plausible evidence that supports such a view.

Kate

We are again faced with the dilemma of what reasonable is under the circumstances in regard to inferences. The evidence of the lack of blood near the location in which the Rockingham glove was allegedly found, the picture of MF pointing at the glove, his racial animus toward interracial couples, his statements on the tapes as it pertains to evidence tampering/fabricating/planting/inventing, the fact that he was alone when he allegedly found the glove, and his slips or, if you will, non-slips of the tongue all allow for the reasonable inferences that he had the means, the motive and the opportunity to plant evidence in this case. I am sure that you know that evidence of means, motive and opportunity are strong circumstantial evidence to show that the accused committed the crime.

[William Anthony]

I don't think it is an issue of expecting anyone to forget the past. History is how we learn. I think the key is in recognizing that history cannot be changed and that the best we can do is move forward in a manner that is equal on all sides, without blame and victimization.

I personally don't want to hear any white american hold themselves superior over another, nor do I want to hear any black american tell me that I owe them something because of my ancestors.

The bottom line is that we all owe one another the respect that should come with simply being human and living together in one country.

Kate

I do not think that the best we can do is move forward, when reparations have been paid as a recognition of past sufferings, or, if you will, mistreatments to others of different races but when it comes to blacks it is alright to say that forget the mentality of being a victim and move on. I understand your feelings. Do you understand the feeling of blacks that the denial of reparations can be taken as another instance of inequality?

In regard to your last paragraph, I totally agree, especially as it pertains to respect. I think reparations is a way of saying we understand what the past has done to your future and we are willing to make amends for your suffering so that we can move forward in respect and live together in a country of equals.

[Kate Sachel]

I do not think that the best we can do is move forward, when reparations have been paid as a recognition of past sufferings, or, if you will, mistreatments to others of different races but when it comes to blacks it is alright to say that forget the mentality of being a victim and move on. I understand your feelings. Do you understand the feeling of blacks that the denial of reparations can be taken as another instance of inequality?

In regard to your last paragraph, I totally agree, especially as it pertains to respect. I think reparations is a way of saying we understand what the past has done to your future and we are willing to make amends for your suffering so that we can move forward in respect and live together in a country of equals.

I personally have difficulty agreeing with reparations, unless you are speaking only of the act of making amends without adding money into the mix. With no offense meant, I have found that there is a large amount of individuals from all races who have no idea what their history is and thus I don't feel are worthy of any such reparations as it pertains to money.

Do you really find it acceptable to give money for past sufferings to an individual that can't give you any detail into the past sufferings of their race?

Kate

[William Anthony]

I personally have difficulty agreeing with reparations, unless you are speaking only of the act of making amends without adding money into the mix. With no offense meant, I have found that there is a large amount of individuals from all races who have no idea what their history is and thus I don't feel are worthy of any such reparations as it pertains to money.

Do you really find it acceptable to give money for past sufferings to an individual that can't give you any detail into the past sufferings of their race?

Kate

I will try to answer your question as best I can in context of what I meant. I do not mean this disrespectfully and I do not believe that knowledge of a race's history is a prerequisite for reparations. In fact, in this case, considering the efforts to not teach black history, may be argued for the reason for reparations. The fact that blacks were denied jobs, given jobs that paid less, or were paid less than whites, who did the same job, may be argued for reparations in the form of money.

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .denied jobs, given jobs that paid less, or were paid less than whites, who did the same job, may be argued for reparations in the form of money.

all of which can be said for women. . .;)

where's my 40 acres and mule?

[tv]

*Snipped*

all of which can be said for women. . .;)

where's my 40 acres and mule?I had an employer tell me once that he couldn't afford to pay me as much as he would pay a man. I could really use that 40 acres and a mule to make up for how that comment by him destroyed my life and the lives of my future children and their children and their children and their children...

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

all of which can be said for women. . .;)

where's my 40 acres and mule?

Not in the broken promise America made to blacks.

[William Anthony]

I had an employer tell me once that he couldn't afford to pay me as much as he would pay a man. I could really use that 40 acres and a mule to make up for how that comment by him destroyed my life and the lives of my future children and their children and their children and their children...

Then request them. You probably stand a better chance than blacks do.

[weezer]

Then request them. You probably stand a better chance than blacks do.

did you want some cheese to go with that. . . .

[tv]

Then request them. You probably stand a better chance than blacks do.I take responsibility for my own life and don't blame others for any disappointments I've had. I certainly don't ask for something for nothing from others that have never done anything to harm me or my ancestors that lived 200 years ago. Thinking like a victim is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Done with this discussion. :seeya:

[Kate Sachel]

I will try to answer your question as best I can in context of what I meant. I do not mean this disrespectfully and I do not believe that knowledge of a race's history is a prerequisite for reparations. In fact, in this case, considering the efforts to not teach black history, may be argued for the reason for reparations. The fact that blacks were denied jobs, given jobs that paid less, or were paid less than whites, who did the same job, may be argued for reparations in the form of money.

I respectfully agree to disagree. Where did your knowledge of black history come from?

I adamantly do not believe that an individual who has no interest in educating themselves on how their race suffered should be entitled to compensation. What, exactly, is the compensation for in a case such as that? How do you begin to justify it?

Kate

[The R]

I can unequivocally say that I would not want Cochran or his colleagues to represent me in a trial. I believe, for them, it was just as much about the glory and the publicity as it was about fabricating a defense. I don't respect people who twist and distort the issue and the problem. Face it head on and be clear and succinct.


LOL.....what could be clearer than "If it does not fit, you must acquit?"

Fabrications or not the defense did what they should do and did it well. If you know about LE procedures surely you know that LE can lie to a suspect in order to gain a confession? How head on and clear would that be?

ALLMO,
R

[Kate Sachel]

LOL.....what could be clearer than "If it does not fit, you must acquit?"

Fabrications or not the defense did what they should do and did it well. If you know about LE procedures surely you know that LE can lie to a suspect in order to gain a confession? How head on and clear would that be?

ALLMO,
R

I suppose that, for some, it comes down to a matter of ethics. Every defendant is entitled to a rigorous defense but there is still a code of ethics that all attorneys are required to uphold. The same goes for law enforcement.

Two wrongs will never make a right, and nothing should be more clear than that. As long as there is an itch for payback, no healing can be done in any manner.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I respectfully agree to disagree. Where did your knowledge of black history come from?

I adamantly do not believe that an individual who has no interest in educating themselves on how their race suffered should be entitled to compensation. What, exactly, is the compensation for in a case such as that? How do you begin to justify it?

Kate

My knowledge of black history came from reading and experiences I had after high school. There was American history, when I was in school. I never learned of the contributions blacks made to America, with the exception of George Washington Carver and, maybe, Crispus Attucks.

The idea of reparations is not limited to past sufferings but to sufferings that are endured today, because of the past. I do not think a person has to know all that his race endured to realize they are suffering because of their race. Nor do I believe they should be held accountable for subjects that were not taught in the public schools.

[weezer]

My knowledge of black history came from reading and experiences I had after high school. There was American history, when I was in school. I never learned of the contributions blacks made to America, with the exception of George Washington Carver and, maybe, Crispus Attucks.

The idea of reparations is not limited to past sufferings but to sufferings that are endured today, because of the past. I do not think a person has to know all that his race endured to realize they are suffering because of their race. Nor do I believe they should be held accountable for subjects that were not taught in the public schools.

want cheese to go with this . . . .

[William Anthony]

I suppose that, for some, it comes down to a matter of ethics. Every defendant is entitled to a rigorous defense but there is still a code of ethics that all attorneys are required to uphold. The same goes for law enforcement.

Two wrongs will never make a right, and nothing should be more clear than that. As long as there is an itch for payback, no healing can be done in any manner.

Kate

Was it an itch for payback or was it that the community was saying evidence like this can not be trusted?

[weezer]

Was it an itch for payback or was it that the community was saying evidence like this can not be trusted?

oh, oh -- I know! It was an itch for payback. ;)

[Kate Sachel]

Was it an itch for payback or was it that the community was saying evidence like this can not be trusted?

You misunderstand, or perhaps I didn't post clearly. I was not speaking of the OJ case in particular when I made that statement, I was meaning to state that in general two wrongs will never make a right and that as long as there is an itch for payback in any circumstance where a verdict or an opinion is disagreed with there can never be healing.

I hope this helps clarify my statements.

Kate

[William Anthony]

You misunderstand, or perhaps I didn't post clearly. I was not speaking of the OJ case in particular when I made that statement, I was meaning to state that in general two wrongs will never make a right and that as long as there is an itch for payback in any circumstance where a verdict or an opinion is disagreed with there can never be healing.

I hope this helps clarify my statements.

Kate

yes, I agree. There must be healing to eliminate the desire for payback, which I think reparations might be a step in the healing direction. I am not sure if they will be the cure. But I am sure that to do nothing is not the answer.

[William Anthony]

oh, oh -- I know! It was an itch for payback. ;)

I think differently after having watched the criminal trial. I am not sure about the political production.

[weezer]

yes, I agree. There must be healing to eliminate the desire for payback, which I think reparations might be a step in the healing direction. I am not sure if they will be the cure. But I am sure that to do nothing is not the answer.

sooooo - do you think if you got some money and a mule, you could find orenthal guilty of butchering Ron and Nicole?

[tv]

sooooo - do you think if you got some money and a mule, you could find orenthal guilty of butchering Ron and Nicole?Do you think Fred Goldman will be able to take Simpson's mule and 40 acres to help satisfy the judgement?

[weezer]

Do you think Fred Goldman will be able to take Simpson's mule and 40 acres to help satisfy the judgement?
LOL -- oh gosh I hope so! :tongue:

[SlowHandSam]

If this country were to pay everyone who believes they have been wronged at some point via their ancestors, we would be as broke as a third world country.

I would suspect that most lineage can state that at SOME point their ancestors were mistreated to some "nth" degree.

I don't believe that we should pay for those and I can make an argument that my ancestors were, and are still, discriminated, murdered, put into slavery and held hostage/captive. That doesn't mean that *I* should get paid.

And I agree with Kate that unless you can specifically state how YOUR ancestry was discriminated against, I don't think you should be paid. Can you prove, without a doubt, your blood line that shows when your ancestry came over to the US, who owned them, what alleged acts were done against them?

Proven documents.

I'd like to move on now.

[William Anthony]

sooooo - do you think if you got some money and a mule, you could find orenthal guilty of butchering Ron and Nicole?

Not on the evidence as it was presented in the civil trial. I have never been offered enough to sell my integrity. I am sure 40 acres and a mule is not enough.
40 million dollars in reparations for me, might be. :)

[martin II]

Do you think Fred Goldman will be able to take Simpson's mule and 40 acres to help satisfy the judgement?

Actually i think fred was/is due some payment from Germany for what they did to jewish ancestors.

[William Anthony]

If this country were to pay everyone who believes they have been wronged at some point via their ancestors, we would be as broke as a third world country.

I would suspect that most lineage can state that at SOME point their ancestors were mistreated to some "nth" degree.

I don't believe that we should pay for those and I can make an argument that my ancestors were, and are still, discriminated, murdered, put into slavery and held hostage/captive. That doesn't mean that *I* should get paid.

And I agree with Kate that unless you can specifically state how YOUR ancestry was discriminated against, I don't think you should be paid. Can you prove, without a doubt, your blood line that shows when your ancestry came over to the US, who owned them, what alleged acts were done against them?

Proven documents.

I'd like to move on now.

This conversation is on the proper thread as it may explain why some think that blacks cheered the verdict. I do not think records were kept and when a slave was sold or traded his name changed. I think that the only way to show that a black person is not the descendant of a slave is by those who immigrated here after slavery ended.

However, with that said slavery was not the only atrocities blacks suffered in America. How do you think blacks feel when the learn of the Tuskegee Experiment or the Africans that were thrown overboard off slave ships? What you may not understand is the feeling associated with being considered sub human and then, when considered human, to be considered 3/5 equal to a white man. What about the article written by Willie Lynch in which he taught how to divide blacks and the effect would last long into the future?

I am sure as a woman that you realize that women who are told that they are ignorant, stupid, ugly and not wanted by anyone other than the person telling them that have come to believe it. The same principles apply to Africans ripped from their land and brought to a foreign country and not allowed to read and write the language. Would you blame the woman for not knowing better?

[martin II]

If this country were to pay everyone who believes they have been wronged at some point via their ancestors, we would be as broke as a third world country.

I would suspect that most lineage can state that at SOME point their ancestors were mistreated to some "nth" degree.

I don't believe that we should pay for those and I can make an argument that my ancestors were, and are still, discriminated, murdered, put into slavery and held hostage/captive. That doesn't mean that *I* should get paid.

And I agree with Kate that unless you can specifically state how YOUR ancestry was discriminated against, I don't think you should be paid. Can you prove, without a doubt, your blood line that shows when your ancestry came over to the US, who owned them, what alleged acts were done against them?

Proven documents.

I'd like to move on now.


Based on the countries present foreign policy leadership we are spending about 2-3 Billion a month and all we have gotten is over 3,000 dead us boys.

So it is not a matter of where money can come from.

No other group has ever been put into official slavery for about 300 years.

Some times reading can help.:read:
martin II

[SlowHandSam]

Based on the countries present foreign policy leadership we are spending about 2-3 Billion a month and all we have gotten is over 3,000 dead us boys.

So it is not a matter of where money can come from.

No other group has ever been put into official slavery for about 300 years.

Some times reading can help.:read:
martin II

I'm done with this conversation. I would venture I have a bit more "reading" in my background than you but that isn't the point.

I think this thread AND the other thread have been hijacked. We need to stop the talk about reparations and slaves since it has absolutely nothing to do with oj or the murders.

[weezer]

I'm done with this conversation. I would venture I have a bit more "reading" in my background than you but that isn't the point.

I think this thread AND the other thread have been hijacked. We need to stop the talk about reparations and slaves since it has absolutely nothing to do with oj or the murders.

GREAT idea! :beer:

[William Anthony]

I'm done with this conversation. I would venture I have a bit more "reading" in my background than you but that isn't the point.

I think this thread AND the other thread have been hijacked. We need to stop the talk about reparations and slaves since it has absolutely nothing to do with oj or the murders.

If this is the 9/10 thread, it is my opinion, for all the reasons stated on the other thread, and I agree with the other poster that the discussion belongs on this thread. However, with that said, I am not opposed to ending the discussion, since I think enough views have been put forth to know where we stand on the issues and to take into consideration so that we now have a better understanding of each other.

[William Anthony]

Correction,

I stated my reasons on the proper thread. I guess because this is an older thread the title is not showing up in the usual place.

[weezer]

"LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury, where the burden of proof is lighter.

"Given that standard and based on the amount of evidence that was presented, ... then yes, you would have to say that yes, he is guilty," Armanda Cooley told Dateline NBC Tuesday.

"I'm standing by my verdict," Marsha Rubin-Jackson added. "But based on what I've heard since I've been out, I would have to vote guilty" in a civil case. . ."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns047.htm

[William Anthony]

I am not blaming anyone and point this post out to clear the accusation against me that I hijacked the thread. This is the post in which slavery was first mentioned from my research. This is also why I believe it is the proper thread for the discussion.

"Old 05-02-2008, 01:47 PM
The R's Avatar
The R The R is offline
Member

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 577

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowHandSam View Post
well said, Kate. It's easy to forget that there are horrible crimes done against all races, all the time. Some just don't get the publicity as much as others.

Racism is an awful thing and it comes in ALL colors and shapes. White against Black, Black against White, Black against Chicano, White against Chicano ... I could go on and on. For me, however, as I'm raising my son my priority is to teach tolerance and acceptance of ALL people and not just with race.

I just don't believe that any racism and/or discrimination is more awful than the other. I can think of a few B/W issues that have occurred in LA where the victim wasn't a black citizen, but instead the perpetrator. My point is that it goes both ways and just because it doesn't make it to the 9 o'clock news, doesn't mean it isn't happening in equal or similar amounts.

MHO, of course.

I think that you make a good point and that thought is what I was referring to in an earlier post where I was talking about moving on and finding how the problems we face can be ironed out. At some point people have to let go of the emotion involved in atrocious things like the 'holocaust' or 'slavery' and move on in a productive manner. Not that we should ever forget these things happen, we should remember events but not negative emotions. When we dwell on the emotions, it is difficult to make progress towards a better place.
I know this all seems a little pollyanna-ish, but I think separating the emotion from the event is critical to progress in pretty much any situation."


Just MO,
R
__________________
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Reply With Quote

[William Anthony]

"LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury, where the burden of proof is lighter.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns047.htm

The key words.

[martin II]

The key words.

There is no way for any person to know how they would have voted in the civil trial that was not a juror. Say what one would LIKELYhave done does not mean what they wouldhave done so why you have continued to post that comment is beyond me.Actually that commentlikely couldmean that that person understood the prosecutions responsibility to prove their case beyond and that they didn't.It could also mean that the person understood how the defense was not able to argue certain issues in the civil trial that should have been allowed.:cool:

[William Anthony]

There is no way for any person to know how they would have voted in the civil trial that was not a juror. Say what one would LIKELYhave done does not mean what they wouldhave done so why you have continued to post that comment is beyond me.Actually that commentlikely couldmean that that person understood the prosecutions responsibility to prove their case beyond and that they didn't.It could also mean that the person understood how the defense was not able to argue certain issues in the civil trial that should have been allowed.:cool:

I totally agree. Excellent post.

[William Anthony]

Hi As I've said, I'm not interested in the colour of a person's skin. In the civil case, he was found guilty of the 2 deaths. If the prosecution had done their work properly, he would have been found guilty of both murders. His anger and violence are obvious, witness LV. Defending him JUST because he is African-American is not right. It is the PERSON not the colour who does the crime. And he should have done the time.

Bye

HE WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY OF ANYTHING IN THE CIVIL CASE. TO NOT DEFEND HIM BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR, WOULD HAVE BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE LAWYER'S DUTY.

[Big Ben]

I also have a black college professor, well respected member of the faculty where I attend, says the same thing;.............

Why would blacks generally speaking, cheer a not guilty verdict even if it appeared OJ could be guilty? That's where my concern lies.

If ..........entire group of people............so distrusts the courts, should we change the way we administer the law?
Are blacks, or any other minority justified in their belief that the system doesn't work for them because of bias or demographic?

ALLMO,
R

Dear R, saw your post, maybe I can through struggle, lend something profound for you to go off and consider.

(1.) There are video clips of white folk in what appears to be an all white bar cheering just as enrgetically when the liable verdict came in against Simpson in the Santa Monica Simpson Civil Trial. It's included in the 60 second montague introduction to the documentary "Serpents Rising: An Independent Investigation of The Simpson Murder Trial"

(2.) Notwithstanding the absolutely intentional false imprisonment of Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt for 26 years, (first 8 yrs in solitary with no toilet) by the L.A. County District Courts, U.S. District Court in L.A., in collusion with the L.A.D.A., LAPD, and FBI, (recommend you read "Last Man Standing"), what about the thousands of innocent men that the LAPD and LADA are alleged to have framed during the Ramparts scandal which came to light in the year 2000; a police department still under the surveillance of the U.S. Justice Department for their culpability and misconduct. Don't you think that such is cause for minorities to be apprehensive about a blind justice system, and the rhetoric "protect and to serve"?

(3) Given the present scandal in Dallas, TX where the Dallas County D.A. is now giving access to the Innocent Project to examine the files of those, who appear to be predominently black, previously convicted for the last 30 years because of prosecutorial malfeasance, ("Dallas DA to Review Decades of Convictions") isn't that enough for you to comprehend blacks inherent suspicion of the American system of justice?

(4.) Given the suppression of evidence in the Simpson trial, why do you seek to find comfort and support among black associates because they told you that they feel that Simpson is guilty? You nor they have done any independent research/investigation it appears of your own? It appears that you've simply swallowed what the lacadazical news media has given to you and run with it as truth, isn't that right? The problem is that the news media simply accepted information that was given to them by the LADA and LAPD without doing any due diligence themselves. You've never considered that what you might have witnessed and is still taking place is akin to a public lynching. There are old books on lynching that show the media and broad public gathering due to advertising, death by lynching, castration, and quite often burning while the media enjoy along with the spectators sandwiches and beverages (recommend the book "Without Sanctuary")

(5.) If the system doesn't work for blacks wouldn't you be apprehensive that it wouldn't work for whites either if, as in the case of Dallas, TX, where since 1951 you have prosecutors regularly concealing evidence from the defense in order to gain a conviction, while violating all aspects of Brady v. Maryland.

(6.) What amazes me about this country is that it has the model of a system that could render fair trials based upon Constitutionally mandated due process and the fundamental rules of English Common Law that require only the trier of fact (jury of ones peers) to determine the guilt or innocense of the accused (Clasue 39 Magna Charta, "Trial by a jury of ones peers"). However, R, it appears that the temptations of pecuniary gain has historically gotten in the way of providing the most basic and fundamental protected guarantees of due process and equal protection more often to certain groups of citizens in our court system in America. Maybe the answer is simply to seek justice within the procedural provisions of the rules of the law, and U.S. Constitution, without bias. If we would do, then I think that it would obviate the need for you to ask whether the system should be changed.

BB

[William Anthony]

Dear R, saw your post, maybe I can through struggle, lend something profound for you to go off and consider.

(1.) There are video clips of white folk in what appears to be an all white bar cheering just as enrgetically when the liable verdict came in against Simpson in the Santa Monica Simpson Civil Trial. It's included in the 60 second montague introduction to the documentary "Serpents Rising: An Independent Investigation of The Simpson Murder Trial"

(2.) Notwithstanding the absolutely intentional false imprisonment of Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt for 26 years, (first 8 yrs in solitary with no toilet) by the L.A. County District Courts, U.S. District Court in L.A., in collusion with the L.A.D.A., LAPD, and FBI, (recommend you read "Last Man Standing"), what about the thousands of innocent men that the LAPD and LADA are alleged to have framed during the Ramparts scandal which came to light in the year 2000; a police department still under the surveillance of the U.S. Justice Department for their culpability and misconduct. Don't you think that such is cause for minorities to be apprehensive about a blind justice system, and the rhetoric "protect and to serve"?

(3) Given the present scandal in Dallas, TX where the Dallas County D.A. is now giving access to the Innocent Project to examine the files of those, who appear to be predominently black, previously convicted for the last 30 years because of prosecutorial malfeasance, ("Dallas DA to Review Decades of Convictions") isn't that enough for you to comprehend blacks inherent suspicion of the American system of justice?

(4.) Given the suppression of evidence in the Simpson trial, why do you seek to find comfort and support among black associates because they told you that they feel that Simpson is guilty? You nor they have done any independent research/investigation it appears of your own? It appears that you've simply swallowed what the lacadazical news media has given to you and run with it as truth, isn't that right? The problem is that the news media simply accepted information that was given to them by the LADA and LAPD without doing any due diligence themselves. You've never considered that what you might have witnessed and is still taking place is akin to a public lynching. There are old books on lynching that show the media and broad public gathering due to advertising, death by lynching, castration, and quite often burning while the media enjoy along with the spectators sandwiches and beverages (recommend the book "Without Sanctuary")

(5.) If the system doesn't work for blacks wouldn't you be apprehensive that it wouldn't work for whites either if, as in the case of Dallas, TX, where since 1951 you have prosecutors regularly concealing evidence from the defense in order to gain a conviction, while violating all aspects of Brady v. Maryland.

(6.) What amazes me about this country is that it has the model of a system that could render fair trials based upon Constitutionally mandated due process and the fundamental rules of English Common Law that require only the trier of fact (jury of ones peers) to determine the guilt or innocense of the accused (Clasue 39 Magna Charta, "Trial by a jury of ones peers"). However, R, it appears that the temptations of pecuniary gain has historically gotten in the way of providing the most basic and fundamental protected guarantees of due process and equal protection more often to certain groups of citizens in our court system in America. Maybe the answer is simply to seek justice within the procedural provisions of the rules of the law, and U.S. Constitution, without bias. If we would do, then I think that it would obviate the need for you to ask whether the system should be changed.

BB

An excellent, very informative and well articulated post. I believe your solution to the problem is the simplest and the best. I do not know how you would remove bias from the system, when there are far too many people like MF, who operate within that system, seemingly without retribution and others, who feel disenfranchised and feel they have no recourse in such a system.

[William Anthony]

Hi.

Man that was an incredible post. :rose: But, let's talk facts. Simpson killed his ex wife and the waiter. No-one else. Just him. No 'plantings' by the LA police no nothing by nobody. Just him. Forget colour. Just Simpson. Wasn't proved. I know. But doesn't mean it isn't true. Just Simpson.

Bye

Got you. Let's forget the trial and the way the evidence came in and say Simpson is guilty.

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Hi. Let's look at this case from the opposite point of view. Please explain to me why Simpson wouldn't murder his wife and Goldman. Put yourself in the prosecutor's chair rather than the defendant's. Especially, explain his violent behaviour in LV. i have an open mind. And I stress again I couldn't give a rats .. what his colour is. Black, white or brindle.:seeya:


What???? I am in neither chair. I accept and defend the verdict based on the evidence that was presented. If I attempted to do what you asked, it would mutilate the very foundation of our system of jurisprudence. LE could go about arresting anyone even when there was no crime and place on them the burden of explaining why they would not have done the alleged crime. What???? I can think of one answer under the circumstances that you propose-because I am not a murderer.

[Kate Sachel]

Dear R, saw your post, maybe I can through struggle, lend something profound for you to go off and consider.

(1.) There are video clips of white folk in what appears to be an all white bar cheering just as enrgetically when the liable verdict came in against Simpson in the Santa Monica Simpson Civil Trial. It's included in the 60 second montague introduction to the documentary "Serpents Rising: An Independent Investigation of The Simpson Murder Trial"

(2.) Notwithstanding the absolutely intentional false imprisonment of Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt for 26 years, (first 8 yrs in solitary with no toilet) by the L.A. County District Courts, U.S. District Court in L.A., in collusion with the L.A.D.A., LAPD, and FBI, (recommend you read "Last Man Standing"), what about the thousands of innocent men that the LAPD and LADA are alleged to have framed during the Ramparts scandal which came to light in the year 2000; a police department still under the surveillance of the U.S. Justice Department for their culpability and misconduct. Don't you think that such is cause for minorities to be apprehensive about a blind justice system, and the rhetoric "protect and to serve"?

(3) Given the present scandal in Dallas, TX where the Dallas County D.A. is now giving access to the Innocent Project to examine the files of those, who appear to be predominently black, previously convicted for the last 30 years because of prosecutorial malfeasance, ("Dallas DA to Review Decades of Convictions") isn't that enough for you to comprehend blacks inherent suspicion of the American system of justice?

(4.) Given the suppression of evidence in the Simpson trial, why do you seek to find comfort and support among black associates because they told you that they feel that Simpson is guilty? You nor they have done any independent research/investigation it appears of your own? It appears that you've simply swallowed what the lacadazical news media has given to you and run with it as truth, isn't that right? The problem is that the news media simply accepted information that was given to them by the LADA and LAPD without doing any due diligence themselves. You've never considered that what you might have witnessed and is still taking place is akin to a public lynching. There are old books on lynching that show the media and broad public gathering due to advertising, death by lynching, castration, and quite often burning while the media enjoy along with the spectators sandwiches and beverages (recommend the book "Without Sanctuary")

(5.) If the system doesn't work for blacks wouldn't you be apprehensive that it wouldn't work for whites either if, as in the case of Dallas, TX, where since 1951 you have prosecutors regularly concealing evidence from the defense in order to gain a conviction, while violating all aspects of Brady v. Maryland.

(6.) What amazes me about this country is that it has the model of a system that could render fair trials based upon Constitutionally mandated due process and the fundamental rules of English Common Law that require only the trier of fact (jury of ones peers) to determine the guilt or innocense of the accused (Clasue 39 Magna Charta, "Trial by a jury of ones peers"). However, R, it appears that the temptations of pecuniary gain has historically gotten in the way of providing the most basic and fundamental protected guarantees of due process and equal protection more often to certain groups of citizens in our court system in America. Maybe the answer is simply to seek justice within the procedural provisions of the rules of the law, and U.S. Constitution, without bias. If we would do, then I think that it would obviate the need for you to ask whether the system should be changed.

BB

This is a tidy way to attempt to paint the entire justice system corrupt, but it doesn't quite work for all of us.

Some of your statements are on point and spoken quite well, but why the need to take an immediate offensive and somewhat rude stance? Do you truthfully know what "R" has ever considered, and if you don't then perhaps you should consider distancing yourself from statements such as "you've never considered that ...".

I will be curious to see the results of the investigation in Dallas. Craig Watkins is an intelligent man, and I've heard him speak regarding the criminal justice system. He raises several excellent points and has a wonderful opportunity to change the system down there.

Kate

[The R]

This is basically the issue I was referring to in my post. I also have a black college professor, well respected member of the faculty where I attend, says the same thing; that OJ was guilty and that he thought the evidence showed that. In addition to that, I also have black co-workers whom I respect that say the same thing. So...that's why I asked the question. I know that the obvious thing is these people did not sit on O.J.'s jury, but all feel he was guilty none the less. My concern remains. Why would blacks generally speaking, cheer a not guilty verdict even if it appeared OJ could be guilty? That's where my concern lies.

If we have an pretty much entire group of people in our system that so distrusts the courts, should we change the way we administer the law?
Are blacks, or any other minority justified in their belief that the system doesn't work for them because of bias or demographic?

ALLMO,
R

Dear R, saw your post, maybe I can through struggle, lend something profound for you to go off and consider.

(1.) There are video clips of white folk in what appears to be an all white bar cheering just as enrgetically when the liable verdict came in against Simpson in the Santa Monica Simpson Civil Trial. It's included in the 60 second montague introduction to the documentary "Serpents Rising: An Independent Investigation of The Simpson Murder Trial"

(2.) Notwithstanding the absolutely intentional false imprisonment of Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt for 26 years, (first 8 yrs in solitary with no toilet) by the L.A. County District Courts, U.S. District Court in L.A., in collusion with the L.A.D.A., LAPD, and FBI, (recommend you read "Last Man Standing"), what about the thousands of innocent men that the LAPD and LADA are alleged to have framed during the Ramparts scandal which came to light in the year 2000; a police department still under the surveillance of the U.S. Justice Department for their culpability and misconduct. Don't you think that such is cause for minorities to be apprehensive about a blind justice system, and the rhetoric "protect and to serve"?

(3) Given the present scandal in Dallas, TX where the Dallas County D.A. is now giving access to the Innocent Project to examine the files of those, who appear to be predominently black, previously convicted for the last 30 years because of prosecutorial malfeasance, ("Dallas DA to Review Decades of Convictions") isn't that enough for you to comprehend blacks inherent suspicion of the American system of justice?

(4.) Given the suppression of evidence in the Simpson trial, why do you seek to find comfort and support among black associates because they told you that they feel that Simpson is guilty? You nor they have done any independent research/investigation it appears of your own? It appears that you've simply swallowed what the lacadazical news media has given to you and run with it as truth, isn't that right? The problem is that the news media simply accepted information that was given to them by the LADA and LAPD without doing any due diligence themselves. You've never considered that what you might have witnessed and is still taking place is akin to a public lynching. There are old books on lynching that show the media and broad public gathering due to advertising, death by lynching, castration, and quite often burning while the media enjoy along with the spectators sandwiches and beverages (recommend the book "Without Sanctuary")

(5.) If the system doesn't work for blacks wouldn't you be apprehensive that it wouldn't work for whites either if, as in the case of Dallas, TX, where since 1951 you have prosecutors regularly concealing evidence from the defense in order to gain a conviction, while violating all aspects of Brady v. Maryland.

(6.) What amazes me about this country is that it has the model of a system that could render fair trials based upon Constitutionally mandated due process and the fundamental rules of English Common Law that require only the trier of fact (jury of ones peers) to determine the guilt or innocense of the accused (Clasue 39 Magna Charta, "Trial by a jury of ones peers"). However, R, it appears that the temptations of pecuniary gain has historically gotten in the way of providing the most basic and fundamental protected guarantees of due process and equal protection more often to certain groups of citizens in our court system in America. Maybe the answer is simply to seek justice within the procedural provisions of the rules of the law, and U.S. Constitution, without bias. If we would do, then I think that it would obviate the need for you to ask whether the system should be changed.

BB


Dear Big Ben,

Let's get the personal stuff out of the way first please? I like how you chopped my post up to suit your argument supposing there is one. I don't appreciate you jumping to illogical assumptions about how I come to conclusions, especially since you don't me. Maybe your doing that has something to do with bias you possess? I never 'swallow' anything the media puts forth and don't appreciate anyone suggesting that I do. I've never sought comfort from black peers regarding a verdict in a criminal case, but do appreciate the point of view of my friends and associates. The fact that some went against the prevailing attitude was of interest to me and is indicitive that a problem may exist in our CJ system, which brings me to my next point.

The fact that you state many times that people have been abused by the authorities simply begs the question that I asked - and you evidently missed -in my post, "should we change the way we administer the law?"

Ben, you state in your post that, due to bias, the system hasn't worked well for blacks as well as some whites then close by stating that the system would work if we followed it properly. I'm not sure I understand your point exactly. If the system hasn't worked properly for blacks and some whites, then why should we leave it the same? You also state that blacks inherently distrust the system, but then say again if we followed the system properly there would be no problem. Do you really think this? Don't we have a history of what you say about bias and mistreatment in your post? If we have a long history of misdeed wouldn't change benefit us?

Regardless of all this, I can still say I am troubled by the way blacks (and whites if what you say is true) cheer on any courtroom verdict. I think it is a shame to do so and a symptom of a greater problem.

ALLMO,
R

[William Anthony]

Dear Big Ben,

Let's get the personal stuff out of the way first please? I like how you chopped my post up to suit your argument supposing there is one. I don't appreciate you jumping to illogical assumptions about how I come to conclusions, especially since you don't me. Maybe your doing that has something to do with bias you possess? I never 'swallow' anything the media puts forth and don't appreciate anyone suggesting that I do. I've never sought comfort from black peers regarding a verdict in a criminal case, but do appreciate the point of view of my friends and associates. The fact that some went against the prevailing attitude was of interest to me and is indicitive that a problem may exist in our CJ system, which brings me to my next point.

The fact that you state many times that people have been abused by the authorities simply begs the question that I asked - and you evidently missed -in my post, "should we change the way we administer the law?"

Ben, you state in your post that, due to bias, the system hasn't worked well for blacks as well as some whites then close by stating that the system would work if we followed it properly. I'm not sure I understand your point exactly. If the system hasn't worked properly for blacks and some whites, then why should we leave it the same? You also state that blacks inherently distrust the system, but then say again if we followed the system properly there would be no problem. Do you really think this? Don't we have a history of what you say about bias and mistreatment in your post? If we have a long history of misdeed wouldn't change benefit us?

Regardless of all this, I can still say I am troubled by the way blacks (and whites if what you say is true) cheer on any courtroom verdict. I think it is a shame to do so and a symptom of a greater problem.

ALLMO,
R

An excellent post and well articulated. I agree that what happens in courtrooms and after the verdicts are rendered are symbolize a greater problem that exists within our society. I do not think that the judicial system should be structurally changed, with the possible exception of requiring proof beyond any doubt, in a criminal proceeding. I think the underlying reasons for people's biases must be changed. I am not including LE in the judicial system, when I speak of structural changes; I am speaking of trials. I think there must be changes in the attitudes of some communities and the attitude of some in LE.

[Kate Sachel]

Dear Big Ben,

Let's get the personal stuff out of the way first please? I like how you chopped my post up to suit your argument supposing there is one. I don't appreciate you jumping to illogical assumptions about how I come to conclusions, especially since you don't me. Maybe your doing that has something to do with bias you possess? I never 'swallow' anything the media puts forth and don't appreciate anyone suggesting that I do. I've never sought comfort from black peers regarding a verdict in a criminal case, but do appreciate the point of view of my friends and associates. The fact that some went against the prevailing attitude was of interest to me and is indicitive that a problem may exist in our CJ system, which brings me to my next point.

The fact that you state many times that people have been abused by the authorities simply begs the question that I asked - and you evidently missed -in my post, "should we change the way we administer the law?"

Ben, you state in your post that, due to bias, the system hasn't worked well for blacks as well as some whites then close by stating that the system would work if we followed it properly. I'm not sure I understand your point exactly. If the system hasn't worked properly for blacks and some whites, then why should we leave it the same? You also state that blacks inherently distrust the system, but then say again if we followed the system properly there would be no problem. Do you really think this? Don't we have a history of what you say about bias and mistreatment in your post? If we have a long history of misdeed wouldn't change benefit us?

Regardless of all this, I can still say I am troubled by the way blacks (and whites if what you say is true) cheer on any courtroom verdict. I think it is a shame to do so and a symptom of a greater problem.

ALLMO,
R

Very well stated!

Kate

[martin II]

Hi. Let's look at this case from the opposite point of view. Please explain to me why Simpson wouldn't murder his wife and Goldman. Put yourself in the prosecutor's chair rather than the defendant's. Especially, explain his violent behaviour in LV. i have an open mind. And I stress again I couldn't give a rats .. what his colour is. Black, white or brindle.:seeya:

I have not read any credible non bias opinion that would cause me to believe Simpson would have a motive to murder his wife.He had moved on with his life with a new girl friend and she had done the same. Some offer the idea that he killed her because he was not invited by her to that dinner.Utter nonsense that a person of his position would kill nicole because of a dinner invite. It was not the only time he had not been with her for dinner.

If oj had a habit of being concerned or voilent about Nicoles actions he would have been so when he saw her on that couch with Keith Z. He didn't. He turned and walked away.Some people have tried to attatrch every reported
argument between the two as a voilent incident. This is just not true.

Oj walked into a room at vegas and found his 'FRIENDS' selling his goods.His cursing at them indicates to you that this temper caused him to commit murder? He did not put a finger on either of the two 'Friends" in that room and just cursed and told them he wanted his s*** BACK. If he had been out of control he could have smacked both without any problem but he didn't.
So whats wrong with his temper.

The prosecution just did what prosecutors do, do everything they can to convict. But in this they made charges that they were not able to prove to the standard required.
As Big BEN has stated many have not looked at the 'EVIDENCE' with a critical eye and have just accepted the prosecutions claimes because of bias or a inability to understand the defense cross examination of some prosecution witnesses.

Many in the media and other individuals have complained that the prosecution did not do a good job in presenting their case. Complained that they spent too much time on DNA and put on some witnesses that were not credible and generally shot themselves in the foot with 'MISTAKES' and changes in testimony of some of their witnesses.
Yet they expected the jury to just convict anyway and called the jury ignorant, uneducated and racially biased.
You figure.
Martin II

[martin II]

Some have supported the right of citizens to show their approval or dissaproval to certain verdicts as a constitutional right. This activity by either group means little as it is just people expressing opinions. I guess.

What i got from Big Bens post was that if we manage the cjs system correctly
without police and DA misconduct then there is a chance that the system can work fairly.

I also saw the tv program about the 5-6 blacks and one white man in Dallas
that had been wrongly convicted.
One man, black , spent 26 years in jail for a rape conviction that he did not comit. For years he had tried to get the Dallas to give him DNA to be compared to his and they had refused claiming they could not find the samples for the lady. So they hid and refused his request for 26 years until some young students, Innocence Project, compelled them to product them and when the test for a match was done his DNA did not match.

Prosecutors oftem times do trhis because rarly is there any penalty that have to pay. If blacks had reservations about the charges against oj they had a right to have them. If after the prosecutions efforts to jail him failed and they showed their approval of the verdict, nothing wrong with that either.
Changing the system because a majority of one group of people did not like the vedict in this case is not progress.imo

imo
martin II

[weezer]

I have not read any credible non bias opinion that would cause me to believe Simpson would have a motive to murder his wife.He had moved on with his life with a new girl friend and she had done the same. Some offer the idea that he killed her because he was not invited by her to that dinner.Utter nonsense that a person of his position would kill nicole because of a dinner invite. It was not the only time he had not been with her for dinner.

from orenthal's suicide note: ". .. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much. . ."

If oj had a habit of being concerned or voilent about Nicoles actions he would have been so when he saw her on that couch with Keith Z. He didn't. He turned and walked away.Some people have tried to attatrch every reported
argument between the two as a voilent incident. This is just not true.

With a little reading, you will find that the majority of abusive husbands are cowards. My guess is orenthal wasn't willing to take on a man.

Oj walked into a room at vegas and found his 'FRIENDS' selling his goods.His cursing at them indicates to you that this temper caused him to commit murder? He did not put a finger on either of the two 'Friends" in that room and just cursed and told them he wanted his s*** BACK. If he had been out of control he could have smacked both without any problem but he didn't.
So whats wrong with his temper.

orenthal had NO 'stuff' -- his 'stuff' belonged to the Goldmans and Nicole's estate. orenthal took 'stuff' that belonged to other people at the point of a gun and threats. His screaming and ranting reminds me of his tirade at Gretna Green when Nicole called police.

The prosecution just did what prosecutors do, do everything they can to convict. But in this they made charges that they were not able to prove to the standard required.

the ONLY reason orenthal is out and able to continue his violent and illegal actions is because a criminal jury (pun intended) could not see the evidence through the color of the defendant.

As Big BEN has stated many have not looked at the 'EVIDENCE' with a critical eye and have just accepted the prosecutions claimes because of bias or a inability to understand the defense cross examination of some prosecution witnesses.

and many have closed their minds to the "EVIDENCE" and have accepted the defense of orenthal because of bias or 'a' inability to understand.

Many in the media and other individuals have complained that the prosecution did not do a good job in presenting their case. Complained that they spent too much time on DNA and put on some witnesses that were not credible and generally shot themselves in the foot with 'MISTAKES' and changes in testimony of some of their witnesses.
Yet they expected the jury to just convict anyway and called the jury ignorant, uneducated and racially biased.
You figure.
Martin II

martin, what do you believe the jury based their decision on?

[weezer]

The key words.

". . .The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody. . ."

[William Anthony]

". . .The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody. . ."

The key words I referred to were that the standard of proof was lighter in a civil trial. It was obvious that these jurors could not find him guilty in a civil trial. I think what the meant to say was that, if they had heard the evidence in the civil trial, which did not include all they heard in the criminal trial, and the standard of proof was lower in the criminal trial, they would have voted guilty.

IIRC, you have posted this before and I am aware that 3 of the 12 jurors believed the gloves fit. Is your point that the majority of the jurors felt they did not fit?

[Kate Sachel]

The key words I referred to were that the standard of proof was lighter in a civil trial. It was obvious that these jurors could not find him guilty in a civil trial. I think what the meant to say was that, if they had heard the evidence in the civil trial, which did not include all they heard in the criminal trial, and the standard of proof was lower in the criminal trial, they would have voted guilty.

IIRC, you have posted this before and I am aware that 3 of the 12 jurors believed the gloves fit. Is your point that the majority of the jurors felt they did not fit?

I'm not sure about the idea that they meant to say that, if they had heard the evidence in the civil trial, which did not include all they heard in the criminal trial, and the standard of proof was lower in the criminal trial, they would have voted guilty.

I believe it was Armanda Cooley that stated that if she knew in the criminal trial what became known to her in the aftermath that it would have impacted her opinion greatly. For example, she said that if the prosecution had presented the details of the Bronco chase in the criminal case she would have seen that as a huge indication of guilt and that, coupled with other things she had learned since the verdict, may have swayed her to convict in the criminal proceeding.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure about the idea that they meant to say that, if they had heard the evidence in the civil trial, which did not include all they heard in the criminal trial, and the standard of proof was lower in the criminal trial, they would have voted guilty.

I believe it was Armanda Cooley that stated that if she knew in the criminal trial what became known to her in the aftermath that it would have impacted her opinion greatly. For example, she said that if the prosecution had presented the details of the Bronco chase in the criminal case she would have seen that as a huge indication of guilt and that, coupled with other things she had learned since the verdict, may have swayed her to convict in the criminal proceeding.

Kate

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

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

[martin II]

martin, what do you believe the jury based their decision on?

As i have previously stated, the jury sat and listened to all of the witness trestimony and evidence presented by the prosecution. It is not possible to pin point which piece of junk in the prosecution presentation caused the jury to not believe the prosecutions case.But they did have plenty that could cause them to believe the calims were not true.

I believe it was a total of the prosecution inability to present their case without all of their problems and the excellant defense cross examinations,
that caused the jury to have serious questions about the prosecutions claims.

The prosecutions tried to toss a wagon full of 'HE MUST HAVE DONE IT ' because we say he did it type of argument and the jury did not follow the prosecutions advice.imo
They tossed everything against the wall hoping something would stick and nothing did.:cool:

[Big Ben]

Hi. Let's look at this case from the opposite point of view. Please explain to me why Simpson wouldn't murder his wife and Goldman. Put yourself in the prosecutor's chair rather than the defendant's. Especially, explain his violent behaviour in LV. i have an open mind. And I stress again I couldn't give a rats .. what his colour is. Black, white or brindle.:seeya:

Your question is somewhat absurd in its' wording, imo, and can only garner, at most, a subjective opinion in regard to "why wouldn't Simpson or you for that matter murder your own spouse or love one?" I'll give you some reasons to follow, however, I am in total disagreement with you also in terms of your interpretation regarding what you allege to be Simpson's violent behavior in Las Vegas. I've been through enough police incursions to recognize that they come in with overwhelming force intended to psychologically disarm the opposition. Once the area is secured they normally stand down from the high energy level of their initial entry.

In the case of the Simpson action in Las Vegas, they went in not knowing who all they were dealing with in terms of mentality/personality, two or three I understand were ex-felons, one a parole violator from California. Therefore you would want to show superior force in order to disarm any opponent, and do so hopefully without violence. Isn't that what occurred in Vegas? No one was shot, pistol whipped, or beat up. Simpson went to retrieve his property and shortly thereafter he and his raiders departed. I don't know whether he initially asked the police for help or not, I heard from someone that they may have rejected his initial overtures for assistance. If that's so, what's a man going to do but go and get his property if he truly believes that someone possesses it unjustly. It appears that that is what Simpson thought.

I can give you an opinion as to why he did not, murder either his wife or Goldman based upon some strong objective conclusions:

(1.) Based upon the trial testimony of when the Browns departed the Mezzaluna Restaurant "8:40-8:45ish" and the alleged time in the stipulated "Posterboard" display representing the Juditha Brown phone call back to the Brentwood restaurant from Dana Point, Orange County of 9:37 PM, Juditha was unlikely to have made that call at that time because the journey is approximately an hour and 25 minute commute at the best of times. Certainly not so back on the date of 06/12/1994 due to the heavy highway construction project to expand the I-405 with and HOV lane, fifteen miles for which the Browns were obligated to travel had reduced speeds to as low as 30 MPH. Traffic volumes were not appreciably reduced, as I remember from CalTrans data, to afford higher speeds.

Therefore, the initial time stated by Mr. Brown and Mrs. Brown on separate occasions that Juditha Brown talked to Nicole last at 11:00 PM is the more reasonable and likely time that Nicole was last known to be alive, and if so, O.J. Simpson was in the back seat of a limousine being driven to LAX to catch a 11:45 PM flight to Chicago.

(2.) Goldman's peculiar behavior, as well as the Courts' unsual favorable treatment, in regard to several arrests in L.A. County and Ventura County suggest, imo, that Goldman was involved in more than just being a good samuritan. The protection of his criminal file pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code 6254(f) implies strongly that other things were going on beyond just continuous busts for reckless driving, and continuous driving under a suspended license.
The 6254(f) protection implies, imo, that the State of California was protecting his records because he was a "snitch" or more politely, in accordance with 6254(f), a Confidential Informant.

(3.) The shoeprint photos of the bloody sidewalk at 875 Bundy show the full imprint of a few U2887 shoe soles that fit neatly inside 11 and 1/2 inch by 11 and 1/2 inch side walk tiles. That is a foot that is suspiciously much smaller than a big man the size of Simpson, whose actual foot is alleged to be well over 12 inches in length. It appears that the FBI was intentionally suppressing this evidence when he started telling the viewing public that these were equivalent to a size 12 shoe. How many inches is a size 12 shoe anyway, do you know? The failure of the FBI Agent Bodziak to make that disclosure, to play with misleading shoe size data, and to withhold from the public, until he republished his college text book 19 years later, that the U2887 shoe sole was sold to 19 other shoe companies around the world besides Bruno Magli again represents the level of prosecutorial misconduct that has become acceptable within the courts in the State of California.

(4.) The perenial misconduct by suppression of evidence, as well the ambivalence, and callousness of the LADA and LAPD in framing innocent men makes one highly suspicious of their conduct and skeptical of Simpson's guilt.
These are just a few objective issues that make one unwilling to passively participate in the media fueled frenzy of O.J. Simpson the undisputed murderer.

[Big Ben]

Dear Big Ben,


The fact that you state many times that people have been abused by the authorities simply begs the question that I asked - and you evidently missed -in my post, "should we change the way we administer the law?"



Regardless of all this, I can still say I am troubled by the way blacks (and whites if what you say is true) cheer on any courtroom verdict. I think it is a shame to do so and a symptom of a greater problem.

ALLMO,
R

R, you should be troubled! There has never been a televised media trial or event that was this extensive before. This so called "trial of the century", imo, was a contrivance set up to produce the subsequent results of its' objective, the creation of racial animus, and more peripheral debate. While the contrived Simpson debate continues to be fueled by media, it redirects the public's attention away from more substantive issues concerning this nation's economy and its' foreign policies.

The question, imo, that is still unanswered is what for? Was this simply a hybrid of the infamous COINTELPRO trials held in California in the latter 60's and 70's, fraudulently used to convit Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt. Interestingly, the results appear to be similiar but with a broader scope, the poisoning of the minds of the American citizenry. It certainly could be said that a twisted achievement has been gained.

1.) It's possible that this Simpson trial was simply a mock trial conducted to create a festering anger in the minds of the general public towards people of color for future useful political purposes.

2.) In spite of all of the alleged malfeasance promulgated in this trial, here you are asking me whether the manner in which justice is rendered should be changed. My answer to you is an unequivocal "NO", certainly not based upon the dysfunctional activities of the Courts of the State of California.

California's jurists and politicians opted out of the 1953 National Conference on creating a Uniform Rules of Evidence, along with 4 or 5 other Southern States Rights jurisdictions, thus they have their own thing going on out there. The difference is, the South's highly publicized conduct during the civl rights struggles of the 50s-60s is well known. California's misconduct is not that well known, we don't usually see California through the same lense as we saw the southern states.

However, despite the positive media image of L.A. law enforcement, the record indicates that California has overlooked some very hideous judicial misconduct particularly in Southern California over the years that rivals any of the historical southern Jim Crow states.

Instead of exploring from this end maybe try the other end and perceive what could happen by exploring scenarios of a system of jurisprudence represented by its' officers of the court that have totally lost any regard for the rules of common law and Constitutional guarantees for which American Courts are supposed to adhere. Until you examine the possibility, and in this case, the high probability of judicial malfeasance regarding the production and manipulation of evidence on both sides of the table, what good will it do you to replace one corrupt system with another while importing the same corrupt mindsets.

Since the Dallas, Tx event has arisen, Craig Watkins et al, have pointed out something that I certainly was not aware. There is no significant penalty for prosecutors in TX, and for the most part anywhere else, who conceal, or suppress, and withhold evidence from the defense or in the Simpson case, from the jury. There is no personal consequence for sending a man to prison unjustly in Tx for 27 years of his life. There is no personal consequence in the State of California for prosecutors or police who trumped up charges on thousands of innocent men at the Ramparts Pct., sending some that wouldn't plead to false charges, like Miguel Ovando, to prison for as long as 32years.

It hard to believe that prosecutors have voiced dissatisfaction from across this country with Watkins call for more punitive measures, including imprisonment for such willful misconduct. However, the measure is not expected to pass in TX, or anywhere else for that matter, at this time.

[bobaugust]

I can give you an opinion as to why he did not, murder either his wife or Goldman based upon some strong objective conclusions:

(1.) Based upon the trial testimony of when the Browns departed the Mezzaluna Restaurant "8:40-8:45ish" and the alleged time in the stipulated "Posterboard" display representing the Juditha Brown phone call back to the Brentwood restaurant from Dana Point, Orange County of 9:37 PM, Juditha was unlikely to have made that call at that time because the journey is approximately an hour and 25 minute commute at the best of times. Certainly not so back on the date of 06/12/1994 due to the heavy highway construction project to expand the I-405 with and HOV lane, fifteen miles for which the Browns were obligated to travel had reduced speeds to as low as 30 MPH. Traffic volumes were not appreciably reduced, as I remember from CalTrans data, to afford higher speeds.

Therefore, the initial time stated by Mr. Brown and Mrs. Brown on separate occasions that Juditha Brown talked to Nicole last at 11:00 PM is the more reasonable and likely time that Nicole was last known to be alive, and if so, O.J. Simpson was in the back seat of a limousine being driven to LAX to catch a 11:45 PM flight to Chicago.


(3.) The shoeprint photos of the bloody sidewalk at 875 Bundy show the full imprint of a few U2887 shoe soles that fit neatly inside 11 and 1/2 inch by 11 and 1/2 inch side walk tiles. That is a foot that is suspiciously much smaller than a big man the size of Simpson, whose actual foot is alleged to be well over 12 inches in length. It appears that the FBI was intentionally suppressing this evidence when he started telling the viewing public that these were equivalent to a size 12 shoe. How many inches is a size 12 shoe anyway, do you know? The failure of the FBI Agent Bodziak to make that disclosure, to play with misleading shoe size data, and to withhold from the public, until he republished his college text book 19 years later, that the U2887 shoe sole was sold to 19 other shoe companies around the world besides Bruno Magli again represents the level of prosecutorial misconduct that has become acceptable within the courts in the State of California.



Juditha Brown testified that they started their drive back home at 8:30. Based on the fact that this was a Sunday evening the Brown's as well as other California residents who have duplicated that drive had no problem making it back home in a little over a hours time.

Simpson's defense stipulated that the enlarged photocopy of the Brown's telephone bill was accurate and depicted the time 9:37 that the call came into the restaurant. Simpson's defense stipulated "that at approximately 9:40 P.M., Juditha Brown telephoned her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson, reaching her at her daughter's residence located at 875 south Bundy drive in the city of Los Angeles; Juditha Brown conversed with Nicole Brown Simpson for approximately 2 minutes; Nicole Brown Simpson stated that she would arrange for the retrieval of Juditha Brown's eyeglasses; this was the last time that Juditha Brown spoke to her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson."

Big Ben measures partial shoe prints and then claims they are too small for Simpson to have made. Bodziak explained how he determined what size shoe made the imprints by not only comparing the soles but comparing the heels. Bodziak testified that he made a direct comparison between size 12 Bruno Magli shoes with Silga soles that were consistent with having made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy and Simpson's size 12 Reeboks that he told the police he was wearing the day of the murders.

November 20, 1996 Bodziak
Q. Now, after -- after determining that the shoe design elements that you've described visually compared to the bloody imprints you were sent, did you make any attempt to determine what size shoe made that imprint?

A. Yes. I obtained from Silga samples of the left and right shoe soles, from left and right mold casts, size 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What did you do with the soles?
A. I took the soles and made a physical comparison of the soles with the crime-scene impressions in the photographs at Bundy, and I also made test impressions of the soles for assistance in comparison of those crime-scene impressions.
*
Q. Now, if you just have an impression of a heel as opposed to a sole, are you able to tell the shoe size?
A. Yes.
Q. And again, how?
A. Because each of the heels are distinctly different and each of the soles are distinctly different. So you could have just a sole or just a heel or both and you can make the same determination.
*
Q. Go ahead.
A. This is a heel impression and over the top of that is the same two-time enlargement transparency of the size -- European size 46 left sole.

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

None of the other sizes that I had, 42 through 45 or 47, fit the same geometric pattern and positioning within these shoe prints.

November 20, 1996 Bodziak
Q. Did you have an opportunity to compare a pair of shoes that belonged to Mr. Simpson and the Bruno Magli size 12?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. I place before you what's been marked 404, and represent that as a matter of record these are a pair of Reebok shoes, belonging to Mr. Simpson, that he gave to Detective Lange.
(The instrument herein described as Mr. Simpson's Reebok shoes was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 404.)
Q. And I ask you if you compared those shoes with the size 12 Bruno Magli that's contained in Exhibit 395?
Q. And I ask you if you compared those shoes with the size 12 Bruno Magli that's contained in Exhibit 395?
A. Yes. I compared the Reebok shoes, left and right Reebok shoes, with the Exhibit 395 Bruno Magli. The Bruno Magli, as I have described, or will describe, these soles are compression molded, they're known as a cup sole, they're sort of like a cup, if you poured water into them, and they're attached to the bottom of the shoe by literally placing the lasted shoe, the completed upper to them, and through glue and stitching they're applied.

The Reebok is a similar construction. It's also a cup sole. It's known as a half cup sole because the toe area -- the middle which is just flat, but the toe area and heel area are cupped. They have variations of this known as cup half cup, three-quarter cup, so forth. So the general construction is compression molded cup sole construction. So even though the Reebok is an athletic sole, its manner of manufacture makes it a comparable shoe to compare with the Bruno Magli.

And I made a comparison of the external sole dimensions -- linear dimensions, and the internal measurement of the shoes, and found that they were virtually identical; that the Bruno Magli shoe and the Reeboks, if you place them one over another, you can line up their soles from heel to toe, left to right, and they fit as well as you could possibly expect.

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

bobaugust

[The R]

R, you should be troubled! There has never been a televised media trial or event that was this extensive before. This so called "trial of the century", imo, was a contrivance set up to produce the subsequent results of its' objective, the creation of racial animus, and more peripheral debate. While the contrived Simpson debate continues to be fueled by media, it redirects the public's attention away from more substantive issues concerning this nation's economy and its' foreign policies.

The question, imo, that is still unanswered is what for? Was this simply a hybrid of the infamous COINTELPRO trials held in California in the latter 60's and 70's, fraudulently used to convit Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt. Interestingly, the results appear to be similiar but with a broader scope, the poisoning of the minds of the American citizenry. It certainly could be said that a twisted achievement has been gained.

1.) It's possible that this Simpson trial was simply a mock trial conducted to create a festering anger in the minds of the general public towards people of color for future useful political purposes.

2.) In spite of all of the alleged malfeasance promulgated in this trial, here you are asking me whether the manner in which justice is rendered should be changed. My answer to you is an unequivocal "NO", certainly not based upon the dysfunctional activities of the Courts of the State of California.

California's jurists and politicians opted out of the 1953 National Conference on creating a Uniform Rules of Evidence, along with 4 or 5 other Southern States Rights jurisdictions, thus they have their own thing going on out there. The difference is, the South's highly publicized conduct during the civl rights struggles of the 50s-60s is well known. California's misconduct is not that well known, we don't usually see California through the same lense as we saw the southern states.

However, despite the positive media image of L.A. law enforcement, the record indicates that California has overlooked some very hideous judicial misconduct particularly in Southern California over the years that rivals any of the historical southern Jim Crow states.

Instead of exploring from this end maybe try the other end and perceive what could happen by exploring scenarios of a system of jurisprudence represented by its' officers of the court that have totally lost any regard for the rules of common law and Constitutional guarantees for which American Courts are supposed to adhere. Until you examine the possibility, and in this case, the high probability of judicial malfeasance regarding the production and manipulation of evidence on both sides of the table, what good will it do you to replace one corrupt system with another while importing the same corrupt mindsets.

Since the Dallas, Tx event has arisen, Craig Watkins et al, have pointed out something that I certainly was not aware. There is no significant penalty for prosecutors in TX, and for the most part anywhere else, who conceal, or suppress, and withhold evidence from the defense or in the Simpson case, from the jury. There is no personal consequence for sending a man to prison unjustly in Tx for 27 years of his life. There is no personal consequence in the State of California for prosecutors or police who trumped up charges on thousands of innocent men at the Ramparts Pct., sending some that wouldn't plead to false charges, like Miguel Ovando, to prison for as long as 32years.

It hard to believe that prosecutors have voiced dissatisfaction from across this country with Watkins call for more punitive measures, including imprisonment for such willful misconduct. However, the measure is not expected to pass in TX, or anywhere else for that matter, at this time.


Hi Ben!

No disrespect intended, but I do disagree with your characterization that the trial was intentionally set up to cause racial animus. Interesting you state that today's media continues to foster a contrived debate especially since you say issues like the economy and foreign relations are more important. Personally I see much more media coverage about the economy and foreign affairs than I do about OJ. Seems that the media rarely covers OJ these days, unless of course OJ decides to take the law into his own hands and commits armed robbery or likewise. What's really ironic about your seemingly old school argument is that regardless of the covert plot you claim that has been put in place to subjugate a race, there happens to be a man of some African heritage that is running very sucessfully for President of the United States.

So, I don't think that your conspiracy theory holds much water really. I mean I could concoct some story equally compelling about Lance Ito. As far as I know, he was the one to make the decision to hold a 'public media frenzy trial' and could have at any time changed his decision. We all know Ito is a man of color, right? I mean he is of Japanese descent and his race is considered a minority in the U.S. For all I know, Ito could've been making a point consciously or otherwise to the evil Americans that they shouldn't have held his parents in a WW II interment camp?

If there is one thing I totally agree with you on it is the fact that the prosecutors in our CJ system have been given the free ride in the accountability process and haven't had to be held up to any real quantifiable standard. You cite the Texas case but you haven't mentioned Nifong. Why not? As far as I can tell Nifong and his criminal acts will be thought of for some time to come as a turning of the tide so to speak in prosecutorial malfeasance, and I for one say that it's about time.

You say we shouldn't change the process but I disagree and I think that the way we place our prosecutors in office might be a good start? What do you say Ben?

I hope the subject of my post is not too far O/T and if it is, I'd encourage a mod to delete it as it is only my opinion.

R

[William Anthony]

Hi Ben!

No disrespect intended, but I do disagree with your characterization that the trial was intentionally set up to cause racial animus. Interesting you state that today's media continues to foster a contrived debate especially since you say issues like the economy and foreign relations are more important. Personally I see much more media coverage about the economy and foreign affairs than I do about OJ. Seems that the media rarely covers OJ these days, unless of course OJ decides to take the law into his own hands and commits armed robbery or likewise. What's really ironic about your seemingly old school argument is that regardless of the covert plot you claim that has been put in place to subjugate a race, there happens to be a man of some African heritage that is running very sucessfully for President of the United States.

So, I don't think that your conspiracy theory holds much water really. I mean I could concoct some story equally compelling about Lance Ito. As far as I know, he was the one to make the decision to hold a 'public media frenzy trial' and could have at any time changed his decision. We all know Ito is a man of color, right? I mean he is of Japanese descent and his race is considered a minority in the U.S. For all I know, Ito could've been making a point consciously or otherwise to the evil Americans that they shouldn't have held his parents in a WW II interment camp?

If there is one thing I totally agree with you on it is the fact that the prosecutors in our CJ system have been given the free ride in the accountability process and haven't had to be held up to any real quantifiable standard. You cite the Texas case but you haven't mentioned Nifong. Why not? As far as I can tell Nifong and his criminal acts will be thought of for some time to come as a turning of the tide so to speak in prosecutorial malfeasance, and I for one say that it's about time.

You say we shouldn't change the process but I disagree and I think that the way we place our prosecutors in office might be a good start? What do you say Ben?

I hope the subject of my post is not too far O/T and if it is, I'd encourage a mod to delete it as it is only my opinion.

R

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

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

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

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

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

[William Anthony]

I think the video tape of the beating that took place in Philadelphia speaks clearer about the problem than I can.

[tv]

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

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

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

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

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

[William Anthony]

There were also attempts on the lives of Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and the Pope. It's not limited to color or any certain idealogy when crazy people decide to commit murder.

My post did not concern crazy people who decide to commit murder. It was on the topic being discussed. America's history shows that people, who stand up for equality of the races, are likely to be assassinated/murdered/killed, or simply murdered or killed for being black.

[SlowHandSam]

I think the video tape of the beating that took place in Philadelphia speaks clearer about the problem than I can.

while not entirely on topic, I am curious to learn the events that lead up to the police chase and subsequent beatings of these 3 individuals.

15 police men don't just chase and stop a car of men for a traffic violation.

Before we condemn them, let's learn the full story of what transpired before the helicopter caught the action and broadcast it out to the world.

I suspect there is far more to this than just 15 cops and 3 suspects.

As a side note, I don't think it was necessary to say "15 cops, 3 black suspects" ... it would have sufficed to say "15 cops, 3 suspects". But that's just my HO.

[tv]

My post did not concern crazy people who decide to commit murder. It was on the topic being discussed. America's history shows that people, who stand up for equality of the races, are likely to be assassinated/murdered/killed, or simply murdered or killed for being black.There have been people killed/assassinated for those reasons but to say they are LIKELY to be assassinated is not realistic or factual.

[William Anthony]

while not entirely on topic, I am curious to learn the events that lead up to the police chase and subsequent beatings of these 3 individuals.

15 police men don't just chase and stop a car of men for a traffic violation.

Before we condemn them, let's learn the full story of what transpired before the helicopter caught the action and broadcast it out to the world.

I suspect there is far more to this than just 15 cops and 3 suspects.

As a side note, I don't think it was necessary to say "15 cops, 3 black suspects" ... it would have sufficed to say "15 cops, 3 suspects". But that's just my HO.

What do you think is the topic? I did not mention the race of anyone. I did not condemn anyone. I said the video spoke clearer to the problem than I could. The problem is how different people perceive what is on the video, even though they see the same thing. That is directly related to the race and demographics of the viewer in most instances, imho.

[William Anthony]

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

I will let the lamp of history continue to guide the steps of my future.

[tv]

I will let the lamp of history continue to guide the steps of my future.Great non-answer.

[weezer]

Great non-answer.

I was thinking someone needed to loan some batteries! :tongue:

[tv]

I was thinking someone needed to loan some batteries! :tongue:I'd like some facts to support the argument of people that support the equality of the races LIKELY being assassinated/killed/murdered but I think the light is growing dimmer on this possibility.

[William Anthony]

Great non-answer.

I answered and maybe you did not understand it.

[William Anthony]

I'd like some facts to support the argument of people that support the equality of the races LIKELY being assassinated/killed/murdered but I think the light is growing dimmer on this possibility.

Already given. But I can include Malcom X, Medgar Evers, the three freedom fighters. They are not likely to be killed unless they become influential. I should have been more clear.

[William Anthony]

I was thinking someone needed to loan some batteries! :tongue:

We have electricity where I live.

[weezer]

Already given. But I can include Malcom X, Medgar Evers, the three freedom fighters. They are not likely to be killed unless they become influential. I should have been more clear.

I think a little research will show that the most likely candidate for assassination is the politician.

[tv]

I answered and maybe you did not understand it.I understood that is was non-responsive and evasive.

[weezer]

I think the video tape of the beating that took place in Philadelphia speaks clearer about the problem than I can.

yes -- I thought that about the video tape of the beating of Reginald Denney.

[William Anthony]

I think a little research will show that the most likely candidate for assassination is the politician.

MLK was not a politician, nor was Malcom or Medgar. Maybe, black people whose names start with the letter M.

[William Anthony]

I understood that is was non-responsive and evasive.

Of course, that is your opinion, or are you a judge.

[tv]

MLK was not a politician, nor was Malcom or Medgar. Maybe, black people whose names start with the letter M.Has anyone seen martin today?

[William Anthony]

yes -- I thought that about the video tape of the beating of Reginald Denney.

I thought about his beating also. Rodney King, the guy in Texas that was beaten, tied to a truck and dragged, the black girl in W.Va. that was kidnapped, beaten, rapped, and urinated on, and the Jena six. With the exception of Rodney King none of these have to do with the topic of LE misconduct. However, when viewed in the broader light, they are symptomatic of a larger problem.

[William Anthony]

Has anyone seen martin today?

No, and I beginning to get worried.

[tv]

No, and I beginning to get worried.I haven't been any further than the front yard all day...I promise. :tongue:

[weezer]

MLK was not a politician, nor was Malcom or Medgar. Maybe, black people whose names start with the letter M.

nope -- research shows that the most likely to be assassinated is the politician.

[Big Ben]

Juditha Brown testified that they started their drive back home at 8:30. Based on the fact that this was a Sunday evening the Brown's as well as other California residents who have duplicated that drive had no problem making it back home in a little over a hours time.

Simpson's defense stipulated that the enlarged photocopy of the Brown's telephone bill was accurate and depicted the time 9:37 that the call came into the restaurant. Simpson's defense stipulated "that at approximately 9:40 P.M., Juditha Brown telephoned her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson, reaching her at her daughter's residence located at 875 south Bundy drive in the city of Los Angeles;

Big Ben measures partial shoe prints and then claims they are too small for Simpson to have made. Bodziak testified that he made a direct comparison between size 12 Bruno Magli shoes with Silga soles that were consistent with having made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy and Simpson's size 12 Reeboks that he told the police he was wearing the day of the murders.


bobaugust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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