What did you think about last nite's show...OJ

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


IWhy was it not seen until three weeks later when you so heavily on Fung.


William Anthony, seven police officers testified that they saw the blood on the rear gate the morning after the murders. They saw the blood by flashlight when they were first given a tour of the murder scene.

Riske and Terrazas, the first patrol officers to arrive at Bundy first saw the blood on the rear gate.
Terrazas showed it to Riske.
Riske showed it to his supervisor Rossi when he arrived at Bundy.
Riske showed it to Fuhrman and Phillips when they arrived at Bundy.
Phillips showed it to Lange when he arrived at Bundy.
Phillips showed it to Vannatter when he arrived at Bundy.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



William Anthony, Fung and Mazzola mistakenly missed collecting any of the blood from the rear gate on June 13. Lange took the responsibility for the mistake. He testified he told Fung to check the entire rear gate but after he got tied up with Simpson from early in the afternoon until the end of the day he never did a final walk through of the murder scene to make sure everything that needed to be done had been done.

On July 3rd. the prosecutors and detectives did a walk through of Bundy and noticed blood on the rear gate. Lange called Fung and learned that Fung didn't remember collecting that blood. Fung came to Bundy with a photographer and the blood was photographed and collected.

bobaugust

Mistakes can lead to reasonable doubt. Although, I do not need to vidicate the jury's verdict, imo.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



William Anthony, seven police officers testified that they saw the blood on the rear gate the morning after the murders. They saw the blood by flashlight when they were first given a tour of the murder scene.

Riske and Terrazas, the first patrol officers to arrive at Bundy first saw the blood on the rear gate.
Terrazas showed it to Riske.
Riske showed it to his supervisor Rossi when he arrived at Bundy.
Riske showed it to Fuhrman and Phillips when they arrived at Bundy.
Phillips showed it to Lange when he arrived at Bundy.
Phillips showed it to Vannatter when he arrived at Bundy.

bobaugust

There is only strength in numbers not truth. Seven people and not one made sure Fung collected it, and, why did not Vanatter or Lang point it out to the DF.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Mistakes can lead to reasonable doubt. Although, I do not need to vidicate the jury's verdict, imo.


William Anthony, I'm certainly not asking to you to vindicate the criminal trial jury's verdict nor do I care about their verdict. My only concern is who the killer was.

Simpson's defense team conducted one of the strongest critiques of the LAPD they probably ever had and they found mistakes. Every time they found a mistake they tried to claim it wasn't a mistake at all but it was intentional. They even claimed bookkeeper errors were intentional. They were wrong, all they found was simple human error. Not one mistake found ever changed one single piece of the relevant physical evidence that proves Simpson guilty.

I don't believe the human error defense led to any reasonable doubt about who the killer was. It only provided excuses for the predisposed jury to ignore the evidence.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


There is only strength in numbers not truth. Seven people and not one made sure Fung collected it, and, why did not Vanatter or Lang point it out to the DF.


William Anthony, all of these police officers saw the blood on the rear gate along with the other evidence at the murder scene in tours conducted by flashlight when they arrived at the murder scene.

Only two of these seven were responsible for that evidence being collected, the two lead detectives, Lange and Vannatter. The criminalist was instructed as to what to collect. Unfortunately because of how events developed Lange never properly supervised Fung's actions nor did he do a final walk through before the murder scene was shut down. As a result the blood on the rear gate was never collected.

That mistake was corrected when the blood was later noticed and then photographed and collected.

Who is "the DF"?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



SNIPPED

Simpson's defense team conducted one of the strongest critiques of the LAPD they probably ever had and they found mistakes. Every time they found a mistake they tried to claim it wasn't a mistake at all but it was intentional. They even claimed bookkeeper errors were intentional. They were wrong, all they found was simple human error. Not one mistake found ever changed one single piece of the relevant physical evidence that proves Simpson guilty.

SNIPPED

bobaugust

Human error leads to reasonable doubt. You are quick to call others wrong as you did me concerning Kathleen Bell's testimony on the MF's testimony. Here is the prove that you are wrong from the CTV's case files. She testifed as follows on September 5, 1995

The first defense witness, Kathleen Bell, testified that she met Fuhrman at a Marine recruiting center in 1985 or 1986, found him handsome, and wanted to set him up on a date with her friend, Andrea Terry.

At one point, Fuhrman told Bell that when he sees a black man driving with a white woman he pulls over the car. Bell said she asked him if he needed a reason. "He said he'd find something. I asked what if they're in love? He said, 'That's disgusting.'" she testified

Thus, she provided evidence of the MF's animous toward interracial couples.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



William Anthony, all of these police officers saw the blood on the rear gate along with the other evidence at the murder scene in tours conducted by flashlight when they arrived at the murder scene.

Only two of these seven were responsible for that evidence being collected, the two lead detectives, Lange and Vannatter. The criminalist was instructed as to what to collect. Unfortunately because of how events developed Lange never properly supervised Fung's actions nor did he do a final walk through before the murder scene was shut down. As a result the blood on the rear gate was never collected.

That mistake was corrected when the blood was later noticed and then photographed and collected.

Who is "the DF"?

bobaugust

Come on bobbie, you knew who your other hero was when I posted the MF. Why, your other hero of course, the Dennis Fung. Is your racial bias showing through in regard to your heroes?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Human error leads to reasonable doubt. You are quick to call others wrong as you did me concerning Kathleen Bell's testimony on the MF's testimony. Here is the prove that you are wrong from the CTV's case files. She testifed as follows on September 5, 1995

The first defense witness, Kathleen Bell, testified that she met Fuhrman at a Marine recruiting center in 1985 or 1986, found him handsome, and wanted to set him up on a date with her friend, Andrea Terry.

At one point, Fuhrman told Bell that when he sees a black man driving with a white woman he pulls over the car. Bell said she asked him if he needed a reason. "He said he'd find something. I asked what if they're in love? He said, 'That's disgusting.'" she testified

Thus, she provided evidence of the MF's animous toward interracial couples.


William Anthony, you don't evidently know what you said.

On 9/14/06, page 8 of this thread you said,
"I said the MF admitted to fabricating evidence. The woman who met him at the marine reserve center testified that he made those remarks."

You never addressed that mistake in your posting after, you only talked again talked about her remark about interracial couples. In my next response I agreed that that she did indeed testify about that.

Now is your opportunity to address what I responded to previously that you have ignored. Do you still think Kathleen Bell said that Fuhrman admitted to fabricating evidence, or are you going to finally admit that you were wrong?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Come on bobbie, you knew who your other hero was when I posted the MF. Why, your other hero of course, the Dennis Fung. Is your racial bias showing through in regard to your heroes?


William Anthony, I would say your racial bias is showing every time you post the word "the" before the initials of Mark Fuhrman and Dennis Fung.

Neither our my hero's, Simpson is the only hero being discussed here. One day you may actually realize the truth that Simpson committed the murders and finally give him the credit he so rightly deserves.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



William Anthony, you don't evidently know what you said.

On 9/14/06, page 8 of this thread you said,
"I said the MF admitted to fabricating evidence. The woman who met him at the marine reserve center testified that he made those remarks."

You never addressed that mistake in your posting after, you only talked again talked about her remark about interracial couples. In my next response I agreed that that she did indeed testify about that.

Now is your opportunity to address what I responded to previously that you have ignored. Do you still think Kathleen Bell said that Fuhrman admitted to fabricating evidence, or are you going to finally admit that you were wrong?

bobaugust

bobbie, read the portion of my post to which you responded. Here it is.

At one point, Fuhrman told Bell that when he sees a black man driving with a white woman he pulls over the car. Bell said she asked him if he needed a reason. "He said he'd find something.

I suppose in your mind he had a reason to pull over every interracial couple. Why is it so hard to say bobbie is wrong.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



William Anthony, you don't evidently know what you said.

On 9/14/06, page 8 of this thread you said,
"I said the MF admitted to fabricating evidence. The woman who met him at the marine reserve center testified that he made those remarks."

You never addressed that mistake in your posting after, you only talked again talked about her remark about interracial couples. In my next response I agreed that that she did indeed testify about that.

Now is your opportunity to address what I responded to previously that you have ignored. Do you still think Kathleen Bell said that Fuhrman admitted to fabricating evidence, or are you going to finally admit that you were wrong?
bobaugust


Here is your post, bobbie.


Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, is there no end to your false claims?

The witness you're referring to is Kathleen Bell and she never said anything about Fuhrman admitting to planting evidence. She had encounters with Mark Fuhrman in 1985 and testified about the language Fuhrman used saying the "n" word.

If you think you're right and I'm wrong about your claim then post the testimony to support it like you've asked me to do.

Please tell me you were only joking. SNIPPED

Show me were you admitted to her testifying to his animous toward interracial couples. Do we have to continue this nonsense, admit you are wrong. Are you a drinking man?

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



William Anthony, I would say your racial bias is showing every time you post the word "the" before the initials of Mark Fuhrman and Dennis Fung.

Neither our my hero's, Simpson is the only hero being discussed here. One day you may actually realize the truth that Simpson committed the murders and finally give him the credit he so rightly deserves.

bobaugust

I don't undetstand your protestations over my use of a noun indicator and your claim that the usage shows my alleged racial bias. I was only honoring some of those in whom you have placed your reliance to pronounce in such an authorative manner that Mr. Simpson is the murderer. I was confused that you apparently recognized who the MF was, but not the DF and considered you may not be aware of his initials because of his race. If I am wrong, excuse me, but tell me why you did not recognize them when you have posted and talked about him so much lately.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony



Here is your post, bobbie.


Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, is there no end to your false claims?

The witness you're referring to is Kathleen Bell and she never said anything about Fuhrman admitting to planting evidence. She had encounters with Mark Fuhrman in 1985 and testified about the language Fuhrman used saying the "n" word.

If you think you're right and I'm wrong about your claim then post the testimony to support it like you've asked me to do.

Please tell me you were only joking. SNIPPED

Show me were you admitted to her testifying to his animous toward interracial couples. Do we have to continue this nonsense, admit you are wrong. Are you a drinking man?


William Anthony, I never disputed that Kathleen Bell testified to what you posted she said about interracial couples. I agree that is what she said.

When I went back and looked at my responses I now see that I was wrong when I said I responded that I agree that she did indeed testify to that. In my responses I never even addressed that issue. But I do agree that's what Bell said.

What I have been saying all along is that you're wrong about your claim that Kathleen Bell testified that Mark Fuhrman admitted to planting evidence. That never happened. Bell never said that. And you've never responded to any of my postings accusing you of being wrong about that.

Do we have to continue this nonsense, admit you were wrong when you said Kathleen Bell testified that Mark Fuhrman admitted to planting evidence.

No, I'm not a drinking man, are you?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I don't undetstand your protestations over my use of a noun indicator and your claim that the usage shows my alleged racial bias. I was only honoring some of those in whom you have placed your reliance to pronounce in such an authorative manner that Mr. Simpson is the murderer. I was confused that you apparently recognized who the MF was, but not the DF and considered you may not be aware of his initials because of his race. If I am wrong, excuse me, but tell me why you did not recognize them when you have posted and talked about him so much lately.


William Anthony, your use of a noun indicator? Now you're playing dumb.

When you referred to Mark Fuhrman as "the MF" you knew what you were doing. No one refers to someone as "the" before their initials. "The MF" is short for "the motherf-er." Your use of it was very obvious.

It's acceptable to use initials for common phrases or names when posting messages. For instance LE or LOL or ROTFLMAO.

When you posted, "why did not Vannatter or Lange point it out to the DF" I honestly at first had no idea what you meant. As I thought about it I realized you might have been referring to Dennis Fung, but then why did you say "the DF." If you had used normal language you would have said why not point it out to DF. Then I thought maybe you did that to cover up the real reason you referred to Mark Fuhrman as "the MF." Pretty clever tying to hide your previous intent. but you're busted.

So I asked you who is "the DF?"

As to my reliance on Fuhrman and Fung, I don't rely on them any more than any of the many other witness who testified to facts that were incriminating to Simpson, What the heck does DF had to do with Fung's race?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



William Anthony, I never disputed that Kathleen Bell testified to what you posted she said about interracial couples. I agree that is what she said.

When I went back and looked at my responses I now see that I was wrong when I said I responded that I agree that she did indeed testify to that. In my responses I never even addressed that issue. But I do agree that's what Bell said.

What I have been saying all along is that you're wrong about your claim that Kathleen Bell testified that Mark Fuhrman admitted to planting evidence. That never happened. Bell never said that. And you've never responded to any of my postings accusing you of being wrong about that.

Do we have to continue this nonsense, admit you were wrong when you said Kathleen Bell testified that Mark Fuhrman admitted to planting evidence.

No, I'm not a drinking man, are you?

bobaugust

No, I am not a drinking man and here is what you admitted we were discussing from your post;

On 9/14/06, page 8 of this thread you said,
"I said the MF admitted to fabricating evidence.

thus, you know I was talking about fabricating evidence, not planting. Although, when you plant evidence, you do fabricate it also and possibly vice versa.

Here is the second portion of your prior post.

On 9/14/06, page 8 of this thread you said,
"I said the MF admitted to fabricating evidence. The woman who met him at the marine reserve center testified that he made those remarks."

You never addressed that mistake in your posting after, you only talked again talked about her remark about interracial couples. In my next response I agreed that that she did indeed testify about that.

Hence, You have admitted I was right, but you refuse to just come out and say it. You are trying to drive me to drink. Does your refusal stem from arrogance?

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



William Anthony, your use of a noun indicator? Now you're playing dumb.

When you referred to Mark Fuhrman as "the MF" you knew what you were doing. No one refers to someone as "the" before their initials. "The MF" is short for "the motherf-er." Your use of it was very obvious.

It's acceptable to use initials for common phrases or names when posting messages. For instance LE or LOL or ROTFLMAO.

When you posted, "why did not Vannatter or Lange point it out to the DF" I honestly at first had no idea what you meant. As I thought about it I realized you might have been referring to Dennis Fung, but then why did you say "the DF." If you had used normal language you would have said why not point it out to DF. Then I thought maybe you did that to cover up the real reason you referred to Mark Fuhrman as "the MF." Pretty clever tying to hide your previous intent. but you're busted.

So I asked you who is "the DF?"

As to my reliance on Fuhrman and Fung, I don't rely on them any more than any of the many other witness who testified to facts that were incriminating to Simpson, What the heck does DF had to do with Fung's race?

bobaugust

Thank you, but I cannot accept your acknowledgement of my cleverness based upon your assertion as to my intent. As I have told you I was paying homage, probably undue, to your heros with the term the. Since you had no problem determing who the MF was, I expected you to determine who the DF was. So you admit that you rely on people who provide incriminating evidence, not FACTS, toward Simpson, even though evidence suggests lies and you ask me about what the DF's race has to do with it. He is not Caucasian and you did not recognize your hero's initials, but recognized those belonging to your Caucasian hero.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


No, I am not a drinking man and here is what you admitted we were discussing from your post;

On 9/14/06, page 8 of this thread you said,
"I said the MF admitted to fabricating evidence.

thus, you know I was talking about fabricating evidence, not planting. Although, when you plant evidence, you do fabricate it also and possibly vice versa.

Here is the second portion of your prior post.

On 9/14/06, page 8 of this thread you said,
"I said the MF admitted to fabricating evidence. The woman who met him at the marine reserve center testified that he made those remarks."

You never addressed that mistake in your posting after, you only talked again talked about her remark about interracial couples. In my next response I agreed that that she did indeed testify about that.

Hence, You have admitted I was right, but you refuse to just come out and say it. You are trying to drive me to drink. Does your refusal stem from arrogance?


William Anthony, now your being completely dishonest.

First of all what you say I admitted had quotation marks around it. I was quoting YOUR words. And you took it out of context and left the two words "You wrote" that proceeded it completely out. I never admitted to that false claim. This is what my original posting that you have just dishonestly quoted out of context actually said,

"You wrote, 'I said the MF admitted to fabricating evidence. The woman who met him at the marine service center testified that he made those remarks.'"

That's either another mistake on your part or an intentional dishonest posting of what I said.

I agree that fabricating evidence is not planting evidence, Bell did not testify that Fuhrman admitted to fabricating evidence. The only thing she said was that Fuhrman told her the he would find a reason to pull over an interracial couple. That's not fabricating evidence.

September 5, 1995
MS. BELL: He said that if--when he sees a black man with a white woman driving in a car he pulls them over.
MR. BAILEY: And what did you say?
MS. BELL: I was taken back a little bit and so I kind of paused and I looked at the Marines and I just said, "Well, what if they didn't do anything wrong?"
MR. BAILEY: What did he say?
MS. BELL: He said he would find something.

Maybe your drinking is the cause of your problems here.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Thank you, but I cannot accept your acknowledgement of my cleverness based upon your assertion as to my intent. As I have told you I was paying homage, probably undue, to your heros with the term the. Since you had no problem determing who the MF was, I expected you to determine who the DF was. So you admit that you rely on people who provide incriminating evidence, not FACTS, toward Simpson, even though evidence suggests lies and you ask me about what the DF's race has to do with it. He is not Caucasian and you did not recognize your hero's initials, but recognized those belonging to your Caucasian hero.



William Anthony, nice try but you're busted. Nobody uses the word "the" before someone's name or initials.

As to relying on other witnesses I wrote, "I don't rely on them any more than any of the other witness who testified to FACTS that were incriminating to Simpson"

Learn to quote what I said not post what you think I said. That's a bad handicap you have displayed many times about what witnesses testified to.

You're wrong again. I've never said who was my hero. The fact that Fung is not a Caucasian has nothing to do with his initials. I explained to your that it was your use of the word "the" that confused the issue. If you can't speak clearly than it may cause confusion as to what you're trying to say.

Maybe you should start admitting to your mistakes.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



William Anthony, now your being completely dishonest.

First of all what you say I admitted had quotation marks around it. I was quoting YOUR words. And you took it out of context and left the two words "You wrote" that proceeded it completely out. I never admitted to that false claim. This is what my original posting that you have just dishonestly quoted out of context actually said,

"You wrote, 'I said the MF admitted to fabricating evidence. The woman who met him at the marine service center testified that he made those remarks.'"

That's either another mistake on your part or an intentional dishonest posting of what I said.

I agree that fabricating evidence is not planting evidence, Bell did not testify that Fuhrman admitted to fabricating evidence. The only thing she said was that Fuhrman told her the he would find a reason to pull over an interracial couple. That's not fabricating evidence.

September 5, 1995
MS. BELL: He said that if--when he sees a black man with a white woman driving in a car he pulls them over.
MR. BAILEY: And what did you say?
MS. BELL: I was taken back a little bit and so I kind of paused and I looked at the Marines and I just said, "Well, what if they didn't do anything wrong?"
MR. BAILEY: What did he say?
MS. BELL: He said he would find something.

Maybe your drinking is the cause of your problems here.

bobaugust

What she testified to is that she asked him what if there was no reason? In resaponse he replied he would find one. A policeman should not pull people over and then look for a reason for pulling them over. He is required to have reasonable suspicion that the driver or the vehicle violated the vehicle code. Ergo, the MF admitted he would fabricate evidence after pulling over interracial couples. I do not drink, and, if you really do not maybe you should start. Face it you are arrogant, biased and unwilling to admit to your wrongness, imro.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust




William Anthony, nice try but you're busted. Nobody uses the word "the" before someone's name or initials.

As to relying on other witnesses I wrote, "I don't rely on them any more than any of the other witness who testified to FACTS that were incriminating to Simpson"

Learn to quote what I said not post what you think I said. That's a bad handicap you have displayed many times about what witnesses testified to.

You're wrong again. I've never said who was my hero. The fact that Fung is not a Caucasian has nothing to do with his initials. I explained to your that it was your use of the word "the" that confused the issue. If you can't speak clearly than it may cause confusion as to what you're trying to say.

Maybe you should start admitting to your mistakes.

bobaugust

Perhaps, the only thing greater than your arrogance is your inabilty to comprehend and your unwarrnted critcizim of me. :)
You have repeated your own prior post in which you state and I quote "I don't rely on them anymore than any other witnesses who testified to facts that were incriminating to Simpson."

I corrected you on thefact that testimonies are not facts, they are just evidence. I then commented on your apparent prejudgment and bias by only relying on witness whose testimony that was incrimianating to Simpson. I called the MF and the DF your heroes, and I never said they were you only ones. You want me to admit that you cannot comprehend what I write in plain King's english, and your confusion causes you to say I am mistaken, so admitted.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


What she testified to is that she asked him what if there was no reason? In resaponse he replied he would find one. A policeman should not pull people over and then look for a reason for pulling them over. He is required to have reasonable suspicion that the driver or the vehicle violated the vehicle code. Ergo, the MF admitted he would fabricate evidence after pulling over interracial couples. I do not drink, and, if you really do not maybe you should start. Face it you are arrogant, biased and unwilling to admit to your wrongness, imro.





William Anthony, okay lets recap this discussion.

I said that in a posting I made on 9/14/06 that I responded that I agreed that Kathleen Bell testified Mark Fuhrman made comments about interracial couples.

I admitted I was mistaken. I didn't say that in my response. I never addressed that issue in that post. I never disputed it and in a later posting I agreed that Bell did testify to that.

In a posting I made on 9/17/06 I refereed to your claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to fabricating evidence as "planting" evidence.

I admitted I was mistaken and that planting evidence is not the same as fabricating evidence.

YOU originally claimed that Kathleen Bell testified that Mark Fuhrman admitted to fabricating evidence.
That's wrong. She never said that.

YOU have yet to own up to that mistake. Now you claim that Bell's testimony that Fuhrman said he would find a reason to stop a car is somehow the same as fabricating evidence. That's wrong. Saying you would find a reason to do something has nothing to do with fabricating physical evidence.

YOU made a posting on 9/17/06 claiming I said I agreed that Mark Fuhrman admitted to fabricating evidence. That's wrong. I never said that I simply repeated your claim in quotation marks.

YOU have never owned of to that mistake. YOU took a quote out of context that you made and attributed it to me.

So as I see it I've made a couple of errors and I've admitted to my errors.
YOU'VE never admitted to being wrong about any of your errors.

YOU call me arrogant saying I'm unwilling to admit to my wrongness, yet the fact is that I have but YOU haven't. So whose being arrogant?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Perhaps, the only thing greater than your arrogance is your inabilty to comprehend and your unwarrnted critcizim of me. :)
You have repeated your own prior post in which you state and I quote "I don't rely on them anymore than any other witnesses who testified to facts that were incriminating to Simpson."

I corrected you on thefact that testimonies are not facts, they are just evidence. I then commented on your apparent prejudgment and bias by only relying on witness whose testimony that was incrimianating to Simpson. I called the MF and the DF your heroes, and I never said they were you only ones. You want me to admit that you cannot comprehend what I write in plain King's english, and your confusion causes you to say I am mistaken, so admitted.



William Anthony, you say you corrected me that testimonies are not facts they are evidence.

I didn't take your statement as a correction only a distortion of what I actually said, since I don't believe what I said was incorrect. Witnesses testify to facts that may become evidence.

As to your heroes remark, I never said "the MF" and "the DF" were my heroes. They were only witnesses.

Plain king's english? Funny. Maybe, but I still say you're busted. If I'm wrong than evidently I'm giving you too much credit for intentionally saying something clever and then covering it up.

As to you thinking that my criticism of you is unwarranted, it's not. You have yet to admit to even one of the many mistakes you've made in attempting to discuss the evidence in the Simpson case.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust






William Anthony, okay lets recap this discussion.

I said that in a posting I made on 9/14/06 that I responded that I agreed that Kathleen Bell testified Mark Fuhrman made comments about interracial couples.

I admitted I was mistaken. I didn't say that in my response. I never addressed that issue in that post. I never disputed it and in a later posting I agreed that Bell did testify to that.

In a posting I made on 9/17/06 I refereed to your claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to fabricating evidence as "planting" evidence.

I admitted I was mistaken and that planting evidence is not the same as fabricating evidence.

YOU originally claimed that Kathleen Bell testified that Mark Fuhrman admitted to fabricating evidence.
That's wrong. She never said that.

YOU have yet to own up to that mistake. Now you claim that Bell's testimony that Fuhrman said he would find a reason to stop a car is somehow the same as fabricating evidence. That's wrong. Saying you would find a reason to do something has nothing to do with fabricating physical evidence.

YOU made a posting on 9/17/06 claiming I said I agreed that Mark Fuhrman admitted to fabricating evidence. That's wrong. I never said that I simply repeated your claim in quotation marks.

YOU have never owned of to that mistake. YOU took a quote out of context that you made and attributed it to me.

So as I see it I've made a couple of errors and I've admitted to my errors.
YOU'VE never admitted to being wrong about any of your errors.

YOU call me arrogant saying I'm unwilling to admit to my wrongness, yet the fact is that I have but YOU haven't. So whose being arrogant?

bobaugust

yes, bobbie you have made some errors. I was going to go back and copy but you have admitted that you wrongly stated that I said Ms. Bell testified the MF planted evidence. You have admitted that you were wrong about her testimony and your posts on the MF's statements about his animous toward interacial couples. You incorrecly and uncleverly claimed that I attributed my post to you, because you saw that I calimed Ms. Bell testified the MF fabricated evidence against interracial couples, not planted. You should, if you do not, know that it is Constitutionally illegal to stop an interracial couple to look for a reason to have stopped them in the first place. Thus, he had to find, fabricate, a reason. This may be foreign to you, but I have been stopped, on several occasions, and told the we fit the description of a couple that just robbed a place. You have halfheartedly admitted to your wrongness without saying that I was right. Okay, I will accept that you are wrong and will never say I am right.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


yes, bobbie you have made some errors. I was going to go back and copy but you have admitted that you wrongly stated that I said Ms. Bell testified the MF planted evidence. You have admitted that you were wrong about her testimony and your posts on the MF's statements about his animous toward interacial couples. You incorrecly and uncleverly claimed that I attributed my post to you, because you saw that I calimed Ms. Bell testified the MF fabricated evidence against interracial couples, not planted. You should, if you do not, know that it is Constitutionally illegal to stop an interracial couple to look for a reason to have stopped them in the first place. Thus, he had to find, fabricate, a reason. This may be foreign to you, but I have been stopped, on several occasions, and told the we fit the description of a couple that just robbed a place. You have halfheartedly admitted to your wrongness without saying that I was right. Okay, I will accept that you are wrong and will never say I am right.



William Anthony, fine and I will continue to point out how dishonest you are and not capable to admitting when you are wrong. I see now what you evidently haven't the integrity to conduct an open and honest discussion.

Good job flat-earther.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust




William Anthony, fine and I will continue to point out how dishonest you are and not capable to admitting when you are wrong. I see now what you evidently haven't the integrity to conduct an open and honest discussion.

Good job flat-earther.

bobaugust

I was WRONG your audacity exceeds your arrogance. You speak to me of open and honest, yet, you will not accept the criminal jury's verdict and dishonestly claim that the civil trial proved hilm to be the murder. You will not face your own inner feelings when you say that Kennedy and Durst and Simpson were all wealthy and got away with murder, claiming no difference in their treatment, but will not express any outrage at their treatment and are so outraged by the Simpson verdict. You clain that the race card was introduced by the defense and fail to recognize that colonial America introduced race. You calll the jury ignorant and biased but fail to acknowledge your own, imho.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I was WRONG your audacity exceeds your arrogance. You speak to me of open and honest, yet, you will not accept the criminal jury's verdict and dishonestly claim that the civil trial proved hilm to be the murder. You will not face your own inner feelings when you say that Kennedy and Durst and Simpson were all wealthy and got away with murder, claiming no difference in their treatment, but will not express any outrage at their treatment and are so outraged by the Simpson verdict. You clain that the race card was introduced by the defense and fail to recognize that colonial America introduced race. You calll the jury ignorant and biased but fail to acknowledge your own, imho.



William Anthony, my audacity and arrogance to call a spade a spade? Funny.

The criminal trial jury's verdict had nothing to do with Simpson's guilt or innocence. Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial.

I've never made any comment about this Kennedy and Durst. They have nothing to do with the Simpson case and as I've told you before that's what this discussion group is about and that's all I make postings about.

The race card was played by the defense in the Simpson criminal trial. That was Cochran's forte. There were members of the Simpson criminal trial jury that were ignorant and biased. That was made clear in their interviews after the verdict.

You've shown over and over again you haven't the integrity to admit to the mistakes you make. You took a quote from one of my messages out of context and attributed it to me when in fact I was only quoting what you said and then responding to your quote. Either you didn't recognize your own words or you were confused again. Either way you were wrong and you haven't the courage to even admit to that obvious mistake. But then again maybe you knew what you were doing and it wasn't a mistake at all, right? Maybe you were intentionally being dishonest.

Your opinions and false claims about the evidence in the Simpson case are not only based on your ignorance of not knowing what witnesses in the criminal trial actually said in their testimony but you have no idea what witnesses said in their depositions and in their civil trial testimony, including what Simpson testified to.

As long as you continue to keep yourself ignorant of all the information and evidence that became known after the criminal trial your opinion as to Simpson's guilt or innocence has no credibility.

Good job flat-earther.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust




William Anthony, my audacity and arrogance to call a spade a spade? Funny.

The criminal trial jury's verdict had nothing to do with Simpson's guilt or innocence. Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial.

I've never made any comment about this Kennedy and Durst. They have nothing to do with the Simpson case and as I've told you before that's what this discussion group is about and that's all I make postings about.

The race card was played by the defense in the Simpson criminal trial. That was Cochran's forte. There were members of the Simpson criminal trial jury that were ignorant and biased. That was made clear in their interviews after the verdict.

You've shown over and over again you haven't the integrity to admit to the mistakes you make. You took a quote from one of my messages out of context and attributed it to me when in fact I was only quoting what you said and then responding to your quote. Either you didn't recognize your own words or you were confused again. Either way you were wrong and you haven't the courage to even admit to that obvious mistake. But then again maybe you knew what you were doing and it wasn't a mistake at all, right? Maybe you were intentionally being dishonest.

Your opinions and false claims about the evidence in the Simpson case are not only based on your ignorance of not knowing what witnesses in the criminal trial actually said in their testimony but you have no idea what witnesses said in their depositions and in their civil trial testimony, including what Simpson testified to.

As long as you continue to keep yourself ignorant of all the information and evidence that became known after the criminal trial your opinion as to Simpson's guilt or innocence has no credibility.

Good job flat-earther.

bobaugust

You are the one that is and remains confused. You took my post as yours and claimed that you had admitted to something you had not, and then recanted it. You blame me for your confusion.
As I have tried to explain to you transcripts are merely words on paper that give you no chance to jude the credibilty of the speaker, which is an interga part of any trial. WhenI pointed out to you that the title on the page you had been posting was the "Role of Race in the CJS", you apologized telling me, for the first and only time that I was right and the forum does allow for the discussion of other cases. However, instead of engaing in an open and honest discussion, you started posting your gibberish, imho, on this thread. Regardless of what you claim became known and when, Simpson has not been proven in a court of law as a murder/killer, despite your biased claims to the contrary. I have already acknowledge you ignnorance as to the law and your misinformed view as to what facts and evidence mean and your unrealistic and rank speculation as to what the facts proved.
You still will not engage in an open and honest debate on race, because you my friend are afraid of being outted, imho.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


You are the one that is and remains confused. You took my post as yours and claimed that you had admitted to something you had not, and then recanted it. You blame me for your confusion.
As I have tried to explain to you transcripts are merely words on paper that give you no chance to jude the credibilty of the speaker, which is an interga part of any trial. WhenI pointed out to you that the title on the page you had been posting was the "Role of Race in the CJS", you apologized telling me, for the first and only time that I was right and the forum does allow for the discussion of other cases. However, instead of engaing in an open and honest discussion, you started posting your gibberish, imho, on this thread. Regardless of what you claim became known and when, Simpson has not been proven in a court of law as a murder/killer, despite your biased claims to the contrary. I have already acknowledge you ignnorance as to the law and your misinformed view as to what facts and evidence mean and your unrealistic and rank speculation as to what the facts proved.
You still will not engage in an open and honest debate on race, because you my friend are afraid of being outted, imho.



William Anthony, that's funny. You still can't admit to your mistakes.

The fact is that I made a mistake of innocently changing the word you originally said "fabricating" to "planting."

Your attempts to point out that mistake were not very clear making it look like I agreed with your false claim.

9/17/06 05:46 William Anthony
No, I am not a drinking man and here is what you admitted we were discussing from your post;

On 9/14/06, page 8 of this thread you said,
"I said the MF admitted to fabricating evidence.



Not only is that misleading but the fact that you will not admit that it was mistake on your part means you evidently did it intentionally. You were intentionally dishonest. Good job.

The fact is that your claim that Kathleen Bell testified that when she spoke with Mark Fuhrman about 9 years before the Bundy murders Fuhrman admitted to fabricating evidence is contradicted by what Bell actually said. Your attempt to try and say that finding a reason to pull a car over is the same as fabricating evidence is lame and ridiculous.

As to your claim that I started posting "gibberish: on this thread that's funny. I guess your definition of "gibberish" is any information that contradicts your uninformed opinions. I explained to you before and I'll say it again, my discussions on this discussion group are about who the killer was. The postings I've make on all of the threads here are in response to other posters, including you, who make claims that are contradicted by the facts and evidence in this case or opinions, like yours, that are based on false and misinformation.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust




William Anthony, that's funny. You still can't admit to your mistakes.

The fact is that I made a mistake of innocently changing the word you originally said "fabricating" to "planting."

Your attempts to point out that mistake were not very clear making it look like I agreed with your false claim.

9/17/06 05:46 William Anthony
No, I am not a drinking man and here is what you admitted we were discussing from your post;

On 9/14/06, page 8 of this thread you said,
"I said the MF admitted to fabricating evidence.



Not only is that misleading but the fact that you will not admit that it was mistake on your part means you evidently did it intentionally. You were intentionally dishonest. Good job.

The fact is that your claim that Kathleen Bell testified that when she spoke with Mark Fuhrman about 9 years before the Bundy murders Fuhrman admitted to fabricating evidence is contradicted by what Bell actually said. Your attempt to try and say that finding a reason to pull a car over is the same as fabricating evidence is lame and ridiculous.

As to your claim that I started posting "gibberish: on this thread that's funny. I guess your definition of "gibberish" is any information that contradicts your uninformed opinions. I explained to you before and I'll say it again, my discussions on this discussion group are about who the killer was. The postings I've make on all of the threads here are in response to other posters, including you, who make claims that are contradicted by the facts and evidence in this case or opinions, like yours, that are based on false and misinformation.

bobaugust

Your claim that I said Kathleen Bell spoke with the MF about the murders is as bougus (I just got it bobie, 2, bo-3,aug=-1, take off the last t and you have bogus, very clever bobbie) as your claim that finding a reason is not the same as fabricating evidence. You tried to take Ms. Bell's testimony out of context. What she testified to was that the MF told her he would pull over interracial couples when he saw them. She asked what if there was no reason to pull them over and the MF told her he would find one. I knew someone with your obvious intelligence would know that someone with lesser intelligence than a rocket scientist could fiqure out that the MF meant he would fabricate evidence after pulling over the interracial couple to justify the stop. You got me bobbie. You have been pulling my leg all the time. Bobbie. Bobaugust =bogus, very good indeed.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Your claim that I said Kathleen Bell spoke with the MF about the murders is as bougus (I just got it bobie, 2, bo-3,aug=-1, take off the last t and you have bogus, very clever bobbie) as your claim that finding a reason is not the same as fabricating evidence. You tried to take Ms. Bell's testimony out of context. What she testified to was that the MF told her he would pull over interracial couples when he saw them. She asked what if there was no reason to pull them over and the MF told her he would find one. I knew someone with your obvious intelligence would know that someone with lesser intelligence than a rocket scientist could fiqure out that the MF meant he would fabricate evidence after pulling over the interracial couple to justify the stop. You got me bobbie. You have been pulling my leg all the time. Bobbie. Bobaugust =bogus, very good indeed.

Sorry bobbie, your numerical sequence was more complex than I thought. 2, bo-2, au, +1,g+2, us. I love a good challenge, bobbie or should I call you bogus.

[weezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by William Anthony
WhenI pointed out to you that the title on the page you had been posting was the "Role of Race in the CJS", you apologized telling me, for the first and only time that I was right and the forum does allow for the discussion of other cases. ......You still will not engage in an open and honest debate on race, because you my friend are afraid of being outted, imho. I think you haven't grasped the concept that "CJS" does not stand for a discussion on 'race' but rather the impact it has within the justice system. If you want a 'debate on race,' I suggest you find a message board where you can do that because frankly, I'm really tired of your disrespect and name-calling.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* I think you haven't grasped the concept that "CJS" does not stand for a discussion on 'race' but rather the impact it has within the justice system. If you want a 'debate on race,' I suggest you find a message board where you can do that because frankly, I'm really tired of your disrespect and name-calling.

What you have not grasped or pehaps you have is the complete title of the thread which is the Role of Race in the CJS. What name calling have I engaged in as you allege? Are you aware of the famous line spoken by Clark Gable in the movie, "Gone with the Wind" that begins with Frankly? I have asked if fbg stands for fan of bobaugust, oerhaps bogus. you responded that you are. I think your tiredness stems from the fact that I am pointing to bobaugust's misjudgments and taking things out of context, but trying to accuse me of doing what he does. I am sorry that you see Mr. bobieaugust's mistakes. You do not have to respond to my posts should you chose to not, especially those that were not directed to you. Thank you and stay tuned.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Sorry bobbie, your numerical sequence was more complex than I thought. 2, bo-2, au, +1,g+2, us. I love a good challenge, bobbie or should I call you bogus.


willie, you can call me anything you want it doesn't' change the fact that when Fuhrman told Bell that he would find a reason to pull a car over with an interracial couple in it is not admitting to fabricating evidence.

You're only creating fantasies.

As to your supposed clever game of playing with letters, maybe I'm not as clever at it as you are but then again maybe I am. If we take the "A" from Anthony, take off the "nt" use the 'ho" and take off the "ny" we get A-ho. (short for As_hole) If you insist on calling me "bogus" maybe I should call you "A-ho" since that word seems to fits you so perfectly. Funny.

bobaugust