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

jotun

08-14-2006, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by LushLife
Here's my opinion...the same videos were shown too many times. I WISH OJ called in...I watched the trial ....to me no matter how much evidence there was that appeared to be against him...imo...in my heart I hoped he'd prove his innocence...in my heart...he didn't. I WANTED to beleive him but...the last guest asked a question that was on my mind...if OJ TRULY wanted to see justice done....why pit himself against the Goldman's and the Browns? It makes NO SENSE...

Lushlife
I watched every minute of the 'TRIAL OF THE CENTURY"
O.J. IS INNOCENT!!!!!

Why would O.J. call that nasty blond from Alanta?
Who screams guilty even tho O.J.was aquitted.THAT doesn't seem to matter to her or anyone in the media.
O.J. can't PROVE his innocence nor does he have to. A defendant is "presumed innocent". After all the cover-up & LIES by the LAPD & DA's it is NOW almost impossible to do. Before any charges were even filed O.J. hired Drs Baden & Henry Lee to work with the LAPD to SOLVE the crime. They refused their help!!!!!! O.J. has had detectives working on leads for all these 12 years.There are some interesting theories and suspects.But as O.J.says 'the answer lies in the world of Faye Resnick'
DRUGS! F.Lee is still in charge.

It makes total sence.
O.J. did want to see justice done. It was done. O.J. was found NOT GUILTY.

O.J. did NOT pit himself against the Browns & Goldmans. They did that by THEIR civil-suit. He doesn't say things against them. But they continue to call him a killer.Those phone-records could PROVE O.J. IS INNOCENT!!
Browns refuse to release them. WHY????????
jotun

jantheman

08-14-2006, 11:38 PM

Lynne

08-15-2006, 12:18 AM

I had forgotten how nauseated I feel at the sight and sound of Orenthal J. Simpson

jantheman

08-16-2006, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You're just itchin' to go to the OJ forum, I know it! :D It's 12 yrs later & I still despise that wife beating, double murdering, cable stealing, road raging freak :flamemad: sometimes i watch documentaries on it like it might be like the movie "groundhogsday" and the verdict will be different lol.

Thinking

08-16-2006, 06:41 PM

Face it folks, Nancy Grace will show silly programs against OJ until he or she dies. She will do the same with Scott Peterson.
She will do the same with Gary Condutt.
She will do the same with Joran, in Aruba.
She will do the same with John Ramsey, (even though they have just arrested the murderer of JonBenet.)
Did anyone of reasonable intelligence expect anything better?
I think in the end, she will probably get married to Geraldo and they will go off happily to look for Jimmy Hoffa.

:lol:

limakey

08-16-2006, 11:42 PM

Thinking,

I loved your post! Very well put and I got it. Good job!

tazzybaby

08-17-2006, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by jotun

*snip*

But as O.J.says 'the answer lies in the world of Faye Resnick'
DRUGS!

*snip*

Those phone-records could PROVE O.J. IS INNOCENT!!
Browns refuse to release them. WHY????????
jotun

Hi jotun,

No one believes OJ. He is a liar. He was in a world of drugs himself. In his own words .... he was doing what everyone else was doing (in regards to drugs). There is nothing that he could ever say that I would believe. I will always have to have back up for anything that he says. He's a liar.

Those phone records are a joke. It has already been proven the time of the call. That's why nothing came of the "phone records" issue.

:read:

Thinking

08-17-2006, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Either you are seriously misinformed, or you choose to make stuff up. OJ DID NOT hire Henry Lee & Baden prior to the crime to SOLVE the crime. The only people he hired were to save his sorry self from prison. OJ has NOT had detectives working on leads for 12 yrs. Do you really think he's stupid enough to pay dectectives for work that would only implicate HIMSELF?

You are confused on the phone records also. There is nothing to prove that OJ isn't the murderer. As I recall, even the "dream team" stipulated as to the records presented by the Prosecution. :no:

I did LOVE seeing Orenthal waiting for the bus on those recently released videos. It seems none of the bus drivers would pick his double murdering sorry backside up. How fitting. :lol:

JOTUN = OJNUT?

socaldiva,
Of course, your take on this is merely your own speculation, isn't it? Maybe even wishful thinking?
You have NO idea if OJ has detectives working on anything at all. Would he TELL everyone if he did? So the media and police could work against it? Do you think he would trust the media OR the police?
You have NO idea exactly what OJ actually hired Baden and Lee for. You were not privy to any conversations between them. Besides, they are experts in their fields and you cannot make them lie about anything. You cannot assume that the media and yourself know whatever goes on behind closed doors, can you?
You have NO idea what is in any phone records if they were not public info at the time of the trial, do you? So if there's nothing there. Why don't the Browns and the Goldmans let it all out?
So exactly WHO is making stuff up?
Just preface your remarks by saying it is your OPINION, SPECULATION, or WISH that this is how it was.
If you can't do that, then don't make stuff up. Please.

:beer:

bobaugust

08-17-2006, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Thinking

You have NO idea what is in any phone records if they were not public info at the time of the trial, do you? So if there's nothing there. Why don't the Browns and the Goldmans let it all out?

Thinking, you're wrong about the telephone records. We do know what was on them.

They were presented in court and given to Simpson's defense team who examined them and checked them out.
A enlarged copy of the telephone records was used as a prosecution exhibit in the criminal trial and the defense stipulated that the times depicted on on those records were accurate.

The defense stipulated that Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna Restaurant at 9:37 PM.
The defense stipulated that Juditha Brown called Nicole at 9:40 PM and that was the last time Juditha Brown ever spoke with Nicole.

That is the undisputed evidence in this case.

There was no 11:00 PM telephone call that some people want to so desperately believe. The fact is that not one of Simpson's attorneys from either trial ever supported the frivolous law suit trying to obtain the telephone records or ever said anything that supported that fictitious telephone call.

These telephone records have nothing to do with the Goldman's. The Brown's evidently refuse to dignify this ridiculous fictitious claim with any response just as none of Simpson's attorneys will do.

bobaugust

weezer

08-19-2006, 10:20 PM

*Snipped* Originally posted by Thinking
You have NO idea exactly what OJ actually hired Baden and Lee for. Petrocelli, Triumph of Justice; p 125: "Who was with Simpson the morning of June 17, before he bolted? I ran down the guest list and asked about each name. Bob Shapiro, Simpson's lead attorney at the time, had put together a team of top-notch people with lightning speed. Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Henry Lee, both expert witnesses of considerable renown, were taking pictures and examining Simpson at the Kardashian home as the cabal was trying to figure out what the cops had on him. As well as performing for the accused killer, these preeminent forensic experts were now unavailable to be hired by the prosecutors."

Simpsonese

08-19-2006, 10:50 PM

Nothing wrong with the Juice, he is what he is. A spoiled rich man, that has no care for the poor. That is something he is REALLY guilty about. But the haters and Nancy "I have a victom's persecution complex" Grace and those types can never understand.

Levi90

08-20-2006, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Thinking
Face it folks, Nancy Grace will show silly programs against OJ until he or she dies. She will do the same with Scott Peterson.
She will do the same with Gary Condutt.
She will do the same with Joran, in Aruba.
She will do the same with John Ramsey, (even though they have just arrested the murderer of JonBenet.)
Did anyone of reasonable intelligence expect anything better?
I think in the end, she will probably get married to Geraldo and they will go off happily to look for Jimmy Hoffa.

:lol: /
How can you say they captured the real murderer of JonBenet That is just wishful thinking. There is more evidence against Patsy & John Ramsey than there is against the nut they have in custody now! All we know is that he was obsessed with the murder & was obsessed with other murders of children as well. You are doing what you & others say Nancy does "rushing to judgement". Ramsey supporters talk out of both sides of their mouth! :rolleyes:

Simpsonese

08-20-2006, 07:51 PM

and if he isn't diva? Admit failure as a individual? Failure as a human being, that makes OJ's failure in society look pale?

Americ@nBe@utyX

08-21-2006, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

How fitting. :lol:

JOTUN = OJNUT?

LOL, that is funny!:D

weezer

08-21-2006, 09:17 AM

*Snipped* Originally posted by jotun
Lushlife
I watched every minute of the 'TRIAL OF THE CENTURY"
O.J. IS INNOCENT!!!!! Can we assume you were watching from a Holiday Inn Express?

nettathirty

08-21-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Can we assume you were watching from a Holiday Inn Express?

Double Standard, huh?

Sunny Day

09-05-2006, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by LushLife
Here's my opinion...the same videos were shown too many times. I truly admire Nancy's spunk! I WISH OJ called in...I watched the trial ....to me no matter how much evidence there was that appeared to be against him...imo...in my heart I hoped he'd prove his innocence...in my heart...he didn't. I WANTED to beleive him but...the last guest asked a question that was on my mind...if OJ TRULY wanted to see justice done....why pit himself against the Goldman's and the Browns? It makes NO SENSE...IMO. Sydney's call to 911 broke my heart. IMO...if OJ were trying to improve his image, he wouldn't appear at Horror shows or sleazy videos...imo...he's had many opportunities to improve his image and he's made the wrong choices at every turn.

My thoughts:

OJ is trying to convince people that he is still liked and adored by white people, so he wants to be seen with these trashy white girls because, in his mind, trashy whites are better than no whites at all.

He puts on a facade for the cameras by clowning and smiling and acting like he is happy, but I think, in his mind and soul, he feels his sickness and sees the blood on his hands that he can never wash off. And when he looks in the mirror, he knows he is looking at the murderer of his children's mother.

Also, on another subject, I believe Ron Goldman was going to meet Nicole for a rendevous. Nicole left the glasses on purpose to give him a reason to go to her house, that's why he went home and showered first.

OJ murdered out of sheer jealousy...not an uncommon crime at all.

MO.

Sunny Day

09-05-2006, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Levi90
/
How can you say they captured the real murderer of JonBenet That is just wishful thinking. There is more evidence against Patsy & John Ramsey than there is against the nut they have in custody now! All we know is that he was obsessed with the murder & was obsessed with other murders of children as well. You are doing what you & others say Nancy does "rushing to judgement". Ramsey supporters talk out of both sides of their mouth! :rolleyes:

No evidence that would satisfy YOU anyway.

She was found in the Ramsey's home, not Karr's.

The first officers on the scene who were with the Ramseys gave very revealing accounts, IMO.

Pedophiles do not leave ransom notes. The whole "kidnapping" and ransom note was a concoction to cover up her murder.

BTW, I heard the 9/11 call that Patsy made....she sounded like she was acting to me.

dandmb50

09-05-2006, 10:13 PM

Never really much followed the OJ trial but saw it tonight on Nancy Grace, was sad.

But reading the posts I wondered who this Orenthal was until I read a post that explained that was his first name. I'm so embarrassed I didn't even know him as that. Shameless, I should be sent to the office with NG.

Daniel..........Toronto

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

Also, on another subject, I believe Ron Goldman was going to meet Nicole for a rendevous. Nicole left the glasses on purpose to give him a reason to go to her house, that's why he went home and showered first.

OJ murdered out of sheer jealousy...not an uncommon crime at all.

MO.

Sunny Day, Nicole didn't leave her mother's eyeglasses.

Juditha Brown testified that when they pulled up to the front of the restaurant, she had Justin in her lap and they must have fallen out when she got out of the car. Juditha Brown called the restaurant as soon as she got back home. She spoke with the manager of the restaurant who looked around the table where they sat but didn't see them. Juditha told her to check outside in the street and that's where they they were found. The manager said she would put then in an envelope and hold them. Juditha told her she was going to call her daughter to pick them up.

Juditha then called Nicole and told her about her eyeglasses being held at the restaurant. Nicole called the restaurant and spoke with Ron Goldman. Ron told her he was going out that night after work and that he'd drop them off.

I agree that jealousy was probably part of Simpson's reasons of why he went to Bundy that night.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

09-06-2006, 02:01 AM

I was out and about today and a tv set was turned on to Oprah. Chris Darden was on. I was trying to listen to what he was saying, but it was so noisy. I really, really wanted to hear what he had to say. It looks like Chris has put on a lot of weight. I don't know if this was a "brand new" thing or a "repeat." Does anyone know? Dayum, the one day that I just had to go out!

JMO and MOO!!

canUCme?

09-06-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You're just itchin' to go to the OJ forum, I know it! :D It's 12 yrs later & I still despise that wife beating, double murdering, cable stealing, road raging freak :flamemad:

socialdiva, you are sooooo right on with this!

I feel exactly the same way you do....just looking at his oily, smurking, nasty face makes me want to punch my fish right through the television.

And Oprah yesterday.....she just cashed in all her markers with me too. Even Darden looked at her like she'd flipped all of her extensions.

Ugh.....
"C"

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by canUCme?

socialdiva, you are sooooo right on with this!

I feel exactly the same way you do....just looking at his oily, smurking, nasty face makes me want to punch my fish right through the television.

And Oprah yesterday.....she just cashed in all her markers with me too. Even Darden looked at her like she'd flipped all of her extensions.

Ugh.....
"C"

What did Oprah do, and why was Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden on the show for?

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

What did Oprah do, and why was Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden on the show for?

nettathirty, funny. Some people could also call you netta "Brotherdict-Arnold" thirty based on your belief that Simpson is a liar and he was at Bundy the night of the murders.

bobaugust

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Darden was a traitor for doing the job his office asked him to do? He should have refused to prosecute a case because the defendant was AA? What a joke. Darden is/was an honorable man. Unlike Orenthal.

Socal

Darden was brought into this case to sway the black jury, he wasn't the states fast choice.. To add insult to injury, he's defending Mark Fuhrman who looked down on him and other AA's.. Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden, you only applaud him because he helped wrongfully prosecute an "Innocent Man", how sad!

There are some AA's who for the above mentioned reason, saw Darden as a traitor.. Many AA's were wondering what was his opinion on the trial of the officers acquitted of beating motorist Rodney King.. Some AA's are thinking, NOT ALL that he's being an Uncle Tom, and not wanting to upset the masses!!

IMO - MOO - JMHO..

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Thank you for that clarification. It always makes me crazy when people create scenarios out of their own overheated imaginations.

BTW, I watched that whole trial, every minute but the DNA (since I knew that they would prove, incontrovertibaly that the blood samples would be OJ's, and the comedy team of Clark and Darden never convinced me they had the right man. VanAtter's preposterous statement that they never suspected Simpson when they first went to his house make my liar's antenna shoot up. Even eight year olds know that the SO is the first suspect.

Too bad that LAPD never even looked for anyone else.

Holly, I agree Clark and Darden were lightweights but despite their mistakes and problems the fact is that all the relevant physical evidence proved Simpson guilty. The witnesses tell us when he committed the murders, and the many lies Simpson told under oath in the civil trial confirm his guilt.

There was no reason for the police to suspect Simpson was involved in these murders when they went to Rockingham other than as the ex-husband he was a possible suspect the same as any other person who knew Nicole was a possible suspect until they were eliminated.

Vannatter testified that it wasn't until he saw the glove at Rockingham that Simpson became a suspect. After seeing the blood on Simpson driveway Simpson became a strong suspect.

Nothing ever eliminated Simpson.

Evidence Dismissed,
"Lange and Vannatter were deluged by telephone calls, ranging from the LAPD high command and reporters to potential sources who want to offer information. These tips, usually provided anonymously, cause the LAPD to open a "clue book" for what would become 518 clues, 50 of which pointed to a variety of motives and suspects having nothing to do with Simpson. All fifty of these tips were investigated. Among those clues taken seriously and not so seriously include.

Person reporting heard dog bark and saw man run across her front yard.
Neo-Nazi bikers claim Nicole killed due to interracial marriage.
Inmate states he was approached to kill the victim.
Waiter at Mezzaluna missing from work (suspect?)
Mezzaluna is a cocaine distribution pint and Goldman is supplying.
(Person reporting) confesses to killing victims with bayonet.
Jason Simpson is the suspect.
Kato did it.
(Person reporting) saw a neighbor making a machete.
Nicole's family did it.
Psychic. Heard a voice. O.J. didn't do it.
Informant states the 'mob' committed murders.
Informant states Nicole 'laundering money. Mob 'whacked' her.
Psychic. A serial killer involved.
Ambulance attendant did it.
Two black men out of Houston did murders.
Hitman Johnny Reb killed victims.
Can prove Simpson didn't commit the murders.
Saw a Mercedes Benz follow Nicole from the Mezzaluna.
Caller confesses to murders.
Simpson didn't do it. (Caller) framed Simpson.
Indiana prisoner recruited to kill Nicole.
(Person reporting) has videotape. Killer is a male, white.
(Person reporting) states, "This is my fault."
Gang member paid $260,000 to kill Nicole.
(Person reporting) saw two guys grab Goldman and then attack Nicole.
Gang related murder.
(Person reporting provides) license number of vehicle involved in murders.
(Person reporting has) photo of man who knows real killers.
Fuhrman and Kato offered (Person reporting) $100,000 to kill victims."

bobaugust

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

Evidence Dismissed,

bobaugust

Brett Cantor- more dismissed evidence

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Brett Cantor- more dismissed evidence

nettathirty, Brett Cantor was irrelevant to the Bundy murders.

bobaugust

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, Brett Cantor was irrelevant to the Bundy murders.

bobaugust

August,

HAHAHA!!

My turn, ok irrelevant.. how bout Gate Slam! Gimmeabreak!!!

2L8 4A D8

09-06-2006, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Looks like a repeat. I don't think her new season starts until the 18th or so. Here is a link to what Darden said:

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200602/20060209/slide_20060209_284_202.jhtml

Thanks Socal for the link. Darden looks like that he still hasn't gotten over the OJ verdict and I can't say that I blame him.

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

HAHAHA!!

My turn, ok irrelevant.. how bout Gate Slam! Gimmeabreak!!!

nettathirty, your comment "how bout gate slam!" continues to show everyone your limited life experience when it comes to metal gates. You still can't seem to comprehend that a metal gate can be slammed so hard that it can bounce back open instead of latching.

I would think by now that you would have learned about metal gates or at least not bring the subject up since you completely embarrass yourself every time you do but since you have I'll be happy to indulge you in your masochistic needs.

August 17. 1995
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.

But nettathirty evidently never has. Funny.

bobaugust

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

August 17. 1995
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.

bobaugust

August,

Spare me, I was a kid a (very very very Long Time Ago)..

2 Things that is very interesting..

Douglas is arguing in favor of the State, but he's OJs attorney..

Secondly, all Douglas said was the gate would not have latched.. The gate at Bundy was visibly WIDE OPEN, not just unlatched..

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Spectulation on your part. imo.

Darden did what he was asked to do by his employer. PERIOD. He performed his JOB.

Socal,

All the expert seems to be of the same mind set as me, that Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden was both into trial for his color! imo

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Spare me, I was a kid a (very very very Long Time Ago)..

2 Things that is very interesting..

Douglas is arguing in favor of the State, but he's OJs attorney..

Secondly, all Douglas said was the gate would not have latched.. The gate at Bundy was visibly WIDE OPEN, not just unlatched..

nettathirty, spare you? A very very very long time ago? Bull. This has been explained to you many times and not that long ago. Because you never admit to being wrong when you're proved wrong you continue to repeat posting the same mistakes. I'm sorry but either you're very dense, or you're handicapped in not being able to retain information, or you just keep forgetting that you're wrong or you're outright lying. Which one is it?

Read what you just quoted in your post.

THE COURT: And that the gate at--where Miss Brown Simpson was found was also opened,

The gate was found opened.

bobaugust

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Regardless of what you & some unnamed expert say, he did his job.

You seem to like the phrase that you keep inserting. Most thinking people know that Darden was intelligent, articulate & honorable. Three characteristics no one have ever accused your beloved sports hero of. I think it's pathetic that you feel the need to demean him whilst defending the double murderer.

Socal,

Realistic, he made enough money to get away from that corrupt DAs office.. What if he did it at the cost of a innocent AA male, so what right!

imo

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

. This has been explained to you many times and not that long ago.

bobaugust

August,

Listen, the gate that Heidstra heard and the Bundy gate are not 1 in the same.. Plus one of the neighbors, said he was outside at or around that same time, and he closed his gate because the barking dog being on the lose..

So give up, you and Heidstra both are confused!

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

left the D.A.'s office at the "cost of a innocent AA male"?

.

Socal

Darden became very wealthy from the attempted prosecution of a Innocent Black man, Orenthal James Simpson.. His newly garnered wealth allowed him to leave the corrupted LAPD and DA's office, where he could NO longer be used by the "MAN" for the skin of his color!

Reasonable Inference: He wasn't the DA's first choice to prosecute, only after the jury selection did Garcetti decide to bring in Brothadict Arnold...

IMO MOO JMHO..

bobaugust

09-06-2006, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Listen, the gate that Heidstra heard and the Bundy gate are not 1 in the same.. Plus one of the neighbors, said he was outside at or around that same time, and he closed his gate because the barking dog being on the lose..

So give up, you and Heidstra both are confused!

nettathirty, is there no end to you repeating the same false and misinformation so many times after you've been shown it's wrong? Why do you continue to post lies?

Heidstra testified that it was Nicole's front gate he heard slam. No one has ever contradicted him. No one has ever presented one shred of evidence that contradicts what he said.

There was no other neighbor outside at that time. Once again you've using one of Dick Wagner's fabrications that he made up about another gate slamming. Wagner invented the story about Karpf slamming his gate. Not only didn't Karpf ever say that but Karpf wasn't even home yet when Heidstra heard Nicole's front gate slam.

Heidstra testified that he heard Nicole's front gate slam seconds after he heard the two male voices coming from her condo. That was about 10:40.

February 8, 1995
Q BY MS. CLARK: YES, SIR.
YOU GOT HOME AT 10:45. DID YOU GO DIRECTLY INTO YOUR APARTMENT AND OUT TO THE STREET TO GET TO YOUR MAIL?
A YES, I DID.
Q SO 10:45 OR -47, YOU SAW THE DOG?
A I WOULD SAY THAT'S PRETTY ACCURATE.
Q AND WHERE IN THE STREET WAS THE DOG WHEN YOU SAW IT?
A AT THAT POINT, IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET JUST RUNNING OR WALKING AIMLESSLY.
Q AND BARKING?
A BARKING VERY LOUDLY.
Q AND WHAT DID IT DO WHEN YOU APPROACHED YOUR MAIL BOX?
A IT STARTED TO APPROACH ME, WHICH IT DID SCARE ME. SO I ACTUALLY RETREATED BACK INSIDE MY GATE UNTIL IT MOVED ON.
Q WHEN YOU RETREATED BACK INSIDE YOUR GATE, WHAT DID IT DO?
A AFTER THAT, A FEW, MAYBE 20 SECONDS OR SO, IT STARTED BACK INTO THE STREET WALKING UP TOWARDS MONTANA.

bobaugust

nettathirty

09-06-2006, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Baloney. Orenthal is/was not innocent & Darden was doing his job in prosecuting him. There was plenty of evidence to hold him over for trial, as decided by the grand jury.

Put up or shut up relative to the "corrupted LAPD & DA's office"
Name a case where someone was wrongly imprisoned. IN LOS ANGELES.

Socal

Geromino Pratt was wrongly convicted for killing 2 people in Santa Monica, while he was in Oakland.. Johnny Cochran won his appeal after Mr Pratt spent nearly 30 years behind bars for a crime he did not committ! :D

nettathirty

09-07-2006, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

Heidstra testified that he heard Nicole's front gate slam seconds after he heard the two male voices coming from her condo. That was about 10:40.

bobaugust

August,

I want you to meet a friend of mine, he'll explain to you that estimated times, aren't real times... So when a witness testifies he could be off as far as 10mins, up or down..

I can't think of that posters name, who made the statement about estimated times not being real times, but you would like him I think...

nettathirty

09-07-2006, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Originally posted by socaldiva [/i]
Put up or shut up relative to the "corrupted LAPD & DA's office"
Name a case where someone was wrongly imprisoned. IN LOS ANGELES.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Socal

I replied to this post from you, where are you ?

bobaugust

09-07-2006, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

I want you to meet a friend of mine, he'll explain to you that estimated times, aren't real times... So when a witness testifies he could be off as far as 10mins, up or down..

I can't think of that posters name, who made the statement about estimated times not being real times, but you would like him I think...

nettathirty, you got it wrong again. How many times have I said that to you? About a hundred? Unbelievable.

Estimated times are not real times. They only tell us approximately when an event happened not the exact time. They may be off by minutes or seconds or they may not be off at all.

For you to argue that maybe Louis Karpf's estimated time was off by ten minutes because his testimony contradicts the fantasy that Wagner made up is ridiculous and disingenuous. There is no evidence that contradicts Karpf's estimated times.

The facts are the facts. Karpf got home shortly after Simpson left Bundy, not five or so minutes earlier when Heidstra heard the two male voices yelling at each other from Nicole's condo and her front gate slam. Karpf did not hear any male voices yelling at each other. Karpf did not slam nor did he hear any gate slam. All of Simpson's defense attorneys understood this and no one ever suggested the fantasy Wagner made up. You're about the only person I've run across who is gullible enough to actually believe Wagner's fabrications were real facts.

Good job deceiving yourself.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

09-07-2006, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Socal

Darden was brought into this case to sway the black jury, he wasn't the states fast choice.. To add insult to injury, he's defending Mark Fuhrman who looked down on him and other AA's.. Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden, you only applaud him because he helped wrongfully prosecute an "Innocent Man", how sad!

There are some AA's who for the above mentioned reason, saw Darden as a traitor.. Many AA's were wondering what was his opinion on the trial of the officers acquitted of beating motorist Rodney King.. Some AA's are thinking, NOT ALL that he's being an Uncle Tom, and not wanting to upset the masses!!

IMO - MOO - JMHO..

Your Post is just hearsay on your part. You can't prove one point that you make in your Post. Thus, it has absolutely no relevance to anything, other than being your own opinion. WOW! GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

09-07-2006, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, is there no end to you repeating the same false and misinformation so many times after you've been shown it's wrong? Why do you continue to post lies?

<snipped>

bobaugust

Well, #1, he doesn't have anything better to do; #2, he would have absolutely nothing to do all day long but twiddle his thumbs; #3, he wants and needs to be a part of something, even if he has to lie or exaggerate to be a part of it; and #4, the Moderator(s) let him get away with it, so he does!

JMO and MOO!!

Sunny Day

09-07-2006, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Socal

Darden was brought into this case to sway the black jury, he wasn't the states fast choice.. To add insult to injury, he's defending Mark Fuhrman who looked down on him and other AA's.. Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden, you only applaud him because he helped wrongfully prosecute an "Innocent Man", how sad!

There are some AA's who for the above mentioned reason, saw Darden as a traitor.. Many AA's were wondering what was his opinion on the trial of the officers acquitted of beating motorist Rodney King.. Some AA's are thinking, NOT ALL that he's being an Uncle Tom, and not wanting to upset the masses!!

IMO - MOO - JMHO..

That is, IMO, the mistake blacks make. They call the honorable blacks traitors and embrace the thugs like OJ, who to this day, rather be around white people.

The one who used the race card was Johnny Cochrane. It was reported that he said all he needed was one black on the jury. He knew how to push their buttons.

Marsha Clark blew it by not objecting to having an almost all black jury. That was a jury of racists, IMO.

Sunny Day

09-07-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

<snipped>

There was no reason for the police to suspect Simpson was involved in these murders when they went to Rockingham other than as the ex-husband he was a possible suspect the same as any other person who knew Nicole was a possible suspect until they were eliminated.

Vannatter testified that it wasn't until he saw the glove at Rockingham that Simpson became a suspect. After seeing the blood on Simpson driveway Simpson became a strong suspect.

Nothing ever eliminated Simpson.

<snipped>
bobaugust

Uh, let's see. He was an angry, jealous ex-husband who had abused Nicole before.

Ron Goldman's blood was in his white SUV.

He had no qualms whatsoever putting on gloves that had his wife's blood on it, and he snapped them off like he had done it a hundred times before. Gloves that are too tight and don't fit can't be snapped off so easily.

He had motive and opportunity.

He can't account for those minutes that the murders were ocurring.

The blood evidence and DNA proved he committed the murders. Just because they were dismissed does not mean that evidence doesn't exist. There was plenty more evidence proving OJ did it that got thrown out.

And last, but certainly not least, a civil jury hearing ALL the evidence ruled that HE DID IT.

nettathirty

09-07-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

That is, IMO, the mistake blacks make. They call the honorable blacks traitors and embrace the thugs like OJ, who to this day, rather be around white people.

The one who used the race card was Johnny Cochrane. It was reported that he said all he needed was one black on the jury. He knew how to push their buttons.

Marsha Clark blew it by not objecting to having an almost all black jury. That was a jury of racists, IMO.

.... The state played the race card, when they tried to exploit Darden based on the color of his skin....

.... Sunny Day, are you saying that "Black People" aren't qualified to sit on a jury.. Just because you don't agree with 1 trial verdict an entire race of people should be excluded from the entire Judicial System.. It's amazing with this type of thinking, why black people aren't so quick to trust OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM..ooops, i'm sorry, YOUR JUSTICE SYSTEM...

.... Considering you don't think Black People should sit on a jury panel, explains your " Mistakes BLACK PEOPLE" make .. comment.

Sunny Day

09-07-2006, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

.... The state played the race card, when they tried to exploit Darden based on the color of his skin....

.... Sunny Day, are you saying that "Black People" aren't qualified to sit on a jury.. Just because you don't agree with 1 trial verdict an entire race of people should be excluded from the entire Judicial System.. It's amazing with this type of thinking, why black people aren't so quick to trust OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM..ooops, i'm sorry, YOUR JUSTICE SYSTEM...

.... Considering you don't think Black People should sit on a jury panel, explains your " Mistakes BLACK PEOPLE" make .. comment.

Yes, that's what I'm saying regarding the OJ case, thanks to Cochrane playing the race card and dividing the nation down racial lines, blacks were very biased in this case.

They wanted to "get even" with the LAPD for calling them the "n" word.

The LAPD gave OJ a pass on several occassions when they were called out to his place after he abused his wife.

The state didn't play the race card half as expertly as Johnny Cochrane did.

That jury chose the wrong "black" man to nullify a case for. They chose a "black" man who, to this day, prefers to be around white people and counts as his most proud achievement his being accepted and adored by whites.

MO.

Sunny Day

09-07-2006, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by Holly
.I don't know Mr. Simpson and I seriously doubt that you do. Therefore, I am quite sure that neither of us can speak for him or knows what he considers his greatest achievement.

Can you provide documentation of this so-called boast of his? While you are about it, maybe you will provide a list of the "whites" who accept and adore him. As I recall, the majority of his "white" friends abandoned him. Even many of his attorneys have indicated that they believe he is guilty.

I am referring to his status BEFORE he butchered his wife, and whites were very much a part of his fan base, and he was VERY proud of that.

I cannot name all the white people who were his fans, or still are.

I cannot dig up a years old interview he gave where he expressed such pride that he heard a white fan say, "look at all those n*gg*rs...and there's OJ Simpson!". He was so proud that he wasn't called a n*gg*r too.

As I said, he agreed to be videoed by that sleazy promoter because he thinks he showing that he's still accepted by whites by being seen partying with trashy white girls.

MO.

weezer

09-08-2006, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Socal

Geromino Pratt was wrongly convicted for killing 2 people in Santa Monica, while he was in Oakland.. Johnny Cochran won his appeal after Mr Pratt spent nearly 30 years behind bars for a crime he did not committ! :D Elmer Pratt was convicted of killing 1 woman. Cochran and HANLON won his appeal.

weezer

09-08-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Socal,

All the expert seems to be of the same mind set as me, that Christopher "Brothadict-Arnold" Darden was both into trial for his color! imo You evidently haven't read Darden's book. You might find it interesting where he writes about how his participation in the trial came about and why he didn't turn it down.

You know what is amusing about your post? You have posted that the jury didn't convict Orenthal for the murders based on doubt and not race YET because Darden was one of the prosecutors, you refer to him as a traitor.

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

Yes, that's what I'm saying regarding the OJ case, thanks to Cochrane playing the race card and dividing the nation down racial lines, blacks were very biased in this case.

They wanted to "get even" with the LAPD for calling them the "n" word.

The LAPD gave OJ a pass on several occassions when they were called out to his place after he abused his wife.

The state didn't play the race card half as expertly as Johnny Cochrane did.

That jury chose the wrong "black" man to nullify a case for. They chose a "black" man who, to this day, prefers to be around white people and counts as his most proud achievement his being accepted and adored by whites.

MO.

SunnyDay,

It's amazing for someone who has "NO" interaction with Black People you certainly seem to know what Black People are thinking, amazing.. Your first point, Cochran (no E) didn't divide this Nation.. This nation was a melting pot long before the OJ trial...

Flashback:

Rodney King
Susan Smith
Charles Stuart

So, you're saying the Jury's verdict was because of Fuhrman and nothing else? It's amazing for someone who has "NO" interaction with Black People you certainly seem to know what Black People are thinking, amazing..

The state may not have played the race card as well as Cochran (No E), but they played it, and they played it first!

Other than what you "THINK", what evidence (LINK)please that supports your theory of this jury, righting pass wrongs with this case....

Based on your response, you probably have absolutely NO contact with people of other races.. You sit and watch your television and from that you've developed a "PROFILE" about Black People, it amazes me!

jhmo.. imo

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
You evidently haven't read Darden's book. You might find it interesting where he writes about how his participation in the trial came about and why he didn't turn it down.

You know what is amusing about your post? You have posted that the jury didn't convict Orenthal for the murders based on doubt and not race YET because Darden was one of the prosecutors, you refer to him as a traitor.

fbg,

Darden, as a BUSINESS decision this was the GREATEST DECISION he could have ever made.. He's RICH!! However, let's not fool ourselves, the guy was NOT the states first choice.. He only became visible when the jury was selected.. They only wanted Chris because he was black, and nothing more.. When the glove demonstration failed, you see how they turned on the Brotha, and that is what Cochran (no E) was referring to that was mentioned in Darden's book!!

weezer

09-09-2006, 04:18 PM

*Snip*Originally posted by nettathirty
pass wrongs with this case.... It's past (no S)

weezer

09-09-2006, 04:21 PM

*Snip*Originally posted by nettathirty
He's RICH!! Wonder if he took it with him?

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* It's past (no S)

fbg,

I appreciate that, i tend to get so caught up in my thoughts.. I omit or substitute words based on what sounds right... :beer:

caphill

09-09-2006, 06:46 PM

Sunny Day

09-09-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by caphill

OJ Simpson was never indicted by the Grand Jury.

You bring up all the legalese, technicalities, loopholes, nullifications and all other legal mumbo jumbo, but at the end of the day, OJ murdered two people, and there was a mountain of evidence against him even AFTER most of it got thrown out. Even HE isn't looking for the "real" killer.

The fact is, and you cannot dispute it, people DO get a way with murder. They are never tried, they are never caught, but their victims or no less dead. Just because some jury didn't convict them doesn't make them innocent.

MO.

Sunny Day

09-09-2006, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

SunnyDay,

It's amazing for someone who has "NO" interaction with Black People you certainly seem to know what Black People are thinking, amazing.. Your first point, Cochran (no E) didn't divide this Nation.. This nation was a melting pot long before the OJ trial...

Flashback:

Rodney King
Susan Smith
Charles Stuart

So, you're saying the Jury's verdict was because of Fuhrman and nothing else? It's amazing for someone who has "NO" interaction with Black People you certainly seem to know what Black People are thinking, amazing..

The state may not have played the race card as well as Cochran (No E), but they played it, and they played it first!

Other than what you "THINK", what evidence (LINK)please that supports your theory of this jury, righting pass wrongs with this case....

Based on your response, you probably have absolutely NO contact with people of other races.. You sit and watch your television and from that you've developed a "PROFILE" about Black People, it amazes me!

jhmo.. imo

Well stop being amazed because you are WRONG. I DO have interaction with people of different races, and this case was about getting even with the LAPD. No I do not know blacks' thinking, but Johnny Cochrane did and he played them like a fiddle, IMO. Even though I can't read their minds, I can understand why they would want to get even with the LAPD who they see profiling them, but as I said, they picked the wrong black man to nullify a case for. To this day, OJ would rather be around whites and not even YOU can dispute THAT.

I spoke to several blacks who wanted OJ to get away with it. If you notice, whenever the accused is black and the victim is white, they want the accused to get away with it, i.e., OJ, MJ, Bryant.

And a melting pot is different that a dividing line, and Cochrane by playing the race, made it a racial case to blacks, not so much for whites because whites were for OJ too.

I guess you didn't see the blacks cheering when OJ was found "not guilty" by jury nullification did you?

BTW, that verdict should've been "not proven" because he's PLENTY guilty.

MO.

caphill

09-09-2006, 09:27 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by socaldiva

Baloney. Orenthal is/was not innocent & Darden was doing his job in prosecuting him. There was plenty of evidence to hold him over for trial, as decided by the grand jury.

Put up or shut up relative to the "corrupted LAPD & DA's office"
Name a case where someone was wrongly imprisoned. IN LOS ANGELES. [/QUO
TE]

LA and immediate areas of wrongfully convicted:

Clarence Chanice and Benny Powell served from 1975 to 1992 LAPD misconduct

Thomas Goldstein of Long Beach served 1980 to 2004

Harold Hall LA 1980 to 2004 police and prosecutorial misconduct

Jason Kindle LA served 2000-2003

Melvin Mikes LA served 1985 to 1991

There was a case (I think it was Santa Clara) where Ernest Graham was acquitted after being on death row. His conviction was reversed and he was retried based on the prosecution excluding African Americans from the prospective jury.

This is from a list of 30 of Ca rather recent reversals. An overwhelming majority of the reversals were police and prosecutorial misconduct.

Of course the Rampart cases that sprung up after the OJ trial is mind blowing.

The Rampart cases was the biggest police corruption in LA history with more than a billion dollars of liability. That liability to the city was nothing in comparison to the shame brought to LAPD.

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

Well stop being amazed because you are WRONG. I DO have interaction with people of different races, and this case was about getting even with the LAPD. No I do not know blacks' thinking, but Johnny Cochrane did and he played them like a fiddle, IMO. Even though I can't read their minds, I can understand why they would want to get even with the LAPD who they see profiling them, but as I said, they picked the wrong black man to nullify a case for. To this day, OJ would rather be around whites and not even YOU can dispute THAT.

I spoke to several blacks who wanted OJ to get away with it. If you notice, whenever the accused is black and the victim is white, they want the accused to get away with it, i.e., OJ, MJ, Bryant.

And a melting pot is different that a dividing line, and Cochrane by playing the race, made it a racial case to blacks, not so much for whites because whites were for OJ too.

I guess you didn't see the blacks cheering when OJ was found "not guilty" by jury nullification did you?

BTW, that verdict should've been "not proven" because he's PLENTY guilty.

MO.

SunnyDay,

Remember this, if someone is constantly telling you exactly what you want to hear.

1. They are lying to you!
2. They are trying to distract you!

The defense wasn't the one who played the race card, as a matter of fact the defense didn't play the race card at ALL!!!!

Guess what, the prosecution knew about MF long before the defense and the public.. Johnny Cochran (no E), didn't expose M.Fuhrman, as a matter of fact he tried to warn the prosecution about M.Fuhrman...

The Simpson marriage was not that of "Escalating Violence" that leads to murder.. Yes, their was some abuse, more emotional than physical, probably equally shared.. I guess that is why none of the other officers who visited Rockingham over the years had a story to tell, or sell!

nettathirty

09-09-2006, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by caphill
[QUOTE]Originally posted by socaldiva

Baloney. Orenthal is/was not innocent & Darden was doing his job in prosecuting him. There was plenty of evidence to hold him over for trial, as decided by the grand jury.

Put up or shut up relative to the "corrupted LAPD & DA's office"
Name a case where someone was wrongly imprisoned. IN LOS ANGELES. [/QUO
TE]

LA and immediate areas of wrongfully convicted:

Clarence Chanice and Benny Powell served from 1975 to 1992 LAPD misconduct

Thomas Goldstein of Long Beach served 1980 to 2004

Harold Hall LA 1980 to 2004 police and prosecutorial misconduct

Jason Kindle LA served 2000-2003

Melvin Mikes LA served 1985 to 1991

There was a case (I think it was Santa Clara) where Ernest Graham was acquitted after being on death row. His conviction was reversed and he was retried based on the prosecution excluding African Americans from the prospective jury.

This is from a list of 30 of Ca rather recent reversals. An overwhelming majority of the reversals were police and prosecutorial misconduct.

Of course the Rampart cases that sprung up after the OJ trial is mind blowing.

The Rampart cases was the biggest police corruption in LA history with more than a billion dollars of liability. That liability to the city was nothing in comparison to the shame brought to LAPD.

Caphill,

Wow!

Sunny Day

09-10-2006, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Caphill,

Wow!

Caphill just posted a list of reasons why that mostly black jury wanted to nullify the case to get even with the LAPD.

And I still disagree. The defense had no reason to believe a black person on the "wrong" side of the law would sway the jury. I don't think they thought Darden would win any of the jury members, in fact, they probably warned him he would be called a "tom". How ironic. The only real "tom", IMO, was OJ.

Cochrane built his practice defending blacks with his race card strategy.

Bottom line--a civil jury heard ALL the evidence, including some that got thrown out, and found OJ committed the murders. No one else had motive and opportunity, and domestic abuse often leads to murder when you factor in divorce, jealousy, and a disgruntled ex who's pissed at all the alimony he has to pay.

MO.

weezer

09-10-2006, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

Caphill just posted a list of reasons why that mostly black jury wanted to nullify the case to get even with the LAPD.

And I still disagree. The defense had no reason to believe a black person on the "wrong" side of the law would sway the jury. I don't think they thought Darden would win any of the jury members, in fact, they probably warned him he would be called a "tom". How ironic. The only real "tom", IMO, was OJ.

Cochrane built his practice defending blacks with his race card strategy.

Bottom line--a civil jury heard ALL the evidence, including some that got thrown out, and found OJ committed the murders. No one else had motive and opportunity, and domestic abuse often leads to murder when you factor in divorce, jealousy, and a disgruntled ex who's pissed at all the alimony he has to pay.

MO. :beer:

William Anthony

09-10-2006, 11:22 PM

William Anthony

09-10-2006, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

I am referring to his status BEFORE he butchered his wife, and whites were very much a part of his fan base, and he was VERY proud of that.

I cannot name all the white people who were his fans, or still are.

I cannot dig up a years old interview he gave where he expressed such pride that he heard a white fan say, "look at all those n*gg*rs...and there's OJ Simpson!". He was so proud that he wasn't called a n*gg*r too.

As I said, he agreed to be videoed by that sleazy promoter because he thinks he showing that he's still accepted by whites by being seen partying with trashy white girls.

MO.

Not to worry. Mark Furman told him what he was in his eyes.

William Anthony

09-10-2006, 11:33 PM

William Anthony

09-10-2006, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You think that Orenthal couldn't/wouldn't have killed Nicole & Ron because they are white & he adored white people? Wow! You really don't understand the dynamics of what transpired, do you?

Well, still running. I am left to surmise what you believe the dynamics are. O. J. (hereinafter, he) ate a big mac meal, found a phone booth, flew over to the crime scene, murdered two people, flew in the open window of his bedroom, where he had a secret phone booth, changed back to his regular identity and flew in a plane to Chicago. The Post was that he loved the adoration of whites. Why lessen your potential fan club? My scenario makes as much sense as the post to which I responded, imo.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

The post you speak of was not "illogical", only your response. The dynamics were that Orenthal was an abusive, controlling, rageful man. It ended in him murdering his ex-wife once he knew that she was done with him. Had nothing to do with race.

Good, you have stopped running. You seem to have spent some time with him. There was testimony that she wanted to get back with him and he was considering it, but started a happy relationship with Paula. The post I responded to was about race.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You have your time frames mixed up. Nicole was not trying to get back with him when he murdered her. She was looking to move from Bundy & away from the area to be rid of him. She was done. I guess you also missed that Paula dumped him the very morning of the murders.

No, there was conflicting testimony about the status of O. J.'s and Nicole's relationship. I do believe that his relationship with Paula ended shortly after the murders. There was also rumors that the children, who were not put on the stand, imo, was best, heard an argument between Mommy and her friend. What about the partially frozen ice cream. I do not know who killed them. I can not call anyone a murderer. There are things that cause me concerns. Part of the prosecution's case was illogical and so were parts of the defense's, imho. What I am really concerned about is why people cannot accept the verdict in the criminal trial and want to refer to it as jury nullification.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

What conflicting testimony? by whom? Nicole was done with him after he threatened her with the IRS.

Paula testified that she dumped Orenthal the morning before the murders. She left him a message & there were phone records that showed he retrieved the message.

If memory serves me correctly, there was testimony from Kato. Another of the defense witnesses testified that O. J. had resigned himself to the fact that the marriage was over and happy with Paula. I am not sure how long that happiness lasted.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Sorry, but there was no testimony from Kato that Nicole was trying to get back together with Orenthal at the time of the murders.

How could Orenthal be happy with Paul if she dumped him the morning of the murders & was in Las Vegas with Michael Bolton?

She also testified that there was nothing between her and Michael. I wiil not argue Kato's testimony but, as I recall it, he suggested there was an on-going of-and-on sexual relationship between O. J. and Nicole and they were talking about getting back together.

weezer

09-11-2006, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

She also testified that there was nothing between her and Michael. I wiil not argue Kato's testimony but, as I recall it, he suggested there was an on-going of-and-on sexual relationship between O. J. and Nicole and they were talking about getting back together. You need to rewatch your tapes -- you do not have a good grasp on the facts/evidence/testimony of the case.

weezer

09-11-2006, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by caphill

OJ Simpson was never indicted by the Grand Jury. http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq1.htm: "In the O.J. Simpson case, the prosecutors were going to ask a grand jury to charge Simpson with murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but the defense attorneys persuaded the court that the grand jurors had heard too much about the case to be able to make an impartial decision. That is, the defense attorneys filed a motion saying the grand jurors were too prejudiced by what they had seen on television and read in the papers to be able to review the evidence against Mr. Simpson impartially, the way a trial juror should. The judge agreed with the defense attorneys, which is very unusual. Normally, defense attorneys fail when they try to claim that a grand jury is biased. Courts reject these claims on the theory that all the grand jury does is bring charges, so even if a grand jury is biased, the person they charge can still prove their innocence at trial. But a California judge bought the defense's argument in the case of O.J. Simpson (perhaps because of the extraordinary publicity surrounding Mr. Simpson) and, instead of trying to start over with a new grand jury, the prosecutors used another method to charge Simpson with the murders."

weezer

09-11-2006, 01:12 PM

*Snip*Originally posted by Holly
why don't they emigrate? In this country it's spelled immigrate.

weezer

09-11-2006, 01:40 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by caphill

OJ Simpson was never indicted by the Grand Jury.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonchron.html: "June 24, 1994 Grand jury recused.
July 8, 1994 Six-day preliminary hearing ends with Judge Kathleen Kennedy-Powell ruling there is sufficient evidence for O.J. Simpson to stand trial on two counts of first-degree murder."

weezer

09-11-2006, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Unless you are actually personally acquained with Mr. Simpson, this post is beyond preposterous.

It borders on manic. WTH? All of which was proven by evidence/fact/testimony.

weezer

09-11-2006, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Holly

Link for this, please. I don't believe it for a minute. Why did she buy a condo so close to him? Why didn't she get as far away from him as she could?

Who cares? Or do you think this is why he killed his ex-wife? It would have made more sense to kill Paula. Nicole said/wrote that she thought it was important to keep the kids in the neighborhood they'd grown up in -- same school, etc. There is evidence that she had already leased a new place away from Brentwood at the time of her death. Most people have interpreted it to mean this was her final break with Orenthal.

I don't think Orenthal cared that deeply for Paula -- I've always felt he had a need to be connected to a woman. Maybe doubted his own sexuality/worth? You know, I've often heard women described this way but I think Orenthal is the first man I ever considered that way. No one has suggested that he murdered Nicole because Paula broke up with him that day. Most G's believe this was one of many things that came together that day for the 'perfect storm' --

weezer

09-11-2006, 03:37 PM

*SNIP*Originally posted by Holly
Why did she buy a condo so close to him? Why didn't she get as far away from him as she could? Ever hear the saying "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"?

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Nope, no link. Go do some research & you'll come up with the same info.

Who cares? Why don't you read the posts leading up to this? William Anthony was posting about OJ being happy with Paula at the time of the murders.

You are right. I said at the time, not the day after.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Indeed, I have often seen the saying.

Since, however, husbands, former husbands, boyfriends, or former boyfriends as the most likely to do a woman physical harm, the more prudent action would have been to move as far away from this particular "enemy" as possible.

But all of this is just so much crying over spilt milk. Mr. Simpson has been acquitted iin a court of law and can never be tried for this murder again, the civil verdict notwithstanding.

At last a voice of reason and logic.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Then why are you wasting your time posting here & debating the issue? :shrug:

Proably because she, I and others wonder why you cannot accept the verdicts for what they are and still proclaim to the world, as if you have the truth locked up in your treasure chest, that he is without a doubt the killer.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Only to those that don't have a grasp on domestic violence. Those that do know about it, know that the most dangerous time is when the woman makes the break to free herself from the batterer.

According to your theory then, he should have killed here at the time they decided to live in different homes.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Why do you feel compelled to answer for her? She's here & able to post for herself.

I am sorry if you mistook my post. I was answering for all those who may not feel the same as you and others, of which I can readily name two. Fbgweezer has answered for you.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

It's not my theory. Why don't you go read up on domestic violence?

I was merely responding to your post. Personally, I found Paula much more attractive and would have more likely been upset when she broke up with me. But, if I had his money, I would manage to find a dozen Nichole's and Paula's.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I didn't "mistake" your post. I asked a specific question of another poster & you felt you needed to answer.

Are you saying that I should not have the right to post? This is an open forum, I believe, where people can respond to each other in what, I believe should be, an open and honest manner without fear of reproach.

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Well, still running. I am left to surmise what you believe the dynamics are. O. J. (hereinafter, he) ate a big mac meal, found a phone booth, flew over to the crime scene, murdered two people, flew in the open window of his bedroom, where he had a secret phone booth, changed back to his regular identity and flew in a plane to Chicago. The Post was that he loved the adoration of whites. Why lessen your potential fan club? My scenario makes as much sense as the post to which I responded, imo.

So, you're saying that OJ turned into some kind of Vampire? Flying here and there through the dark of night? GMAB! OJ certainly can't be compared to Superman that's for sure. I thought that I had heard all of the NG's scenarios, but this one takes the cake! Keep up the good work. We need a lot more laughs around here! :lol:

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Geesh. This wasn't about looks & I doubt that anyone here cares who you think was prettier.

To those of you who think that he was so enthralled by Nicole, that he would murder her in the presence of his and her children, when he had a woman of equal if not greater beauty and was financially capable of getting better, it may have happened as you claim but there is reasonable doubt in my mind as to that particular motivation. If you think the issue was control, then why did has he not killed Paula? If it was jealousy, why has he not killed Bolton?

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Holly
With all due respect, kind sir, you do not seem to understand that certain posters do not want you to post your opinions, even if what you say is merely the repetition of the ideas of some of the greatest political and legal scholars of all of recorded history.

To those who find offense in my wanting to adhere to well established legal principles, I am sorry, but please do not attempt to deter my ability to speak freely.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

So, you're saying that OJ turned into some kind of Vampire? Flying here and there through the dark of night? GMAB! OJ certainly can't be compared to Superman that's for sure. I thought that I had heard all of the NG's scenarios, but this one takes the cake! Keep up the good work. We need a lot more laughs around here! :lol:

JMO and MOO!!

No, no, there has been an effort to make him into Superman, more with powers of God than Human. They ignore the time line, the fact that there is no record of any conversation between he and she and for some reason he decided to eat before killing two people, manage to escape without being identified, go home change, and catch a flight.

weezer

09-11-2006, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

To those of you who think that he was so enthralled by Nicole, that he would murder her in the presence of his and her children, when he had a woman of equal if not greater beauty and was financially capable of getting better, it may have happened as you claim but there is reasonable doubt in my mind as to that particular motivation. If you think the issue was control, then why did has he not killed Paula? If it was jealousy, why has he not killed Bolton? He was obsessed with Nicole -- that does not equate to love. He had controlled her life since she was 17 years old and it was over -- very hard for him to take. He did not have Paula -- she dumped him the morning of the murders. We've seen the 'beauties' he's been able to get since then: one called police that she was afraid of him and the others were real sweeties in the lap dance video. He's still got a thing for blondes.

weezer

09-11-2006, 04:28 PM

*Snip*Originally posted by William Anthony
why has he not killed Bolton? Because cowards beat up women --

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Get real. You had the dynamics of a class action lawsuit BACKWARDS. :lol:

As I told you the spirit of that particular post was in jest, not being technically correct. However, will you tell me who can participate in a class action and why such suits are allowed?

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* Because cowards beat up women --

I told her you answered for her. You confirmed it you are bobie, imo! you snip and only answer one part, but I'm glad you did, because the Mr. Simpson could not have been the murderer of Ron, according to your post.

weezer

09-11-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I told her you answered for her. You confirmed it you are bobie, imo! you snip and only answer one part, but I'm glad you did, because the Mr. Simpson could not have been the murderer of Ron, according to your post. :confused:

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Yes, you continually make excuses as to why you post items that are not based on reality or fact.

I do know what a class action lawsuit is, or I wouldn't have been able to call you out on it. If you don't know what it is, I suggest you :read:

Why anyone knows what it is, but tell me who can particpate and why, before you scold. You have time to read up on it. Then tell me what legal theory could prevent a member of a class action from participating.

weezer

09-11-2006, 04:36 PM

looks like a mutual admiration society -- YIKES!

weezer

09-11-2006, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Why anyone knows what it is, but tell me who can particpate and why, before you scold. You have time to read up on it. Then tell me what legal theory could prevent a member of a class action from participating. Oh my -- some lawyer told him he'd make a good lawyer someday when he grew up and wham! he thinks he's made it. I doubt socal gives a flip about who can and can't participate, blah, blah, blah.....Maybe you need to find a board to discuss the merits of law.

RainStorm

09-11-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Proably because she, I and others wonder why you cannot accept the verdicts for what they are and still proclaim to the world, as if you have the truth locked up in your treasure chest, that he is without a doubt the killer.

The criminal verdict was a piece of junk. Simpson is the killer, as most Americans believe, so it is only normal that folks voice their displeasure with the verdict. Americans speak up when they don't like something - it's healthy for the country. You are unwise to advocate suppressing it.

It's actually not uncommon for verdicts to be denounced - I guess you just don't like it in this particular case. But certainly those who protest the Simpson criminal verdict can teach a thing or two to some others, for they are model citizens compared to the folks who protested the verdict of the first Rodney King trial.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
He was obsessed with Nicole -- that does not equate to love. He had controlled her life since she was 17 years old and it was over -- very hard for him to take. He did not have Paula -- she dumped him the morning of the murders. We've seen the 'beauties' he's been able to get since then: one called police that she was afraid of him and the others were real sweeties in the lap dance video. He's still got a thing for blondes.

You continue to amaze me. He was so obssed with her that he allowed her to move away and date whomever, without killing her. I, for one, would rather have an ex-wife that dates others than a current cheating wife.

weezer

09-11-2006, 04:53 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by William Anthony
He was so obssed with her that he allowed her to move away and date whomever, without killing her. Uh - helloooo...........he did kill her.

weezer

09-11-2006, 04:54 PM

weezer

09-11-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Ron? Ron?

Ron Who?

This is a Simpson matter thread. Ron Somebody had something to do with the Peterson West matter, another travesty of justice. Okay - now you're starting to scare me.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by RainStorm

The criminal verdict was a piece of junk. Simpson is the killer, as most Americans believe, so it is only normal that folks voice their displeasure with the verdict. Americans speak up when they don't like something - it's healthy for the country. You are unwise to advocate suppressing it.

It's actually not uncommon for verdicts to be denounced - I guess you just don't like it in this particular case. But certainly those who protest the Simpson criminal verdict can teach a thing or two to some others, for they are model citizens compared to the folks who protested the verdict of the first Rodney King trial.

Quite to the contrary. I would like people to dennounce verdicts with equal passion. I have asked on another thread to this case why are certain elements of American society not as outraged of the treatment of Ted Kennedy and the verdict in regard to the Dupont who murdered and dimembered his neighbor. Unless, you have been denied access to justice, presumed guilty because of the color of your skin, killed and beaten by policemen for that same reason, murdered and the killers, and jury made a mockery of the judicial system, you could not understand how people feel when another baised verdict is rendered. You watched it, we did it, so what. You still do not and will not have justice unless you can bleach yourself. Hardly do we see those who benefit from a tainted system react in the same way as the unbenefited. So take pride in your reserve.

weezer

09-11-2006, 05:00 PM

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

William Anthony posted that Orenthal should file a class action lawsuit against those that refer to him as a double murderer :lol:

He's a real legal eagle, no wonder you "applaud" him :rolleyes:

If you are going to quote me at least quote me right. In response to you post, which I took in jest, I replied "class action! Hope I have my license by then." I have made a claim to be without sin, which was also in jest. I have never claimed to be perfect.:)

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

That must be why Michael Jackson was found not guilty. He followed your suggestion.

See, communication is a process of education. You are getting smarter. You got it right.:)

weezer

09-11-2006, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Holly
While I am not trained in the law, I rather imagine that no court would accept a "class action" from one person.

However, there are many strange things that the law allows. I will have to check with my friends who have been admitted to the bar before I render a judgment. William Anthony could use your expertise...........how about you guys email each other?:eek:

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

No, no, there has been an effort to make him into Superman, more with powers of God than Human. They ignore the time line, the fact that there is no record of any conversation between he and she and for some reason he decided to eat before killing two people, manage to escape without being identified, go home change, and catch a flight.

OJ is no Superman by a long shot! OJ called Nicole a lot, harrassing her constantly, started in on his tirade which ended up making her cry. She would always say to the kids when asked, "Oh, that was just Mommie's friend." She certainly didn't want the kids to know that it was Daddy that was making her cry! Smart Mommie if he ask me.

That's exactly what OJ did. Had a burger at McDonald's with Kato to establish his alibi and the rest is history! Oh, yes, OJ was identified, by Jill Shively when he ran the red light and almost hit another car.

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
William Anthony could use your expertise...........how about you guys email each other?:eek:

Weezer,

I troubled my mind to figure out what fbg stood for. Why I did that I do not know. However, could it stand for Fan of Bobaugust's Gibberish? :seeya:

weezer

09-11-2006, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Weezer,

I troubled my mind to figure out what fbg stood for. Why I did that I do not know. However, could it stand for Fan of Bobaugust's Gibberish? :seeya: Ahh, I'm certainly a fan of bobaugust

RainStorm

09-11-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Quite to the contrary. I would like people to dennounce verdicts with equal passion. I have asked on another thread to this case why are certain elements of American society not as outraged of the treatment of Ted Kennedy and the verdict in regard to the Dupont who murdered and dimembered his neighbor. Unless, you have been denied access to justice, presumed guilty because of the color of your skin, killed and beaten by policemen for that same reason, murdered and the killers, and jury made a mockery of the judicial system, you could not understand how people feel when another baised verdict is rendered. You watched it, we did it, so what. You still do not and will not have justice unless you can bleach yourself. Hardly do we see those who benefit from a tainted system react in the same way as the unbenefited. So take pride in your reserve.

How many race cards you got in that deck, William Anthony? You're trying to say folks weren't as outraged by Ted and Dupont because they're white guys, aren't you? Bunk. First, Ted didn't murder. Involuntary manslaughter, maybe. So that comparison is not apropos to Simpson. And Ted paid for it. Dupont, you got to be kidding. Most people didn't even follow it, so how could they be outraged?

You want to talk a race case that's apropos to Simpson? How about the acquittal of the killers of Emmett Till? You going to take that one lying down like you expect everyone to take the Simpson criminal verdict?

You don't take into consideration the massive amount of progress that has been made in this country with respect to race. Progress facilitated by folks of all colors.

Until you stop seeing a white hood on every caucasian, you are biased beyond the ability to reason in the Simpson case, and a lot of other stuff too.

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

If you are going to quote me at least quote me right. In response to you post, which I took in jest, I replied "class action! Hope I have my license by then." I have made a claim to be without sin, which was also in jest. I have never claimed to be perfect.:)

So, let me get this straight. You put out a baiting post and when we all respond to it, we get raked over the coals for our opinions. Then you come out and state, "Oh, I just said it in jest!" Excuse me? WTH? Whether you realize it or not, your credibility just went down to "Less than Zero" IMO!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Holly
HUH?!?

The Constitution forbids double jeopardy. The civil suit, IMO, was illegal. Even if allwable, the NOT GUILTY verdict should have been an absolute defense.

I think that you need to take yourself over to the Politics Board. Your expertise is obviously needed over on that Board more than on this Board. How can you possibly expect us to take you seriously when you just flit in and out like a little horse fly? Biting, stinging with your nasty posts and even nastier answers!

JMO and MOO!!

nettathirty

09-11-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by caphill

OJ Simpson was never indicted by the Grand Jury.

Why wasn't OJ indicted by the Grand Jury? How can someone have a trial, and not be indicted?

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Holly

<snipped>

If you continue to publish misreadings of my posts, I will report you to the moderator. It is hardly my fault that you cannot understand what you read an refuse to use a dictionary to look up words you do not understand.

:flamemad:

Isn't it odd that the majority of all of the tattletailers on this Board are NG's? Is anyone surprised by this other than myself?

JMO and MOO!!

nettathirty

09-11-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Holly

*Snipped*

You really need to do some research into the judicial system in this country works.

.

Holly,

Well, thanks.. I think!

Sunny Day

09-11-2006, 06:35 PM

BTW,

to those who like to say that domestic abuse doesn't lead to murder....right, when no dead spouse turns up.

The difference between abuse that doesn't lead to murder and abuse that does lead to murder: a dead spouse.

nettathirty

09-11-2006, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day
BTW,

to those who like to say that domestic abuse doesn't lead to murder....right, when no dead spouse turns up.

The difference between abuse that doesn't lead to murder and abuse that does lead to murder: a dead spouse.

Domestic Violence did not play a role in the Simpson case..

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Holly

<snipped>

That is certainly a crackup.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Yes, your post certainly is!

Hardy any NG who posted on this board during the Peterson debacle is still here.

And you know this how? Where's your link to substantiate your comment? Oh, it's just your opinion! Since this is NOT the Peterson Board, it is thus a moot point!

The Gs got most of them banned and the really superior posters who were not banned left because of the kind of incomprehension and misquoting that appear in this thread.

AGAIN, and you know this how? Where's your link to substantiate your comment? Oh, it's just your opinion! Since this is NOT the Peterson Board, it is thus a moot point!

<snipped>

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

09-11-2006, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Whatever.

:biggrin:

Typical NG response when they're painted into a corner. Either that, or they don't answer your post at all! Your credibility just went down to "Less than Zero" IMO! Not that you care!

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by RainStorm

How many race cards you got in that deck, William Anthony? You're trying to say folks weren't as outraged by Ted and Dupont because they're white guys, aren't you? Bunk. First, Ted didn't murder. Involuntary manslaughter, maybe. So that comparison is not apropos to Simpson. And Ted paid for it. Dupont, you got to be kidding. Most people didn't even follow it, so how could they be outraged?

You want to talk a race case that's apropos to Simpson? How about the acquittal of the killers of Emmett Till? You going to take that one lying down like you expect everyone to take the Simpson criminal verdict?

You don't take into consideration the massive amount of progress that has been made in this country with respect to race. Progress facilitated by folks of all colors.

Until you stop seeing a white hood on every caucasian, you are biased beyond the ability to reason in the Simpson case, and a lot of other stuff too.

My point was not on the chages that were not brought against Kennedy. It was on the point that they were not brought and Americans accepted it. Now, you're getting like bobaugust and speaking for most people. I will accept that as a truth and ask you
why most people did not follow it. When you speak of progress you intimate that there was a racial problem. There should never have been a need for progress under the constitution. Until all men/women are treated equal there is no progress. Until justice is blind, there has been no progress. I have accepted both verdicts and know what they mean. Why can't others not of Mr. Simpson's persuassion do the same? I will repeat. I do not know who the murder is for a fact, but I know and must accept the fact that the jury has found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as charged. If some people find that hard to swallow, then they should learn to ease the pain as so many minorities have done waiting on that massive progress.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Holly
He was bound over for trial as a result of the ruling by the Judge at the preliminary hearing. The defense took a risk in demanding a prelim instead of the GJ because they ran the risk of exposing their defense before the actual trial.

You really need to do some research into the judicial system in this country works.

BTW, I do not know if the actual indictment was done by the DA or the Judge's ruling.

The defense was smart in demanding an opportunity, because they got the chance to crossexamine the testimony and look at the evidence. They would not have been allowed in the GJ. That is how the Judicial system in this country works.

William Anthony

09-11-2006, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Holly

Hi, Tony Bill:-

I think my obstreperousness has driven everyone off.

Do you think that means we won?

:patriot: :biggrin:

We shall always win. I saw one of your post on the topic of religion. I am very impressed.

bobaugust

09-11-2006, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

My point was not on the chages that were not brought against Kennedy. It was on the point that they were not brought and Americans accepted it. Now, you're getting like bobaugust and speaking for most people. I will accept that as a truth and ask you
why most people did not follow it. When you speak of progress you intimate that there was a racial problem. There should never have been a need for progress under the constitution. Until all men/women are treated equal there is no progress. Until justice is blind, there has been no progress. I have accepted both verdicts and know what they mean. Why can't others not of Mr. Simpson's persuassion do the same? I will repeat. I do not know who the murder is for a fact, but I know and must accept the fact that the jury has found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as charged. If some people find that hard to swallow, then they should learn to ease the pain as so many minorities have done waiting on that massive progress.

William Anthony, there's been plenty of progress. The criminal trial verdict proved that a wealthy black celebrity is equal to all the wealthy white men who have bought their way out of murders they committed. The LA black community was evidently very proud of that and opened their arms to their black brother until he left them again and moved to Florida.

You say we should accept the fact that the jury found Simpson not guilty and simply sit back and ignore it. That tells us a lot about you. Fortunately there are a lot of people who aren't as passive and wimpy as you are about injustice. That was the reason for the civil trial. Justice, and the real search for the truth. The truth was found and the killer was punished to the greatest extent that was available to that court.

You know Simpson was the killer, you just wont admit it. That's understandable since you can't even admit to being wrong about even one of the many mistakes and false claims you've made on this discussion group. It's obvious you could care less about the civil trial by ignoring all of the new information and new evidence that became known after the criminal trial as well as the blatant lies Simpson told under oath. That way you can still argue the earth is flat.

Good job William Anthony.

bobaugust

RainStorm

09-11-2006, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

My point was not on the chages that were not brought against Kennedy. It was on the point that they were not brought and Americans accepted it. Now, you're getting like bobaugust and speaking for most people. I will accept that as a truth and ask you
why most people did not follow it. When you speak of progress you intimate that there was a racial problem. There should never have been a need for progress under the constitution. Until all men/women are treated equal there is no progress. Until justice is blind, there has been no progress. I have accepted both verdicts and know what they mean. Why can't others not of Mr. Simpson's persuassion do the same? I will repeat. I do not know who the murder is for a fact, but I know and must accept the fact that the jury has found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as charged. If some people find that hard to swallow, then they should learn to ease the pain as so many minorities have done waiting on that massive progress.

William Anthony,

I think you're being more than a little weasely. Your insinuation is that Kennedy skated because he's white. I explained why that's bunk.

Your pontification on racial inequality betrays a distinct naivete and lack of fair-minded knowledge of the history of this country and humanity in general.

You have been attempting to berate people for their non-acceptance of the criminal verdict. That annoyed me, and I challenged it. So you respond with "I would like people to dennounce verdicts with equal passion". Now you are once again questioning why people just don't accept it. Weasely. Disingenuous.

Another thing about folks who don't like the Simpson criminal verdict: They are models of good behavior compared to how Simpson's defenders would have behaved had the verdict been guilty.

2L8 4A D8

09-12-2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Holly
You are really sharp as a tack.

I am dazzled by your brilliance.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

And I am baffled by your bullsh*t!

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, there's been plenty of progress. The criminal trial verdict proved that a wealthy black celebrity is equal to all the wealthy white men who have bought their way out of murders they committed. The LA black community was evidently very proud of that and opened their arms to their black brother until he left them again and moved to Florida.

You say we should accept the fact that the jury found Simpson not guilty and simply sit back and ignore it. That tells us a lot about you. Fortunately there are a lot of people who aren't as passive and wimpy as you are about injustice. That was the reason for the civil trial. Justice, and the real search for the truth. The truth was found and the killer was punished to the greatest extent that was available to that court.

You know Simpson was the killer, you just wont admit it. That's understandable since you can't even admit to being wrong about even one of the many mistakes and false claims you've made on this discussion group. It's obvious you could care less about the civil trial by ignoring all of the new information and new evidence that became known after the criminal trial as well as the blatant lies Simpson told under oath. That way you can still argue the earth is flat.
Good job William Anthony.

bobaugust

I argure facts. The facts are that Mr. Simpson was tried criminally and civilly and neither of those trials declared him to be the murder, which is what you cannot accept. The whole concept of a civil trial is not about punishment, however, in certain circumstances punitive damages can be awarded. The purpose of a civil trial is to seek monetary or equitable relief. You have the unmitigated gaul to speak to me about justice, and you are ignorant (to use one of your favorite words) as to what justice means. Did you march for the civil rights of Blacks, did you applaud affirmative action, did you seek the truth as to the murder of Medgar Evars. did you protest the Tuskeegee Experiment, are you attempting to change the law, have you read IN The MATTER OF COLOR, do you believe in reverse discrimination? Your notion of justice and injustice is overwhelmingly erroneous and your appreciation for the legal process is abundantly lacking, imo.

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by RainStorm

William Anthony,

I think you're being more than a little weasely. Your insinuation is that Kennedy skated because he's white. I explained why that's bunk.

Your pontification on racial inequality betrays a distinct naivete and lack of fair-minded knowledge of the history of this country and humanity in general.

You have been attempting to berate people for their non-acceptance of the criminal verdict. That annoyed me, and I challenged it. So you respond with "I would like people to dennounce verdicts with equal passion". Now you are once again questioning why people just don't accept it. Weasely. Disingenuous.

Another thing about folks who don't like the Simpson criminal verdict: They are models of good behavior compared to how Simpson's defenders would have behaved had the verdict been guilty.

You may have a guilty conscience. I was not insuating the reason Kennedy skated was white, although I will admit that is a distinct possibility. What I was wondering was why people are not as outraged that he skated as they are with the Simpson trial verdict. Read my words without inseting your words. I said I would like people to dennounce verdicts with equal passion. If people are so eager to dennounce and some to post transcripts of the Simpson criminal trial verdict, then be equally eager to dennounce the Dupont verdict and the preferrential treatment afforded Kennedy.

This portion of your posts requires a second posting.

"Your pontification on racial inequality betrays a distinct naivete and lack of fair-minded knowledge of the history of this country and humanity in general."

I understand now. A country who from its inception espoused and held in lofty esteem the concept of Freedom and Equality, enslaved people because of their skin color, denied them equal rights, and murder some of them who wanted those concepts for their brothers, murdered a Reverend who taught non-violence in the struggle for civil rights showed the paramount degree of general humanity. How dare me to be confused, or to question someone as fair-minded, humanitarian, and knowledgeable as you about American History. Please, forgive me master and if you do not, who cares.

RainStorm

09-12-2006, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You may have a guilty conscience. I was not insuating the reason Kennedy skated was white, although I will admit that is a distinct possibility.

<snip>

In comparing Simpson with Kennedy, you said "The only thing that is uncommon is race. I agree they all have wealth. Where is the outrage over the verdict in Dupont and lack of charges against Kennedy?". You certainly did insinuate Kennedy skated because he was white. Your whole perspective is saturated with race. You wouldn't've brought it up for any other reason. Bobaugust shows that he is honest and has character, which is more than I can say for you.

bobaugust

09-12-2006, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I argure facts. The facts are that Mr. Simpson was tried criminally and civilly and neither of those trials declared him to be the murder, which is what you cannot accept. The whole concept of a civil trial is not about punishment, however, in certain circumstances punitive damages can be awarded. The purpose of a civil trial is to seek monetary or equitable relief. You have the unmitigated gaul to speak to me about justice, and you are ignorant (to use one of your favorite words) as to what justice means. Did you march for the civil rights of Blacks, did you applaud affirmative action, did you seek the truth as to the murder of Medgar Evars. did you protest the Tuskeegee Experiment, are you attempting to change the law, have you read IN The MATTER OF COLOR, do you believe in reverse discrimination? Your notion of justice and injustice is overwhelmingly erroneous and your appreciation for the legal process is abundantly lacking, imo.

William Anthony, good rant, but once again you're wrong. You don't argue the facts in the Simpson case, you don't know the facts in the Simpson case. The fact you argue is that the criminal trial jury acquitted Simpson. The fact that you ignore is that verdict in no way means Simpson wasn't the killer.

As I explained to you before we're discussing who the killer is not the criminal trial verdict. That jury used excuses to ignore the evidence and let a killer back into society because he was black. They had a greater agenda, as Cochran kept reminding them, to send a message to the LAPD and the white community for all the real, and perceived abuses by the LAPD to the people in their community. Call it ignorance by the jury, call them predisposed, or call it jury nullification, the result is the same.

You talk about justice yet you ignore the justice that wasn't done for the victims Simpson killed or the family of the victims. That's why there was a civil trial. That was the real search for the truth, without the bull crap race arguments, without the false accusations of evidence planting and with the defendant testifying.

Simpson's told many lies, demonstrative lies. His changing story was contradicted by many witnesses including defense witnesses and his own sworn statement he gave the police the day after the murders. He was impeached by telephone records, and authenticated photographs. As little respect as I have for the criminal trial jury I doubt that even they would have acquitted Simpson if he had testified in the criminal trial like he did in the civil trial. They weren't very smart but they weren't dumb. That's the reality of this case that you just can't seem to admit.

Like I said as long as you keep yourself ignorant of what the depositions revealed and what the civil trial evidence proved, and what Simpson's many lies confirmed, you can deceive yourself all you want and argue that we should all be good troopers and accept the criminal trial verdict. That's so lame.

It seems you think that by completely ignoring the civil trial that's your way of showing appreciation for the legal process? Good job flat-earther.

bobaugust

RainStorm

09-12-2006, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

<snip>

I understand now. A country who from its inception espoused and held in lofty esteem the concept of Freedom and Equality, enslaved people because of their skin color, denied them equal rights, and murder some of them who wanted those concepts for their brothers, murdered a Reverend who taught non-violence in the struggle for civil rights showed the paramount degree of general humanity. How dare me to be confused, or to question someone as fair-minded, humanitarian, and knowledgeable as you about American History. Please, forgive me master and if you do not, who cares.

You conveniently forget all the good people, like Lincoln, John Brown, the abolishionists, the white civil rights workers, just to mention a few. It's a shame your perspective is so one-sided.

Your pontification betrays a distinct naivete and lack of fair-minded knowledge of the history of this country and humanity in general.

bobaugust

09-12-2006, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Holly
In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, there was no grand jury for the O. J. Simpson jury trial.

The GJ was recused because the Defense asked for a preliminary hearing.

I already knew this but for documantation I went to googleTM and found this:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonchron.html

"June 24, 1994 Grand jury recused.
July 8, 1994 Six-day preliminary hearing ends with Judge Kathleen Kennedy-Powell ruling there is sufficient evidence for O.J. Simpson to stand trial on two counts of first-degree murder."

I wish some of our resident know-it-alls would get their facts straight before they post.

Posting erroneous information ought to be a bannable offense.

Holly, I have to correct your misinformation.

Yes, there was a grand jury. The first day of testimony was on June 20, 1994. It lasted three days with 16 witnesses testifying. Only before the night closing arguments were to be made an unexpected event took place.

The audio tapes of Nicole's 911 call were suddenly released to the media and were being played on television. Clark had been under the impression audio tapes of those calls had been destroyed in a routine recycling procedure.

Without a Doubt,
"My impression was wrong. It turns out that the city attorney's office, which prosecuted that '93 case, had kept its own copies of the tapes. The press had tracked them down and petitioned under the state Public Records Act to get them. And somehow, they had gotten those tapes released - before I had even heard that they existed.

Suzanne's reporter buddy handed me copies of the police reports on the tapes. I hadn't seen these either.

"Oh, great," I fumed. "Now I'm getting discovery from the press!"

Within the space of an hour it seemed that tape was everywhere. You couldn't step within earshot of a radio without hearing Nicole's pitiful, quavering pleas for help. It was on all the television news shows, and they didn't play it just once, but kept repeating it, in a sick parody of MTV's heavy rotation.

What a joke. Believe me, there wasn't enough solidarity among these camps to coordinate a beer run, let alone an offensive like that. For days afterward, we would all point fingers at one another. Gil lit into the city attorney. James Hahn, for releasing the tape. Hahn insisted that he had acted in the belief that the LAPD had gotten approval from the D.A.'s office for his office to release the tape. The LAPD would say it was against releasing the tape, but felt it hadn't gotten support for the position from the D.A. In our office, it was David who took the fall. The cops had called, asking him if they should authorize release of the tape under the Public Records Act, And he had told them, "Do what you normally do." It was the right instruction - but the result was disastrous."

The worse part of it was watching Shapiro exploit this screwup. He filed a motion to halt the grand jury hearing on grounds of excessive publicity. At a hearing hastily convened on Friday in the courtroom of a former prosecutor
named Lance Ito, Shapiro was preening like a peacock in full plumage. He accused the D.A.'s office of misconduct in making "improper expressions of personal opinion."

But the barbs exchanged by Shapiro and me were at that very moment being rendered irrelevant. That morning, our grand jury adviser, Terry White, had come back to Gil with reports that a couple of jurors were discussing the 911 tape. That clinched it. if we did get an indictment, it could be thrown out on the strength of this revelation alone. Gil himself had no choice but to file a motion to dismiss the grand jury. Superior Court Judge Cecil Mills heard the motion and began interviewing the jurors to see if they had read or heard anything that might after the judgment. He concluded that they had and granted Gil's request to recuse the jury.

It was over."

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

09-12-2006, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Holly
Thank you for that correction. Apparently my source is wrong AND my memory is faulty. After all is was some twelve years ago, not that that is any excuse.

Oh yeah, excuse you! GMAB! More than your memory is faulty. If you had a brain and it exploded, it wouldn't even mess up your hairdo!

The fact remains that the Grand Jury had nothing to do with Simpson's indictment and, IMO, people who keep harping on it are just arguing for the sake of arguing. They, like LE and DAs, care nothing for the truth; they MUST win.

You state: "IMO, people who keep harping on it are just arguing for the sake of arguing. They, like LE and DAs, care nothing for the truth; they MUST win." Yeah, sounds exactly like the opinions of the NG's to me!

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by RainStorm

In comparing Simpson with Kennedy, you said "The only thing that is uncommon is race. I agree they all have wealth. Where is the outrage over the verdict in Dupont and lack of charges against Kennedy?". You certainly did insinuate Kennedy skated because he was white. Your whole perspective is saturated with race. You wouldn't've brought it up for any other reason. Bobaugust shows that he is honest and has character, which is more than I can say for you.

I did not know you were referring to this particular post and I stand by my words in the other post. I on;y pointed out what was obviously uncommon between the three and the difference between the level of outrage. My whole perspective is to hold America to its promise that to adhere to the concept it created that All men are created equal. You know nothing of my character and it matters not one iota what you think of it. Before you chose to call critize someone, learn to read with comprehension, or ask for a further explanation. Y ou are perfectly capable of offering me an answer as to lack of indignation over Kennedy's treatmen in the CJS amd Dupont's verdict as opposed to the verdict in the Simpson criminal trial.

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

So, let me get this straight. You put out a baiting post and when we all respond to it, we get raked over the coals for our opinions. Then you come out and state, "Oh, I just said it in jest!" Excuse me? WTH? Whether you realize it or not, your credibility just went down to "Less than Zero" IMO!

JMO and MOO!!

You are right. I forgot my audience when I posted and gave some undeserving credit, Now, you and I are on the same credibility level, imo.

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Holly, I have to correct your misinformation.

Yes, there was a grand jury. The first day of testimony was on June 20, 1994. It lasted three days with 16 witnesses testifying. Only before the night closing arguments were to be made an unexpected event took place.

The audio tapes of Nicole's 911 call were suddenly released to the media and were being played on television. Clark had been under the impression audio tapes of those calls had been destroyed in a routine recycling procedure.

Without a Doubt,
"My impression was wrong. It turns out that the city attorney's office, which prosecuted that '93 case, had kept its own copies of the tapes. The press had tracked them down and petitioned under the state Public Records Act to get them. And somehow, they had gotten those tapes released - before I had even heard that they existed.

Suzanne's reporter buddy handed me copies of the police reports on the tapes. I hadn't seen these either.

"Oh, great," I fumed. "Now I'm getting discovery from the press!"

Within the space of an hour it seemed that tape was everywhere. You couldn't step within earshot of a radio without hearing Nicole's pitiful, quavering pleas for help. It was on all the television news shows, and they didn't play it just once, but kept repeating it, in a sick parody of MTV's heavy rotation.

What a joke. Believe me, there wasn't enough solidarity among these camps to coordinate a beer run, let alone an offensive like that. For days afterward, we would all point fingers at one another. Gil lit into the city attorney. James Hahn, for releasing the tape. Hahn insisted that he had acted in the belief that the LAPD had gotten approval from the D.A.'s office for his office to release the tape. The LAPD would say it was against releasing the tape, but felt it hadn't gotten support for the position from the D.A. In our office, it was David who took the fall. The cops had called, asking him if they should authorize release of the tape under the Public Records Act, And he had told them, "Do what you normally do." It was the right instruction - but the result was disastrous."

The worse part of it was watching Shapiro exploit this screwup. He filed a motion to halt the grand jury hearing on grounds of excessive publicity. At a hearing hastily convened on Friday in the courtroom of a former prosecutor
named Lance Ito, Shapiro was preening like a peacock in full plumage. He accused the D.A.'s office of misconduct in making "improper expressions of personal opinion."

But the barbs exchanged by Shapiro and me were at that very moment being rendered irrelevant. That morning, our grand jury adviser, Terry White, had come back to Gil with reports that a couple of jurors were discussing the 911 tape. That clinched it. if we did get an indictment, it could be thrown out on the strength of this revelation alone. Gil himself had no choice but to file a motion to dismiss the grand jury. Superior Court Judge Cecil Mills heard the motion and began interviewing the jurors to see if they had read or heard anything that might after the judgment. He concluded that they had and granted Gil's request to recuse the jury.

It was over."

bobaugust

Thank you for confirming what Holly posted was true.

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 08:36 AM

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by RainStorm

You conveniently forget all the good people, like Lincoln, John Brown, the abolishionists, the white civil rights workers, just to mention a few. It's a shame your perspective is so one-sided.

Your pontification betrays a distinct naivete and lack of fair-minded knowledge of the history of this country and humanity in general.

I have not forgotten "good people". Your original post was to the History of this country. I was simply putting the history in its proper perspective. My point is that, if this country was as humanitarian as you proclaim, there would have been no need for the Emancipation Proclomation, or any of those "good people".

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I think you are confused in this regard. Once Orenthal plead not guilty at his arraigment, it went to the Grand Jury as to whether or not there was sufficient evidence to bind him over for trial. This was NOT a stratgetic move on the part of the defense. JMO

I was reading the board and was going to answer to your agreement that my posts were saturated with race but ran accross this one. Ask yourself why the defense demanded a preliminary if they would not gain an advantage. Remember the verdict favored them. Most GJs are one sided prosecutorial evidence presentations, without the defense being present. In the hearing the defense was not required to put on any evidence, but gained an opportunity to examine, and crossexamine prosecution witnesses. I am honored that you chose to disagree with me and appreciate your confusion as to thinking others are confused. It was a stategic choice. I BELIEVE they coud have waited for a new GJ.

RainStorm

09-12-2006, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Holly
You certainly know precious little about Lincoln. He was as racist as they grew them in those days. He cared nothing about the plight of the blacks. His only interest was in keeping the Union The Union.

John Brown (I will have to research him) and the civil rights can probably be absolved of any charge of racism. As to the abolitionists, that will also require some research. Elimination of slavery DOES NOT =EQUALITY of the races or even social equality.

Holly,

You're heart is in the right place but you're quite idealistic and unrealistic. I've heard that revisionist claptrap about Lincoln before. The truth is
he was the flagship of the newly formed Republican party, and their number one platform was the containment or abolishment of slavery, depending upon how radical you were within the party. He took a bullet to the head because he had just announced he favored giving blacks the vote. If you have to research the abolishionists, that's a dead giveaway you know little that's correct about Lincoln. So while you're
doing your research, you might bless your eyeballs with a little litertature about one of the greatest men who ever lived, A. Lincoln.

RainStorm

09-12-2006, 11:04 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by William Anthony

I have not forgotten "good people". Your original post was to the History of this country. I was simply putting the history in its proper perspective.

<snip>

You certainly did forget the good people - you launched yourself on a little white-bashing expedition.

Your perspective is anything but proper - your perspective showcases the self-centeredness of hardcore Afrocentrism. You will not have a "proper" perspective until considering those of many others, including those that are quite different than yours.

RainStorm

09-12-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

My point is that, if this country was as humanitarian as you proclaim, there would have been no need for the Emancipation Proclomation, or any of those "good people".

I never proclaimed anything about the humantianism of the country. Perhaps you're the one who needs reading comprehension skills - and maybe a little lesson on ethics.

You speak as if the world should've been fair since time began. How naive.

Sunny Day

09-12-2006, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by RainStorm

Holly,

You're heart is in the right place but you're quite idealistic and unrealistic. I've heard that revisionist claptrap about Lincoln before. The truth is
he was the flagship of the newly formed Republican party, and their number one platform was the containment or abolishment of slavery, depending upon how radical you were within the party. He took a bullet to the head because he had just announced he favored giving blacks the vote. If you have to research the abolishionists, that's a dead giveaway you know little that's correct about Lincoln. So while you're
doing your research, you might bless your eyeballs with a little litertature about one of the greatest men who ever lived, A. Lincoln.

What has Abe Lincoln have to do with today? What does the Republican party have to do with Lincoln?

The Rep party is no longer the party of Lincoln...it is the party of Strom Thurmond.

BTW, Republican Arnold S'negger was caught making a racial slur about Puerto Ricans and Cubans because of their mixed with black ancestry. Then there was that Republican who, in public, used a racial slur against a dark skinned Indian calling him a "mocaca".

Who doubts that Republicans talk like that behind closed doors ALL the time? I certainly don't doubt it.

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by RainStorm

I never proclaimed anything about the humantianism of the country. Perhaps you're the one who needs reading comprehension skills - and maybe a little lesson on ethics.

You speak as if the world should've been fair since time began. How naive.

I sense that we have come to an agreement of sorts, If you are saying that this country has not attained the level of humanitarianism of which it is worthy. The world, imo, should have been fair since the self proclaimed age of civilization.

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

What has Abe Lincoln have to do with today? What does the Republican party have to do with Lincoln?

The Rep party is no longer the party of Lincoln...it is the party of Strom Thurmond.

BTW, Republican Arnold S'negger was caught making a racial slur about Puerto Ricans and Cubans because of their mixed with black ancestry. Then there was that Republican who, in public, used a racial slur against a dark skinned Indian calling him a "mocaca".

Who doubts that Republicans talk like that behind closed doors ALL the time? I certainly don't doubt it.

While I cannot disagree with your post, I see the problem as more inclusive. I understand that the problem not to be islolated to just one political party. Imho, until we accept the truth that all men are created equal in regard to rights, we will always have, srtive, bickering, revolutions, wars and rumors of wars.

bobaugust

09-12-2006, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Thank you for confirming what Holly posted was true.

William Anthony, Holly was mistaken when she posted that there was no grand jury. She was also mistaken when she said the grand jury was recused because the defense asked for a preliminary hearing.

In your excitement to make another false comment I guess you forgot how to snip. Funny.

bobaugust

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, Holly was mistaken when she posted that there was no grand jury. She was also mistaken when she said the grand jury was recused because the defense asked for a preliminary hearing.

In your excitement to make another false comment I guess you forgot how to snip. Funny.

bobaugust

Watch and learn bobbie. Here is Holly's post:

In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, there was no grand jury for the O. J. Simpson jury trial. The GJ was recused because the Defense asked for a preliminary hearing.

Once the GJ was recused there was no GJ and, even in your post, you admit that Shiparo, who is on the defense, asked for the hearing. Hence, the GJ was eliminated and the judge made the finding.

bobaugust

09-12-2006, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Watch and learn bobbie. Here is Holly's post:

In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, there was no grand jury for the O. J. Simpson jury trial. The GJ was recused because the Defense asked for a preliminary hearing.

Once the GJ was recused there was no GJ and, even in your post, you admit that Shiparo, who is on the defense, asked for the hearing. Hence, the GJ was eliminated and the judge made the finding.

William Anthony, learn the facts.

Holly said there was no grand jury. 16 witnesses testified in the grand jury and it wasn't until Clark was drafting her closing statement that the 911 tapes were made public and the grand jury was recused.

Holly said the grand jury was recused BECAUSE the defense asked for a preliminary hearing. That's incorrect, the defense had asked for a preliminary hearing before the grand jury convened.

bobaugust

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, learn the facts.

Holly said there was no grand jury. 16 witnesses testified in the grand jury and it wasn't until Clark was drafting her closing statement that the 911 tapes were made public and the grand jury was recused.

Holly said the grand jury was recused BECAUSE the defense asked for a preliminary hearing. That's incorrect, the defense had asked for a preliminary hearing before the grand jury convened.

bobaugust

Recusal as defined by Blacks Law Dictionary is in reference to a judge. However, it states, "disqualifies from a hearing...". Therefore, there was no GJ, even though one was convened and heard testimony. Holly's quote read by you means to you, imo, that one was not convened but, in my reading it means that they had no partcipation in the indictment. This highlights the problem with you posting testimony. It is a matter of interpretation. Neither langauage nor law are certainties.

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Recusal as defined by Blacks Law Dictionary is in reference to a judge. However, it states, "disqualifies from a hearing...". Therefore, there was no GJ, even though one was convened and heard testimony. Holly's quote read by you means to you, imo, that one was not convened but, in my reading it means that they had no partcipation in the indictment. This highlights the problem with you posting testimony. It is a matter of interpretation. Neither langauage nor law are certainties.

What material difference can it possibly make when the defense asked for a hearing and when it was granted? You have redundantly called me wrong and I have proven you wrong.

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
William Anthony, why are you posting to yourself?

Yes that was an after thought to bobaugust's post.

bobaugust

09-12-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

What material difference can it possibly make when the defense asked for a hearing and when it was granted? You have redundantly called me wrong and I have proven you wrong.

William Anthony, you haven't proved me wrong about anything.

The transcripts of what witnesses testified to in the grand jury are available and we use them to support our arguments. As I understand it legally the only thing that resulted from the grand jury going bust was there was no indictment from that closed proceeding.

I agree it doesn't make a difference to the case as to when the defense asked for the preliminary hearing. That's not the point. We're talking about a mistake that Holly posted when she said the grand jury was recused because the defense asked for a preliminary hearing. That was incorrect.

You were the one who felt he had to make a posting saying what Holly said was true. I simply corrected you and posted why Holly was mistaken. If you bothered to read Holly's postings you would see that she realizes her mistake, but you evidently haven't the integrity to admit to even one of the many mistakes you've made in your postings on this discussion group.

bobaugust

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, you haven't proved me wrong about anything.

The transcripts of what witnesses testified to in the grand jury are available and we use them to support our arguments. As I understand it legally the only thing that resulted from the grand jury going bust was there was no indictment from that closed proceeding.

I agree it doesn't make a difference to the case as to when the defense asked for the preliminary hearing. That's not the point. We're talking about a mistake that Holly posted when she said the grand jury was recused because the defense asked for a preliminary hearing. That was incorrect.

You were the one who felt he had to make a posting saying what Holly said was true. I simply corrected you and posted why Holly was mistaken. If you bothered to read Holly's postings you would see that she realizes her mistake, but you evidently haven't the integrity to admit to even one of the many mistakes you've made in your postings on this discussion group.
bobaugust

:no: :no: :no:, What we are you talking about? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? What Holly said was true. There was no GJ due to the recusal. As you acknowledge the defense request the preliminary hearing that was granted. The testimony was allowed because it sworn. I have not seen in Holly's post that she stated the GJ was recused because the defense asked for a preliminary hearing. However, if she had she would not have been wrong. The prosecution unethically, imo, leaked the 911 tapes, which caused the recuasal and granting of the defense's request.

William Anthony

09-12-2006, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Holly
I don't know how many times I have to apologize for my misunderstanding of the link I posted about the GJ recusal.

What do want me to do; walk around the town square 100 times stark naked carrying a sign saying
Mea culpa
Mea culpa
Mea culpa

This link may prove of some interest who are more interested in how the system works than in proving their opponents deliberate liars.

http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq1.htm

That post as worded was not untrue. If it was misunderstood, it was misunderstood by those whose lifelong ambition is to make you wrong. At least you have the dignity and integrity for posting an ambiguous post.

bobaugust

09-12-2006, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

:no: :no: :no:, What we are you talking about? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? What Holly said was true. There was no GJ due to the recusal. As you acknowledge the defense request the preliminary hearing that was granted. The testimony was allowed because it sworn. I have not seen in Holly's post that she stated the GJ was recused because the defense asked for a preliminary hearing. However, if she had she would not have been wrong. The prosecution unethically, imo, leaked the 911 tapes, which caused the recuasal and granting of the defense's request.

William Anthony, read again what you posted to me. You quoted Holly's post.

"In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, there was no grand jury for the O.J. Simpson jury trial. The GJ was recused because the Defense asked for a preliminary hearing."

Yes I did take Holly's posting to mean there was no participation in the indictment. That's not a problem of posting testimony, that's a problem of a statement that could be taken different ways. But there was no misunderstanding about the word "because,"

In fact in my second response to you about this meaningless subject I put the word "because" in capitol letters pointing out Holly's mistake. I guess you missed that one too, right?

bobaugust.

bobaugust

09-12-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

That post as worded was not untrue. If it was misunderstood, it was misunderstood by those whose lifelong ambition is to make you wrong. At least you have the dignity and integrity for posting an ambiguous post.

William Anthony, you're like a kid caught in a lie and will say anything to avoid admitting he was lying.

Holly understands the mistake she made. No one is trying to make her wrong. You're the one with the problem, not us. Every one makes mistakes. Most people don't have a problem admitting to their mistakes. You evidently do.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

09-12-2006, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You are right. I forgot my audience when I posted and gave some undeserving credit, Now, you and I are on the same credibility level, imo.

You and I have never been on the same level for anything. You support a double-murderer and I don't. It's as simple as that. And I really don't want to hear anymore of your "holier than thou" and "condescending" attitude thank you.

Netta has taught you well. He is notorious for putting out baiting posts and then stating, "Oh, I just said it in jest!" Yeah, right. GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

nettathirty

09-12-2006, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Holly
T
*Snipped*

Although I feel, as did Chief Justice Burger, that the criminal justice in this country is so corrupt that it should be thrown out and we should build a new and better system from the ground up. That, I am sure, will never happen. The current, corrupt system is too politically advantageous to too many people.

We can only hope that over time we will evolve into a more rational society. Of course, that will not happen as long as the voters in this country keep putting the same corrupt politicians back in office.

Holly,

The way the lawyers guide and reshape a witness testimony, that has got to go!

2L8 4A D8

09-12-2006, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
William Anthony, why are you posting to yourself?

Hmmm.......Sounds like another NG Poster who also does the same thing. That's pretty weird. You might have one on a Board who does that, but two? And both have AOL. Remember AOL ~ Remember?

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

09-12-2006, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Holly

To get back on topic:

The case of Simpson is an enigma to which we may never have the answer. It is quite possible
Simpson actually killed his wife and Ron Goldman
That the jurors who were chosen had already made up their minds EVEN before they were selected
Fuhrman is a liar about most things
Fuhrman, with the aid and abetment of his partner and Lang and Vannatter planted and manufactured evidence with the intent to frame Simpson

Holly,

* Simpson actually killed his wife and Ron Goldman.
I agree. The evidence proves that and Simpson's lies confirm it.

* That the jurors who were chosen had already made up their minds EVEN before they were selected.
I agree. I remember seeing one of those jurors interviewed after the verdict and she said, "I knew he was innocent from the beginning."

* Fuhrman is a liar about most things.
I disagree. The only thing Mark Fuhrman found to be lying about was not saying the "n" word in the last ten years.

* Fuhrman, with the aid and abetment of his partner and Lange and Vannatter planted and manufactured evidence with the intent to frame Simpson.
I disagree. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that any evidence in this case was ever planted or tampered with. Every claim of evidence planting was proven false. Not only did the Robbery Homicide detectives not know the west LA detectives before this case, the evidence is there was no love lost between the two divisions let alone collusion.

bobaugust

nettathirty

09-12-2006, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

* Simpson actually killed his wife and Ron Goldman.
I agree. The evidence proves that and Simpson's lies confirm it.

bobaugust

August,

By evidence, if you mean what was found at Bundy, and if you truly believe OJ is the source of said "evidence".. Then OJ would be exonerated, because the items at Bundy as they are, does not make the source the killer...

Sunny Day

09-12-2006, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Did they try to bring up fingerprints on either of the gloves?

If not, why not"

Those gloves, IMO, proved OJ's guilt. He was pictured with those same gloves. I'll never forget his bad acting in the courtroom, pretending he couldn't get them on because they were too small, but then he whipped them right off. He also didn't seem the least bit repulsed by the bloody gloves.

Bottom line, a jury found him responsible for the deaths. He did it. The mostly black criminal jury nullified the case, but even the black community knows he did it. When has OJ appeared at all those black awards shows? Haven't they invited him to be on? Why didn't his staunchest supporter, Tavis Smiley, have him on his show?

Maybe it's OJ who doesn't want to be seen with black people. He used them then kicked them to the curb, just like MJ did.

MO.

BTW, OJ's defense was that he was "framed" by a "racist" LAPD. Why would someone steal just one glove of OJ's, or know exactly what type of glove he owns, then plant it without even knowing if OJ was in town or not?

Another racist strategy of Cochrane's was suggesting that Nicole had ties to a Columbian drug ring because she had bananas on her grocery list.

:rolleyes:

jotun

09-12-2006, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

The defense was smart in demanding an opportunity, because they got the chance to crossexamine the testimony and look at the evidence. They would not have been allowed in the GJ. That is how the Judicial system in this country works.

All
Smart for the defence.IMO they were out-smarted. Maybe on purpose.According to Bosco's book,the GJ was NOT going to indite.
But sure a nightmare for O.J. 174 days in jail.A 9 1/2 month trial.A custody battle.A many month money trial. Which seems to be never-ending.
jotun

2L8 4A D8

09-12-2006, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Holly

This malicious and egregious statement:
"You support a double-murderer . . ." makes no sense whatsoever. I do not know about William Anthony; but unless I were personally acquainted with an accused person, whatever the crime, I cannot be acurately described as his supporter. I rarely know the accused or anything about him other than what appears in media. I have no time for people like Ablow or any of the other armchair "whatevers" who blather on about what people whom they have never met, never spoken with, nor even seen except on television thought, felt, did, or said[.list].

<snipped>

Yada, Yada, Yada and Blah, Blah, Blah!

Maybe "support" wasn't exactly the right word, but so what? None of us on this Board, G's and NG's alike know any of the players personally in this OJ Game. What would you like us to do? Stop posting? Get real!

Whatever you want to call us G's and NG's, knock yourself out; whatever floats your boat. I am NOT interested in your petty diatribes!

JMO and MOO!!

nettathirty

09-12-2006, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Did they try to bring up fingerprints on either of the gloves?

If not, why not"

Holly,

Interesting, it's August theory the glove at Bundy was removed by a struggling Ron Goldman. Ron was un-gloved so is it possible he could have left a print?

Was both victims blood found on the gloves, or just one victim?
Is it conceivible that Goldman didn't enter the Bundy property from the front gate, but via the rear gate?

2L8 4A D8

09-12-2006, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Do you know how to invoke the IGNORE option?

Yes, I certainly do. However, I was here first, so maybe you should put me on Ignore, eh? Again, you are not the Moderator, so don't tell me what I should do!

JMO and MOO!!

Sunny Day

09-12-2006, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Holly
I am screaming with laughter.

This remark is even funnier than the post somewhere else on this board that Princess Diana wanted to be First Lady of the USA.

The two of you ought to get together. You are funnier than Clark&Darden.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Is it supposed to be a surprise that you are so easily amused?

It's not.

nettathirty

09-12-2006, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Holly

This may surprise you but:
"Do you know how to invoke the IGNORE option?"
is a question, not an order or even a suggestion.

Even if this is true: "I was here first," which I doubt, I have seen nothing in TOS that gives any special privleges to posters with logevity.

It pretty unusual for posters who merely want to quarrel to achieve any kind of seniority.

There is a member currently posting here who had some 12,000 posts and was banned for some reason unknown to me. She and I have only once, that I know of, agreed on anything, but she has never even hinted that her longevity on this site gives her special privileges.

Grow up.

:beer:

RainStorm

09-12-2006, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I sense that we have come to an agreement of sorts, If you are saying that this country has not attained the level of humanitarianism of which it is worthy. The world, imo, should have been fair since the self proclaimed age of civilization.

William Anthony,

I'm sure there are things outside the scope of subjects here we could agree on. On the topics here, however, I find little if anything I agree with you on. If your post is a gesture of diplomacy, however, I can respect that.

It's not for nothing it's called the veneer of civilization.

bobaugust

09-12-2006, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Holly

Because I am a citizen of this country and I believe absolutely in the rule of law, I accept the verdict of the criminal case jury. I believe the civil case to have been prohibited by the double jeopardy amendment.

Holly, the civil trial was not double jeopardy. Simpson wasn't the first or the last defendant found not guilty in a criminal trial and then a defendant in a civil trial.

"The prohibition against double jeopardy is not violated when an individual is charged for behaviour stemming from an offense for which he has been charged in a different jurisdiction or in a different court (e.g., a civil court as opposed to a criminal court)"
http://www.answers.com/main/ntq-tname-double%252Djeopardy-fts_start-

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

09-12-2006, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Holly

<snipped>

Grow up.

Yada, Yada, Yada and Blah, Blah, Blah! You also need to practice what you preach!

Moreover, I am very suspect that ALL of a sudden, out of the blue, here comes yourself and William Anthony. And you are not the friendly natives either. How many times does Mr. August have to tell you and Mr. Anthony that you "are wrong" before you both get it? But then again, if you both had brains and they...............!

Don't post to me anymore. I am tired of your pettiness. Life is too short for your baffling bullsh*t!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

09-12-2006, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Did they try to bring up fingerprints on either of the gloves?

If not, why not"

Holly, I've never heard of anyone leaving fingerprints on gloves. Certainly not by normal use.

Maybe if there was something on the gloves, like possibly blood, that someone might have left an imprint in by touching the glove, but nothing like that was ever seen on either of the gloves in the Simpson case.

Forensics has come a long way in the last ten years, so who knows. People have asked why didn't they test for DNA inside the gloves, since the killer most likely sweat in them. Again, maybe today that's possible, although I've never heard it being done. Ten years ago? I doubt it.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

09-12-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Holly
This post has been reported to the moderator.

This is a public message board and I can and may post to anyone I care to.

Yes you can. However, when a Poster has specifically asked you NOT to post to them anymore doesn't even come under "This is a public message board and I can and may post to anyone I care to."

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

09-13-2006, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Holly
Don't be ridiculous.

Why do you think the software is equipped with the IGNORE option?

You are wasting bandwidth and time by posting responses to me.

I am beginning to think that both you and
socaldiva are both about 11 years old, or maybe 8.

I am not ridiculous ~ you are ~ big time.

I don't have to use the Ignore button if I don't want to just because it's there and you want me to use it.

You are wasting bandwidth and time by posting responses to me.

You have definitely showed your true colors and your true character. You are a whiny, crybaby, tattletailer. A very unflattering and notorious NG trait!

You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

09-13-2006, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Holly
Thanks for that response.

Certainly I would think they would have done DNA tests on the blood on the gloves.

Holly, the blood on the right hand glove was tested and found to be Nicole's, Ron's, and Simpson's blood.

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-13-2006, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Holly
Very interesting. I do not remember ever hearing that before or else my memory has failed me again.

Since I don't trust any of the four detectives (I have a special reason not to trust Vannatter,) Simpson's blood could have been planted on the glove.

How I wish they had tested the inside of the glove for DNA.

Thanks for your input.

Holly, if you didn't know about Simpson's blood on that glove maybe you didn't know about all the trace and hair evidence found on it.

The Glove found at Rockingham
Several hairs (3 to 4) from Nicole Brown - 1 had blood on it.
3 hairs from Ron Goldman (ripped or torn)
1 light brown Caucasian hair (close to the known sample from Ron Goldman)
Fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt
A number of fur hairs from the Akita dog
Fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's jeans
1 unusual x-shaped fiber consistent with the Bronco carpeting
Blue black cotton fibers ( the same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on found on Simpson's socks)

bobaugust

William Anthony

09-13-2006, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, read again what you posted to me. You quoted Holly's post.

"In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, there was no grand jury for the O.J. Simpson jury trial. The GJ was recused because the Defense asked for a preliminary hearing."

Yes I did take Holly's posting to mean there was no participation in the indictment. That's not a problem of posting testimony, that's a problem of a statement that could be taken different ways. But there was no misunderstanding about the word "because,"

In fact in my second response to you about this meaningless subject I put the word "because" in capitol letters pointing out Holly's mistake. I guess you missed that one too, right?

bobaugust.

They requsted it and were granted it. To make it clear to you it was granted BECAUSE they requested it, BECAUSE of the leak.

William Anthony

09-13-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Yada, Yada, Yada and Blah, Blah, Blah! You also need to practice what you preach!

Moreover, I am very suspect that ALL of a sudden, out of the blue, here comes yourself and William Anthony. And you are not the friendly natives either. How many times does Mr. August have to tell you and Mr. Anthony that you "are wrong" before you both get it? But then again, if you both had brains and they...............!

Don't post to me anymore. I am tired of your pettiness. Life is too short for your baffling bullsh*t!

JMO and MOO!!

And what diety is bobaugust? I am most cordial and will always conduct myself in that manner, unless reasonable minds want to differ in an unreasonable manner, such as refering to me as a native and not as a native American.

William Anthony

09-13-2006, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Holly, the civil trial was not double jeopardy. Simpson wasn't the first or the last defendant found not guilty in a criminal trial and then a defendant in a civil trial.

"The prohibition against double jeopardy is not violated when an individual is charged for behaviour stemming from an offense for which he has been charged in a different jurisdiction or in a different court (e.g., a civil court as opposed to a criminal court)"
http://www.answers.com/main/ntq-tname-double%252Djeopardy-fts_start-

bobaugust

Your post is technically correct, if you understand the difference between civil and criminal and jurisdiction. There is however a concept called collateral estoppel, which concerns me, when someone brings a civil trial after a criminal one. If there is anyone out there who can explain to me how collateral estoppel is inapplicabe, please do not hesitate to inform me. It is something that I have been wondering about.

William Anthony

09-13-2006, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Holly, I've never heard of anyone leaving fingerprints on gloves. Certainly not by normal use.

Maybe if there was something on the gloves, like possibly blood, that someone might have left an imprint in by touching the glove, but nothing like that was ever seen on either of the gloves in the Simpson case.

Forensics has come a long way in the last ten years, so who knows. People have asked why didn't they test for DNA inside the gloves, since the killer most likely sweat in them. Again, maybe today that's possible, although I've never heard it being done. Ten years ago? I doubt it.

bobaugust

Thank you for exposing another problem with the evidence in the prosecution's case!!!!

bobaugust

09-13-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

They requsted it and were granted it. To make it clear to you it was granted BECAUSE they requested it, BECAUSE of the leak.

William Anthony, wrong. This what Marcia Clark wrote. When she was preparing for the grand jury, the preliminary hearing was already scheduled. It was not granted because of the leak.

Without a Doubt, Marcia Clark
"Normally, I have weeks or even months to prepare for a grand jury. By the time a session formally convenes, I will have interviewed every witness at least once, often more. But now, he clock was ticking. We had to bet the grand jury indictment within the ten days before the preliminary hearing was set to begin. If we didn't, we'd have the same set of witnesses running between two courts to testify. You can imagine what a mess that would be. On the other hand, if we could just get that grand jury indictment, the entire matter would be settled. We could dispense with the preliminary hearing altogether. And so the need for haste."

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-13-2006, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Your post is technically correct, if you understand the difference between civil and criminal and jurisdiction. There is however a concept called collateral estoppel, which concerns me, when someone brings a civil trial after a criminal one. If there is anyone out there who can explain to me how collateral estoppel is inapplicabe, please do not hesitate to inform me. It is something that I have been wondering about.

William Anthony, a simple search would answer your question.

Collateral estoppel, also sometimes known as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. This is for the prevention of legal harassment and to prevent the abuse of legal resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_estoppel
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c171.htm

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-13-2006, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Thank you for exposing another problem with the evidence in the prosecution's case!!!!

William Anthony, no, thank you for exposing your reading comprehension problem and offering another one of your ridiculous opinions.

bobaugust

William Anthony

09-13-2006, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, wrong. This what Marcia Clark wrote. When she was preparing for the grand jury, the preliminary hearing was already scheduled. It was not granted because of the leak.

Without a Doubt, Marcia Clark
"Normally, I have weeks or even months to prepare for a grand jury. By the time a session formally convenes, I will have interviewed every witness at least once, often more. But now, he clock was ticking. We had to bet the grand jury indictment within the ten days before the preliminary hearing was set to begin. If we didn't, we'd have the same set of witnesses running between two courts to testify. You can imagine what a mess that would be. On the other hand, if we could just get that grand jury indictment, the entire matter would be settled. We could dispense with the preliminary hearing altogether. And so the need for haste."

bobaugust

The concept of these posts have been in response to your calling Holly wrong. The GJ was recused, BECAUSE OF THE LEAK. as you acknowledge in your prior post. The Preliminary hearing was granted as you acknowledge in your prior post BECAUSE the defense requested it.

William Anthony

09-13-2006, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, a simple search would answer your question.

Collateral estoppel, also sometimes known as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. This is for the prevention of legal harassment and to prevent the abuse of legal resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_estoppel
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c171.htm

bobaugust

I understand your limited knowledge of the law and your ability to make irrelevant posts. I know what colllateral estoppel is. What I was asking is why it is not inapplicabe to bring charges in a civil suit after a criminal trial. I did not expect you to know the answer, and, judging by your prior posts, you may have a problem with comprehension, imho.

William Anthony

09-13-2006, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, no, thank you for exposing your reading comprehension problem and offering another one of your ridiculous opinions.

bobaugust

Here is what you said;

Maybe if there was something on the gloves, like possibly blood, that someone might have left an imprint in by touching the glove, but nothing like that was ever seen on either of the gloves in the Simpson case.

Tell me how Mr. Simpson could have gotten the glove to Bundy without leaving an imprint on a glove that was wet for so long. MF on the other hand was trained in the collection, and maybe, in the depositing of evidence without leaving evidence of the deposit. MF also had the tools availabe to do this. Reasonable Doubt? I doubt so in your mind, which is permiated with the thoughts of the rightousness of bobaugust's brilliance.

bobaugust

09-13-2006, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

The concept of these posts have been in response to your calling Holly wrong. The GJ was recused, BECAUSE OF THE LEAK. as you acknowledge in your prior post. The Preliminary hearing was granted as you acknowledge in your prior post BECAUSE the defense requested it.

William Anthony, the "concept" of these post have been in response to Holly and then your incorrect statements.

You now agree that the preliminary hearing wasn't requested because of the leak of the tapes but but yet you still can't admit to being wrong about saying it was. Funny.

As to the defense requesting the preliminary hearing, I did post that I agree to that but in researching this I've never been able to see where anyone said that. As I understand it every person who is charged by warrant is entitled to a preliminary hearing. If a person remains in jail, he or she is entitled to a preliminary hearing within 10 days of arrest. That was the situation in Simpson's case.

What information do you know of that leads you to believe that Simpson's attorneys requested a preliminary hearing?

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-13-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I understand your limited knowledge of the law and your ability to make irrelevant posts. I know what colllateral estoppel is. What I was asking is why it is not inapplicabe to bring charges in a civil suit after a criminal trial. I did not expect you to know the answer, and, judging by your prior posts, you may have a problem with comprehension, imho.

William Anthony, here I am being a nice guy trying to help you out and do you appreciate the effort and simply thank me? Funny.

I would bet that you never even read the links I provided, right? The second link I posted may give you the answers you're searching for or it may not but the only way you'll know is if you actually read it.

"The collateral estoppel bar is inapplicable when the claimant did not have a 'full and fair opportunity to litigate' the issue decided by the other court. Thus, a claimant can file a federal suit to challenge the adequacy of state procedures."

You're right I do have limited knowledge of the law and I've never claimed any different unlike you and your limited knowlege of the facts and evidence in the Simpson case.

bobaugust

weezer

09-13-2006, 03:38 PM

*Snip*Originally posted by William Anthony
Tell me how Mr. Simpson could have gotten the glove to Bundy without leaving an imprint on a glove that was wet for so long. MF on the other hand was trained in the collection, and maybe, in the depositing of evidence without leaving evidence of the deposit. MF also had the tools availabe to do this. LOL -- Orenthal wouldn't leave an imprint but Fuhrman would.......LOL.....they both touch the same surface....LOL.....but only Fuhrman leaves an imprint......LOL

bobaugust

09-13-2006, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Holly

It goes without saying that bobaugust believes that there was a miscarriage of justice in the criminal trial of Mr. Simpson, probably because the jury was mostly composed of black women. It is my presumption that William Anthony agrees with my assessment that the prosecution did not prove their case, that they presented testimony by very questionable witnesses, and that neither prosecution attorney was competent.

Whatever the matter, Mr. Simpson will never be tried again in a criminal court for the murders of his former wife or the young man who was present at her slaughter.

This case, along with the others in which VICTIMS (and I use that word deliberately) have been wrongly convicted for crimes they could not have commited, shouts aloud for a massive revamping of the criminal justice (there's an oxymoron, if you want one) system.

Holly. not a bad job of summing up the discussions relating to the criminal trial, but what William Anthony can't seem to understand is that this case didn't end with the criminal trial acquittal.

Nor is this discussion group limited to only the criminal trial. What I and other posters discuss here is the question who was the killer? If anyone bothers to learn about all the new information that became known in the many depositions taken before the civil trial and all the new evidence that became known in the civil trial, and most importantly the lying testimony Simpson gave under oath, then the answer to that question is very clear

Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. There is no doubt about that.

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-13-2006, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Holly

In the second paragraph, you refer to new evidence discovered AFTER the criminal trial. This is the most disturbing part of this matter. Why was LAPD unable to uncover all this information before the trial? There are insatiable sports fan all over the world. I cannot verify it but I strongly suspect that the Simpson matter received saturation coverage all over the world. I know that French, English, and Australian posters were very well informed about it.

Holly, good question,

The fact is that there was a hugh amount of evidence in this case, far more than normal. Normally a case like this not involving a celebrity would take considerably longer before it came to trial. Possibly even a couple of years. The defense strategy of asking for a speedy trial, which was Simpson's right to do, put a lot of pressure on the prosecution because there was so much evidence to test and so many witnesses to interview.

In depositions taken before the civil trial a huge amount of new information became known that wasn't known before. It was learned from Paula Barbieri that she had left Simpson a long "dear John" message on his car phone message center breaking up with him early that Sunday morning before she flew out of town. Cochran had argued to the criminal trial why kill Nicole? Simpson wasn't obsessed with Nicole, he had Paula. It was a lie.

By the time of the civil trial a year and a half after the murders test results were available that hadn't been available at the time of the criminal trial. It wasn't until Simpson testified in the civil trial that Petrocelli had been flooded with photos and videos from people all over the county, all showing Simpson wearing shoes.

bobaugust

William Anthony

09-13-2006, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, the "concept" of these post have been in response to Holly and then your incorrect statements.

You now agree that the preliminary hearing wasn't requested because of the leak of the tapes but but yet you still can't admit to being wrong about saying it was. Funny.

As to the defense requesting the preliminary hearing, I did post that I agree to that but in researching this I've never been able to see where anyone said that. As I understand it every person who is charged by warrant is entitled to a preliminary hearing. If a person remains in jail, he or she is entitled to a preliminary hearing within 10 days of arrest. That was the situation in Simpson's case.

What information do you know of that leads you to believe that Simpson's attorneys requested a preliminary hearing?

bobaugust

No, I said the defense requested the preliminary hearing. You posted something about Shiparo strutting around like a peacock and going immediately to the court for a preliminary (words to that effect. The first time and only time I heard of a defendant having an absolute right to a preliminary was in the State of Colorado, in the Karr situation. In the States I know about there is either a grand jury indictment, which usually happens because the prosecution is the only party allowed in the room to ask questions. As I understand it the defense is not allowed in the room, unless the defendant testifies and his attorney is still not allowed to ask questions. The GJ and the judge in the preliminary hearing serve the same purpose. From your post about Marcia Clark, I surmise that the defense had requested a preliminary and the prosecution went before the GJ, hoping to get an indictment before a judge ruled on the defense's request. When the leak occured Shiparo moved for the recusal, which was granted and also their request. That is how I see it happening.
I know there is something called a show cause hearing .

William Anthony

09-13-2006, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by jotun

All
Smart for the defence.IMO they were out-smarted. Maybe on purpose.According to Bosco's book,the GJ was NOT going to indite.
But sure a nightmare for O.J. 174 days in jail.A 9 1/2 month trial.A custody battle.A many month money trial. Which seems to be never-ending.
jotun

We will never know the answer to that, because the GJ was recused. Thinking of the money that trial brought to the city, there is a good chance they would have.

William Anthony

09-13-2006, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Sunny Day

Those gloves, IMO, proved OJ's guilt. He was pictured with those same gloves. I'll never forget his bad acting in the courtroom, pretending he couldn't get them on because they were too small, but then he whipped them right off. He also didn't seem the least bit repulsed by the bloody gloves.

Bottom line, a jury found him responsible for the deaths. He did it. The mostly black criminal jury nullified the case, but even the black community knows he did it. When has OJ appeared at all those black awards shows? Haven't they invited him to be on? Why didn't his staunchest supporter, Tavis Smiley, have him on his show?

Maybe it's OJ who doesn't want to be seen with black people. He used them then kicked them to the curb, just like MJ did.

MO.

BTW, OJ's defense was that he was "framed" by a "racist" LAPD. Why would someone steal just one glove of OJ's, or know exactly what type of glove he owns, then plant it without even knowing if OJ was in town or not?

Another racist strategy of Cochrane's was suggesting that Nicole had ties to a Columbian drug ring because she had bananas on her grocery list.

:rolleyes:

The only thing those pictures prove is that O. J. wore a pair of gloves similar to the evidence gloves. What was bad was for the prosecution to ask him to put them on not knowing wherther or not they were his. Do you think those who testified were the only ones who had pictures of him? Let us not forget that MF had a talk with Kato, who had seen him leave. MF, who hated interacial couples, and admitted to planting evidence, knew he was out of town, before MF allegedly went behind the building in which Kato lived.

William Anthony

09-13-2006, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, here I am being a nice guy trying to help you out and do you appreciate the effort and simply thank me? Funny.

I would bet that you never even read the links I provided, right? The second link I posted may give you the answers you're searching for or it may not but the only way you'll know is if you actually read it.

"The collateral estoppel bar is inapplicable when the claimant did not have a 'full and fair opportunity to litigate' the issue decided by the other court. Thus, a claimant can file a federal suit to challenge the adequacy of state procedures."

You're right I do have limited knowledge of the law and I've never claimed any different unlike you and your limited knowlege of the facts and evidence in the Simpson case.

bobaugust

Since I feel we are making some progress, I am glad I read this post last. You have posted how the defense of collatteral estoppel is used. I knew that. This is what I was asking, given the fact that every possible thing was litigated in the criminal trial and a verdict reached, how, in this case, can a civil trial have been brought when they would have been rehasing things already litigated in the first trial. I am not trying to be smart. I truly want to know what legal concept, if any, precludes the defense of collateral estoppel, in this particular instance. The prosecution represented the State, including the Browns and Goldmans.

bobaugust

09-14-2006, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

No, I said the defense requested the preliminary hearing. You posted something about Shiparo strutting around like a peacock and going immediately to the court for a preliminary (words to that effect. The first time and only time I heard of a defendant having an absolute right to a preliminary was in the State of Colorado, in the Karr situation. In the States I know about there is either a grand jury indictment, which usually happens because the prosecution is the only party allowed in the room to ask questions. As I understand it the defense is not allowed in the room, unless the defendant testifies and his attorney is still not allowed to ask questions. The GJ and the judge in the preliminary hearing serve the same purpose. From your post about Marcia Clark, I surmise that the defense had requested a preliminary and the prosecution went before the GJ, hoping to get an indictment before a judge ruled on the defense's request. When the leak occured Shiparo moved for the recusal, which was granted and also their request. That is how I see it happening.
I know there is something called a show cause hearing .

William Anthony, yes you did say the defense requested a preliminary hearing. That's why I asked you, and I ask again, what information do you know of that Simpson's attorney's requested a preliminary hearing?

I repeat, as I understand it every person who is charged by warrant is entitled to a preliminary hearing. If a person remains in jail, he or she is entitled to a preliminary hearing within 10 days of arrest. That was the situation in Simpson's case.

Your reference to the peacock remark and Shapiro going to the court for a preliminary hearing is funny and wrong again. I previously posted a passage from Marcia Clark's book where she wrote, "Shapiro was preening like a peacock in full plumage" at the hearing that was hastily convened about recusing the grand jury.

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-14-2006, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

The only thing those pictures prove is that O. J. wore a pair of gloves similar to the evidence gloves. What was bad was for the prosecution to ask him to put them on not knowing wherther or not they were his. Do you think those who testified were the only ones who had pictures of him? Let us not forget that MF had a talk with Kato, who had seen him leave. MF, who hated interacial couples, and admitted to planting evidence, knew he was out of town, before MF allegedly went behind the building in which Kato lived.

William Anthony, you're wrong again.

Photographs show Simpson wearing the exact same kind of gloves as the killer's gloves. Aris men's leather light gloves. Same style, same color.

The gloves were Simpson's. They were Simpson's size and one of them had fibers on it that were consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet as well as blue black cotton fibers. The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and found on Simpson's socks. It also had Simpson's blood on it.

I see you're still repeating your false claims about Mark Fuhrman. Where and when did Mark Fuhrman ever say he hated interracial couples and admitted to planting evidence?

November 6, 1996 Richard Rubin

Q. And based on those specific characteristics you just mentioned, are you able to tell me with certainty what the manufacture, make, model and style of those gloves are?
A. 70263, brown.
Q. That's the Aris men's leather light?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay.
Can you tell me how that 70263 Aris men's leather light brown, those gloves depicted in those photographs, compare to the two gloves you have in front of you there?
A. Same style, color.
Q. Is it fair to say they're identical?
A. Yes.

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-14-2006, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Since I feel we are making some progress, I am glad I read this post last. You have posted how the defense of collatteral estoppel is used. I knew that. This is what I was asking, given the fact that every possible thing was litigated in the criminal trial and a verdict reached, how, in this case, can a civil trial have been brought when they would have been rehasing things already litigated in the first trial. I am not trying to be smart. I truly want to know what legal concept, if any, precludes the defense of collateral estoppel, in this particular instance. The prosecution represented the State, including the Browns and Goldmans.

William Anthony, you should be discussing this with attorneys or law professors and I'm sure they will be able to explain to you why the Brown's and the Goldman's were able to sue Simpson in the civil trial.

The only thing we can help you here with is tying to inform you of the actual facts and evidence in this case that you are so obviously lacking knowledge of.

bobaugust

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

He did not admit this in a real life context. He spoke of evidence planting in relation to a fictional screenplay.

He was relating what he had done. When he said that he was the keywitness and has spoken to the prosecution and told them he knew how to testify in the Simpson case on those tapes, he was not, imo, speaking in the context of a screenplay. Although, the tapes were taken for a play, he spoke much of the truth about himself, imo. I am not as certain as you as to when he was playing a role for the tape.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, you should be discussing this with attorneys or law professors and I'm sure they will be able to explain to you why the Brown's and the Goldman's were able to sue Simpson in the civil trial.

The only thing we can help you here with is tying to inform you of the actual facts and evidence in this case that you are so obviously lacking knowledge of.

bobaugust

Maybe, we are not making as much progress as I originally thought. I did not ask you to answer my question for obvious reasons. MY instructor tonight is a lawyer and I will ask him. Again, I will repeat, unless you were on the jury, you don't know the actual facts.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, you're wrong again.

Photographs show Simpson wearing the exact same kind of gloves as the killer's gloves. Aris men's leather light gloves. Same style, same color.

The gloves were Simpson's. They were Simpson's size and one of them had fibers on it that were consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet as well as blue black cotton fibers. The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and found on Simpson's socks. It also had Simpson's blood on it.

I see you're still repeating your false claims about Mark Fuhrman. Where and when did Mark Fuhrman ever say he hated interracial couples and admitted to planting evidence?

November 6, 1996 Richard Rubin

Q. And based on those specific characteristics you just mentioned, are you able to tell me with certainty what the manufacture, make, model and style of those gloves are?
A. 70263, brown.
Q. That's the Aris men's leather light?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay.
Can you tell me how that 70263 Aris men's leather light brown, those gloves depicted in those photographs, compare to the two gloves you have in front of you there?
A. Same style, color.
Q. Is it fair to say they're identical?
A. Yes.

bobaugust

I will not call you wrong in order to reach some type of consensus. The only thing the witness could say by the testimony you posted is that they are identical as to size, make, manufactuer, model and color. He could not, without loosing all scientific credibility, testitfy to a scientific certanty that those were the same gloves. Thus, they were similar as I 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. AS to the fibers, the MF was all over the crime scene and could have placed the glove in comtact with evidence not yet collected.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, yes you did say the defense requested a preliminary hearing. That's why I asked you, and I ask again, what information do you know of that Simpson's attorney's requested a preliminary hearing?

I repeat, as I understand it every person who is charged by warrant is entitled to a preliminary hearing. If a person remains in jail, he or she is entitled to a preliminary hearing within 10 days of arrest. That was the situation in Simpson's case.

Your reference to the peacock remark and Shapiro going to the court for a preliminary hearing is funny and wrong again. I previously posted a passage from Marcia Clark's book where she wrote, "Shapiro was preening like a peacock in full plumage" at the hearing that was hastily convened about recusing the grand jury.

bobaugust

AS I have said every state that I know of, except Colorado, the right to a preliminary hearing is not absolute. The prosecution may chose to indite by GJ or hold a perliminary. I am not familiar with California statutes on this issue, but I will research.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* LOL -- Orenthal wouldn't leave an imprint but Fuhrman would.......LOL.....they both touch the same surface....LOL.....but only Fuhrman leaves an imprint......LOL

Whatever you are on would you share? I said the opposite.:read:

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

You and I have never been on the same level for anything. You support a double-murderer and I don't. It's as simple as that. And I really don't want to hear anymore of your "holier than thou" and "condescending" attitude thank you.

Netta has taught you well. He is notorious for putting out baiting posts and then stating, "Oh, I just said it in jest!" Yeah, right. GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

I support both jury verdicts, which you do not seem to understand, as evidenced by your reference to a double-murder. It is the judicial process that I respect and people with the ability to read with comprehension. I am not hollier than thou. I am as good as anyone and better than none. If that offends your delicate senses then cover them up.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Huh? The tapes preceeded the murders, how could he have been speaking about the Simpson case on the tapes?

As for the rest of your post, Internal Affairs looked into MF's stories on the tapes to see if there was any real life wrong doing & didn't come up with anything IIRC. He was just beefing up the story. imo

Some of the tapes preceeded and some followed.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 09:47 AM

bobaugust

09-14-2006, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Maybe, we are not making as much progress as I originally thought. I did not ask you to answer my question for obvious reasons. MY instructor tonight is a lawyer and I will ask him. Again, I will repeat, unless you were on the jury, you don't know the actual facts.

William Anthony, witnesses testified to what they saw and heard. Those are the facts we know.

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-14-2006, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I will not call you wrong in order to reach some type of consensus. The only thing the witness could say by the testimony you posted is that they are identical as to size, make, manufactuer, model and color. He could not, without loosing all scientific credibility, testitfy to a scientific certanty that those were the same gloves. Thus, they were similar as I 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. AS to the fibers, the MF was all over the crime scene and could have placed the glove in comtact with evidence not yet collected.

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.

Your claim that since Mark Fuhrman was all over the crime scene he could have placed the glove in contact with Simpson's socks is one of the dumbest claims I have ever heard made.

Please tell me you were only joking.

bobaugust

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 01:06 PM

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.

Your claim that since Mark Fuhrman was all over the crime scene he could have placed the glove in contact with Simpson's socks is one of the dumbest claims I have ever heard made.

Please tell me you were only joking.

bobaugust

Kathleen Bell did indeed testify as to the MF's animous toward interracial couples. I was talking about the glove as you well know. Here is your post.

The gloves were Simpson's. They were Simpson's size and one of them had fibers on it that were consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet as well as blue black cotton fibers. The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and found on Simpson's socks.

I never said he placed the glove in contact with Mr. Simpson's disappearing and reappearing socks. Maybe they walked over to the crime seen by themselves since they have magical powers. The defense pointed out that the socks could not have been collected at the time of the photograpn by the time stamp on the camcorder, even allowing for any discrepancy in the setting of the time.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, witnesses testified to what they saw and heard. Those are the facts we know.

bobaugust

That testimony is only evidence. The jury after listening to the testimony and weighing the testimony determine what the facts are. Why can't you get that simple concept in your head? The jury could totally ignore any testimony they heard, if they concluded the testimony was not credible. They are the only ones who can determine facts. You have an opinion, which will remain forever just that. Let the mouse out of your pocket and close that fly catcher so the flies do not get cold. :)

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I anticipated that to be your answer. Don't you think that someone in the public that had been wronged would come screaming forward after the Simpson trial? Didn't hear a peep, as I recall.

Are you saying that IAD publically published their findings? As I recall the defense was precluded from getting their reports during the trial and the MF moved to Iowa.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 01:27 PM

bobaugust

09-14-2006, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

That testimony is only evidence. The jury after listening to the testimony and weighing the testimony determine what the facts are. Why can't you get that simple concept in your head? The jury could totally ignore any testimony they heard, if they concluded the testimony was not credible. They are the only ones who can determine facts. You have an opinion, which will remain forever just that. Let the mouse out of your pocket and close that fly catcher so the flies do not get cold. :)

William Anthony, why can't you get the simple concept in your head that what the jury decided isn't relevant to our discussions as to who the killer was.

If all you want to argue are the facts the criminal trial jurors with questionable intelligence used are the only facts to consider then it's no wonder why you make the so many false claims.

You've repeatedly shown that your knowledge about the facts and evidence in this case is very limited and you've evidently closed your mind to learning anything more.

Good job, flat-earther. Funny.

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-14-2006, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

\The defense pointed out that the socks could not have been collected at the time of the photograpn by the time stamp on the camcorder, even allowing for any discrepancy in the setting of the time.

William Anthony, The defense was incorrect. Ford testified that he video taped Simpson's bedroom after Dennis Fung finished collecting all of the evidence. That was what he was there for to record what Simpson's house looked like after the police completed their work for insurance purposes if a claim was made that something was missing.

Ford told how when he first went upstairs to video tape the bedrooms Dennis Fung was still collecting working in Simpson's bedroom so Ford video taped the other bedrooms first and then returned to video tape Simpson's bedroom after Fung had finished.

July 20, 1995
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you didn't go to Rockingham to videotape evidence, did you?
MR. FORD: This is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to videotape the collection process, did you?
MR. FORD: That's right.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to videotape Fung, right?
MR. FORD: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Or Mazzola?
MR. FORD: That's right.
MR. DARDEN: Or the detectives?
MR. FORD: Right.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to record conversations, did you?
MR. FORD: That's right.
MR. DARDEN: Tell the jury, Mr. Ford, why did you go out to Rockingham that day?
MR. FORD: I was called by the request of the detectives at the Rockingham location to videotape all the personal effects of Mr. Simpson, just in case when they are getting ready to lock up the location, just in case any of the items were reported missing, and the tape was never to be used as evidence; it was only a record to show what was there when LAPD finished their investigation, and to leave.

MR. DARDEN: You were instructed to videotape a room only after it had been possessed by the criminalist, correct?
MR. FORD: That was correct.
MR. DARDEN: And that is why we don't see socks in these photographers; isn't that correct, Mr. Ford?
MR. FORD: That's correct, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You can't testify to what was inside or not inside that room prior to your entry into the room with that camera, right?
MR. FORD: This is correct.

***

MR. DARDEN: And you were walking toward the master bedroom door; is that right?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Did that light illuminate the doorway?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And was it at that time that Mr. Fung said something to you?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: That is when he asked you to do something?
MR. FORD: Yes. He says, "I'm not ready."

MR. DARDEN: What did you do after Mr. Fung asked you to do something?
MR. FORD: I went into the next bedroom.
MR. DARDEN: Did you do what Mr. Fung asked you to do?
MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. After you did what Fung told you to do, which was--well, strike that. After you did what Fung told you to do, did you return to the bedroom?
MR. FORD: I returned to the hallway.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. By the way, was there anything unusual about--in your mind about what Mr. Fung asked you to do.
MR. FORD: No, there was nothing unusual.
MR. DARDEN: Nothing sinister about that?
MR. FORD: No, sir.
MR. DARDEN: You returned to the bedroom?
MR. FORD: I was going toward the master bedroom.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you have the video camera in your possession at that time?
MR. FORD: Yes, I did.
MR. DARDEN: Did you see Mr. Fung at that time?
MR. FORD: I probably saw him pass by me before I turned the video camera back on.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you see him exit the master bedroom?
MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you told us that you saw Mr. Fung exit the room and go somewhere, right?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Then you went into the room and videotaped, right?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. At this particular point in time, did he do anything to stop you from going into the room?
MR. FORD: No.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you and he speak to each other as you entered the room to videotape at that point in time?
MR. FORD: Just in passing, yes.

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-14-2006, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Kathleen Bell did indeed testify as to the MF's animous toward interracial couples.

William Anthony, I think you forgot what you 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."

Once again 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 1996 and testified about the language Fuhrman used saying the "n" word.

By the way it's funny how you use the words "the MF" when referring to Mark Fuhrman.

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-14-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I never said he placed the glove in contact with Mr. Simpson's disappearing and reappearing socks.

William Anthony, again I guess you forgot what you said,

You wrote, "As to the fibers, (the MF) was all over the crime scene and could have placed the glove in contact with evidence not yet collected"

The fact is that blue black cotton fibers were found all over Ron Goldman's shirt as well as on the killer's right hand glove. The same blue black cotton fibers were also found on Simpson's socks.

After the glove was found the only uncollected evidence that these fibers were found on were Simpson's socks in his bedroom.

You claim is not only dumb it's stupid. Only someone as uninformed as you are who offers opinions about the evidence in this case based on false and misinformation could come up with something this dumb.

Good job

bobaugust

weezer

09-14-2006, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Are you saying that IAD publically published their findings? As I recall the defense was precluded from getting their reports during the trial and the MF moved to Iowa. How about you tell us about all the findings against Fuhrman by the IAD and Rampart?

weezer

09-14-2006, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
Holly has sent me yet another nasty PM telling me not to post, amongst other things. What a coward. I thought this sort of harrassment was against the TOS. I guess she's not capable of being civil. I've been surprised that Coldwater has allowed the baiting, disrespect and taunting that goes on with the posts from William Anthony and Holly. And I certainly expected repercussions from William Anthony's remark about bloodying bobaugust's mouth.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
How about you tell us about all the findings against Fuhrman by the IAD and Rampart?

I have not seen any, nor do I care.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I've been surprised that Coldwater has allowed the baiting, disrespect and taunting that goes on with the posts from William Anthony and Holly. And I certainly expected repercussions from William Anthony's remark about bloodying bobaugust's mouth.

Don't prevericate about my posts. I never said anything about blooding anyone's mouth. I asked you to read my post and, if you have, you still have not understood it's tenor or content. I am sure that the moderator has read it. Your insistence on that post is about as futile as you trying to change the verdict in the criminal trial, imo.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, again I guess you forgot what you said,

You wrote, "As to the fibers, (the MF) was all over the crime scene and could have placed the glove in contact with evidence not yet collected"

The fact is that blue black cotton fibers were found all over Ron Goldman's shirt as well as on the killer's right hand glove. The same blue black cotton fibers were also found on Simpson's socks.

After the glove was found the only uncollected evidence that these fibers were found on were Simpson's socks in his bedroom.

You claim is not only dumb it's stupid. Only someone as uninformed as you are who offers opinions about the evidence in this case based on false and misinformation could come up with something this dumb.

Good job

bobaugust

I was talking about the uncollected evidence at bundy in relation to placing the glove in contact with the shirt. We have already discussed the magical socks. I have never made a claim only offered possible explanations. The fact that you find my possibilities stupid, would bother me tremendously, if what you thought mattered to me.

weezer

09-14-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Don't prevericate about my posts. I never said anything about blooding anyone's mouth. I asked you to read my post and, if you have, you still have not understood it's tenor or content. I am sure that the moderator has read it. Your insistence on that post is about as futile as you trying to change the verdict in the criminal trial, imo. And the tone of this post is?

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, The defense was incorrect. Ford testified that he video taped Simpson's bedroom after Dennis Fung finished collecting all of the evidence. That was what he was there for to record what Simpson's house looked like after the police completed their work for insurance purposes if a claim was made that something was missing.

Ford told how when he first went upstairs to video tape the bedrooms Dennis Fung was still collecting working in Simpson's bedroom so Ford video taped the other bedrooms first and then returned to video tape Simpson's bedroom after Fung had finished.

July 20, 1995
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you didn't go to Rockingham to videotape evidence, did you?
MR. FORD: This is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to videotape the collection process, did you?
MR. FORD: That's right.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to videotape Fung, right?
MR. FORD: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Or Mazzola?
MR. FORD: That's right.
MR. DARDEN: Or the detectives?
MR. FORD: Right.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't go to Rockingham to record conversations, did you?
MR. FORD: That's right.
MR. DARDEN: Tell the jury, Mr. Ford, why did you go out to Rockingham that day?
MR. FORD: I was called by the request of the detectives at the Rockingham location to videotape all the personal effects of Mr. Simpson, just in case when they are getting ready to lock up the location, just in case any of the items were reported missing, and the tape was never to be used as evidence; it was only a record to show what was there when LAPD finished their investigation, and to leave.

MR. DARDEN: You were instructed to videotape a room only after it had been possessed by the criminalist, correct?
MR. FORD: That was correct.
MR. DARDEN: And that is why we don't see socks in these photographers; isn't that correct, Mr. Ford?
MR. FORD: That's correct, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You can't testify to what was inside or not inside that room prior to your entry into the room with that camera, right?
MR. FORD: This is correct.

***

MR. DARDEN: And you were walking toward the master bedroom door; is that right?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Did that light illuminate the doorway?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And was it at that time that Mr. Fung said something to you?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: That is when he asked you to do something?
MR. FORD: Yes. He says, "I'm not ready."

MR. DARDEN: What did you do after Mr. Fung asked you to do something?
MR. FORD: I went into the next bedroom.
MR. DARDEN: Did you do what Mr. Fung asked you to do?
MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. After you did what Fung told you to do, which was--well, strike that. After you did what Fung told you to do, did you return to the bedroom?
MR. FORD: I returned to the hallway.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. By the way, was there anything unusual about--in your mind about what Mr. Fung asked you to do.
MR. FORD: No, there was nothing unusual.
MR. DARDEN: Nothing sinister about that?
MR. FORD: No, sir.
MR. DARDEN: You returned to the bedroom?
MR. FORD: I was going toward the master bedroom.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you have the video camera in your possession at that time?
MR. FORD: Yes, I did.
MR. DARDEN: Did you see Mr. Fung at that time?
MR. FORD: I probably saw him pass by me before I turned the video camera back on.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you see him exit the master bedroom?
MR. FORD: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: Well, you told us that you saw Mr. Fung exit the room and go somewhere, right?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Then you went into the room and videotaped, right?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. At this particular point in time, did he do anything to stop you from going into the room?
MR. FORD: No.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you and he speak to each other as you entered the room to videotape at that point in time?
MR. FORD: Just in passing, yes.

bobaugust

What is your point. show the cross, if you want to trully search for the trutth!!

weezer

09-14-2006, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

What is your point. show the cross!! how about you learn to snip.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
how about you learn to snip.

You read and I'll snip. How about that? How much am I getting paid to follow your instructions?

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, why can't you get the simple concept in your head that what the jury decided isn't relevant to our discussions as to who the killer was.

If all you want to argue are the facts the criminal trial jurors with questionable intelligence used are the only facts to consider then it's no wonder why you make the so many false claims.

You've repeatedly shown that your knowledge about the facts and evidence in this case is very limited and you've evidently closed your mind to learning anything more.

Good job, flat-earther. Funny.

bobaugust

I am in college learning from those who know. Why Casn't you get it in your head that the only relevant thing is what the jury decided, as to him being the murderer? See you later, got to get some learning from those who know of which they speak.

weezer

09-14-2006, 05:43 PM

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Hope you're not having to pay for this 'learning'! :eek:

Actually, I am on an accademic scholarship. I give reading classes to adults, if you know of anyone that, is or should be interested. You know how to contact me.

bobaugust

09-14-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

What is your point. show the cross, if you want to trully search for the trutth!!

William Anthony, what is my point?

The point is that Simpson's bedroom wasn't video taped until after the socks were collected. That's why they weren't shown on the carpet in the video tape. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

No I'm not going to post all of Cochran's questions. Cochran never asked any questions to Ford regarding the video taping of the other bedrooms first. All he did was talk about times on the camera and times on the log and then changed the subject talking about other things in the house.

The fact is that the defense's claim was based on incorrect times on the camera as well as not knowing what order Ford video taped the rooms in the house. Cochran didn't know about the conversation Ford had with Fung.

The defense thought they found a gold mine when they learned of the video tape. The video tape didn't help their case at all but it did help us answer some unanswered questions when Ford unintentionally documented incriminating evidence. When Ford video taped Simpson's laundry room he also video taped the dark colored sweat suit in Simpson's washing machine. The dark colored sweat suit that wasn't collected by the police and disappeared after the search was completed.

July 20, 1995
MR. COCHRAN: So it is your testimony that you believe that you had a conversation or there were some words spoken between you and Mr. Fung?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: At that location?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you have that written in any report anywhere?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever testify about that before?
MR. FORD: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: When is the first time you told anybody about that, this alleged conversation that took place in that hallway there at about 4:11 on June 13th?
MR. FORD: I haven't told anybody about it.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to Mr. Darden about that on Monday when you were up here, or Tuesday?
MR. FORD: No.
MR. COCHRAN: You never told anybody about that? We are hearing it for the first time; is that right?
MR. FORD: Yes.

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-14-2006, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I was talking about the uncollected evidence at bundy in relation to placing the glove in contact with the shirt. We have already discussed the magical socks. I have never made a claim only offered possible explanations. The fact that you find my possibilities stupid, would bother me tremendously, if what you thought mattered to me.

William Anthony, so now you're claiming that someone placed the glove in contact with Ron's shirt.

And then what? How did the same fibers get on Simpson's socks?

I hate to ask this but I'm curious as to where you're going with this. Give us your scenario as to how and why someone would do what you claim might have been done. I would think you must have something in mind to actually make this kind of claim. And there must be something that you base them on. What is it?

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-14-2006, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I am in college learning from those who know. Why Casn't you get it in your head that the only relevant thing is what the jury decided, as to him being the murderer? See you later, got to get some learning from those who know of which they speak.

William Anthony, I say apples you say oranges. Funny.

Try and stay with us here, we aren't discussing the criminal trial verdict, we're discussing who the killer was.

Your excused to go.
If you want to learn the truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole, come back later.

bobaugust

bobaugust

09-14-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Holly
Sir, both the links you provided to support your position on Collateral estoppei ndicate that this is still a murky issue in the law. When we have enough of these conflicting verdicts and some person or organization with sufficiently deep pockets to pursue the matter to the SCotUS, it will not be resolved.

If I were ever to win the Lottery (:lol: :lol: :lol: ,) I would be more than happy to take up the cudgel. I would also be willing to back a Constitutional amendment for the sub judice rule, professional jurors, and an entirely way of appointing judges and district attorneys.

Holly, I didn't post those links to support anything.

William Anthony asked a question and I simply posted links to information that might answer it. I posted that they may or may not help him find his answer.

bobaugust

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, what is my point?

SNIPPED
No I'm not going to post all of Cochran's questions. Cochran never asked any questions to Ford regarding the video taping of the other bedrooms first. All he did was talk about times on the camera and times on the log and then changed the subject talking about other things in the house.

The fact is that the defense's claim was based on incorrect times on the camera as well as not knowing what order Ford video taped the rooms in the house. Cochran didn't know about the conversation Ford had with Fung.

The defense thought they found a gold mine when they learned of the video tape. The video tape didn't help their case at all but it did help us answer some unanswered questions when Ford unintentionally documented incriminating evidence. When Ford video taped Simpson's laundry room he also video taped the dark colored sweat suit in Simpson's washing machine. The dark colored sweat suit that wasn't collected by the police and disappeared after the search was completed.

July 20, 1995
MR. COCHRAN: So it is your testimony that you believe that you had a conversation or there were some words spoken between you and Mr. Fung?
MR. FORD: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: At that location?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you have that written in any report anywhere?
MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever testify about that before?
MR. FORD: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: When is the first time you told anybody about that, this alleged conversation that took place in that hallway there at about 4:11 on June 13th?
MR. FORD: I haven't told anybody about it.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you talk to Mr. Darden about that on Monday when you were up here, or Tuesday?
MR. FORD: No.
MR. COCHRAN: You never told anybody about that? We are hearing it for the first time; is that right?
MR. FORD: Yes.

bobaugust

This is what I mean, you do not post the portion that does not agree with what you have construed the testimony to mean. It was Cochran who exposed the incorrect time on the camcorder and compared it to the log, indicating that the socks should have been there, but weren't. In regard to your post of the above transcript, after being crossed on the apparent discrepancy in the time, he testified that he saw Fung leaving the bedroom but had not talked with Darden. How then did Darden know to ask the question. Ford could have talked with someone, who in turn talked with Darden. The point is that Cochran successfully raised a reasonable doubt in with the brevity and expertise of the above quote, imho. I will reiterate that this is not the world accorcding to bobaugust.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, I say apples you say oranges. Funny.

Try and stay with us here, we aren't discussing the criminal trial verdict, we're discussing who the killer was.

Your excused to go.
If you want to learn the truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole, come back later.

bobaugust

Thank you for allowing me to go and get an education, master.:) I shall return.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

The moderator has instructed us to snip, multiple times.

Then I now understand and that is all you had to say first. I have been snipping but that does not stop the long transcripts that are sometimes neccessary, I will admit.

William Anthony

09-14-2006, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

SNIP. No one is talking about transcripts. They are talking about re-posting another posters post,

I will admit that I did this intentionally, only to show you when you snip a transcript that can present a problem.

bobaugust

09-15-2006, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

This is what I mean, you do not post the portion that does not agree with what you have construed the testimony to mean. It was Cochran who exposed the incorrect time on the camcorder and compared it to the log, indicating that the socks should have been there, but weren't. In regard to your post of the above transcript, after being crossed on the apparent discrepancy in the time, he testified that he saw Fung leaving the bedroom but had not talked with Darden. How then did Darden know to ask the question. Ford could have talked with someone, who in turn talked with Darden. The point is that Cochran successfully raised a reasonable doubt in with the brevity and expertise of the above quote, imho. I will reiterate that this is not the world accorcding to bobaugust.

William Anthony, Ford was a defense witness. During his direct Cochran asked Ford a series of question about what he had done and Ford told Cochran he had talked to Fung. The testimony I posted where Cochran found out this was the first time Ford ever said that followed those questions.

Later during cross examination Darden asked Ford some more questions about this. That was the first testimony I posted when Ford testified Fung said. "I'm not ready."

There was no reasonable doubt raised by the time discrepancy Cochran found. There is absolutely no evidence that something sinister was involved here, only a mistaken time estimate.

Fung estimated the time frame he collected the socks as shortly after 4:30.
Ford video taped Simpson's bedroom just after Fung completed his work in the bedroom at about 4:15.

The reasonable explanation for this discrepancy is that Fung's time estimate was incorrect. Fung did not write down the time when he collected the socks he only estimated it. Based on the bookkeeping errors that Fung made in this case I believe Ford's time estimate to be more accurate than Fung's time estimate.

bobaugust

William Anthony

09-15-2006, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

No one here said you should snip a transcript, so why are you even posting this?

I would think the moderator wants us to snip but still keep the context.

William Anthony

09-15-2006, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, Ford was a defense witness. During his direct Cochran asked Ford a series of question about what he had done and Ford told Cochran he had talked to Fung. The testimony I posted where Cochran found out this was the first time Ford ever said that followed those questions.

Later during cross examination Darden asked Ford some more questions about this. That was the first testimony I posted when Ford testified Fung said. "I'm not ready."

There was no reasonable doubt raised by the time discrepancy Cochran found. There is absolutely no evidence that something sinister was involved here, only a mistaken time estimate.

Fung estimated the time frame he collected the socks as shortly after 4:30.
Ford video taped Simpson's bedroom just after Fung completed his work in the bedroom at about 4:15.

The reasonable explanation for this discrepancy is that Fung's time estimate was incorrect. Fung did not write down the time when he collected the socks he only estimated it. Based on the bookkeeping errors that Fung made in this case I believe Ford's time estimate to be more accurate than Fung's time estimate.

bobaugust

I will refrain from going into how far off the time on the camcorder was and limit my comment to the last paragraph of your post. Your assertion of what you believe is the most reasonable explanation of the discrepancy is based on who you believe to be credible. I do not know who was correct, if either. I can only say that it is reasonable that Fung was correct or that both were mistaken. Either way I would say that there is reasonble about the socks and the trace evidence allegedly found on them. Do you think that the jury could have seen the evidence different than you did and reasoned that the prosecution had not proven its case as to the socks and trace contained on them, without any cinsideration of race?

bobaugust

09-15-2006, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I will refrain from going into how far off the time on the camcorder was and limit my comment to the last paragraph of your post. Your assertion of what you believe is the most reasonable explanation of the discrepancy is based on who you believe to be credible. I do not know who was correct, if either. I can only say that it is reasonable that Fung was correct or that both were mistaken. Either way I would say that there is reasonble about the socks and the trace evidence allegedly found on them. Do you think that the jury could have seen the evidence different than you did and reasoned that the prosecution had not proven its case as to the socks and trace contained on them, without any cinsideration of race?

William Anthony, I'm not sure what you said about the trace and blood evidence found on the sock, but if your think that there is reasonable doubt about that evidence, there is not.

No one ever questioned the fact that the same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron's shirt and the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks.

Nicole's blood found on Simpson's socks did not contain any EDTA preserved blood. In addition in the civil trial tests results not available in the criminal trial revealed that blood on the sock was less degraded than the blood in her autopsy sample. That fact proved that Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock could not have come from her autopsy sample as the defense tried to claim.

I believe the criminal trial jury simply ignored the fiber evidence just as they ignored other evidence. During Fung's testimony an enlarged copy of a crime scene photograph taken on June 13, a perspective shot, taken from about fifteen feet away that showed the bottom half of the rear gate at Bundy was entered into evidence. One of the blood stains on the rear gate was clearly visible. Fung compared that stain to one of the photographs taken several weeks later when the blood stain was collected and found them to be the same. After that the defense never again claimed that blood was planted on the rear gate.

The Prosecution Responds,
"Tragically, the jury apparently never considered this evidence. In post trial interviews, numerous jurors continue to raise questions about the possible planting of blood on the rear gate, apparently ignoring or forgetting about the clear photographic proof to the contrary."

bobaugust

William Anthony

09-15-2006, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

the trace and blood evidence found on the sock, but if your think that there is reasonable doubt about that evidence, there is not.

No one ever questioned the fact that the same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron's shirt and the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks.

Nicole's blood found on Simpson's socks did not contain any EDTA preserved blood. In addition in the civil trial tests results not available in the criminal trial revealed that blood on the sock was less degraded than the blood in her autopsy sample. That fact proved that Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock could not have come from her autopsy sample as the defense tried to claim.

I believe the criminal trial jury simply ignored the fiber evidence just as they ignored other evidence. During Fung's testimony an enlarged copy of a crime scene photograph taken on June 13, a perspective shot, taken from about fifteen feet away that showed the bottom half of the rear gate at Bundy was entered into evidence. One of the blood stains on the rear gate was clearly visible.

The Prosecution Responds,
"Tragically, the jury apparently never considered this evidence. In post trial interviews, numerous jurors continue to raise questions about the possible planting of blood on the rear gate, apparently ignoring or forgetting about the clear photographic proof to the contrary."
SNIPPED

bobaugust

You cannot tell me what is a reasonable doubt in my mind, you can disagree.

I am not questioning that the hair and fibers are the same. I am questoning how they were deposited there.

How hard would it have been to take a sock to Bundy and then return it? Where is the evidence that Mr. Simpson wore that sock on the night of the murders?

As I remember there were questions about the blood found at the top of the gate, I might be wrong. If I am right, then the photographs you mention show nothing.

bobaugust

09-15-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You cannot tell me what is a reasonable doubt in my mind, you can disagree.

I am not questioning that the hair and fibers are the same. I am questoning how they were deposited there.

How hard would it have been to take a sock to Bundy and then return it? Where is the evidence that Mr. Simpson wore that sock on the night of the murders?

As I remember there were questions about the blood found at the top of the gate, I might be wrong. If I am right, then the photographs you mention show nothing.

William Anthony, how hard would it be for someone to take Simpson's socks to Bundy and then return them? Not very hard in fantasy land.

It's always amazes me when people like you come up with such absurd unsupported theories that neither of Simpson's teams would even suggest. How do you know that aliens from outer space weren't the real killers? That theory has as much support as your theory about planting fiber and blood evidence on the socks. I guess this is another example of what reasonable doubt is to you, right? Funny.

Yes, there were blood stains found on the top of the rear gate at Bundy. The defense claimed all the blood on the rear gate was planted because none of the blood was collected until about three weeks after the crime scene was first processed. The fact that a photograph taken on June 13 shows one of Simpson's blood stains on the bottom of the gate proved their claim false. They had the intelligence to understand that it made no sense to claim that only some of those blood stains were planted not all of them like you seem to imagine.

The fact is that the blue black cotton fibers tie Simpson to the murders, as well as the tiny stain of Nicole's fresh blood found on his sock.

The fact that Simpson was seen wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit the night of the murders and the fact that a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders all support the truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

William Anthony

09-15-2006, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, how hard would it be for someone to take Simpson's socks to Bundy and then return them?

Yes, there were blood stains found on the top of the rear gate at Bundy. The defense claimed all the blood on the rear gate was planted because none of the blood was collected until about three weeks after the crime scene was first processed. The fact that a photograph taken on June 13 shows one of Simpson's blood stains on the bottom of the gate proved their claim false. They had the intelligence to understand that it made no sense to claim that only some of those blood stains were planted not all of them like you seem to imagine.

The fact is that the blue black cotton fibers tie Simpson to the murders, as well as the tiny stain of Nicole's fresh blood found on his sock.

The fact that Simpson was seen wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit the night of the murders and the fact that a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders all support the truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

I recall that there was a suggestion that the blood on top of the gate was not collected. Why was it not seen until three weeks later when you so heavily on Fung.

William Anthony

09-15-2006, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

William Anthony, how hard would it be for someone to take Simpson's socks to Bundy and then return them? Not very hard in fantasy land.

It's always amazes me when people like you come up with such absurd unsupported theories that neither of Simpson's teams would even suggest. How do you know that aliens from outer space weren't the real killers? That theory has as much support as your theory about planting fiber and blood evidence on the socks. I guess this is another example of what reasonable doubt is to you, right? Funny.

Yes, there were blood stains found on the top of the rear gate at Bundy. The defense claimed all the blood on the rear gate was planted because none of the blood was collected until about three weeks after the crime scene was first processed. The fact that a photograph taken on June 13 shows one of Simpson's blood stains on the bottom of the gate proved their claim false. They had the intelligence to understand that it made no sense to claim that only some of those blood stains were planted not all of them like you seem to imagine.

The fact is that the blue black cotton fibers tie Simpson to the murders, as well as the tiny stain of Nicole's fresh blood found on his sock.

The fact that Simpson was seen wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit the night of the murders and the fact that a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders all support the truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

William Anthony

09-16-2006, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva
Why are you posting Bob's post a second time w/o any comment?

My computer was acting up.

William Anthony

09-16-2006, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

:confused: :shrug:

The blood was seen on the night of the murders IIRC, but it might not have been tested.

Your friend and mine has relied heavily on Fung's notes and evidence collecting techniques. You admit it was seen on the night of the murders. Here is the relevant portion of our friend's post;

The defense claimed all the blood on the rear gate was planted because none of the blood was collected until about three weeks after the crime scene was first processed.

Why did they wait three weks to collect, not test, the allegedly seen blood?

bobaugust

09-16-2006, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I recall that there was a suggestion that the blood on top of the gate was not collected. Why was it not seen until three weeks later when you so heavily on Fung.

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