OJ's new Book

[martin II]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I would like to change the above post to read the murderer of Medgar Evers, who got away with murder but made light of it....

william
correct
Medgar Evers. NAACP head in Mississippi


martin II

[RainStorm]

Originally posted by William Anthony



Hello Kate,

I appreciate your response. Medgar Evers was a Black civil rights leader in Mississippi. The person accused of killing him was arrested and made the statement that no jury in Mississippi would convict a White for killing a n****r, as I beleive the statement to be. He was tried and found not guilty but many years later found liable in federal court for violating Mr. Ever's civil rights, I think. In any event, this is much like the Simpson case and the murder of Mr. Evers remains technically unsolved.

William Anthony,

This is an important case and you need to get your facts right.

Byron de la Beckwith was never acquitted of the murder of Medgar Evers. The first all white jury in 1964 split 6-6 and hung. A second jury split 8-4 for acquital, amid rumors the Klan had infiltrated it.

There was much less evidence against de la Beckwith than there was against OJ Simpson. Yet six white male Mississippians in 1964 held out for guilty. It was said there were fistfights in the deliberation room. Those jurors paved the way for de la Beckwith to be found guilty of murder in 1990 or so. He either died in prison or is going to.

Those white 1964 Mississppi jurors more conscientiously sought the truth, weighed the evidence more responsibly, and were less manipulated by race solidarity than the Simpson criminal jury. The results are testimony to that.

Anytime you want another lesson in African American History, I'd be happy to oblige.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by RainStorm


William Anthony,

This is an important case and you need to get your facts right.

Byron de la Beckwith was never acquitted of the murder of Medgar Evers. The first all white jury in 1964 split 6-6 and hung. A second jury split 8-4 for acquital, amid rumors the Klan had infiltrated it.

There was much less evidence against de la Beckwith than there was against OJ Simpson. Yet six white male Mississippians in 1964 held out for guilty. It was said there were fistfights in the deliberation room. Those jurors paved the way for de la Beckwith to be found guilty of murder in 1990 or so. He either died in prison or is going to.

Those white 1964 Mississppi jurors more conscientiously sought the truth, weighed the evidence more responsibly, and were less manipulated by race solidarity than the Simpson criminal jury. The results are testimony to that.

Anytime you want another lesson in African American History, I'd be happy to oblige.

I stand corrected on the facts that he was not found not guilty and that he was eventually found guilty 27 years after the murder. The results are not proof of whether or not there was racial solidarity, on the part of the White jurrors. What it shows is that there may have been more evidence pointing to De LaBeckwith's guilt, than there was to Simpson's and still there were those who did not want to convict him for murdering a n****r, as he said. I do not believe that the Simpson criminal jury was all black or all minority. What about the De LaBeckwith jury? I appreciate your correction and invitation and will be happy to take learning from anyone so inclined to share.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,

*snip*

I disagree with you about OJ never giving up anything. If he is the cocky SOB, he wouldn't care what he said or how he said it. He would know that no matter what he said, he is in the clear so it doesn't matter. However, if he had an accomplice, he would have to be very, very careful on what he said and did.

IMO, as disgusted as people are about what he has done since the trials, his actions, IMO, are that of man who did not do the crime. His actions are that of man who feels that the only trial that mattered was the criminal trial and he went into the civil trial knowing that he would lose and that a money judgement was going to be given.

*snip*
Again, all IMO!

Hi Limakey,

Oh, I believe OJ to be the cocky SOB. For him to go on the radio and admit that he paid bills with the money is very cocky. For him to even write anything or allow anything to be written regarding how he would have done it is very cocky. For him to make the joke regarding the bronco was cocky. It is in very bad taste. That's another reason why most of america don't like him.

I don't think he's done one thing since the trials that conveys he is an innocent man. And, his actions to not pay the judgement do nothing to make me think he is innocent. And, him stating...I have done nothing therefore I won't pay....means nothing. It also would not mean anything if he paid it to make me think any differently than he is the killer. It would not sway me either way. The blood evidence and much, much more convinces me of his guilt. His paying/not paying does not sway me. It makes me think less of him as a human (as if I thought anything good about him anyways...lol) not less of guilty/not guilty.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II


Tazzy hi
*snip*

I don't know what oj's situation is and have no information that would tell me why he decided to agree with Reagan and the pubilsher to lend his name to this book and interview that it seems they created and neither do you. so no one knows the reason why he participated.

The Browns and Goldmans conduct comes into play just as oj's .
Obviously i am not the only one that belives that lou should give the $50,000 he got from nicole to her kids. right?
For one reason or another the browns seem to be involved in some kind of money situation involving someones money.
imo

martin II

HI Martin,

But, we do know why he participated. He said so. It was money. Why do you keep ignoring what he said?

First of all the Browns haven't "done anything" since right after the trial. The Brown's went to court and got all of the $50,000 business taken care of. That was also a long time ago. And, the Goldmans have done nothing except try to make the killer pay. So, no, their conduct does not come into play just as OJ's. OJ has gone way beyond just writing a book. He has gone way beyond not paying back a loan. You are making many excuses for OJ.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II


TAZZY

Yes i do belive fred is after money. FULL TIME
martin II

Martin,

I know. And, I think you're wrong.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II
tazzy hi

ron is not the only person in the u.s. that has been killed by someone. Every family that has lost a loved one has felt the lost just as strong as FRED.

I THINK fred is the first that i know of, that has made a profession out of greving and asking for money in public as he does.imo
martin II

Hi Martin,

No one has ever stated that Ron was the only person in the us that has been killed by someone. And, I am sure that each family feels great grief when their loved one has been murdered. But, I can't think of one other instance where the murderer has lied and cheated and caused such pain to the family members by the things that OJ has done. OJ never stops. Therefore, the pain NEVER goes away. It's always in Fred's face.

You need to stop making the statement that Fred asks for money in public. That's the rules. That is not an accurate statement. You need to back that up or back out of the statement. He only goes after OJ for money. OJ created Fred's continuance of grieving.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by jotun


limakey,
IMO:
RUBE-pert Murdock is learning what we have always known.Fred will never be appeased as long as there is O.J. money to be made.Cancelling wasn't enough.Now he wants ALL RIGHTS to both the interview & book. Wants to sell it himself??? Old Fred loves the O.J.SPOTLIGHT. He always manages to get himself in it.The media caught on for awhile, until this book-deal.

jotun

LOL!! He wants to sell it himself? That's rediculous. He wants to destroy them. OJ is the one who loves the spotlight. He doesn't care how he gets it he just wants it. He stated that himself. Fred is forced into the spolight by OJ's actions.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by jotun


Martin,
Sydney wouldn't see the Browns much even while in Brentwood because of what they did to her Daddy.None of the Browns went to Sydney's high-school graduation.

No the DA has NO INTEREST.Yale said on tv,years ago,that he and O.J. had met with the new D.A.,about the info they had,in the search for the killers.Never heard back.

jotun

Hi Jotun,

You need to back up your statements.

And, we don't believe Yale. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

[martin II]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I stand corrected on the facts that he was not found not guilty and that he was eventually found guilty 27 years after the murder. The results are not proof of whether or not there was racial solidarity, on the part of the White jurrors. What it shows is that there may have been more evidence pointing to De LaBeckwith's guilt, than there was to Simpson's and still there were those who did not want to convict him for murdering a n****r, as he said. I do not believe that the Simpson criminal jury was all black or all minority. What about the De LaBeckwith jury? I appreciate your correction and invitation and will be happy to take learning from anyone so inclined to share.

william

http://members.aol.com/deathpool/obits01/delabeck.html

The first two white jury did not vote to convict.

It was in the third trial when there were 8 minorities
on the jury that he was finally found guilty. imo

martin II

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
Martin,

*snip*

IMO, I don't think it was public outrcry, I think that this book and interview would have again opened up the same questions and again the race issue and that is one thing LE and DA's don't want, IMO.

Also, IMO, and I'm not blaming Mr. Goldman but I think he considers every single breath that OJ Simpson takes is blood money in his eyes. I think that if OJ Simpson took a low paying job, Fred Goldman would be the first to say that he could make the money to pay off of the judgement.

It was the civil jury who told him this, IMO.

Hi Limakey,

So, you believe it was the DA's and LE that got this thing canned? LOL!! Come on now. That is totally rediculous.

Mr Goldman is forced into the spolight with the continuation of OJ's bad actions. It is so sad that he is blamed for forcing his son's killer to pay for what he did. If it were my child I would do the same thing. And, I wouldn't care what people thought. And, if I was in OJ's shoes....I would never do anything that could harm my children in any way. I would never do a book about how I killed their parent. I would never make one joke about the murder of their parent. Even if it was to "pay for their college". There is help out there for struggling families.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I stand corrected on the facts that he was not found not guilty and that he was eventually found guilty 27 years after the murder. The results are not proof of whether or not there was racial solidarity, on the part of the White jurrors. What it shows is that there may have been more evidence pointing to De LaBeckwith's guilt, than there was to Simpson's and still there were those who did not want to convict him for murdering a n****r, as he said. I do not believe that the Simpson criminal jury was all black or all minority. What about the De LaBeckwith jury? I appreciate your correction and invitation and will be happy to take learning from anyone so inclined to share.

Rainstorm,

I found the answer to my question on the racial composition of the juries in the Evers murder. Here it is from an article;

"Unfortunately, Beckwith also produced witnesses and claimed that the gun was stolen from him several days before the shooting occurred. One of his witnesses was a policeman, who swore that Beckwith was at least sixty miles away from Evers’ home when he was shot. Beckwith stood trial two times in the 1960’s, but both times the all-white juries couldn’t reach a verdict. "

It would appear that there was testimony that he was someplace else at the time of the murders and that may have been the exculpatory evidence that the juries considered.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


*snip*
I can't blame the Goldmans for believing that nothing will ever be enough in their eyes to make OJ Simpson suffer the way that Ron Goldman suffered, and the way that his family has continued to suffer since his death. I can only imagine the feelings I would experience if I lost a loved one to such a brutal crime, and I cannot even imagine the feelings I would experience if I had to continue to watch the man that I truly believed was guilty make light of that crime at every opportunity possible.

Kate

:beer:

[martin II]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Hi Martin,

No one has ever stated that Ron was the only person in the us that has been killed by someone. And, I am sure that each family feels great grief when their loved one has been murdered. But, I can't think of one other instance where the murderer has lied and cheated and caused such pain to the family members by the things that OJ has done. OJ never stops. Therefore, the pain NEVER goes away. It's always in Fred's face.

You need to stop making the statement that Fred asks for money in public. That's the rules. That is not an accurate statement. You need to back that up or back out of the statement. He only goes after OJ for money. OJ created Fred's continuance of grieving.

Tazzy

Did fred ever have a foundation set up for ron that the public could make contributions to. if not then i take that statement back.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


Tazzy

Did fred ever have a foundation set up for ron that the public could make contributions to. if not then i take that statement back.
martin II good ole martin -- always the first to slam and bash the victims and their families.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II


Tazzy

Did fred ever have a foundation set up for ron that the public could make contributions to. if not then i take that statement back.
martin II

Yeah, you are not correct. There was a fund set up for trying to convict OJ in the civil trial. But, that went to the lawyers. Not to the Goldman's. That was before the civil trial. And, there has been no request for money from Fred since then. So, to insinuate that he "makes a living" off of grieving and asking for money is way off.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
good ole martin -- always the first to slam and bash the victims and their families.

LOL!! I know.

That's the only way to take up for OJ though.

:rolleyes:

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Yeah, you are not correct. There was a fund set up for trying to convict OJ in the civil trial. But, that went to the lawyers. Not to the Goldman's. That was before the civil trial. And, there has been no request for money from Fred since then. So, to insinuate that he "makes a living" off of grieving and asking for money is way off.

You are correct.

It was The Ron Goldman Justice Fund. All of the donations went toward legal fees. And even that did not cover it.

Kate

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
good ole martin -- always the first to slam and bash the victims and their families.

good ole weezer--always the first to slam and bash any poster that has a different opinion than hers

martin II

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by martin II


good ole weezer--always the first to slam and bash any poster that has a different opinion than hers

martin II

She didn't "slam and bash any poster". You are confused again.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by socaldiva


She didn't "slam and bash any poster". You are confused again.

Hello summer breeze,

You are wrong on this issue, imo.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Hello summer breeze,

You are wrong on this issue, imo.

No I'm not. But both you & Martin seem to have a reading comprehension issue, so I understand ;)

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Doesn't make it right or just.

weezer

If a person received a civil court judgement on YOU for $33 million
in a case that you believe you were wrongly convicted of being liable, WOULD YOU PAY IT???

Martin II

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by socaldiva


No I'm not. But both you & Martin seem to have a reading comprehension issue, so I understand ;)

I guess it depends on your defintion of slam and bash. We have already had the discussion on who has referred to me as what.

[RainStorm]

Originally posted by William Anthony


I stand corrected on the facts that he was not found not guilty and that he was eventually found guilty 27 years after the murder. The results are not proof of whether or not there was racial solidarity, on the part of the White jurrors. What it shows is that there may have been more evidence pointing to De LaBeckwith's guilt, than there was to Simpson's and still there were those who did not want to convict him for murdering a n****r, as he said. I do not believe that the Simpson criminal jury was all black or all minority. What about the De LaBeckwith jury? I appreciate your correction and invitation and will be happy to take learning from anyone so inclined to share.

William Anthony,

I have answered this in "the Role of Race in the CJS", where discussion of this case belongs.

[Kayleighjo]

Originally posted by martin II
SNIPPED AND CLIPPED

It is my opinion that even if oj were to write him a check, fred would, the next day start on a new venture to attack oj because his hate is out of control.

The browns seem to have made more progress in their healing process maby except Denise. But she has to keep her name out there so she can continue to run her sisters foundation. If it is still in operation.imo
martin II

The Nicole Brown Foundation is still very much in operation and doing wonderful things.

Yeah, let's play the "poor OJ" card. Like somehow he's tried to be low key and let it die down? The way to do that is probably not to put your name on a book that describes how you butchered your ex-wife and threw her on the doorstep for your kids to stumble on in the morning.

[RainStorm]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by William Anthony


Rainstorm,

I found the answer to my question on the racial composition of the juries in the Evers murder.

<snip>



I told you the racial composition of the juries in my first post on this subject. The fact that in 1964, in Mississippi, only white males were allowed on juries, is something you should have known.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by RainStorm
[QUOTE]Originally posted by William Anthony


Rainstorm,

I found the answer to my question on the racial composition of the juries in the Evers murder.

<snip>



I told you the racial composition of the juries in my first post on this subject. The fact that in 1964, in Mississippi, only white males were allowed on juries, is something you should have known.

Who said I did not know it and why did you not mention that in your post? I believe that White men realized the affinity in the plights of White women and Black men.

[RainStorm]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8784526][QUOTE]Originally posted by RainStorm


Who said I did not know it and why did you not mention that in your post?



You did. You asked. I did mention it in my post.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8784526][QUOTE]Originally posted by RainStorm


Who said I did not know it and why did you not mention that in your post?



You did. You asked. I did mention it in my post.

Show me in your post where you state the jury was all White males.

[RainStorm]

[QUOTE=RainStorm;8784550][QUOTE=William Anthony;8784526]

Show me in your post where you state the jury was all White males.

You asked about the racial composition, not the gender. Don't try to spin. Here is the quote:

"Byron de la Beckwith was never acquitted of the murder of Medgar Evers. The first all white jury in 1964 split 6-6 and hung. A second jury split 8-4 for acquital, amid rumors the Klan had infiltrated it." That is from my first post on the subject.

[2L8 4A D8]

Tazzy

Did fred ever have a foundation set up for ron that the public could make contributions to. if not then i take that statement back.
martin II

As usual, your mouth is in gear before your brain shifts in. You should have done your research on this matter before you made such a horrible, despicable and disgusting false statement that Fred was taking money from the Public! What does it matter if he did and does? It pales in comparison to what OJ did and is doing. Yet, it is the Brown's and the Goldman's that incur your wrath. Unbelievable!

And now that it has been pointed out to you re: your false statement, you state "...I take that statement back" and that's supposed to be okay and let you off the hook? I don't think so. Not in my book anyway! I hope that every Poster on here doesn't forget what you said re: Fred Goldman!

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8784560][QUOTE=RainStorm;8784550]

You asked about the racial composition, not the gender. Don't try to spin. Here is the quote:

"Byron de la Beckwith was never acquitted of the murder of Medgar Evers. The first all white jury in 1964 split 6-6 and hung. A second jury split 8-4 for acquital, amid rumors the Klan had infiltrated it." That is from my first post on the subject.

I see that you are a stickler for preciseness, and, with that in mind, how could someone who produced witnesses that he was somewhere else at the time of the murder have less evidence than did Simpson's, whose defense team successfully impeached most of the evidence.

[weezer]

weezer

If a person received a civil court judgement on YOU for $33 million
in a case that you believe you were wrongly convicted of being liable, WOULD YOU PAY IT???

Martin II This is the difference between our thinking -- you seem to think that if you don't want to follow the law, you don't have to. I was raised to believe that a good citizen does follow the law. Go figure.

[RainStorm]

[QUOTE=RainStorm;8784566][QUOTE=William Anthony;8784560]

I see that you are a stickler for preciseness, and, with that in mind, how could someone who produced witnesses that he was somewhere else at the time of the murder have less evidence than did Simpson's, whose defense team successfully impeached most of the evidence.

I see you still can't restrain yourself from displaying your ignorance on Evers case. Could you at least read a book about it or something? That would explain what you don't know about the "witnesses".

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8784699][QUOTE=RainStorm;8784566]

I see you still can't restrain yourself from displaying your ignorance on Evers case. Could you at least read a book about it or something? That would explain what you don't know about the "witnesses".

I was speaking of the impeached evidence in the simpson case. I have posted the article stating that Beckwith had six witnesses to testify that he was someplace else at the time of the killing and judging from the two hung juries, I believe they took that into consideration. Do you have something showing that the jury did not consider the testimony of the witnesses. I have plenty of books to read, but when I find the time, I will re-read some of the books on the case.

[RainStorm]

[QUOTE=RainStorm;8784830][QUOTE=William Anthony;8784699]

I was speaking of the impeached evidence in the simpson case.

No, you weren't. In the context of "witnesses" you were speaking about the Evers case. Your spin is fast approaching dishonesty.

I have posted the article stating that Beckwith had six witnesses to testify that he was someplace else at the time of the killing and judging from the two hung juries, I believe they took that into consideration.

What I saw you post didn't say anything about six witnesses. If there were six legitimate witnesses that testified he was somewhere else the time of the killing, de la Beckwith would have been acquitted right quick. Reading little snippets on the net isn't going to cure your ignorance on this case, but I guess that ignorance won't stop you from posting about it. It's never stopped you before.

Do you have something showing that the jury did not consider the testimony of the witnesses. I have plenty of books to read, but when I find the time, I will re-read some of the books on the case.

You have no business trying to quiz me on this case. "Re-read"? LOL. Your posts betray a pronounced lack of reading on this case.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8784862][QUOTE=RainStorm;8784830]

No, you weren't. In the context of "witnesses" you were speaking about the Evers case. Your spin is fast approaching dishonesty.

what I saw you post didn't say anything about six witnesses. If there were six legitimate witnesses that testified he was somewhere else the time of the killing, de la Beckwith would have been acquitted right quick. Reading little snippets on the net isn't going to cure your ignorance on this case, but I guess that ignorance won't stop you from posting about it. It's never stopped you before.

You have no business trying to quiz me on this case. "Re-read"? LOL. Your posts betray a pronounced lack of reading on this case.

In the context of witnesses and the Evers case, I made no mention of their impeachment and you are right that the portion of the article I posted did not mention six witnesses. I read the article to quickly refresh my memory. I will read up on the case when I have time, rest assured. Nothing you have posted changes my view of what may have transpired prior jury selection or in the jury room. Let us not forget that at the time, Mississippi was under the universe's microscope. Your ignorance in believing all that you read without considering the climate at the time of events has not stopped you from posting on subjects, which unless you were present, of which you have no first hand knowledge. If people had never questioned what they read, Einstein's theory of relativity (for example) would not have been formulated.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=RainStorm;8784893][QUOTE=William Anthony;8784862]

In the context of witnesses and the Evers case, I made no mention of their impeachment and you are right that the portion of the article I posted did not mention six witnesses. I read the article to quickly refresh my memory. I will read up on the case when I have time, rest assured. Nothing you have posted changes my view of what may have transpired prior jury selection or in the jury room. Let us not forget that at the time, Mississippi was under the universe's microscope. Your ignorance in believing all that you read without considering the climate at the time of events has not stopped you from posting on subjects, which unless you were present, of which you have no first hand knowledge. If people had never questioned what they read, Einstein's theory of relativity (for example) would not have been formulated. Doc called -- he wants you to quit using his name -- you're embarrassing him! This was in jest.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8784908][QUOTE=RainStorm;8784893] Doc called -- he wants you to quit using his name -- you're embarrassing him! This was in jest.

If he called anyone, I am sure you would be the one to hear him and that was in jest.

[RainStorm]

[QUOTE=RainStorm;8784893][QUOTE=William Anthony;8784862]

<snipped>Nothing you have posted changes my view

Merciful Heavens! No! Say it ain't so!:) Seriously, I know I haven't the power to cure your affliction. We can only correct the misinformation and propaganda you deposit here.

of what may have transpired prior jury selection or in the jury room. Let us not forget that at the time, Mississippi was under the universe's microscope. Your ignorance in believing all that you read without considering the climate at the time of events has not stopped you from posting on subjects, which unless you were present, of which you have no first hand knowledge. If people had never questioned what they read, Einstein's theory of relativity (for example) would not have been formulated.

This is priceless too. You insinuate I'm ignorant because I've read books instead of actually being there? Well, excuse me for not being omnipresent or omniscient LOL at you. I'll match my knowledge of the early present-day civil rights movement against yours any time. Oh wait, I already did and won.

[RainStorm]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8784914][QUOTE=William Anthony;8784908]

If he called anyone, I am sure you would be the one to hear him and that was in jest.

I don't know why you attributed that post to me - I didn't make it.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8784908][QUOTE=RainStorm;8784893]

Merciful Heavens! No! Say it ain't so!:) Seriously, I know I haven't the power to cure your affliction. We can only correct the misinformation and propaganda you deposit here.



This is priceless too. You insinuate I'm ignorant because I've read books instead of actually being there? Well, excuse me for not being omnipresent or omniscient LOL at you. I'll match my knowledge of the early present-day civil rights movement against yours any time. Oh wait, I already did and won.

You were correct on two things, if you call that a victory. It seems people take pleasure, for some reason in trying to defeat me and I like that. I do not insinuate that you are ignorant for reading books, only for not questioning what your read.

[RainStorm]

[QUOTE=RainStorm;8784933][QUOTE=William Anthony;8784908]

You were correct on two things, if you call that a victory. It seems people take pleasure, for some reason in trying to defeat me and I like that. I do not insinuate that you are ignorant for reading books, only for not questioning what your read.

You don't know that I don't. You're just making things up.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8784964][QUOTE=RainStorm;8784933]

You don't know that I don't. You're just making things up.


You have critized me for thinking there was another explanation, as opposed to what you read about the fist fight or near in the jury room. Certainly, you would not critize someone for doing what you do. Did I win this one?:(

[RainStorm]

[QUOTE=RainStorm;8784969][QUOTE=William Anthony;8784964]


You have critized me for thinking there was another explanation, as opposed to what you read about the fist fight or near in the jury room. Certainly, you would not critize someone for doing what you do. Did I win this one?:(

No, because you were just drumming stuff up with no knowledge or facts of the case. You were not doing what I did. I reported facts I learned from more than one source. Of course it would be just like you to think your speculation based on little or no facts on the case was just as good or superior to old-fashioned research.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8784977][QUOTE=RainStorm;8784969]

No, because you were just drumming stuff up with no knowledge or facts of the case. You were not doing what I did. I reported facts I learned from more than one source. Of course it would be just like you to think your speculation based on little or no facts on the case was just as good or superior to old-fashioned research.

You say in one breath that you do not believe all of what you read and then you make this post and before that have the unmitigated gaul to say that I am dishonest or delusional. The fact is that you are caught, with what I, to coin the phrase of another, think is reprehensible and unforgivable to refer to the near destruction of a race as a "few indians". Sometimes, your words become a Freudian slip that show your true prejudice, imho.

[RainStorm]

[QUOTE=RainStorm;8785005][QUOTE=William Anthony;8784977]

You say in one breath that you do not believe all of what you read and then you make this post and before that have the unmitigated gaul to say that I am dishonest or delusional. The fact is that you are caught, with what I, to coin the phrase of another, think is reprehensible and unforgivable to refer to the near destruction of a race as a "few indians". Sometimes, your words become a Freudian slip that show your true prejudice, imho.

It's "gall", not gaul, William Anthony. Gaul was the name given to an area of Western Europe. "Gall" is you thinking you can debate me on the Evers case on mere fumes and hot air when I have studied it and know the facts and how to interpret them far better than you. I did not refer to the destruction of any race, you are mischaracterizing again. I should know better, when you are backed into a corner you just start shoveling out those race cards.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8785006][QUOTE=RainStorm;8785005]

It's "gall", not gaul, William Anthony. Gaul was the name given to an area of Western Europe. "Gall" is you thinking you can debate me on the Evers case on mere fumes and hot air when I have studied it and know the facts and how to interpret them far better than you. I did not refer to the destruction of any race, you are mischaracterizing again. I should know better, when you are backed into a corner you just start shoveling out those race cards.


gaul, gall, b***s, whatever. You got my meaning! you cannnot change the fact that you referred to what the White man did by nearly destroying the Native Americans as a few indians. You made the statement not I. The race card was played by your response as was the blankety blank MF's. I have already told you that you were right on the case, in that he was not acquitted and subsequently found guilty and, I thought it was a civil instead of a criminal trial. That does not eliminate the fact that you could be wrong by posting what I will for now refer to as an insensitive comment.

[RainStorm]

[QUOTE=RainStorm;8785021][QUOTE=William Anthony;8785006]


gaul, gall, b***s, whatever. You got my meaning! you cannnot change the fact that you referred to what the White man did by nearly destroying the Native Americans as a few indians. You made the statement not I. The race card was played by your response as was the blankety blank MF's. I have already told you that you were right on the case, in that he was not acquitted and subsequently found guilty and, I thought it was a civil instead of a criminal trial. That does not eliminate the fact that you could be wrong by posting what I will for now refer to as an insensitive comment.

Oh, so now you're willing to downgrade it to an "insensitive comment". That's some serious back-pedaling, William Anthony. You don't make the calls around here. I don't have to defend my words to you, especially your tortured and inept interpretations of them. FBG got it right. But then, she's smart.

[Kate Sachel]

[QUOTE=RainStorm;8785021][QUOTE=William Anthony;8785006]


gaul, gall, b***s, whatever. You got my meaning! you cannnot change the fact that you referred to what the White man did by nearly destroying the Native Americans as a few indians. You made the statement not I. The race card was played by your response as was the blankety blank MF's. I have already told you that you were right on the case, in that he was not acquitted and subsequently found guilty and, I thought it was a civil instead of a criminal trial. That does not eliminate the fact that you could be wrong by posting what I will for now refer to as an insensitive comment.

William,

You argued that it was okay to compare Fuhrman to Hitler, but are outraged over the thought that rainstorm would refer to nearly destroying a race as a "few indians"?

Something is not right here.

Kate

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8785030][QUOTE=RainStorm;8785021]

William,

You argued that it was okay to compare Fuhrman to Hitler, but are outraged over the thought that rainstorm would refer to nearly destroying a race as a "few indians"?

Something is not right here.

Kate


The MF expressed his desire to burn an entire race. The Indians were nearly destroyed for their land. The United States paid them for the land, because something is not right here. The realization by the U. S. and rainstorm's comment about a few Indians does not jive and, you are right something is not right here with her comment.

[RainStorm]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8785030][QUOTE=RainStorm;8785021]

William,

You argued that it was okay to compare Fuhrman to Hitler, but are outraged over the thought that rainstorm would refer to nearly destroying a race as a "few indians"?

Something is not right here.

Kate

Kate,

William Anthony is taking my Indian comment totally out of context. William Anthony brought up Indians, and I made a reference to that, noting that he was using it to obscure what we were debating. I was not making any reference to "nearly destroying a race". I was not making light of the plight of the Indians, I was making light of William Anthony's post. Please read my post and decide for yourself.

[limakey]

William,

The problem is, what is Mr. Simpson taking responsibility for if he pays the judgment? He was found not guilty in the criminal trial. And I know, the first comments made were "Not Guilty Does Not Mean Innocent!". However, shouldn't the same be said about "More Likely Then Not Does Not Mean He Did It".

I made an error in my post, I don't see how a civil trial can be fair after a criminal trial. IMO, Simpson has taken responsibilites since Nicole's death. He ensure they had a relationship with Nicole's parents. That had to be very, very difficult. He has raised them according Nicole's wishes, in regards to ensuring they went to Catholic schools. I believe Sydney goes to a Catholic College.

IMO, there is a huge, huge difference between being a single parent and a sole parent. Simpson has ensured his children has had the best theraphy, he has not appeared to dodge any of the issues that sole parents face.

While much has been said that Sydney and Justin don't know anything about the events of that night, that is not true. Much has been made that the children have never asked him about that night, however, that doesn't mean they did not tell someone else what they knew. IMO, I think it is very possible that even a cocky SOB can be humbled by his children's love and support and therefore it doesn't matter what the public thinks of him.

IMO.

[limakey]

Kate,

I agree with you that public opinion can carry a lot of weight, however, in many cases, it seems that the only weight that seems to matter to sponsors and media is the weight of money.

My point is that yes, many sponsors come out and say they won't air certain things, however, what is the real motivation? For example, any car manufacturer will spend millions on their media blitz and the number one selling point is for their client's safety. So if that is the case, what clown came up with the idea to install DVD players? Video games? How can these items improve safety? There have been several accidents involving cell phones, yet none due to these other systems?

If the reports are accurate, there was only one chapter regarding the murders, we know that Judith Regan backed out a book deal with Denise Brown because she wouldn't go tabloid. Can it be that after reading the book and seeing the video were not happy with the results? That this book would raise or reopen more questions and/or evidence to the case?

[Kate Sachel]

[QUOTE=Kate Sachel;8785039][QUOTE=William Anthony;8785030]

Kate,

William Anthony is taking my Indian comment totally out of context. William Anthony brought up Indians, and I made a reference to that, noting that he was using it to obscure what we were debating. I was not making any reference to "nearly destroying a race". I was not making light of the plight of the Indians, I was making light of William Anthony's post. Please read my post and decide for yourself.

Rainstorm,

I agree with your post, and I think that William Anthony is quite out of line in his attempts to turn it into something far more than it is.

Then again, he agrees that it's alright to compare a detective who made racial slurs to the likes of Hitler so I suppose I am not surprised.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

While much has been said that Sydney and Justin don't know anything about the events of that night, that is not true. Much has been made that the children have never asked him about that night, however, that doesn't mean they did not tell someone else what they knew. IMO, I think it is very possible that even a cocky SOB can be humbled by his children's love and support and therefore it doesn't matter what the public thinks of him.

IMO.

I am not going to respond to the portion of your post in which you praise OJ Simpson to the highest degree as though he is somehow superhuman because he raised his children on his own after he butchered their mother.

But, I do have to ask one question. How do you knowthat it's "not true" that the children do not know anything about the night of June 12th?

Kate

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=RainStorm;8785096][QUOTE=Kate Sachel;8785039]

Rainstorm,

I agree with your post, and I think that William Anthony is quite out of line in his attempts to turn it into something far more than it is.

Then again, he agrees that it's alright to compare a detective who made racial slurs to the likes of Hitler so I suppose I am not surprised.

Kate


I am astonished at your agreement and, surprised that you, who I gave more credit than some on this board to accuse me of taking a comment out of line and making more of it than it is.

In the first place Rainstorm knew that my comment was made in regard to the White man's ploys against the Indians, which led to the Indians near total race destruction. Rqinstorm then comment about a few Indians. She did not make the remark that the original comment was a joke until after I had called Rainstorm to task on the insensitivity of the remark. In any event, I think that anyone, who jokingly makes insensitive remarks, and I have not called them r****t, about a race should be called to task. I do not see the humor in Rainstorm's remark and I am amazed that you do.

I cannot make more of Rainstorm saying it than the fact that Rainstorm said it-enough said. I am disheartened by your seeming defense of someone who stated he would like to burn a whole race of people, because that person is a detective, which is more reason, to me, for him to have never uttered the vile venonomous remarks. I am surprised that you are surprised that I would defend JC for comparing the blankety blank MF to Hitler. The blankety blank MF did more than make racial slurs. He espoused his desire to burn an entire race. You seem to think that someone's status or profession allows them to be offensive.

I have considered you to be intelligent and compassionate. I think that you do not know the extent of his remarks. I am saddened that you do not see that an insensitive remark about a race of people, who had their land taken from them through trickery and force, and were nearly erased from the face of this earth, whether made in jest or not, is not worth calling someone to task on, and, yet, you make accusations about the person who called them to task. I am saddened, surprised, sorrowful, scared and scatter-brained by your post.

[Kate Sachel]

[QUOTE=Kate Sachel;8785250][QUOTE=]

Posted by William Anthony:

I am astonished at your agreement and, surprised that you, who I gave more credit than some on this board to accuse me of taking a comment out of line and making more of it than it is.

In the first place Rainstorm knew that my comment was made in regard to the White man's ploys against the Indians, which led to the Indians near total race destruction. Rqinstorm then comment about a few Indians. She did not make the remark that the original comment was a joke until after I had called Rainstorm to task on the insensitivity of the remark. In any event, I think that anyone, who jokingly makes insensitive remarks, and I have not called them r****t, about a race should be called to task. I do not see the humor in Rainstorm's remark and I am amazed that you do.

I cannot make more of Rainstorm saying it than the fact that Rainstorm said it-enough said. I am disheartened by your seeming defense of someone who stated he would like to burn a whole race of people, because that person is a detective, which is more reason, to me, for him to have never uttered the vile venonomous remarks. I am surprised that you are surprised that I would defend JC for comparing the blankety blank MF to Hitler. The blankety blank MF did more than make racial slurs. He espoused his desire to burn an entire race. You seem to think that someone's status or profession allows them to be offensive.

I have considered you to be intelligent and compassionate. I think that you do not know the extent of his remarks. I am saddened that you do not see that an insensitive remark about a race of people, who had their land taken from them through trickery and force, and were nearly erased from the face of this earth, whether made in jest or not, is not worth calling someone to task on, and, yet, you make accusations about the person who called them to task. I am saddened, surprised, sorrowful, scared and scatter-brained by your post.

How you managed to interpret my remarks as meaning that I believe that because he is a detective allows him to be defensive I will never know. I assume you base this on the fact that I simply referred to him by what his title was at the time rather than his name? If that is the case then I don't know that it is even worth responding to. Was he or was he not a detective? Where in any post did I state anything close to the fact that his title allows him to have free reign? Such a post does not exist, and quite frankly I find nothing wrong with referring to someone by their title. I have referred to OJ Simpson as "the defendant", to Johnnie Cochran as "the defense", to Lance Ito as "a Judge", to Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman as "the victims" and to Mark Fuhrman as "a detective".

I think that you seem to be trying to pick apart any reason you can find to jump on a race issue and argue.

I read Rainstorms posts and interpreted them in a manner different than yours. She has explained to you exactly what she meant, yet you insist on telling her that you know better than she does on the meaning of her posts.

Sometimes people read things out of context, and sometimes people post things that can intepreted at different angles. That's just the way it goes through discussion via computers where you do not have the opportunity to face someone, hear their voice, and judge their facial expressions. It isn't always something as sinister as you seem to want to make it.

And for the record, I've posted numerous times that I'm no advocate of Mark Fuhrman ... and I am not ... but that does not mean that i have to agree with a comparison to Hitler.

Kate

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8785292][QUOTE=Kate Sachel;8785250]

How you managed to interpret my remarks as meaning that I believe that because he is a detective allows him to be defensive I will never know. I assume you base this on the fact that I simply referred to him by what his title was at the time rather than his name? If that is the case then I don't know that it is even worth responding to. Was he or was he not a detective? Where in any post did I state anything close to the fact that his title allows him to have free reign? Such a post does not exist, and quite frankly I find nothing wrong with referring to someone by their title. I have referred to OJ Simpson as "the defendant", to Johnnie Cochran as "the defense", to Lance Ito as "a Judge", to Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman as "the victims" and to Mark Fuhrman as "a detective".

I think that you seem to be trying to pick apart any reason you can find to jump on a race issue and argue.

I read Rainstorms posts and interpreted them in a manner different than yours. She has explained to you exactly what she meant, yet you insist on telling her that you know better than she does on the meaning of her posts.

Sometimes people read things out of context, and sometimes people post things that can intepreted at different angles. That's just the way it goes through discussion via computers where you do not have the opportunity to face someone, hear their voice, and judge their facial expressions. It isn't always something as sinister as you seem to want to make it.

And for the record, I've posted numerous times that I'm no advocate of Mark Fuhrman ... and I am not ... but that does not mean that i have to agree with a comparison to Hitler.

Kate

Here is the portion of your post;

Then again, he agrees that it's alright to compare a detective who made racial slurs to the likes of Hitler so I suppose I am not surprised.

What does the fact that he is/was a detective have to do with anything, and, if his status was not paramount in your mind, then why mention it?
Why did you down play his comments to destroying a human race to racial slurs, if you were not trying to defend him?

Because you are not an advocate, as I am not of Simpson-just the verdicts and the juries that rendered them, does not mean that you cannot, in the process of advocating for a party defend someone else, as you have, inho, and as I have.

You are quite right about face to face conversations, which, without trying to seem hollier than thou, proves my point about transcripts and witness observation. Without that you are allowed to take Rainstorm's post in any manner you desire and, please, allow me the same privilege. Sinister is your choice of words and I simply referred to the remark as insensitive, whether as a joke or not, which may have show Rainstorm's true feelings. Rainstorm could have at anytime before It was brought up explained that it was a joke.
You are free to believe that it was nothing and I am free to believe it was insensitive at the least.

I have not met Rainstorm or you and can only express my feelings about what you post. I remain steadfast in my feelings that the post was insensitive, and I am saddened, disheartened, sorrowful and surprised.

[Kate Sachel]

[QUOTE=Kate Sachel;8785348][QUOTE=William Anthony;8785292]

Here is the portion of your post;

Then again, he agrees that it's alright to compare a detective who made racial slurs to the likes of Hitler so I suppose I am not surprised.

What does the fact that he is/was a detective have to do with anything, and, if his status was not paramount in your mind, then why mention it?
Why did you down play his comments to destroying a human race to racial slurs, if you were not trying to defend him?

Because you are not an advocate, as I am not of Simpson-just the verdicts and the juries that rendered them, does not mean that you cannot, in the process of advocating for a party defend someone else, as you have, inho, and as I have.

You are quite right about face to face conversations, which, without trying to seem hollier than thou, proves my point about transcripts and witness observation. Without that you are allowed to take Rainstorm's post in any manner you desire and, please, allow me the same privilege. Sinister is your choice of words and I simply referred to the remark as insensitive, whether as a joke or not, which may have show Rainstorm's true feelings. Rainstorm could have at anytime before It was brought up explained that it was a joke.
You are free to believe that it was nothing and I am free to believe it was insensitive at the least.

I have not met Rainstorm or you and can only express my feelings about what you post. I remain steadfast in my feelings that the post was insensitive, and I am saddened, disheartened, sorrowful and surprised.

For the same reasons as why I refer to several people by title other than name, because that is what they are.

Being a man who utters racial slurs is far different than someone who acts on those feelings. I believe I may have told you that I was raised in an extremely wealthy family and community and have listened to people such as my grandmother talk about how worthless poor people are, and how she wishes that they would just "go away", and how poor people bring nothing to society other than headaches and the desire to steal from the wealthy. I did not respect her or even have a relationship with her because of her comments and thought process, but I never took it to mean that she would actually take action to destroy a class of people. You may think it's irrelevant, but I find it quite comparible because it is just as awful to hate someone based on class as it is based on skin color.

Rainstorm claims that you interpreted it wrong. Have there not been times in the past when I have interpreted your postings incorrectly and you have explained more thoroughly your feelings? As a matter of fact, was there not a time when you posted something in jest that I did not take in jest, and you explained to me that it was in jest rather than how I interpreted it? And did I not, after recieving your explanantion, state that I accepted that it was in jest because that is what you told me it was?

Kate

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8785364][QUOTE=Kate Sachel;8785348]

For the same reasons as why I refer to several people by title other than name, because that is what they are.

Being a man who utters racial slurs is far different than someone who acts on those feelings. I believe I may have told you that I was raised in an extremely wealthy family and community and have listened to people such as my grandmother talk about how worthless poor people are, and how she wishes that they would just "go away", and how poor people bring nothing to society other than headaches and the desire to steal from the wealthy. I did not respect her or even have a relationship with her because of her comments and thought process, but I never took it to mean that she would actually take action to destroy a class of people. You may think it's irrelevant, but I find it quite comparible because it is just as awful to hate someone based on class as it is based on skin color.

Rainstorm claims that you interpreted it wrong. Have there not been times in the past when I have interpreted your postings incorrectly and you have explained more thoroughly your feelings? As a matter of fact, was there not a time when you posted something in jest that I did not take in jest, and you explained to me that it was in jest rather than how I interpreted it? And did I not, after recieving your explanantion, state that I accepted that it was in jest because that is what you told me it was?

Kate

I was raised quite the opposite from the way you were. Despite the prejudice and mistreatment that my family and I endured, my parents always told me to judge a person by the way they treated you and to follow the golden rule. I consider the assertion to want to burn an entire race far different from racial slurs. Anyone, who made that statement, in my mind is capable, if given the power to carry it out. I feel that any type of hatred is a futile use of energy.

I did not see the humor as to Rainstorm's remark. If I interpreted it wrong, then Rainstorm could have told me instead of accusing me of something more sinister, which would have eliminated the following remarks. I have made statements and immediately responded that they were in jest, which Rainstorm did not. In fact, I have made a point of either putting an icon of a smile or informing people that my post is in jest, so that they will not be misunderstood. I think we have reached some sort of understanding and hope that our horses can romp on the same range.:)

[RainStorm]

[QUOTE=RainStorm;8785096][QUOTE=Kate Sachel;8785039]

Rainstorm,

I agree with your post, and I think that William Anthony is quite out of line in his attempts to turn it into something far more than it is.

Then again, he agrees that it's alright to compare a detective who made racial slurs to the likes of Hitler so I suppose I am not surprised.

Kate

Hi Kate,

Thanks for your assessment. Obviously, I agree with it 100%. And thanks for tempering the group with your peaceful spirit. It somewhat balances us combative ones.

[Kayleighjo]

How did race even become an issue on a thread titled "www.dontpayoj.com"?

[Kate Sachel]

[QUOTE=Kate Sachel;8785379][QUOTE=William Anthony;8785364]

I was raised quite the opposite from the way you were. Despite the prejudice and mistreatment that my family and I endured, my parents always told me to judge a person by the way they treated you and to follow the golden rule. I consider the assertion to want to burn an entire race far different from racial slurs. Anyone, who made that statement, in my mind is capable, if given the power to carry it out. I feel that any type of hatred is a futile use of energy.

I did not see the humor as to Rainstorm's remark. If I interpreted it wrong, then Rainstorm could have told me instead of accusing me of something more sinister, which would have eliminated the following remarks. I have made statements and immediately responded that they were in jest, which Rainstorm did not. In fact, I have made a point of either putting an icon of a smile or informing people that my post is in jest, so that they will not be misunderstood. I think we have reached some sort of understanding and hope that our horses can romp on the same range.:)

I don't think we have reached any type of understanding.

You have attempted to twist my honest thoughts into something sick and hateful and I am very resentful of that. You have tried to go as far as to say that I believe that an individual's title allows them to be offensive.

I was taught tolerance, and I display that to the highest degree in which I am capable. I was taught that even if someone slams the door in your face, you smile and hold it open for the next person. But I am not tolerant of any attempt to turn my thoughts into something as hateful as you have attempted to do.

Kate

[RainStorm]

How did race even become an issue on a thread titled "www.dontpayoj.com"?

Kayleighjo, I tried to move that part of the discussion to the thread "The Role of Race in the CJS", where it belongs. I was only partially successful.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8785398][QUOTE=Kate Sachel;8785379]

I don't think we have reached any type of understanding.

You have attempted to twist my honest thoughts into something sick and hateful and I am very resentful of that. You have tried to go as far as to say that I believe that an individual's title allows them to be offensive.

I was taught tolerance, and I display that to the highest degree in which I am capable. I was taught that even if someone slams the door in your face, you smile and hold it open for the next person. But I am not tolerant of any attempt to turn my thoughts into something as hateful as you have attempted to do.

Kate

Kate,

As I now understand from your post on your rearing, I can understand your anger. I stated and, if you read my post correctly that you seemingly and apparently...I did not state that was what you did. The problem I had was that you used the word detective, which to me implied an undue respect for this particular LE stemming from his position. I did not try to twist your thoughts, but I was trying to understand your vantage point. When you explained, it troubled me that you still seemingly defended him. As you spoke of your grandparent, I understood that you did not think, because someone said something they would act on it. However, I was not raised around the blankety blank MF and cannot make the mistake of believing that he would not.

[martin II]

LOL!! He wants to sell it himself? That's rediculous. He wants to destroy them. OJ is the one who loves the spotlight. He doesn't care how he gets it he just wants it. He stated that himself. Fred is forced into the spolight by OJ's actions.

tazzy hi

oj does not have the power to make fred do anything. anything that fred does
is done because fred decided to do it.imo

we don't know what fred would do if he had those books. The publisher has said that they will destroy the books. Is that not enough for old fred.
martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

oj does not have the power to make fred do anything. anything that fred does
is done because fred decided to do it.imo

we don't know what fred would do if he had those books. The publisher has said that they will destroy the books. Is that not enough for old fred.
martin II

Hi Martin,

When he comes out with garbage like he does it compels Fred to counter his actions.

I know what Fred would do with those books. He would trash them. He's said so himself. Old OJ would be the one to try and profit from the sale of them. Heck, he already tried.

[socaldiva]

tazzy hi

oj does not have the power to make fred do anything. anything that fred does
is done because fred decided to do it.imo

we don't know what fred would do if he had those books. The publisher has said that they will destroy the books. Is that not enough for old fred.
martin II

If OJ writes a book that causes a reaction from Fred. Duh!

We do know what Fred would do if he had those books. He would destroy them. Who said the destruction of the books is not enough for Fred? It is in relation to the books, but he's not going to stop his attempts to make life uncomfortable for killer OJ.

[martin II]

This is the difference between our thinking -- you seem to think that if you don't want to follow the law, you don't have to. I was raised to believe that a good citizen does follow the law. Go figure.

weezer
so does this mean that you would pay??
martin II

[socaldiva]

How did race even become an issue on a thread titled "www.dontpayoj.com"?


Some seem to be obsessed with the racial aspect & think it effects EVERYTHING. imo

[socaldiva]

weezer
so does this mean that you would pay??
martin II

She's already stated that she's a law abiding citizen, what else do you need...a picture?

[Kate Sachel]

[QUOTE=Kate Sachel;8785404][QUOTE=William Anthony;8785398]

Kate,

As I now understand from your post on your rearing, I can understand your anger. I stated and, if you read my post correctly that you seemingly and apparently...I did not state that was what you did. The problem I had was that you used the word detective, which to me implied an undue respect for this particular LE stemming from his position. I did not try to twist your thoughts, but I was trying to understand your vantage point. When you explained, it troubled me that you still seemingly defended him. As you spoke of your grandparent, I understood that you did not think, because someone said something they would act on it. However, I was not raised around the blankety blank MF and cannot make the mistake of believing that he would not.

And I explained to you why I referred to him as "a detective" and that was not enough for you. You still questioned my motive.

I have little respect for Lance Ito, yet that does not prevent me from referring to him as "the Judge".

Kate

[weezer]

weezer
so does this mean that you would pay??
martin II this means exactly what I said -- I didn't know I had a choice. If a court of law enters an order against me, I would be compelled. I'm surprised that you think you can't follow the law.

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

When he comes out with garbage like he does it compels Fred to counter his actions.

I know what Fred would do with those books. He would trash them. He's said so himself. Old OJ would be the one to try and profit from the sale of them. Heck, he already tried.

tazzy hi

So then you are suggesting that oj is in control of fred's life.

The books are the property of Harper Collins. They have said they will recycle the paper. So why is fred asking for the books. Is he planting the idea that Harper Collins can not be trusted to destroy the books or does he just want to keep the conversation of a dead issue alive.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

this means exactly what I said -- I didn't know I had a choice. If a court of law enters an order against me, I would be compelled. I'm surprised that you think you can't follow the law.

weezer

'you would be compelled, even if you had no financial ability to pay. right.

in case you don't know. There has been and still are some unjust laws on the books. People are free to protest against those that they feel are unjust. Peacefully.

In the south there were laws on the books in some states that prevented mixed marriages. Laws that did not give blacks and women the right to vote.
Bad laws get changed by people protesting against them.

Oj made his intentions clear when he said he would not pay a penny. Tin cup Fred has the law on his side so it is up to him to try to find a way to take the money from oj. This is what happens in MOST civil judgements. imo
martin II

[weezer]

tazzy hi

So then you are suggesting that oj is in control of fred's life.

The books are the property of Harper Collins. They have said they will recycle the paper. So why is fred asking for the books. Is he planting the idea that Harper Collins can not be trusted to destroy the books or does he just want to keep the conversation of a dead issue alive.
imo
martin II Maybe Fred needs toilet paper! :D

[martin II]

this means exactly what I said -- I didn't know I had a choice. If a court of law enters an order against me, I would be compelled. I'm surprised that you think you can't follow the law.

weezer

'you would be compelled, even if you had no financial ability to pay. right.

in case you don't know. There has been and still are some unjust laws on the books. People are free to protest against those that they feel are unjust. Peacefully.

In the south there were laws on the books in some states that prevented mixed marriages. Laws that did not give blacks and women the right to vote.
Bad laws get changed by people protesting against them.

Oj made his intentions clear when he said he would not pay a penny. Tin cup Fred has the law on his side so it is up to him to try to find a way to take the money from oj. This is what happens in MOST civil judgements. imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8785422][QUOTE=Kate Sachel;8785404]

And I explained to you why I referred to him as "a detective" and that was not enough for you. You still questioned my motive.

I have little respect for Lance Ito, yet that does not prevent me from referring to him as "the Judge".

Kate

I respectfully disagree. I question why, imo, you were defending him, when his comments were, imho, indefensible, and thought that you were possibly defending him because of your respect for LE. I do not understand the extent of your ire over my questioning (wanting to understand your motive). Now, that you have explained, which I appreciate deeply, I understand better. I have chosen to refer to the MF as other things that he has proven to be.

I have had a member of my family murdered, because of an affair with a married White woman. The husband did not kill him but the husband's father and not anywhere near the home of the married couple. The husband's father was also having an affair with the woman. I will not say that the killing was racially motivated, but the verdict for acquital certainly was, imho. That is partially why I abhor hatred and inequality in the LJS so much.

[weezer]

*Snipped*Oj made his intentions clear when he said he would not pay a penny. Tin cup Fred has the law on his side so it is up to him to try to find a way to take the money from oj. This is what happens in MOST civil judgements. imo martin II I think your argument would be more credible if you weren't talking about orenthal: wife abuser, stalker, cheater, liar, thief and Butcher of Brentwood.

Don't give orenthal the credit of doing anything on behalf of mankind to right wrongs! That is a joke. orenthal is not paying the judgment because that is the slime he is. He has no morals and no principles. IMO

[weezer]

*Snipped*Oj made his intentions clear when he said he would not pay a penny. Tin cup Fred has the law on his side so it is up to him to try to find a way to take the money from oj. This is what happens in MOST civil judgements. and Fred has made his intentions clear by doing everything within the law to remind orenthal that he has been found liable for the horrendous murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

If you actually think that's what happens in MOST civil judgments, don't pay your fine next time and then let us know what happens. :eek:

[martin II]

*Snipped* I think your argument would be more credible if you weren't talking about orenthal: wife abuser, stalker, cheater, liar, thief and Butcher of Brentwood.

Don't give orenthal the credit of doing anything on behalf of mankind to right wrongs! That is a joke. orenthal is not paying the judgment because that is the slime he is. He has no morals and no principles. IMO


weezer
some white people had some new names for MLK and had a whole lot of hate in their hearts for him as you seem to have for oj. I do realize you have become somewhat of a expert at name calling but these names are only accurate for you in your mind. They effect nothing imo
martin II

[martin II]

Maybe Fred needs toilet paper! :D


If true, then tin cup fred needs to go to big lot if he canot afford wal-mart.imo
martin II

[martin II]

*Snipped* and Fred has made his intentions clear by doing everything within the law to remind orenthal that he has been found liable for the horrendous murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

If you actually think that's what happens in MOST civil judgments, don't pay your fine next time and then let us know what happens. :eek:


weeze

Fortunate for me i have only been issued parking tickets and i try to always pay those. Do some research and you will find that most Americans don't pay civil judgements. Especially one that is impossible to pay.

imo
martin II

[limakey]

Kate,

I understand why you won't answer my post regarding OJ Simpson and his parenting skills. I find the most ignorant, harshest and unfairest comments made on this issue comes from people who do not have children. However, I have no problem in saying that there is no such thing as a perfect parent and you can't watch your children 24/7---but that doesn't mean you ever, ever stop trying. IMO.

You know what Sydney said regarding the phone call, you know that some of your G's feel "mommy's best" friend was OJ Simpson. The fact is that Sydney knew he mother was upset enough to cry and went to her mother about it.

While Sydney may have only been 9 years old at the time, that did not mean she was a totally ignored child whose mother never listened to her, never did anything with her, didn't really even know her. In fact, there is more then enough evidence to suggest just the opposite. Sydney and Justin did not have a stranger for a mother. IMO.

[limakey]

Martin,

I find this whole debate about the book and the interview to be actually amusing. The civil trial jury came up with the sum of how much money for Ron and how much for Nicole? They issued a blood money judgment. However, I still stand by post, I don't think the amount matter to Simpson. It could have been $100.00 bucks and he wouldn't have paid it.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

i have only been issued parking tickets and i try to always pay those.

You always "try to pay"? :chicken:

[socaldiva]

some white people had some new names for MLK and had a whole lot of hate in their hearts for him as you seem to have for oj.

OMG now you are trying to compare MLK to Orenthal?? :punch:

[martin II]

OMG now you are trying to compare MLK to Orenthal?? :punch:


no
it seems that people with hate in their hearts find it easy to call others names regardless of who the target is.
martin II

[martin II]

*Snipped* and Fred has made his intentions clear by doing everything within the law to remind orenthal that he has been found liable for the horrendous murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

If you actually think that's what happens in MOST civil judgments, don't pay your fine next time and then let us know what happens. :eek:


If you are interested, do some quick research and you will find that most civil judgements are not paid. It IS my opinion that States have not found it necesary to close all the loopholes that allow civil judgements to go unpaid.

[martin II]

Kate,

I understand why you won't answer my post regarding OJ Simpson and his parenting skills. I find the most ignorant, harshest and unfairest comments made on this issue comes from people who do not have children. However, I have no problem in saying that there is no such thing as a perfect parent and you can't watch your children 24/7---but that doesn't mean you ever, ever stop trying. IMO.

You know what Sydney said regarding the phone call, you know that some of your G's feel "mommy's best" friend was OJ Simpson. The fact is that Sydney knew he mother was upset enough to cry and went to her mother about it.

While Sydney may have only been 9 years old at the time, that did not mean she was a totally ignored child whose mother never listened to her, never did anything with her, didn't really even know her. In fact, there is more then enough evidence to suggest just the opposite. Sydney and Justin did not have a stranger for a mother. IMO.

limakey
i think that sydney, listening to nicoles conversation would be able to tell if the "crying" conversation was between oj or a 'FRIEND" If asked who was nicole talking to and it was oj, i think sydney would say something like mommy and daddy was arguing on the phone not mommy and a friend were arguing.imo
martin II

[martin II]

*Snipped* I think your argument would be more credible if you weren't talking about orenthal: wife abuser, stalker, cheater, liar, thief and Butcher of Brentwood.

Don't give orenthal the credit of doing anything on behalf of mankind to right wrongs! That is a joke. orenthal is not paying the judgment because that is the slime he is. He has no morals and no principles. IMO


weezer

I never said oj was thinking about mankind. Oj had said there were at least two reason why he has not paid the judgement.
1. He did not do the crime.
2.The judgement was excessive.

I think the civil trial judgement for $33 mil was decided more as punishment than a reasonable expectation of payment from oj.
imo
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

I understand why you won't answer my post regarding OJ Simpson and his parenting skills. I find the most ignorant, harshest and unfairest comments made on this issue comes from people who do not have children. However, I have no problem in saying that there is no such thing as a perfect parent and you can't watch your children 24/7---but that doesn't mean you ever, ever stop trying. IMO.

You know what Sydney said regarding the phone call, you know that some of your G's feel "mommy's best" friend was OJ Simpson. The fact is that Sydney knew he mother was upset enough to cry and went to her mother about it.

While Sydney may have only been 9 years old at the time, that did not mean she was a totally ignored child whose mother never listened to her, never did anything with her, didn't really even know her. In fact, there is more then enough evidence to suggest just the opposite. Sydney and Justin did not have a stranger for a mother. IMO.

I think it's amusing how people who are parents assume that they automatically "know". It's especially amusing considering the fact that we know that millions of children suffer abuse at the hands of their parents in this country, yet somehow people always assume that a parent is best, that they never abandon their children, and we ramble about how they "never stop trying".

I asked you how you "know" that the children know something more about what happened that evening and you can't answer me. You just make statements about how Nicole and her children weren't strangers, and that she heard her mother crying on the telephone.

Has it occurred to you that if in OJ was adamantly against the questioning of Sydney that it might be because he feared that she knew something against him? No, of course you wouldn't because by all appearances you seem to consider OJ as much your "boy" as you accuse Bob of considering Mark Fuhrman his "boy".

When you can answer my question about how you "know" that the children know something about the evening of June 12th, feel free to post it and allow me to admit that you are right. Until then, try to reign in the weak argument.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

~ "Tin Cup Fred" ~

A term splashed across the thread, amongst others, against Fred Goldman ... while the beloved "Juice" gets his free pass no matter how disrespectful his actions and words have been in the aftermath of his trial.

The majority of people I know believe that OJ is guilty, and several that I know think that he is innocent. Even those who believe in his innocence are disgusted with his cavalier attitude and the disprespect that he shows for the slain mother of his children.

Fred Goldman believes, without a doubt, that OJ murdered his son. He is accused of being money hungry and greedy, of never letting up on "poor OJ". For awhile I wondered myself why he always went after OJ's money until I realized that the pocketbook is literally the only recourse Fred has to damage him.

I understand the idea behind why those who believe in OJ's innocence would question Fred's motives, but at the same time I wonder what those same people would do if they were in Fred's shoes. Undoubtedly, many will puff out their chests and make some argument that in the face of the loss of their child money would be the last thing on their mind. There are those who would say they would forgive and move on with their lives.

I don't know what I'd do, and I hope that I will never have to find out. What I do know is that I'm not so quick to assume that someone is just a gold-digging vengeful man versus a greiving man who has suffered a tremendous loss and will never see his son again ... and is forced to deal with the fact that the man he believes tortured his son is out and about with a smile on his face, completely unconcerned with the lives that he has destroyed.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

no
it seems that people with hate in their hearts find it easy to call others names regardless of who the target is.
martin II

Oh, do you mean like how you always call Fred Goldman names? Yes, that must be what you mean.

Kate

[tazzybaby]

Kate,

I understand why you won't answer my post regarding OJ Simpson and his parenting skills. I find the most ignorant, harshest and unfairest comments made on this issue comes from people who do not have children. However, I have no problem in saying that there is no such thing as a perfect parent and you can't watch your children 24/7---but that doesn't mean you ever, ever stop trying. IMO.

You know what Sydney said regarding the phone call, you know that some of your G's feel "mommy's best" friend was OJ Simpson. The fact is that Sydney knew he mother was upset enough to cry and went to her mother about it.

While Sydney may have only been 9 years old at the time, that did not mean she was a totally ignored child whose mother never listened to her, never did anything with her, didn't really even know her. In fact, there is more then enough evidence to suggest just the opposite. Sydney and Justin did not have a stranger for a mother. IMO.

Limakey,

First, you need to back up your statement regarding Sydney hearing her mother and "going to her".

And, I AM a parent. My children have never called the police on me. Have we had disagreements? Of course. Have we had fights? Of course. Most kids dont' call the police department when fighting with a parent. Especially since her father was "framed" by the police department. Sydney must have felt desperate and scared to do such an act. How sad. Somehow that does not seem like a great father to me. And, for him to EVER talk bad about their murdered mother does not seem like a great father to me. To take "blood money" regarding their murdered mother does not seem like a great father to me. To make jokes in regards to the trial regarding their murdered mother does not seem like even a good father to me. I saw OJ talking about Sydney once and he was talking about how he didn't know how to handle her. He was talking about how he didn't know how to deal with her emotions. He was asked about her and he seemed like he didn't want to deal with it. Then he was asked about Justin. His chest puffed out and he praised him highly. What about? Sports. How do you think something like that would make Sydney feel? Praise the boy and complain about the girl. OJ Simpson is not a very good father in my eyes.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

So then you are suggesting that oj is in control of fred's life.

The books are the property of Harper Collins. They have said they will recycle the paper. So why is fred asking for the books. Is he planting the idea that Harper Collins can not be trusted to destroy the books or does he just want to keep the conversation of a dead issue alive.
imo
martin II


Hi Martin,

In a way, yes. When OJ pulls a new stunt not only does Fred have to see him in the news he also gets calls for his input. So, when OJ pulls a stunt it effects Fred. Does Fred have control of that? No. Does OJ have control of his own stunts? Yes. OJ never seems to stop. So, Fred is faced with the killer of his child frequently.

He is afraid that some of the books will leak out. He doesn't want OJ to get the book out there. He is trying to keep it from getting on the internet or e-bay. Maybe he believes Harper Collins cannot be trusted since they had a hand in this at all. And, I haven't seen Fred in the news since then. So, you are the one who is trying to keep a dead issue alive.

[tazzybaby]

*snip*

I asked you how you "know" that the children know something more about what happened that evening and you can't answer me. You just make statements about how Nicole and her children weren't strangers, and that she heard her mother crying on the telephone.

Has it occurred to you that if in OJ was adamantly against the questioning of Sydney that it might be because he feared that she knew something against him? No, of course you wouldn't because by all appearances you seem to consider OJ as much your "boy" as you accuse Bob of considering Mark Fuhrman his "boy".

*snip*
Kate

I second this! I also agree with you.
:beer:

[Kayleighjo]

Kate,

I understand why you won't answer my post regarding OJ Simpson and his parenting skills. I find the most ignorant, harshest and unfairest comments made on this issue comes from people who do not have children. However, I have no problem in saying that there is no such thing as a perfect parent and you can't watch your children 24/7---but that doesn't mean you ever, ever stop trying. IMO.

You know what Sydney said regarding the phone call, you know that some of your G's feel "mommy's best" friend was OJ Simpson. The fact is that Sydney knew he mother was upset enough to cry and went to her mother about it.

While Sydney may have only been 9 years old at the time, that did not mean she was a totally ignored child whose mother never listened to her, never did anything with her, didn't really even know her. In fact, there is more then enough evidence to suggest just the opposite. Sydney and Justin did not have a stranger for a mother. IMO.

limakey,

I'm a parent and your statements are garbage.

You're the first to say that just because a woman has experienced domestic violence doesn't mean she knows any better than anyone else in this case about the Simpson's marriage, so eat your own words and ante up to the fact that just because someone is parent doesn't mean they know everything better than someone who's not.

It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out that:

1.) killing your kids' mom and leaving her out in the open for the kids to find does mean that you're not a good parent.

2.) continuing to joke about the murder of your kids' mom does mean that you're not a good parent

3.) writing a "hypothetical" about how you'd kill your kids' mom if you had a chance does mean that you're not a good parent

4.) putting a gun to your head and threatening to blow your brains out right after your kids' mom has been murdered so that the kids can grow up without both parents does mean that you're selfish and not a good parent.

[Kate Sachel]

limakey,

I'm a parent and your statements are garbage.

You're the first to say that just because a woman has experienced domestic violence doesn't mean she knows any better than anyone else in this case about the Simpson's marriage, so eat your own words and ante up to the fact that just because someone is parent doesn't mean they know everything better than someone who's not.

It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out that:

1.) killing your kids' mom and leaving her out in the open for the kids to find does mean that you're not a good parent.

2.) continuing to joke about the murder of your kids' mom does mean that you're not a good parent

3.) writing a "hypothetical" about how you'd kill your kids' mom if you had a chance does mean that you're not a good parent

4.) putting a gun to your head and threatening to blow your brains out right after your kids' mom has been murdered so that the kids can grow up without both parents does mean that you're selfish and not a good parent.

:beer: (since I know you love it)

Kate

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

In a way, yes. When OJ pulls a new stunt not only does Fred have to see him in the news he also gets calls for his input. So, when OJ pulls a stunt it effects Fred. Does Fred have control of that? No. Does OJ have control of his own stunts? Yes. OJ never seems to stop. So, Fred is faced with the killer of his child frequently.

He is afraid that some of the books will leak out. He doesn't want OJ to get the book out there. He is trying to keep it from getting on the internet or e-bay. Maybe he believes Harper Collins cannot be trusted since they had a hand in this at all. And, I haven't seen Fred in the news since then. So, you are the one who is trying to keep a dead issue alive.


tazzy hi
fred has lawyers with standing marching orders. Try to find any money oj has and take it for me. SO he should just let his lawyers do their jobs.

Fred does not have to respond to media request for responses to oj's actions. When he does he is just playing into the media game of selling papers or tv air time.

As i have said before the book is the assets of Harper Collins and they have no respnsibility to give fred any of these assets and i think fred is pushing the envelope too far to demand that they do.

Fred has no control over whether the book will be sold on the internet so he should just forget that.imo

Whether fred responds to oj is all up to fred. to continue to do so means oj is in control of fred actions on this subject.
imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi
fred has lawyers with standing marching orders. Try to find any money oj has and take it for me. SO he should just let his lawyers do their jobs.

Fred does not have to respond to media request for responses to oj's actions. When he does he is just playing into the media game of selling papers or tv air time.

As i have said before the book is the assets of Harper Collins and they have no respnsibility to give fred any of these assets and i think fred is pushing the envelope too far to demand that they do.

Fred has no control over whether the book will be sold on the internet so he should just forget that.imo

Whether fred responds to oj is all up to fred. to continue to do so means oj is in control of fred actions on this subject.
imo
martin II

Take it for me? You truly do have blinders on. You go to great extremes to try and belittle this man. This judgement was brought on OJ because he is responsible for the death of his son. Whether you believe that or not doesn't matter. He was found responsible for their deaths. So, his punishment was monetary. That's the only punishment that was available. That's the only way to bring the killer to any kind of justice. So, for you to imply that it's only to get money from him for himself is wrong. That is his punishment. It's not Fred's fault. It's OJ's fault. It is Fred's right to make sure that the penalty is paid. The only person that's doing anything wrong is OJ. That's why he has to hide, sneak and lie. Fred is not even on the same level as OJ. His lawyers cost money. They get any funds that are collected first.

Obviously Fred is doing the right thing by responding to OJ's actions. He has to remind the public of the victims. There are people who were too young to remember the trial or weren't born yet that need to know. He is his son's voice now. If OJ weren't pulling any stunts Fred wouldn't have to remind the public. Fred taking a stand worked too. No book no interview.

I don't think he cares if they have a "responsibility" legally. He, as do many others, believe he has a moral responsibility to make sure the book never leaks out. He wants to make sure they follow up on their words. I think he is definately doing the right thing.

Fred has done a good job so far making sure it doesn't get sold on the internet. So, it's a good thing he didn't just forget it.

Fred will respond as long as OJ pulls stunts. Just as it should be.

For Fred, Kim, the Browns, Sydney and Justin.....the true victims

:rose:

[weezer]

Fred will respond as long as OJ pulls stunts. Just as it should be.

For Fred, Kim, the Browns, Sydney and Justin.....the true victims

:rose: Great post!

[martin II]

Great post!

weezer
So it is Freds choice to allow oj ( and the media)to control his life because he certainly cannot control what oj does.imo

Actually i feel sorry for fred in the sense that he has not been able to break free of the role of professional victim. It must be painful to allow ones self to live this role. imo

martin II

[weezer]

weezer
So it is Freds choice to allow oj ( and the media)to control his life because he certainly cannot control what oj does.imo

Actually i feel sorry for fred in the sense that he has not been able to break free of the role of professional victim. It must be painful to allow ones self to live this role. imo

martin II I don't view Fred as a professional victim and except for a few delusional posters on this board, I haven't heard anyone else refer to him as that. Mr. Goldman appears to be a decent guy who has grieved the death of his son. A death that was the result of the direct actions of orenthal james simpson. And, actually, Mr. Goldman is kind of controlling the Butcher's life by speaking out everytime the Butcher tries to cash in on the death of Ron and Nicole. So, I don't know who you think needs to get over what. except maybe orenthal needs to get over thinking he will ever be anything but a double murderer in the eyes of most of America.

[socaldiva]

Kate,

I understand why you won't answer my post regarding OJ Simpson and his parenting skills. I find the most ignorant, harshest and unfairest comments made on this issue comes from people who do not have children. However, I have no problem in saying that there is no such thing as a perfect parent and you can't watch your children 24/7---but that doesn't mean you ever, ever stop trying. IMO.


As I recall you only have one child. I've raised 3. Kate may not have any, but she sounds very insightful in her posts about the topic.

As far as your "that doesn't mean you ever, ever stop trying" in regards to children, some do stop trying & others don't even make reasonable attempts to properly parent. I think you need to take off your blinders & stop pretending to be an expert on child rearing, especially since you are only midway through raising ONE. ;)

[martin II]

I don't view Fred as a professional victim and except for a few delusional posters on this board, I haven't heard anyone else refer to him as that. Mr. Goldman appears to be a decent guy who has grieved the death of his son. A death that was the result of the direct actions of orenthal james simpson. And, actually, Mr. Goldman is kind of controlling the Butcher's life by speaking out everytime the Butcher tries to cash in on the death of Ron and Nicole. So, I don't know who you think needs to get over what. except maybe orenthal needs to get over thinking he will ever be anything but a double murderer in the eyes of most of America.

wezer
If fred wants to allow his hatred of oj to drive his life activities that is up to him, but i think it is counter productive for him personally.IMO
MARTIN ii

[weezer]

wezer
If fred wants to allow his hatred of oj to drive his life activities that is up to him, but i think it is counter productive for him personally.IMO
MARTIN ii Mr. Goldman is doing fine -- I wouldn't worry about him if I were you. orenthal on the other hand, is in the media whining about how his life has changed for the worse. Good. I hope he never has a moment's peace.

[martin II]

Mr. Goldman is doing fine -- I wouldn't worry about him if I were you. orenthal on the other hand, is in the media whining about how his life has changed for the worse. Good. I hope he never has a moment's peace.

WEEZER

I can understand why you would see a life driven by hate to be acceptable and fine.imo
martin II

[limakey]

Taz,

One time I yelled at my son and he threatened to call the cops. I handed him the phone and said to him, "please, please call. I get three hots and a cot and I don't have to drive you anywhere!---Sign me up!"

I truly don't understand why some kids call the cops, or say some of the things they do, like mine, I'm still trying to figure out why he told his teacher that I was dying and that is why he wasn't doing his homework. What, he didn't think she would call?!

And what was Sydney so upset about? Wasn't she very angry with her father? Or was she afraid of him? I found it rather sad that the press went to town on that but then again, I'm sure the press is still angry that she has not sued her father. Who knows??

And another thing about today's kids, it is not like we haven't dumb down our parental questions, I don't even bother with the who, what or where, I just want to know, "when". When did he think it was a good idea and when did he realize it was a very, very, very bad idea!". Thats all, no names, no blame, just when---but do I get even those two simple answers???!!!!!!

[limakey]

Kate,

You bring up an excellent point, how can anyone not treat their child like the gift they are. For that matter, how can anyone abuse a child, knowing they are our future.

Also, child abuse and neglect goes across the board. There are just as many neglectful rich parents as there are poor, IMO. However, IMO, a parent who truly loves their child as God meant it to be does do their best. I think a perfect example is the mother of the boy who accused Michael Jackson a couple of years ago. While I believe that the woman was a few french fries short of a Happy Meal, and she truly needs some help, I never doubted her love for her children. Everyone makes mistakes Kate, however, as I am teaching my son, behind every strong man and woman is a mountain of mistakes. You see the mountains because they represent the person's ability to learn from them and move on. However, behind a weak man or woman, you see nothing but green grass and sunshine---because those are the people who hide their mistakes and give their mistakes the ultimate power over them. IMO, I think it is important to teach children not to let their mistakes have the power over them.

Kate, not every parent can step up to the plate of parenthood. I admire those who come out and say it. I also admire any woman or man who says they truly don't want any children and don't have any.

Parents who abuse their children don't deserve the title of parent, IMO.

[jotun]

Actually i feel sorry for fred in the sense that he has not been able to break free of the role of professional victim. It must be painful to allow ones self to live this role. imo

martin II

Martin, IMO
Don't waste any of your time feeling sorry for Fraud.He enjoys his role as "professional victim" basking in the O.J. SPOTLIGHT.How else would he have achieved his fame and get undeserved sympathy from the gulible. He knows his son was killed by THUGS. He became spokesman for 'Safe Streets'.He knows that his son was a DRUG-DEALER. But he continues to pretend it was O.J. Otherwise his scam would come to an end. But he can't fool US all. Certainly not you or me or many others. He lives on greed, and fake 'outrage'.There were 5 other people killed in the l.a. area that night. Does anyone know their names. Nor would we Ron's. He would be just be another drug-dealer killed.
If not for Nicole.

jotun

[socaldiva]

*snip*
He became spokesman for 'Safe Streets'.He knows that his son was a DRUG-DEALER. But he continues to pretend it was O.J. Otherwise his scam would come to an end.

Your post is pitiful. It's based on nothing more than your faulty imagination. Then again, what would you expect from an "OJ nut"? :rolleyes:

[2L8 4A D8]

WEEZER

I can understand why you would see a life driven by hate to be acceptable and fine.imo
martin II

Yeah, I can understand why you would see a life driven by hate to be acceptable and fine. Even though they have done absolutely nothing (compared to what OJ did to ALL of them), you still don't have the decency to say one kind thing about:

Fred Goldman and the Goldman Family
Ron Goldman
Lou and Juditha Brown and the Brown Family
Nicole Brown Simpson

You need to knock it off. You certainly don't see any of us saying nasty, filthy and despicable things about OJ's Family, i.e., Arnelle, Jason, Sydney, Justin, OJ's Mom, OJ's Siblings and anyone else do you? OJ has to stand alone in what he did to Nicole and Ron and that is why all of the wrath is taken out on him and him only!

However, I just shake my head and consider the source ~ big time!

JMO and MOO!!

[tazzybaby]

Taz,

One time I yelled at my son and he threatened to call the cops. I handed him the phone and said to him, "please, please call. I get three hots and a cot and I don't have to drive you anywhere!---Sign me up!"

I truly don't understand why some kids call the cops, or say some of the things they do, like mine, I'm still trying to figure out why he told his teacher that I was dying and that is why he wasn't doing his homework. What, he didn't think she would call?!

And what was Sydney so upset about? Wasn't she very angry with her father? Or was she afraid of him? I found it rather sad that the press went to town on that but then again, I'm sure the press is still angry that she has not sued her father. Who knows??

And another thing about today's kids, it is not like we haven't dumb down our parental questions, I don't even bother with the who, what or where, I just want to know, "when". When did he think it was a good idea and when did he realize it was a very, very, very bad idea!". Thats all, no names, no blame, just when---but do I get even those two simple answers???!!!!!!

Limakey,

OJ was a celebrity. One who got off a murder wrap that most of the world believes committed the crime. For her to call the police....the bad police who "framed" her father.....is a really big deal. You would think she would trust them less than him.

Your child threatened to call the police but didn't. Sydney did. Why didn't Sydney just leave in a huff?

This is not a normal parenting situation.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

You bring up an excellent point, how can anyone not treat their child like the gift they are. For that matter, how can anyone abuse a child, knowing they are our future.

Also, child abuse and neglect goes across the board. There are just as many neglectful rich parents as there are poor, IMO. However, IMO, a parent who truly loves their child as God meant it to be does do their best. I think a perfect example is the mother of the boy who accused Michael Jackson a couple of years ago. While I believe that the woman was a few french fries short of a Happy Meal, and she truly needs some help, I never doubted her love for her children. Everyone makes mistakes Kate, however, as I am teaching my son, behind every strong man and woman is a mountain of mistakes. You see the mountains because they represent the person's ability to learn from them and move on. However, behind a weak man or woman, you see nothing but green grass and sunshine---because those are the people who hide their mistakes and give their mistakes the ultimate power over them. IMO, I think it is important to teach children not to let their mistakes have the power over them.

Kate, not every parent can step up to the plate of parenthood. I admire those who come out and say it. I also admire any woman or man who says they truly don't want any children and don't have any.

Parents who abuse their children don't deserve the title of parent, IMO.

limakey,

You went from posting to me "I find the most ignorant, harshest and unfairest comments made on this issue comes from people who do not have children." which was an obvious cheap shot at the fact that I do not have children but am commenting on another's parenting skills, to expressing that I brought up an excellent point regarding parents and children.

Save it.

OJ Simpson has done more than enough things, even outside of the fact that he killed Nicole, to warrant the label of a bad father in my eyes. In fact, Kayleighjo ticked off many of the points quite nicely. If you feel that you have reason (or audacity) enough to continue in defense of his parenting skills then I encourage you to continue your defense of him, but don't throw out shots essentially saying that because an individual does not have children more than likely means that their comments are somehow ignorant or that they don't have the ability to look at another human being and make the call that the actions shown by that individual indicate an unfit parent.

I did notice that you have chosen not to provide the proof that I have repeatedly asked you for regarding how you "know" that the children know more about the events of June 12th. Would that indicate that you have nothing other than speculation? I really would like to know so that I may either admit that you are right, or so that I may acknowledge that thus far there is no such proof and move on from this point.

Kate

[martin II]

limakey
I agree with your post.

Teenagers are notorius for their attemps to establish their independance over their parents. At this age they seem to belive that they are just as knowledgable about the world as their parents.
This is normal behavior as they try to establish their own identity.

A parent can be in for a lot of 'BACK TALK" and some times this can just go too far but it is the parent that has to understand that this is all, in most cases developmental.

Teenagers can be hand full as you have stated and most parents have to play it by ear as they go through various stages of rebelionness. (SP)

What i think is that there is no substitute for understanding the actions of a teenager that can replace the actual raising of one by caring parents.

Additionally it is always easy for outsiders to try to judge the actions of a parent as it pertains to how the kid/s are raised but usually it is not based on correct facts or experiance.imo
MARTIN ii

[Kayleighjo]

limakey
I agree with your post.

Teenagers are notorius for their attemps to establish their independance over their parents. At this age they seem to belive that they are just as knowledgable about the world as their parents.
This is normal behavior as they try to establish their own identity.

A parent can be in for a lot of 'BACK TALK" and some times this can just go too far but it is the parent that has to understand that this is all, in most cases developmental.

Teenagers can be hand full as you have stated and most parents have to play it by ear as they go through various stages of rebelionness. (SP)

What i think is that there is no substitute for understanding the actions of a teenager that can replace the actual raising of one by caring parents.

Additionally it is always easy for outsiders to try to judge the actions of a parent as it pertains to how the kid/s are raised but usually it is not based on correct facts or experiance.imo
MARTIN ii


Since you find Kate's postings to be without merit because she's not a parent, I'll say the same thing to you as I said to limakey. I am indeed a parent and your statements are garbage.

And hey, maybe you shouldn't talk about law on this forum and what you feel were correct rulings by the judge or correct actions by the lawyers because wow ... you're not a lawyer.

Or maybe you shouldn't talk about the issue of abuse in the Simpson's marriage because you've never been a battered woman, and as far as we know you've never abused your wife.

Or maybe you shouldn't talk about slavery in the "Role of Race" thread because you've never been a slave.

Yeah, makes alot of sense. It's ridiculous and it's crap to try to say that someone can't look at the actions of another and form a logical and reasonable opinion just because they've never been in that situation.

Hell, you have no issues yapping your mouth about Fred Goldman all the time despite the fact that you've never had a son that's been viciously murdered.

Did you know that there are judges that reside over custody cases that don't have kids ... have never been a parent a day in their life?

As a parent I agree with everything Kate and Tazzy had to say on the topic.

[socaldiva]

Since you find Kate's postings to be without merit because she's not a parent, I'll say the same thing to you as I said to limakey. I am indeed a parent and your statements are garbage.

And hey, maybe you shouldn't talk about law on this forum and what you feel were correct rulings by the judge or correct actions by the lawyers because wow ... you're not a lawyer.

Or maybe you shouldn't talk about the issue of abuse in the Simpson's marriage because you've never been a battered woman, and as far as we know you've never abused your wife.

Or maybe you shouldn't talk about slavery in the "Role of Race" thread because you've never been a slave.

Yeah, makes alot of sense. It's ridiculous and it's crap to try to say that someone can't look at the actions of another and form a logical and reasonable opinion just because they've never been in that situation.

Hell, you have no issues yapping your mouth about Fred Goldman all the time despite the fact that you've never had a son that's been viciously murdered.

Did you know that there are judges that reside over custody cases that don't have kids ... have never been a parent a day in their life?

As a parent I agree with everything Kate and Tazzy had to say on the topic.

I normally snip, but couldn't this time. It's all so good! :beer:

[2L8 4A D8]

Since you find Kate's postings to be without merit because she's not a parent, I'll say the same thing to you as I said to limakey. I am indeed a parent and your statements are garbage.

And hey, maybe you shouldn't talk about law on this forum and what you feel were correct rulings by the judge or correct actions by the lawyers because wow ... you're not a lawyer.

Or maybe you shouldn't talk about the issue of abuse in the Simpson's marriage because you've never been a battered woman, and as far as we know you've never abused your wife.

Or maybe you shouldn't talk about slavery in the "Role of Race" thread because you've never been a slave.

Yeah, makes alot of sense. It's ridiculous and it's crap to try to say that someone can't look at the actions of another and form a logical and reasonable opinion just because they've never been in that situation.

Hell, you have no issues yapping your mouth about Fred Goldman all the time despite the fact that you've never had a son that's been viciously murdered.

Did you know that there are judges that reside over custody cases that don't have kids ... have never been a parent a day in their life?

As a parent I agree with everything Kate and Tazzy had to say on the topic.

Where do you even begin to snip something so excellent? To you, Kay, and Tazzy and Kate ~ keep on dishing it out! I love it!
:beer:

[limakey]

Taz,

What did the police find when they responded to Sydney's call? Didn't they find an angry girl who bacially couldn't get her way?

I do find it odd that while many people have jumped all over this phone call and where the police responded and made a report yet have no problem with the police not responding and making a report of how many alleged phone calls Nicole made to the police?

Call the police because you pissed off at someone is simply wrong. We know from recent TV reports that many people call the police for really dumb reasons. The question is, what Sydney being hurt, was she in danger? Was she afraid or was she just pissed off because she couldn't get her way?

[martin II]

Taz,

What did the police find when they responded to Sydney's call? Didn't they find an angry girl who bacially couldn't get her way?

I do find it odd that while many people have jumped all over this phone call and where the police responded and made a report yet have no problem with the police not responding and making a report of how many alleged phone calls Nicole made to the police?

Call the police because you pissed off at someone is simply wrong. We know from recent TV reports that many people call the police for really dumb reasons. The question is, what Sydney being hurt, was she in danger? Was she afraid or was she just pissed off because she couldn't get her way?


pissed off as many teenagers get when they cannot get their way and their parents lay down the law. Poeple with teenagers know this happens frequently.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip* Poeple with teenagers know this happens frequently.imo
martin II

I bet most "Poeple" don't have teenagers that call LE sobbing, saying their parent is verbally abusive.

[weezer]

pissed off as many teenagers get when they cannot get their way and their parents lay down the law. Poeple with teenagers know this happens frequently.imo
martin II BS -- how many times did your kids call the cops on you?

[martin II]

BS -- how many times did your kids call the cops on you?

never but there were times when mine did get out of control and had to be brought back in place. BUT i do know of two other instances where it happened to people i know. some have even decide they want to run away,for a minute.

martin II

[socaldiva]

How pathetic. Posters here have discounted Nicole's abuse & calls to LE & are now doing the same with Sydney's call. How sad.

[weezer]

never but there were times when mine did get out of control and had to be brought back in place. BUT i do know of two other instances where it happened to people i know. some have even decide they want to run away,for a minute.

martin II most of us had the same experience BUT I personally don't know anyone that had a kid call the cops not even when I would have thought it warranted. Since that incident and the one where she had the fist fight at the ball game, I worry that maybe she has orenthal's bad temper or worse, needs help and not getting it. Hope not.

[martin II]

most of us had the same experience BUT I personally don't know anyone that had a kid call the cops not even when I would have thought it warranted. Since that incident and the one where she had the fist fight at the ball game, I worry that maybe she has orenthal's bad temper or worse, needs help and not getting it. Hope not.

That kid seems to be doing quite well. only mean people would try to hang somekind of BAD KID or KID WITH PROBLEMS tag on her.
you should quit.

Oj said america should worry about their kids, not his.
IMO

MARTIN II

[socaldiva]

That kid seems to be doing quite well. only mean people would try to hang somekind of BAD KID or KID WITH PROBLEMS tag on her.
you should quit.

Oj said america should worry about their kids, not his.
IMO

MARTIN II

Mean people would worry about her welfare? What kind of logic is that? You should quit with your false negative claims about Nicole, Ron & Fred but you don't. We aren't posting anything negative about OJ's kids. You are confused.

More "OJ says". What a hoot.

[weezer]

That kid seems to be doing quite well. only mean people would try to hang somekind of BAD KID or KID WITH PROBLEMS tag on her.
you should quit.

Oj said america should worry about their kids, not his.
IMO

MARTIN II how come you didn't make the same post when it was Jason being offered up for sacrifice? I am not mean and I do worry about her. There is something wrong when a young woman calls the police on her father and has a fist fight that involves police being called. I think she may be crying out for help.

[martin II]

how come you didn't make the same post when it was Jason being offered up for sacrifice? I am not mean and I do worry about her. There is something wrong when a young woman calls the police on her father and has a fist fight that involves police being called. I think she may be crying out for help.

weezer

Exactly what date did you get to be Sydneys therapist? have you had any sessions with her that would allow you to now what she may need or that she may need help. Do you offer this service to all or just to sydney?

Martin II

[weezer]

weezer

Exactly what date did you get to be Sydneys therapist? have you had any sessions with her that would allow you to now what she may need or that she may need help. Do you offer this service to all or just to sydney?

Martin II Wow! I don't need to be a therapist to recognize when someone needs help.

I offer this service to all -- remember, I use to remind you when you were rayray to take your meds. And, as your friend william likes to say, this last post was in jest!

[limakey]

Kate,

I don't think we have agreed much on this case, however, I have always given you the credit you deserve when you bring up an excellent point. While I believe some of your comments are based in ignorance, it doesn't mean I should be just as ignorant and ignore the points you make.

The point is, the Simpson children are not in an abusive situation. There have been very few people who have been investigated over and over again as Mr. Simpson was. While the amount of money has never been made public and probably never will, IMO, there were millions of dollars spent on trying to prove that OJ Simpson was an unfit father and that the children belong with the Browns. The state of CA appointed a legal guardian to the children and it was this guardian who made the finding that the children should be with their father.

While the police were at Simpson's home regarding Sydney, how many other kids within a couple hundered miles were being beat? Were being straved? Were being thrown out of their homes? How many children were living in the streets?

You may feel Simpson is a horrible father but that does mean he is unfit. That does mean his children are in danager.

One of the worst cases of child abuse I saw in the my experience was truly based on the most bizarre reason I have ever heard. What this mother did to her children was simply horrific and she scarred them beyond repair---but Kate, she never laid a hand on them. When I read her interview, she was asked how could she just cut herself off from all emotional ties with her children. Her reply was that when she was young, her mother died. She was so close to her mother that when she died she was simply lost. She didn't want to live anymore, she made a vow to have as many children as she could just to "teach" them not to love her--so that when she died her children wouldn't feel the way she did. To this day, I'll never understand that, but there is no doubt in my mind that she believed every word she said and that she was doing "right" by her children.

There are a lot of abused kids out there, Sydney and Justin just don't happend to be two of them. IMO.

[Suzee10]

How pathetic. Posters here have discounted Nicole's abuse & calls to LE & are now doing the same with Sydney's call. How sad.


What is even more pathetic is the police are doing the same to Sydney as they did her mom. One thing that breaks my heart is one thing Nichole said to one of the officers that was called to her home was " you never do anything".
:shrug:

[limakey]

Suzy,

Isn't it very possible that if these phone calls were made by Nicole, the police found some of these calls were made by a pissed off woman rather then a woman in danger?

Nicole called the cops when Simpson beat up a car. Totally not cool to beat up a car, however, should the police have been called? And I don't remember but was Fuhrman's statement on this incident ever released? What did his report actually say?

[martin II]

Wow! I don't need to be a therapist to recognize when someone needs help.

I offer this service to all -- remember, I use to remind you when you were rayray to take your meds. And, as your friend william likes to say, this last post was in jest!

weezer
you seem to go off the edge yourself when posters here make "you frustrated"
by not agreeing with you so i don't see how you could possible be in a position to assit others and that was in jest.
martin II

[martin II]

Wow! I don't need to be a therapist to recognize when someone needs help.

I offer this service to all -- remember, I use to remind you when you were rayray to take your meds. And, as your friend william likes to say, this last post was in jest!


you do need facts and not what you think is the situation unless you plan to be as you are sometimes here FACTLESS. imo
martin II

[martin II]

Wow! I don't need to be a therapist to recognize when someone needs help.

I offer this service to all -- remember, I use to remind you when you were rayray to take your meds. And, as your friend william likes to say, this last post was in jest!

weeze
you do need facts and not what you think is the situation unless you plan to be as you are sometimes here FACTLESS. imo
martin II

[martin II]

Wow! I don't need to be a therapist to recognize when someone needs help.

I offer this service to all -- remember, I use to remind you when you were rayray to take your meds. And, as your friend william likes to say, this last post was in jest!

Without ever having met Sydne you do need some facts unless you intend to be as you are here CLUELESS AND FACTLESS in your evaluation of her.imo and that is also in jest.
martin II

[martin II]

Wow! I don't need to be a therapist to recognize when someone needs help.

I offer this service to all -- remember, I use to remind you when you were rayray to take your meds. And, as your friend william likes to say, this last post was in jest!

Without ever having met Sydne you do need some facts unless you intend to be as you are here CLUELESS AND FACTLESS in your evaluation of her.imo and that is also in jest.
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

**SNIPPED**

Kate,

I don't think we have agreed much on this case, however, I have always given you the credit you deserve when you bring up an excellent point. While I believe some of your comments are based in ignorance, it doesn't mean I should be just as ignorant and ignore the points you make.

The point is, the Simpson children are not in an abusive situation. There have been very few people who have been investigated over and over again as Mr. Simpson was. While the amount of money has never been made public and probably never will, IMO, there were millions of dollars spent on trying to prove that OJ Simpson was an unfit father and that the children belong with the Browns. The state of CA appointed a legal guardian to the children and it was this guardian who made the finding that the children should be with their father.

While the police were at Simpson's home regarding Sydney, how many other kids within a couple hundered miles were being beat? Were being straved? Were being thrown out of their homes? How many children were living in the streets?

You may feel Simpson is a horrible father but that does mean he is unfit. That does mean his children are in danager.

There are a lot of abused kids out there, Sydney and Justin just don't happend to be two of them. IMO.

limakey,

The only reason you think some of my posts are stated with ignorance is because you don't agree with them. You're as terrible with that type of thing as you accuse Bob August of being. Your hypocritical nature is half amusing and half frightening.

Any man that would murder the mother of his children and leave her body where the children might discover it is an unfit parent. Any man that would stalk, threaten, and beat the mother of his children is an unfit parent.

I understand that you do not believe that OJ murdered Nicole, but if it was proven that he did I assume that you would agree.

I don't recall anyone saying that Justin and Sydney are physically abused children.

We don't know the true nature behind Sysney's 911 call, but we know that she obviously harbors ill feelings toward her father. Several people chalk it up to her being a spoiled brat who phoned the police because she didn't her way with something. I have asked repeatedly for someone to give me information on what would lead them to believe that Sydney Simpson is just a spoiled brat who would do something so huge without merit.

What would bring someone to so easily dismiss her 911 call?

I agreed with Mike Littwin when he was outraged over the custody ruling and stated "apparently beating and stalking the mother of your children doesn't preclude you from being considered a good father".

Kate

[tazzybaby]

Taz,

What did the police find when they responded to Sydney's call? Didn't they find an angry girl who bacially couldn't get her way?

I do find it odd that while many people have jumped all over this phone call and where the police responded and made a report yet have no problem with the police not responding and making a report of how many alleged phone calls Nicole made to the police?

Call the police because you pissed off at someone is simply wrong. We know from recent TV reports that many people call the police for really dumb reasons. The question is, what Sydney being hurt, was she in danger? Was she afraid or was she just pissed off because she couldn't get her way?

Hi Limakey,

You truly need to take into consideration the fact that Sydney knows about the media. She knows about the 911 calls made by Nicole. She knows how those were made public. She also knows about the time that it was in the Enquirer. So, for her to actually call the police is a really big deal. She obviously didn't know what else to do. You think this child called the police because she was pissed off only? She called the police because she felt like she was being abused. She felt like what he was doing to her was abuse. She even said that in the phone call. She didn't say he was hitting her but that's also not the only way to be abused.

[tazzybaby]

weeze
you do need facts and not what you think is the situation unless you plan to be as you are sometimes here FACTLESS. imo
martin II

um, Hi Martin,

I know you don't think I was going to let you get away with this remark without pointing out the FACTLESS accusations you were making against Fred Goldman. So, please heed your own warning.

[martin II]

um, Hi Martin,

I know you don't think I was going to let you get away with this remark without pointing out the FACTLESS accusations you were making against Fred Goldman. So, please heed your own warning.

tazzy hi

fred has hired lawyers to find and try to take any money oj has. i see that as he is in this for the money. Fred sued the browns trying to get the browns
to pay him the $300,000 the browns owed oj for that loan. Fred went to court and asked that he be given oj's trade mark name in a effort to receive any monies that are made from the use of oj's name.

i see that as fred making multiple efforts to get money from oj.
martin II

[martin II]

NO one here knows exactly what was in sydney mind when she called the police. only guess based on a media report and maby some people with kids
thinking about simular instances with their own kids.
At any rate when the police came and realized what the call was about they
calmed her down and left. imo

No one here knows if sydney has ill feelings towards her father especially since she has not made any comment that would lead one to KNOW this.

sydney is in her 1st or 2nd year collage in MA. Oj says she comes home on some weekends and breaks.

i would give her a big thumbs up for taking care of those kids at the basketball game that said something bad about nicole and oj. Good for her because it means that she ain't taking no s*** talking about her parents.

martin II

[sassylassy]

Hi Limakey,

You truly need to take into consideration the fact that Sydney knows about the media. She knows about the 911 calls made by Nicole. She knows how those were made public. She also knows about the time that it was in the Enquirer. So, for her to actually call the police is a really big deal. She obviously didn't know what else to do. You think this child called the police because she was pissed off only? She called the police because she felt like she was being abused. She felt like what he was doing to her was abuse. She even said that in the phone call. She didn't say he was hitting her but that's also not the only way to be abused.

how do you know ..that sydney knows nicole called 911 :shrug:

dont you think that if sydney was being verbally abused or in some danger that child services would have stepped in?

[sassylassy]

[QUOTE=martin II;8787815]No one here knows if sydney has ill feelings towards her father especially since she has not made any comment that would lead one to KNOW this.

Thank you!
I agree.only sydney simpson knows how she feels & I havent heard her talking:confused:

[martin II]

Hi Limakey,

You truly need to take into consideration the fact that Sydney knows about the media. She knows about the 911 calls made by Nicole. She knows how those were made public. She also knows about the time that it was in the Enquirer. So, for her to actually call the police is a really big deal. She obviously didn't know what else to do. You think this child called the police because she was pissed off only? She called the police because she felt like she was being abused. She felt like what he was doing to her was abuse. She even said that in the phone call. She didn't say he was hitting her but that's also not the only way to be abused.


tazzy hi

i think you need to reread your post. delete everything that you cannot prove
and re post what is left.
the police came to ojs florida house. listened to oj and sydney. found that there was nothing to the call and told them have a good night and left.
so obviously sydney did not tell the cops that she felt abused in any way. if she had oj would have gone to jail and sydney to child services immediately.
martin II

[jotun]

IF I DID IT AGAIN ?

On Nov.22 one of the cnn anchors said O.J.said he might self-publish his own book, with WHO he thinks DID IT.
A Goldman attorney said prior that Newscorp ONLY had the right to publish and promote.
Check out the Dec.11 issue of the 'National Enquirer' Says basicly the same. Most interesting is the FAKE photo of O.J.

jotun

[limakey]

Taz,

IMO, the police did respond to Sydney's phone call and it was them who basically said that Sydney was very angry and upset but she was not in danger, she was not being harmed---what was happening at Sydney's home does happen---parents and children do get into verbal wars, and yes Taz, there are the parents, (like myself) when faced with these situations tells their child that at this game, I'm a better child then you are--in other words, I can throw just as good as a temper tantrum as he can. Is it mature? No. Does it make me feel any better, no. However, it has never been hard for me to say that I'm sorry, that I handled that wrong and that there are times I need to relearn the lessons that I have been trying to teach him.

Taz, when some people are truly mad, I mean they really have lost themselves in the heat of moment, they do different things. I have witnessed this with my child and others, they say things that you know is not just them. There are the people (children as well) who get so mad, they can only cry.

I believe the police should have responded to Sydney's call, but then again, they should respond to any child's call. However, I wonder if Sydney had a diffrent last name if the police would have responded. While my son was younger and had he called the cops, do you think they would have responded? I like to think they would have, but I doubt it. Another point, in most states, a parent striking a child is still within their legal right. I remember on at least three occassions when I was called in, the cop's response to the kid was that if he was the child parent, the kid would be picking up teeth--his own or wouldn't be able to sit down until they were in their forties.

Sure Sydney knows the media, however, for her to have made this call just for this purpose would lead me to believe that this really was nothing more then a temper tantrum. IMO, I think Sydney's anger may have actually turned into a distraught state where she called the wrong number (in this case) for help.

Again, Taz, had the police had any reason to take Simpson in or make an arrest, they would have. In fact, I think it is entirely possible that one of the cops was praying that someone thing would be said or done to hall him in. IMO.

[2L8 4A D8]

IF I DID IT AGAIN ?

On Nov.22 one of the cnn anchors said O.J.said he might self-publish his own book, with WHO he thinks DID IT.
A Goldman attorney said prior that Newscorp ONLY had the right to publish and promote.
Check out the Dec.11 issue of the 'National Enquirer' Says basicly the same. Most interesting is the FAKE photo of O.J.

jotun

Of course it's a fake! Duh! What did you expect from the National Enquirer, a national rag mag tabloid! Geez! GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

[Kate Sachel]

NO one here knows exactly what was in sydney mind when she called the police.
martin II

You are correct ... but remember that also inlcudes the people that have said she made the call because she's a spoiled teenager that didn't get her way.

Kate

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

fred has hired lawyers to find and try to take any money oj has. i see that as he is in this for the money. Fred sued the browns trying to get the browns
to pay him the $300,000 the browns owed oj for that loan. Fred went to court and asked that he be given oj's trade mark name in a effort to receive any monies that are made from the use of oj's name.

i see that as fred making multiple efforts to get money from oj.
martin II

Your comment that he is in this for the money is your opinion. That is the only punishment that he has against OJ. He has stated himself that it's not about money. So, for you to say it is means that you are forming an opinion that he's lying. He went to court to get his trade mark name in order to keep OJ from profiting. You are twisting it on purpose.

And, to top it all off that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about your multiple times of saying that Fred keeps asking the public for money.

[tazzybaby]

NO one here knows exactly what was in sydney mind when she called the police. only guess based on a media report and maby some people with kids
thinking about simular instances with their own kids.
At any rate when the police came and realized what the call was about they
calmed her down and left. imo

No one here knows if sydney has ill feelings towards her father especially since she has not made any comment that would lead one to KNOW this.

sydney is in her 1st or 2nd year collage in MA. Oj says she comes home on some weekends and breaks.

i would give her a big thumbs up for taking care of those kids at the basketball game that said something bad about nicole and oj. Good for her because it means that she ain't taking no s*** talking about her parents.

martin II

You're right that we don't know anything for sure. But, I did hear the call she made. The one where she said that he doesn't f***ing love her, that he mistreats her and she's not sure if that's classified as abuse or not. So, I can tell from her words that she felt like he was abusing her. Whether you or anyone else on this board thinks that he was abusing her....SHE felt like he was.

The cops came and separated them. They made sure that one of them were going to leave the grounds. And, what do you mean by they realized what it was about? Are you guessing that? Is that your opinion?

Well, there are signs that Sydney's and OJ's relationship is tough. How do I know this? Because of the 911 call and because of the words that OJ said. He said from his own mouth that he has a hard time dealing with her emotions. So, this is more than just my opinion. I do believe that they love each other.

[tazzybaby]

how do you know ..that sydney knows nicole called 911 :shrug:

dont you think that if sydney was being verbally abused or in some danger that child services would have stepped in?


Hi Sassylassy,

Well, I just read yesterday that the kids know about the evidence. I was looking for the link and can't find it so I'll use a different comparison. Sydney was being chased by the media and she called OJ while it was happening. OJ said this himself. Anything that OJ does is in the news. So, she would surely know that this would be in the news.

What could child services do about a 17yo being verbally abused? The police difused the situation (OJ was famously gone by the police go there) and left.

The bottom line is that Sydney called for help. That's a sad situation.

Seventeen year-old Sydney Simpson and her father were arguing at their Miami home on January 18th, when the situation reached explosive levels and she locked herself in her room and called the police. That would be the same breed of state agents who "framed" her father in Los Angeles. When police arrived at the home, Simpson wasn't there, as is his expertise. Sydney, meanwhile, explained that she and her father had been fighting over "family issues," and termed the incident as an "abuse thing," according to the AP.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin021303.asp

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

i think you need to reread your post. delete everything that you cannot prove
and re post what is left.
the police came to ojs florida house. listened to oj and sydney. found that there was nothing to the call and told them have a good night and left.
so obviously sydney did not tell the cops that she felt abused in any way. if she had oj would have gone to jail and sydney to child services immediately.
martin II

It looks like YOU need to reread your post and delete it.

OJ was missing from the scene when they got there. That's familiar. The police didn't say EVER that there was "nothing" to the call. They asked Sydney to leave to help difuse the situation and she did voluntarily.

Police Called Out to O.J. Simpson-Daughter Argument


O.J. Simpson's teenage daughter locked herself in her bedroom and called the police after a row with her father. Sydney Simpson, 17, was crying when she made the call on the morning of January 18 and asked police to assist in what she termed "an abuse thing." When they arrived at the home in Miami, the girl told police she and her father "got into an argument over family issues."

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2003-01-31#celeb4

Sydney felt like she was being ABUSED. That's how she felt.

[tazzybaby]

Taz,

*snip*
Sure Sydney knows the media, however, for her to have made this call just for this purpose would lead me to believe that this really was nothing more then a temper tantrum. IMO, I think Sydney's anger may have actually turned into a distraught state where she called the wrong number (in this case) for help.

Again, Taz, had the police had any reason to take Simpson in or make an arrest, they would have. In fact, I think it is entirely possible that one of the cops was praying that someone thing would be said or done to hall him in. IMO.

Hi Limakey,

Have you heard the tape? Have you read what she said? Did you know that OJ left before the police got there?

They couldn't take him in because he left. Only Sydney was at home when they got there. And, I don't think they would have taken him in for words only.

Bottom line....no matter what you think or have witnessed in your life, Sydney felt like it was abuse. She locked herself in a room and called the police. Did she feel like it was getting close to him hurting her? We don't know that. But, her locking herself in her room indicates she wants to be safe from him. Whether it's to keep him from not letting her call 911 or because she is physically afraid, we don't know.

[martin II]

It looks like YOU need to reread your post and delete it.

OJ was missing from the scene when they got there. That's familiar. The police didn't say EVER that there was "nothing" to the call. They asked Sydney to leave to help difuse the situation and she did voluntarily.

Police Called Out to O.J. Simpson-Daughter Argument


O.J. Simpson's teenage daughter locked herself in her bedroom and called the police after a row with her father. Sydney Simpson, 17, was crying when she made the call on the morning of January 18 and asked police to assist in what she termed "an abuse thing." When they arrived at the home in Miami, the girl told police she and her father "got into an argument over family issues."

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2003-01-31#celeb4

Sydney felt like she was being ABUSED. That's how she felt.

tazzy hi

If this media report is correct, my quesiton would be:
did the police determine that there was any kind of abuse? or did they determine that it was a family argument over family matters. which happens a lot with teenagers and their parents. I believe that if they thought there was ANY kind of abuse, oj would have been handcuffed and family services would have been called. I assume that sydney returned home and all was well.

martin II

[martin II]

tazzy hi

Since this incident, sydney has finished high school enrolled in collage in ma.
lived with oj when not in school and has not called the police since.
It seems that she is doing quite well.

martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

If this media report is correct, my quesiton would be:
did the police determine that there was any kind of abuse? or did they determine that it was a family argument over family matters. which happens a lot with teenagers and their parents. I believe that if they thought there was ANY kind of abuse, oj would have been handcuffed and family services would have been called. I assume that sydney returned home and all was well.

martin II

I am guessing that you have never heard the 911 call. Otherwise you wouldn't tell me to delete my post.

Sydney said the abuse comment herself. How sad for Sydney to feel that her father is abusive towards her (even if it is with words). I don't think I know of one case where CPS has stepped in regarding verbal abuse only.

The police may have asked her if she wanted to do anything. They may have asked her what she wanted to do. That's what we don't know. We know that OJ fled the scene and Sydney left voluntarily.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

Since this incident, sydney has finished high school enrolled in collage in ma.
lived with oj when not in school and has not called the police since.
It seems that she is doing quite well.

martin II

How do you know she lives with OJ in the Summer?

I am also glad that there has only been one incident (that we know of, anyways). I don't know about her doing quite well (and, neither do you). I assume she has been upset over the recent things going on with OJ. Whether it's upset over her father exploiting her mother for money or whether it's upset over the media making a big deal out of it I would think she would hate the media attention over it.

[martin II]

How do you know she lives with OJ in the Summer?

I am also glad that there has only been one incident (that we know of, anyways). I don't know about her doing quite well (and, neither do you). I assume she has been upset over the recent things going on with OJ. Whether it's upset over her father exploiting her mother for money or whether it's upset over the media making a big deal out of it I would think she would hate the media attention over it.

tazzy hi

she could have very well decided some time ago to ignore all the media crap.
she may not be as interested in it as you and i are.

oj did a interview and he said so. she was home for vacation when she had the affair at her high school basketball game. sometimes (summer vacations)she also goes to ca and prefers to stay with friends rather than the browns.

This refusal to visit the browns in a way confirms the court appointed investigators report that the browns home atmosphere was just to negative and unhealthy for the kids to live there.

I can only assume she is doing well as we know of no additional calls to le.
Additionally i agree with G.G.( i think it was g.g.) when she suggested that we all curb all the negative talk about the kids and oj on this pubilc message board for fear that Sydney could stumble across this negative talk and that would not be good for her. imo
martin II

[weezer]

*Snipped*Additionally i agree with G.G.( i think it was g.g.) when she suggested that we all curb all the negative talk about the kids and oj on this pubilc message board for fear that Sydney could stumble across this negative talk and that would not be good for her.

:flamemad: You mean like your constant bashing and disrespect for the victims and their families? You think she might find it painful what you have posted about her mother and her mother's family? :flamemad:

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

she could have very well decided some time ago to ignore all the media crap.
she may not be as interested in it as you and i are.

oj did a interview and he said so. she was home for vacation when she had the affair at her high school basketball game. sometimes (summer vacations)she also goes to ca and prefers to stay with friends rather than the browns.

This refusal to visit the browns in a way confirms the court appointed investigators report that the browns home atmosphere was just to negative and unhealthy for the kids to live there.

I can only assume she is doing well as we know of no additional calls to le.
Additionally i agree with G.G.( i think it was g.g.) when she suggested that we all curb all the negative talk about the kids and oj on this pubilc message board for fear that Sydney could stumble across this negative talk and that would not be good for her. imo
martin II

I never said she was "interested" in the media crap. I said it may bother her. And, since she had the incident at the game then I find that quite plausible. Poor thing having to put up with comments about her father and mother. Nothing good can come from this latest stunt that OJ pulled.

LOL! You sure do twist things a lot. Their REFUSAL to visit the Browns? Please back that up. I want a link. Sydney wanted to visit friends and stay with them when she went down there. I don't think that's a refusal to visit the Browns. He NEVER ever said that she refused to visit them. He also said that Justin stays there frequently.

The court reported investigator said that because they believe that Simpson killed thier daughter. And, Juditha still has legal guardianship. So, obviously they weren't that bad.

.J. GETS CUSTODY OF HIS KIDS: O.J. Simpson and his children, Sydney, 14, and Justin, 12, arrive in Freeport, Grand Bahama, a few years ago. After a plea from her grandchildren, Juditha Brown, the mother of Simpson's slain ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, agreed to allow O.J. to move to Florida with his kids later this month. Marjorie Fuller, the children's former court-appointed attorney, confirmed a settlement was reached, but said it was confidential. The five-year custody battle seems to have ended and O.J. continues to have physical custody of the children, but Juditha Brown retains legal guardianship, the Orange County Register reported. They will visit the Browns during the summer and some holidays. O.J. was acquitted of murder, but was found liable for the 1994 deaths of his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman in a subsequent civil trial. He was ordered to pay the victims' families $33.5 million.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_12_98/ai_64910130/pg_1

I have NEVER EVER said one word bad about the kids. I feel for them. How hard it must be to live with this burden. Their mother brutally murdered and their father accused. So, quit trying to buly me around telling me to delete my posts, quit talking about this and that. Take a good long look at yourself. You're the one who says bad things about the victims families. How sad.

PS Just because OJ says something does not make it true. He's a proven liar.

[tazzybaby]

*Snipped*

:flamemad: You mean like your constant bashing and disrespect for the victims and their families? You think she might find it painful what you have posted about her mother and her mother's family? :flamemad:


:beer:

I completely agree!

[2L8 4A D8]

*Snipped*

:flamemad: You mean like your constant bashing and disrespect for the victims and their families? You think she might find it painful what you have posted about her mother and her mother's family? :flamemad:

:beer: Thank you Weezer!

[Kayleighjo]

*Snipped*

:flamemad: You mean like your constant bashing and disrespect for the victims and their families? You think she might find it painful what you have posted about her mother and her mother's family? :flamemad:

Go get 'em fbg! :beer:

[sassylassy]

[QUOTE=tazzybaby

Hi Sassylassy,

Well, I just read yesterday that the kids know about the evidence. I was looking for the link and can't find it so I'll use a different comparison. Sydney was being chased by the media and she called OJ while it was happening. OJ said this himself. Anything that OJ does is in the news. So, she would surely know that this would be in the news.

What could child services do about a 17yo being verbally abused? The police difused the situation (OJ was famously gone by the police go there) and left.


I heard the same thing on an OJ interview about the media following Sydney.
and no disrespect but I thought Oj was a liar and we cant believe anything that he has to say?

while I am not down playing the call sydney made to 911-but to say she is being abused by making this call is a big leap- well for me anyways.
imo-

[sassylassy]

who thinks of this stuff?????

http://www.broadcaster.com/video/player.php?clip=5768

story-http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20061212/bs_prweb/prweb490183_1

[sassylassy]

Of course it's a fake! Duh! What did you expect from the National Enquirer, a national rag mag tabloid! Geez! GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!


the National enquirer did break this whole story about Ojs book :shrug:
they were right about that-no??

[2L8 4A D8]

the National enquirer did break this whole story about Ojs book :shrug:
they were right about that-no??

I can't comment on that because I don't read the NE, not even while standing in the checkout line at the supermarket or wherever it is sold. And I would never buy it either!

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

I was trying to remember who this Pablo Fenjves was, he was the "plaintiff wail" guy right? This is the weirdest thing. He testified for the prosecution and now...

Suzee10

Yep, that's the guy. Apparently he's known Regan for years (from the 70's if I'm not mistaken).

[limakey]

Taz,

I would think the police would have asked Sydney if she felt she was in physical danger. I would also think they would have asked if her father has or continues to use corporal punishment.

I remember reading the transcript a long time ago, however, each individual has their own perception of what abuse is. What she might have felt as abuse does not mean that it was and that it warranted the police being called. However, she did make the call, the police did respond and they determined that this was not a case of child abuse, Sydney was not in any danger.

[tazzybaby]

[QUOTE=tazzybaby

Hi Sassylassy,

Well, I just read yesterday that the kids know about the evidence. I was looking for the link and can't find it so I'll use a different comparison. Sydney was being chased by the media and she called OJ while it was happening. OJ said this himself. Anything that OJ does is in the news. So, she would surely know that this would be in the news.

What could child services do about a 17yo being verbally abused? The police difused the situation (OJ was famously gone by the police go there) and left.


I heard the same thing on an OJ interview about the media following Sydney.
and no disrespect but I thought Oj was a liar and we cant believe anything that he has to say?

while I am not down playing the call sydney made to 911-but to say she is being abused by making this call is a big leap- well for me anyways.
imo-


Hi Sassylassy,

Oh, I do agree that OJ is a liar and we can't believe anything he has to say. But, I don't think you feel that way. So, if you don't feel that way then I am assuming that you believe what he said.

Sydney is the one who believed she was being abused. She is the one who said so. So, I don't understand why it's such a big leap? Especially with all of the different things he's done in the media and such. He doesn't seem to worry too much about how his actions affect the children. I don't think she's been physically abused. I have heard rumors that she can be afraid of OJ. What I think is that she doesn't WANT to believe her father is guilty but she has doubts. And, I think that scares her. This is my opinion of course.

[tazzybaby]

Taz,

I would think the police would have asked Sydney if she felt she was in physical danger. I would also think they would have asked if her father has or continues to use corporal punishment.

I remember reading the transcript a long time ago, however, each individual has their own perception of what abuse is. What she might have felt as abuse does not mean that it was and that it warranted the police being called. However, she did make the call, the police did respond and they determined that this was not a case of child abuse, Sydney was not in any danger.


Hi Limakey,

Yes, I am sure they did ask her that. We just don't know what was said. We can't say for sure. But, I do find it odd that she left even though OJ wasn't home.

What she felt was abuse could very well be abuse. We don't know. We only know that she felt like it was. The police labeled it as a family dispute. She could have told them that if it happened again she would live elsewhere. We don't know what she told them when they got there. The police are not the one's to determine if the case was "child abuse". They could refer it to CPS. But, Sydney was 17. Why would they do that? Had they been younger they might have. I just find it sad that she FELT like it was abuse.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=sassylassy;8788356]


Hi Sassylassy,

Oh, I do agree that OJ is a liar and we can't believe anything he has to say. But, I don't think you feel that way. So, if you don't feel that way then I am assuming that you believe what he said.

Sydney is the one who believed she was being abused. She is the one who said so. So, I don't understand why it's such a big leap? Especially with all of the different things he's done in the media and such. He doesn't seem to worry too much about how his actions affect the children. I don't think she's been physically abused. I have heard rumors that she can be afraid of OJ. What I think is that she doesn't WANT to believe her father is guilty but she has doubts. And, I think that scares her. This is my opinion of course.


tazzy hi
when the police responds to "family argument" calls they make decisions if there had been abuse all the time after talking to the person that made the call. Maby the police asked sydney what she meant by abuse or what exactly did her father say or do to her. If they felt she was just excited about not going to that party, they may have decided that nothing else was required.

What we know is that there has been no more of this from sydney so there is no reason in my mind to think that it was more than a teenager not getting her way at that time.

I don't think you can make more out of it than it is just because you hate oj.
imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

[QUOTE=tazzybaby;8788587]


tazzy hi
when the police responds to "family argument" calls they make decisions if there had been abuse all the time after talking to the person that made the call. Maby the police asked sydney what she meant by abuse or what exactly did her father say or do to her. If they felt she was just excited about not going to that party, they may have decided that nothing else was required.

What we know is that there has been no more of this from sydney so there is no reason in my mind to think that it was more than a teenager not getting her way at that time.

I don't think you can make more out of it than it is just because you hate oj.
imo
martin II

LOL!! Make more out of it just because I hate OJ? Those words were Sydney's not mine. She's the one who called it an abuse thing. He's the one who left the house before the police got there.

How many other celebrities have had their children call the police on them? They know the complications of calling the police. The police can determine if CPS needs to be contacted for an investigation into allegations. Unless they see the physical affects they can't make any kind of "determination". They can only call CPS and let them handle it unless it's an emergency. With Sydney leaving, it wasn't an emergency.

IMO this just reinforces my thinking of him not being the best of parents.

Killing his childrens mother (not caring if they woke up and found the body)
Speaking badly of the childrens mother - ever
Making jokes regarding his childrens mothers murder
Allowing himself to be taped with strippers and such and not caring how this might affect the kids
Taking part in a book labeled "If I did it"
Speaking about Sydney as if it's a "chore" to put up with her emotional ups and downs
The 911 call

Even if you take out the first one that is still enough to question his parenting techniques. I can understand why Sydney would say that she felt he didn't love her. He only seems to care about his own gratification and public persona. He does not care how it affects his children.

For Sydney and Justin...

:rose:

[2L8 4A D8]

[QUOTE=martin II;8788611]

<snipped>

...He only seems to care about his own gratification and public persona. He does not care how it affects his children.

For Sydney and Justin...

:rose:

I agree Tazzy. It's obvious he never really cared about Arnelle and Jason, so how could he possibly care about Sydney and Justin? A lot of people (men more so than women) should not be or become parents. :no: OJ is definitely one of those people IMO!

[martin II]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/480022p-403822c.html

Judith Regans new book
martin II

[martin II]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/480544p-404373c.html

the end of the line for J Regan at H Collins
martin II

[deputydi]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/480544p-404373c.html

the end of the line for J Regan at H Collins
martin II

I, for one, couldn't be happier.

[limakey]

Taz,

How is it going?

I have no doubt that Sydney may have felt that this was abuse, however, there was no evidence to support it.

From what I remember, this thing started over a party that Sydney wanted to attend and her father said no. Have you ever for one minute stop to think why Simpson said no? Did he not like the kids who were also going? I mean I find it hard to believe that Simpson would just say no because he just wanted to say no. Did he think that maybe there would be underage drinking and or drugs?

And in all honestly, if this is the reason why Sydney called the police over this dust up that got blown out of proportion, is it abuse? Is being denied the right to go a party abuse? From a parental standpoint, I say no. However, from my child's standpoint, it would be abuse. IMO.

[limakey]

It is funny that when Simpson does this book and interview, G's jump on this, that he truly doesn't care about his children, he only cares about the spotlight.

Well, tell me, how many people who left signs on the gates of Rockingham cared that Sydney and/or Justin would see them? How many people refused to make comments about him being a killer, etc., made sure that his children were not present or were not within ear shot? Where was the concern then for the children?

When the pictures were taken of the children at their mother's grave, where was the concern for the children's feelings? I don't know about the rest of you but I find cementaries to be private, that the media should not intrude on any person's visit to someone's grave. IMO.

[limakey]

Taz,

IMO, there are a couple items on your list on why you feel Simpson is a bad father is unfair. The first being OJ acting like it is a chore to deal with Sydney's ups and downs. That comment was made based on a very real gender issue. I'm trying to teach my son to be the best man I know how, yet I'll be honest that there are some "guy" things that I don't understand and never will. However, I must say that while I don't get a lot things about the boy gender, I was amazed on how times I used, "Chicks dig it" (when he was upset he had to take dance lessons in school) or one day, you will be 16 and you will want to borrow my car!

I have spoken to many single parents who give difference of opinons on how one gender of their children is much eaiser to raise then the other gender. Some parents will insist boys are easier, there is less worry, while others will say that girls are eaiser to raise because mature quicker.

In regards to Simpson leaving the scene and taking the chance that his children might find the bodies, is one reason why I do not believe he is the killer. IMO, there is no evidence to suggest that the killer was in a hurry to leave the scene. He made no attempt to buy some time by moving Nicole's body from the stairwell, under an outside light.

He had no way of knowing what, if anything the 3 children he believed to be in the house saw or heard anything. It is possible that he did wait, with the door open to see if he could hear any activity in the condo, but then that even adds more time to the timeline.

And there is no way that Simpson could ever have disguised or conceal his identity from his children. IMO.

[2L8 4A D8]

It is funny that when Simpson does this book and interview, G's jump on this, that he truly doesn't care about his children, he only cares about the spotlight.

Well, tell me, how many people who left signs on the gates of Rockingham cared that Sydney and/or Justin would see them? How many people refused to make comments about him being a killer, etc., made sure that his children were not present or were not within ear shot? Where was the concern then for the children?

When the pictures were taken of the children at their mother's grave, where was the concern for the children's feelings? I don't know about the rest of you but I find cementaries to be private, that the media should not intrude on any person's visit to someone's grave. IMO.

Okay, so who in the h311 are you talking about here? The G's, The Police or The Media? :shrug: Geez!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally Posted by limakey

<snipped>

In regards to Simpson leaving the scene and taking the chance that his children might find the bodies, is one reason why I do not believe he is the killer. IMO, there is no evidence to suggest that the killer was in a hurry to leave the scene. He made no attempt to buy some time by moving Nicole's body from the stairwell, under an outside light.

So, you are saying that since "there is no evidence to suggest that the killer was in a hurry to leave the scene" that OJ is NOT the killer because he supposedly walked from the scene of the crime instead of running? Also, how many times do you have to be told by Posters that his children were the farthest things from OJ's mind the night that he killed Nicole and Ron?

He had no way of knowing what, if anything the 3 children he believed to be in the house saw or heard anything. It is possible that he did wait, with the door open to see if he could hear any activity in the condo, but then that even adds more time to the timeline.

Just speculation on your part. There is no evidence to substantiate this theory of yours!

And there is no way that Simpson could ever have disguised or conceal his identity from his children. IMO.

Of course not. OJ was their Father. Your point is?

JMO and MOO!!

[jotun]

All:
Off topic.
How did this go from "don't pay" to the kids??? There is a parenting thread here somewhere.
Sydney is now 21. Justin 18.

jotun

[2L8 4A D8]

All:
Off topic.
How did this go from "don't pay" to the kids??? There is a parenting thread here somewhere.
Sydney is now 21. Justin 18.

jotun

This is true OJNUT. Probably the only time that I will ever agree with you. All of the Threads go O/T sooner or later. It can't be helped, but what bothers me is when Posters go O/T regarding a matter that is completely irrelevant to the OJ Simpson case, i.e., the murders, the criminal trial, the verdict, the civil trial, the verdict and the judgment.

This Board is not about David Camm and if you want to discuss him and his case, then go over to his Board. If there isn't one, then start one and knock yourselves out! It's that simple. No one is asking you not to discuss the David Camm case, but you don't discuss it on the OJ Simpson Board or the Scott Peterson Board for that matter. You discuss it on the David Camm Board ~ can't get much easier than that!

JMO and MOO!!

[jotun]

This is true OJNUT. Probably the only time that I will ever agree with you. All of the Threads go O/T sooner or later. It can't be helped, but what bothers me is when Posters go O/T regarding a matter that is completely irrelevant to the OJ Simpson case, i.e., the murders, the criminal trial, the verdict, the civil trial, the verdict and the judgment.

This Board is not about David Camm and if you want to discuss him and his case, then go over to his Board. If there isn't one, then start one and knock yourselves out! It's that simple. No one is asking you not to discuss the David Camm case, but you don't discuss it on the OJ Simpson Board or the Scott Peterson Board for that matter. You discuss it on the David Camm Board ~ can't get much easier than that!

JMO and MOO!!

2
Me too. And even the kids on the proper thread. Right. Some can't be helped but there are enough threads to keep everything on topic. With only a little effort.Or add more.
Wish some Water would delete those off-topic.Think that might stop it.

Think you got confused on your last paragraph.[easy to do]Belongs on WHY EAT?. That's basicly what I posted over there earlier. I DON'T. Makes it seem that I'm the one discussing Camm. Don't even know what their posting about.Sure don't care to either.
I ONLY read and post on the O.J.Board.

jotun

[bobaugust]

He had no way of knowing what, if anything the 3 children he believed to be in the house saw or heard anything.

limakey, why do you say Simpson would have believed there were 3 children in the house? Simpson testified that he called Nicole's condo about 9:00 that night and spoke with Sydney. He could have easily learned that Sydney's friend had returned to their house after getting ice cream with them and would soon be picked up by her parents.

bobaugust

[tazzybaby]

Taz,

How is it going?

I have no doubt that Sydney may have felt that this was abuse, however, there was no evidence to support it.

From what I remember, this thing started over a party that Sydney wanted to attend and her father said no. Have you ever for one minute stop to think why Simpson said no? Did he not like the kids who were also going? I mean I find it hard to believe that Simpson would just say no because he just wanted to say no. Did he think that maybe there would be underage drinking and or drugs?

And in all honestly, if this is the reason why Sydney called the police over this dust up that got blown out of proportion, is it abuse? Is being denied the right to go a party abuse? From a parental standpoint, I say no. However, from my child's standpoint, it would be abuse. IMO.

Hi Limakey,

It is going great. I am ready for the Holidays!

But, the whole point is how Sydney felt. So, the evidence of it is Sydney and what she is going through. You don't know what all the evidence is. Who said it was no big deal? Yale Galanter. He's trying to protect OJ. And, he either lies to protect OJ or he doesn't really know what's going on. So, I don't trust his reports. I heard the call that Sydney made. She didn't say that she couldn't go to a party. She said he doesn't love her.

I find it quite sad that you automatically dismiss her feelings to take up for OJ.

Are you famous? Have you been on trial for murder? Have you ever had your child call you frightened because the media was chasing them? This is very different than what you or your child would have done (regarding calling 911). She knew the consequences of her calling 911. She was 17. IMO it's a really big deal that she called 911 knowing that her father is famous and what he is famous for.

[tazzybaby]

It is funny that when Simpson does this book and interview, G's jump on this, that he truly doesn't care about his children, he only cares about the spotlight.

Well, tell me, how many people who left signs on the gates of Rockingham cared that Sydney and/or Justin would see them? How many people refused to make comments about him being a killer, etc., made sure that his children were not present or were not within ear shot? Where was the concern then for the children?

When the pictures were taken of the children at their mother's grave, where was the concern for the children's feelings? I don't know about the rest of you but I find cementaries to be private, that the media should not intrude on any person's visit to someone's grave. IMO.

I don't think it's funny at all. I think it's horrible. And, I really don't understand why you don't feel the same way. Why would he not care how this would affect his children? Why would he EVER joke about their mother's death in any way? Why would you dismiss this behavior as no big deal?

And, you tell me, how many people who were telling OJ to run cared how the victim's families felt? Did they try to hide it from the families? No. The Brown's did say that they kept the kids from seeing the coverage and they tried to shield them from it. Much more than OJ has ever done. He exploits it every chance he gets. If OJ needs money so badly....he could live with relatives.

So, you find it private to be at a grave site. But, not private the murder of your childrens mother? You don't find it inappropriate to exploit that? You have a distorted way to view this.

[jotun]

Well, tell me, how many people who left signs on the gates of Rockingham cared that Sydney and/or Justin would see them? How many people refused to make comments about him being a killer, etc., made sure that his children were not present or were not within ear shot? Where was the concern then for the children?

When the pictures were taken of the children at their mother's grave, where was the concern for the children's feelings? I don't know about the rest of you but I find cementaries to be private, that the media should not intrude on any person's visit to someone's grave. IMO.

limakey
There was NO concern for the kids.As there are NONE by G's here.They continue to call their Dad a killer. In fact saw Sydney write NOT on a guilty sign on the gate.

The media didn't intrude at the grave.They were INVITED.
The Browns SOLD the photo rights of the kids & story to 'Life' magazine. As they SOLD the other kids visits to the grave etc, seen on tv. O.J. was very upset about the exploitation of his children. Later Wayne Hughes demanded the money gathered by the Browns for Nicole's Estate.Don't know what they got as the Browns settled before the hearing was to be shown on CTV.

jotun

[socaldiva]

*snip*
There was NO concern for the kids.As there are NONE by G's here.They continue to call their Dad a killer.

Rubbish. The G's often express concern over Sydney & Justin having to be raised by such a man. It's not our fault or our wish that Orenthal is a double murderer, it just is. Perhaps you are thinking of your fellow NG's that continue to trash their dead Mother & her relatives or suggest that Justin Simpson might be the murderer.

[tazzybaby]

limakey
There was NO concern for the kids.As there are NONE by G's here.They continue to call their Dad a killer. In fact saw Sydney write NOT on a guilty sign on the gate.

The media didn't intrude at the grave.They were INVITED.
The Browns SOLD the photo rights of the kids & story to 'Life' magazine. As they SOLD the other kids visits to the grave etc, seen on tv. O.J. was very upset about the exploitation of his children. Later Wayne Hughes demanded the money gathered by the Browns for Nicole's Estate.Don't know what they got as the Browns settled before the hearing was to be shown on CTV.

jotun


This is such a load of crap. Did Simpson care about his kids when he broke down the door and yelled at Nicole? Did Simpson care about his kids when he was trying to "get back" at Nicole by turning her into the IRS and making her move? Did Simpson care how joking about the murders would affect his children? Did Simpson care about what his kids would go through after he took "blood money" by participating in a book regarding his "hypothetical" way he killed their mother?

Simpson has benefitted more on these murders than anyone else involved. Not only does he get off in the criminal trial for the murders that he committed, he goes on to joke about it and make money off of it. He is the lowest of the low.

:punch:

[tazzybaby]

Taz,

IMO, there are a couple items on your list on why you feel Simpson is a bad father is unfair. The first being OJ acting like it is a chore to deal with Sydney's ups and downs. That comment was made based on a very real gender issue. I'm trying to teach my son to be the best man I know how, yet I'll be honest that there are some "guy" things that I don't understand and never will. However, I must say that while I don't get a lot things about the boy gender, I was amazed on how times I used, "Chicks dig it" (when he was upset he had to take dance lessons in school) or one day, you will be 16 and you will want to borrow my car!

I have spoken to many single parents who give difference of opinons on how one gender of their children is much eaiser to raise then the other gender. Some parents will insist boys are easier, there is less worry, while others will say that girls are eaiser to raise because mature quicker.

In regards to Simpson leaving the scene and taking the chance that his children might find the bodies, is one reason why I do not believe he is the killer. IMO, there is no evidence to suggest that the killer was in a hurry to leave the scene. He made no attempt to buy some time by moving Nicole's body from the stairwell, under an outside light.

He had no way of knowing what, if anything the 3 children he believed to be in the house saw or heard anything. It is possible that he did wait, with the door open to see if he could hear any activity in the condo, but then that even adds more time to the timeline.

And there is no way that Simpson could ever have disguised or conceal his identity from his children. IMO.

I didn't have time to get to this yesterday.

Simpson was acting like it was a chore to deal with Sydney. He stated that was when he got mad at Nicole for being gone. I wonder if he said that to Sydney? I wonder how that makes Sydney feel? You know what, I have the same issue to deal with. But, my son knows I love him. Even when we fight or he thinks I'm not fair....he knows I love him. Sydney felt unloved. She felt abused. You cannot compare that to your own personal dealings. Her mother was murdered (by her father no less) and she has to deal with a father whom she feels doesn't love her. So sad.

I have no doubts at all that Simpson is the killer. I do not for one minute think that he even considered his kids when he killed Nicole. I believe that he went into a rage and his kids never ever crossed his mind. I believe he was out of his mind when he did it. I don't think that he was thinking about how to get away with it when he was killing them. Nicole (and others) described a look that OJ got when he went into rages. I've seen that look before. I've faced that look before. When that look is gone so is the rage. Poof, back to normal. But, during that "stage" there is no common sense, no rational thinking. Only rage. The slow pace that the killer walked away from the actual murders proves to me that they were coming to realization to what just happened. That's when the mind was racing. OMG....what have I just done?

You know how in almost every post you use your own personal life or that of people that you know to show how what you are saying is right? Or that you know what you're talking about? Well, then you can also add me to your list of "people you know" for examples. Because I have been through, lived through, abuse. I have seen that animal look. I have heard the threats. I stayed when I shouldn't have. He didn't think about the kids while in his rage either. Afterwards, he told a different story than what really happened. I can definately go on. I can also definately tell you that Nicole was abused.

[martin II]

I do not downplay or ignore abuse victims stories of being abused by a partner. However i don"t belive that one story of abuse can be automatically transfered to all other claims of family arguments or discard.

I am not sure that i agree with the idea that once a abuser always a abuser as some people men/women do change.

I am not aware of any abuse by oj during the months leading up to her murder
so i do not see abuse as a motive for him to kill her.

Just before the murder i Personally i believe that oj and nicole had decided to go their own ways and neither was bent out of shape by this. I don't believe that either had completely washed away some of the love for each other but had just decided to try this new arrangement. Both were trying to move on.
martin II

[martin II]

tazzy

re; IRS issue

It is my understanding that nicole wanted to tell the IRS that her home address was rockingham. It was not. I don't know if oj was required to verify this or not. She wanted to do this to evade some IRS taxes.

At this time she had informed oj that she was finished with him and that she had exicled him from her family (recital&dinner) and wanted nothing to do with him.

Ojs lawyer told him not to agree to this arrangement because he may at some time be exposed (irs) for this lie.

Nicole had already received a settlement (divoice) from oj and was in her second condo(at bundy)

Why isn it that she did not want to take financial responsibility for her own actions/decisions. Oj had no responsibility to assist her in this scheme to defruad the IRS.

There was no lack of options for the kids to have a place to live. It was nicole that moved the kids from Rockingham to Grette Green and then to bundy.

I think oj may have decided that it was time for Nicole to take care of her own affairs without his continuing support. This imo led him to reject her request for his support in the IRS matter.imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

I do not downplay or ignore abuse victims stories of being abused by a partner. However i don"t belive that one story of abuse can be automatically transfered to all other claims of family arguments or discard.

I am not sure that i agree with the idea that once a abuser always a abuser as some people men/women do change.

I am not aware of any abuse by oj during the months leading up to her murder
so i do not see abuse as a motive for him to kill her.

Just before the murder i Personally i believe that oj and nicole had decided to go their own ways and neither was bent out of shape by this. I don't believe that either had completely washed away some of the love for each other but had just decided to try this new arrangement. Both were trying to move on.
martin II

Hi Martin,

I was actually talking to Limakey. However, since you replied I will reply to you also. I also don't believe that one account of abuse can transfer to all accounts. But, everyone here uses their own experiences to transfer into how they view things. Some people will research and use that and their own experiences. What I can tell you about my experience versus the experience that Nicole went through is that they are similar. I have seen that look in the eye that she and others described OJ to get. I understand it.

You dismiss any and all accounts of abuse. There is definate abuse leading up to her death. You just choose to ignore it. Her friends said that she said he told her he was going to kill her. They said that he followed her. She had her diary. There is definate proof.

I also believe that a man can get help for his abuse. I believe that the person can change. And, I also believe that certain situations would bring this out more than other situations. But, I also believe that the trigger will always be in that person. They just need to learn how to deal with it and not let it take control.

I completely disagree with you regarding their split being amicable. OJ would not have sent that IRS threat had it been amicable. She gave the jewelry back. She didn't want him to hang out with them at dinner. She ignored him when she drove up after the recital. Had it been amicable they would have spoken.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy

re; IRS issue

It is my understanding that nicole wanted to tell the IRS that her home address was rockingham. It was not. I don't know if oj was required to verify this or not. She wanted to do this to evade some IRS taxes.

At this time she had informed oj that she was finished with him and that she had exicled him from her family (recital&dinner) and wanted nothing to do with him.

Ojs lawyer told him not to agree to this arrangement because he may at some time be exposed (irs) for this lie.

Nicole had already received a settlement (divoice) from oj and was in her second condo(at bundy)

Why isn it that she did not want to take financial responsibility for her own actions/decisions. Oj had no responsibility to assist her in this scheme to defruad the IRS.

There was no lack of options for the kids to have a place to live. It was nicole that moved the kids from Rockingham to Grette Green and then to bundy.

I think oj may have decided that it was time for Nicole to take care of her own affairs without his continuing support. This imo led him to reject her request for his support in the IRS matter.imo
martin II

Well, he didn't have a problem with it until she broke up with him. She lived in the condo for 6 months before he threatened her with IRS action. He sent the letter because he was pissed.

And, the whole OJ didn't want to do anything illegal is a bunch of crap. He does all kinds of illegal things. He hides money he makes. He manipulates the legal system. He steals cable. He does drugs.

If he only wanted to do the legal thing then why did he allow her to do it in the first place? Why does he do illegal things now?

[martin II]

tazzy

i think that some of nicoles anger (recital and dinner ) at oj was because of the IRS letter.
martin II

[weezer]

I do not downplay or ignore abuse victims stories of being abused by a partner. However i don"t belive that one story of abuse can be automatically transfered to all other claims of family arguments or discard.

I am not sure that i agree with the idea that once a abuser always a abuser as some people men/women do change.

I am not aware of any abuse by oj during the months leading up to her murder
so i do not see abuse as a motive for him to kill her.

Just before the murder i Personally i believe that oj and nicole had decided to go their own ways and neither was bent out of shape by this. I don't believe that either had completely washed away some of the love for each other but had just decided to try this new arrangement. Both were trying to move on.
martin II What 'one story of abuse' are you referring to? Certainly not what orenthal put Nicole through! He was physically abusive until the incident that led to him being charged with abuse. When there was going to be monetary penalties for physical abuse, he continued and increased the emotional abuse. The IRS threat is a form of emotional abuse. Only this time it backfired. Nicole had already found a place to move and it was away from Brentwood. As far as I can tell, she was moving on with her life. A life without orenthal -- her tormentor. He was the one obsessed with her. He was her murderer. And, martin, it doesn't matter what she wrote before the date of her death -- her actions and words on the night of her death spoke for her.

[martin II]

Well, he didn't have a problem with it until she broke up with him. She lived in the condo for 6 months before he threatened her with IRS action. He sent the letter because he was pissed.

And, the whole OJ didn't want to do anything illegal is a bunch of crap. He does all kinds of illegal things. He hides money he makes. He manipulates the legal system. He steals cable. He does drugs.

If he only wanted to do the legal thing then why did he allow her to do it in the first place? Why does he do illegal things now?

tazzy hi
oj had no responsibility to support nicole in her IRS scheme. She had a responsibility to take care of her own financial affairs based on the decisions she made.imo
martin II

[weezer]

tazzy

i think that some of nicoles anger (recital and dinner ) at oj was because of the IRS letter.
martin II Nicole knew orenthal for what he was -- a sociopath.

[weezer]

tazzy hi
oj had no responsibility to support nicole in her IRS scheme. She had a responsibility to take care of her own financial affairs based on the decisions she made.imo
martin II
And she was -- that's the part that must have made him nuts (so to speak)! She had found a place for her and the kids to move. A place away from Brentwood. A place away from orenthal.

[martin II]

And she was -- that's the part that must have made him nuts (so to speak)! She had found a place for her and the kids to move. A place away from Brentwood. A place away from orenthal.


so why bug him about the irs scheme or why be pissed about his rejection on this issue.I think Niolce and oj had given up on being togeather at least for that time. I don't think either was pissed off about it. imo
martin II

[weezer]

so why bug him about the irs scheme or why be pissed about his rejection on this issue.I think Niolce and oj had given up on being togeather at least for that time. I don't think either was pissed off about it. imo
martin II SHE wasn't bugging HIM -- HE'S the one that sent her the threatening letter. She was upset about his reasons for the IRS threat. And it was not because he was an upstanding citizen doing the right thing. Once she kissed him off, he was using it to emotionally abuse her. He couldn't afford to touch her. That would mean money out of his pocket.

I've often thought about him telling Ron Shipp that he'd had dreams of killing her. Wonder if when he came to his senses that night, did he have trouble distinguishing reality from nightmare?

[tazzybaby]

so why bug him about the irs scheme or why be pissed about his rejection on this issue.I think Niolce and oj had given up on being togeather at least for that time. I don't think either was pissed off about it. imo
martin II


He LET her use his address until he got mad. That's why he didn't do anything until they broke up. She gave him the jewelry back and told him he couldn't buy her. That's why she ignored him at the recital. Only speaking to him to let him know he wasn't part of the dinner plans. It was quite evident in the video. She didn't even look his way.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy

i think that some of nicoles anger (recital and dinner ) at oj was because of the IRS letter.
martin II

Oh I completely agree. She was pissed that he was going to make his own children move because he was mad at her.


He sent the IRS letter because he was pissed.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi
oj had no responsibility to support nicole in her IRS scheme. She had a responsibility to take care of her own financial affairs based on the decisions she made.imo
martin II


Just like OJ has a responsibility to take care of his own financial affairs based on the decisions he made. He chooses to hide and lie to dodge his own financial affairs. Why would he try and force Nicole when he's no better? You make it sound as if he was "only trying to do the right thing". Haha that's a joke.

[martin II]

Just like OJ has a responsibility to take care of his own financial affairs based on the decisions he made. He chooses to hide and lie to dodge his own financial affairs. Why would he try and force Nicole when he's no better? You make it sound as if he was "only trying to do the right thing". Haha that's a joke.

on the issue of the IRS i think oj was correct in refusing to participate.Especially if he was doing all you claim he was doing.
martin II

[tazzybaby]

on the issue of the IRS i think oj was correct in refusing to participate.Especially if he was doing all you claim he was doing.
martin II


What was his reason for doing it? Because he was mad at Nicole. Not because he wanted to do the right thing. If it was "about doing the correct/right thing" then he wouldn't have allowed her to do it in the first place. It's about control. You leave me then you can't use my address anymore.

[martin II]

What was his reason for doing it? Because he was mad at Nicole. Not because he wanted to do the right thing. If it was "about doing the correct/right thing" then he wouldn't have allowed her to do it in the first place. It's about control. You leave me then you can't use my address anymore.

tazzy

If oj and nicoile were togeather and all was fine, then, he may have wanted to cover her IRS scheme because he would have had a reason to protect her
as his mate.

Since both had decided to move on, i see no reason why he would give her the same level of support since they were now not togeather.imo

She had already received sometghing like $300,000 in a settlement. It was up to him to continue to do different favors for her or to cut her off. This does not mean that he was pissed with her. Maby he just got tired of giving assistance to her since they were not togeather. He had to stop at some point. imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy

If oj and nicoile were togeather and all was fine, then, he may have wanted to cover her IRS scheme because he would have had a reason to protect her
as his mate.

Since both had decided to move on, i see no reason why he would give her the same level of support since they were now not togeather.imo

She had already received sometghing like $300,000 in a settlement. It was up to him to continue to do different favors for her or to cut her off. This does not mean that he was pissed with her. Maby he just got tired of giving assistance to her since they were not togeather. He had to stop at some point. imo
martin II


Because his children lived with her. What he did to her affected his children.

He stopped letting her use the address when he did because he was mad at her. He didn't care how it affected his children. That wasn't the point. The point was to get back at Nicole.

If he decided to stop helping her I can live with that. I could even understand that. But, to send a threatening legal letter was nothing but trying to get back at her. He was mad. Plain and simple. If he wasn't mad he could have handled it as an adult and told her that he wasn't going to let her use his address and to find another place to live. That he'd give her a 30 days, 60 or 90 days. But to send it through his lawyer without even trying to discuss it with her was low down and dirty.

[martin II]

Because his children lived with her. What he did to her affected his children.

He stopped letting her use the address when he did because he was mad at her. He didn't care how it affected his children. That wasn't the point. The point was to get back at Nicole.

If he decided to stop helping her I can live with that. I could even understand that. But, to send a threatening legal letter was nothing but trying to get back at her. He was mad. Plain and simple. If he wasn't mad he could have handled it as an adult and told her that he wasn't going to let her use his address and to find another place to live. That he'd give her a 30 days, 60 or 90 days. But to send it through his lawyer without even trying to discuss it with her was low down and dirty.


tazzy
i think he sent it through his lawyer to make it official and so that he would have a paper record of telling her he did not approve of her scheme. This would be his protection in case she went forward with this anyway. Or maby he did not want to get involved in a personal discussion on the issue with nicole.
Nicole could not continue to ask favors of oj using the excuse that if he did not agree it would effect the children. After this last split. she should have arranged her affairs to the point that she did not need to ask oj for anything.

She moved the children from Greta Green to bundy and top her new location. so was she concerned with moving the children then?

martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy
i think he sent it through his lawyer to make it official and so that he would have a paper record of telling her he did not approve of her scheme. This would be his protection in case she went forward with this anyway. Or maby he did not want to get involved in a personal discussion on the issue with nicole.
Nicole could not continue to ask favors of oj using the excuse that if he did not agree it would effect the children. After this last split. she should have arranged her affairs to the point that she did not need to ask oj for anything.

She moved the children from Greta Green to bundy and top her new location. so was she concerned with moving the children then?

martin II

He sent it through his lawyer to piss her off. He could have just discussed this with her and came to an agreement. He could have given her time to find a place. He was just being mean. You seem to think that the break was amicable. So, then there was no reason to send it through a lawyer. None at all.

Why didn't he send it in January? If he didn't want to do anything wrong then he wouldn't have let her use the address back in January. He didn't have a problem with it then. He only had a problem with it when they broke up. So, if it was amicable then why didn't he give her time to move? Because he was being mean.

[martin II]

He sent it through his lawyer to piss her off. He could have just discussed this with her and came to an agreement. He could have given her time to find a place. He was just being mean. You seem to think that the break was amicable. So, then there was no reason to send it through a lawyer. None at all.

Why didn't he send it in January? If he didn't want to do anything wrong then he wouldn't have let her use the address back in January. He didn't have a problem with it then. He only had a problem with it when they broke up. So, if it was amicable then why didn't he give her time to move? Because he was being mean.

TAZZY
According to you, sometime after january nicole let oj know she was finifhed with him and he was finished with her. They did not fight on sight but they both were moving on. Being reasonable i guess i could describe it.

I do remember reading some comments by oj where he said he was getting tired all having to deal with all of nicoles problems. Things that she would go back to him for help with. I have no link so don't ask.

I think that he decided enough. She has to make it on her own. The best was to deal with this if he did not want to go through some argument with her
about the issue or he may not have wanted to listen to any begging or using
of the children to make him feel guilty about his decision.

so the best way for him to protect himself with the IRS in case they audited nicole at some point was to make his decision legal. imo

ps
I read fays testimony saturday. she gave a long list of men nicole had dated
after her divoice. One was a guy that fays had dated. I knew nicole was active but did not know the list was that long. imo
martin II
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

ps
I read fays testimony saturday. she gave a long list of men nicole had dated
after her divoice. One was a guy that fays had dated. I knew nicole was active but did not know the list was that long. imo
martin II
martin II

Low martin II, very low and disappointing.

We know that OJ Simpson's list spans just as lengthy (and while he was married no less), so what exactly would be your point here?

Kate

[2L8 4A D8]

This is such a load of crap. Did Simpson care about his kids when he broke down the door and yelled at Nicole? Did Simpson care about his kids when he was trying to "get back" at Nicole by turning her into the IRS and making her move? Did Simpson care how joking about the murders would affect his children? Did Simpson care about what his kids would go through after he took "blood money" by participating in a book regarding his "hypothetical" way he killed their mother?

Simpson has benefitted more on these murders than anyone else involved. Not only does he get off in the criminal trial for the murders that he committed, he goes on to joke about it and make money off of it. He is the lowest of the low.

:punch:

And don't forget, OJ still has his fanatical bleeding hearts that constantly shove down your throat about "reasonable doubt" this and "reasonable doubt" that. I guess by telling themselves that, it eases their guilty consciouses so that they can sleep at night!

I don't know how that they can all live with themselves, but they do and do it 24/7 on these Boards! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[tazzybaby]

TAZZY
According to you, sometime after january nicole let oj know she was finifhed with him and he was finished with her. They did not fight on sight but they both were moving on. Being reasonable i guess i could describe it.

I do remember reading some comments by oj where he said he was getting tired all having to deal with all of nicoles problems. Things that she would go back to him for help with. I have no link so don't ask.

I think that he decided enough. She has to make it on her own. The best was to deal with this if he did not want to go through some argument with her
about the issue or he may not have wanted to listen to any begging or using
of the children to make him feel guilty about his decision.

so the best way for him to protect himself with the IRS in case they audited nicole at some point was to make his decision legal. imo

ps
I read fays testimony saturday. she gave a long list of men nicole had dated
after her divoice. One was a guy that fays had dated. I knew nicole was active but did not know the list was that long. imo
martin II
martin II

No, I know that they broke up for good about two/three weeks before the murders. I know that they went back and forth for the year and 1/2 before that. But, the final break up came right before the murders. Well, right before the letter regarding the IRS was sent. That's why he sent it. They had broken up for good and he was mad about it. So, he was being mean.

I remember reading some comments from Nicole's friends that OJ had threatened to kill Nicole within the week that she was killed. I also remember reading some more comments from Nicole's friends that he was stalking her then also. Don't ask for a link though.

I think it was she that had decided that enough was enough. He was never going to change no matter how badly she wanted him to. OJ knew that there would be no begging for him back this time. It was completely over.

One way for him to get her good was to send this IRS letter. And, you know what? It worked. She was livid. But, that only made her more set on making it on her own. She wasn't going to be bullied into going back to him. This made him livid. Filled with rage.

PS
I agree with Kate that it was really low. However, she is also right about OJ having many more lovers. And, he actually cheated while they were together. Much worse.

[weezer]

*Snipped*ps I read fays testimony saturday. she gave a long list of men nicole had dated after her divoice. One was a guy that fays had dated. I knew nicole was active but did not know the list was that long. imo martin II martin II You are so pathetic. . .

One really big difference between orenthal's list and Nicole's list (if there was one) is that Nicole was single when she dated. orenthal was the wh*re in that relationship.

[martin II]

No, I know that they broke up for good about two/three weeks before the murders. I know that they went back and forth for the year and 1/2 before that. But, the final break up came right before the murders. Well, right before the letter regarding the IRS was sent. That's why he sent it. They had broken up for good and he was mad about it. So, he was being mean.

I remember reading some comments from Nicole's friends that OJ had threatened to kill Nicole within the week that she was killed. I also remember reading some more comments from Nicole's friends that he was stalking her then also. Don't ask for a link though.

I think it was she that had decided that enough was enough. He was never going to change no matter how badly she wanted him to. OJ knew that there would be no begging for him back this time. It was completely over.

One way for him to get her good was to send this IRS letter. And, you know what? It worked. She was livid. But, that only made her more set on making it on her own. She wasn't going to be bullied into going back to him. This made him livid. Filled with rage.

PS
I agree with Kate that it was really low. However, she is also right about OJ having many more lovers. And, he actually cheated while they were together. Much worse.


tazzy
she had a right to see as many men as she desired.
I was surprised that there were so many and puzzeled as to why faye felt she had to name ALL of them in court. Especially the guy that she had dated that had seen nicole and was now dumping nicole.

Prior to reading this part of faye"s testimony i had just thought that nicole may have see 2-3 guys. I was just shocked by the number.

I cannot see how faye was nicoles friend at all.

Based on fayes testimony both nicole and oj were active in the dating area and since faye put nicole list out there i think it is fair to be mentioned just as oj list is. imo
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

tazzy
Based on fayes testimony both nicole and oj were active in the dating area and since faye put nicole list out there i think it is fair to be mentioned just as oj list is. imo
martin II

In my opinion you cannot compare the two list for the factual reason that most of OJ's list compiled while he was married. Who dated whom after a divorce is irrelevant.

Kate

[martin II]

*Snipped* You are so pathetic. . .

One really big difference between orenthal's list and Nicole's list (if there was one) is that Nicole was single when she dated. orenthal was the wh*re in that relationship.


Faye named every guy that nicole dated according to faye. if this was a lie then Faye told it.

what does it mean to you that nicole had a list. She did not have to supress her needs because you did not want her activity to be discussed.

look If this was another single woman doing the bedhopping thing you would be one to call her loose and a wh--e imo

martin II

[weezer]

Faye named every guy that nicole dated according to faye. if this was a lie then Faye told it.

what does it mean to you that nicole had a list. She did not have to supress her needs because you did not want her activity to be discussed.

look If this was another single woman doing the bedhopping thing you would be one to call her loose and a wh--e imo

martin II you become more pathetic with every post on this and you are stating as fact something that Faye wrote. . . . Have you ever wondered why you feel the need to trash Nicole?

[martin II]

you become more pathetic with every post on this and you are stating as fact something that Faye wrote. . . . Have you ever wondered why you feel the need to trash Nicole?


fbg

If one wants to understand nicole, one has to discuss the good and what you call not so good. That is not trashing. That is called telling the truth.
martin II

[weezer]

fbg

If one wants to understand nicole, one has to discuss the good and what you call not so good. That is not trashing. That is called telling the truth.
martin II then please martin, feel free to include the good about Nicole with every post where you trash her.

[martin II]

then please martin, feel free to include the good about Nicole with every post where you trash her.

i have posted many times that based on what oj said Nicole was a great mother to her kids and a good wife to him. Again telling the truth about nicole is not trashing her. If nicole had a larger than normal (what ever that is) appetite for multiple dates, that does not take away from how good a mother she was. you cannot hide the part of her that you feel is not so good
and just tell all the good stuff and then clain to know her. imo
martin II

[limakey]

Taz,

IMO, anger at the person who has died in a normal stage of grief, just as I believe it is a normal stage grief to think you are responsible for a loved one's death. Just for a second, if you can, put another person in the defendant's chair on this case. IMO, Simpson would still be angry at Nicole because she died as he would somehow blamed himself for circumstances he really couldn't recall.

Also, IMO, in most cases, people who marry usually plan to stay married and when children are a product of this marriage, it is normal to believe you would raise them together. When one parent dies, well before their "time", I understand any parent who says they did not have children just end up raising them alone. IMO, there is a huge difference between being a sole parent and a single parent. However, again, IMO, I believe many single parents end up being the "sole". I think the anger is normal.

Taz, I think that it would be rare for a sole parent not to wish that their spouse was still alive. Again, we don't know exactly what was said but I don't think if Simpson said to Sydney, "I wish your mother was here, because I'm out of my league on this" is an abusive statement.

Parents' have been murdered by their children and their children's friend because they don't think the parents have the right to tell their child who they could and could not hang around with.

No, we don't know word for word what the exchange was, we don't what started the issue nor do we know the context of what was said. In other words, what if Sydney said something like this, "You don't love me if I can't go to this party!" And Simpson replied, "your right, I don't love you and that is why I won't let you go to the party". I think while most parents would agree that reducing yourself to child's level is not the most mature thing to do, however, we all have our days when we can pout and whine better then our young children. Again, IMO.

[AmyW]

Why on earth would you write a book describing how you'd murder them? It is so unbelievable that I scarcely know what to say. Even if he didn't do it, it's tasteless and obnoxious. If he did kill them (I think he did), it's a slap in the face to both Nicole and Ron, their families, and the public. He should be ashamed of himself, whatever the case. :no: :flamemad:

[tazzybaby]

Limakey,

Well, it'd be different if this was the only thing that OJ had ever done. But, when you add them up it pretty much shows he's not a great parent. And, it doesn't matter what you or I think.....Sydney felt it was abusive. To me, that's more than a fight over a party. Why do you think it was only over a party? Are you listening to OJ or Yale? I listened to Sydney's voice.

And, IMO there is never a reason to say to a child that you don't love them. I can't believe you would act like that's okay or "normal". It's not. You are going off the deep end with excuses for him.

[tazzybaby]

i have posted many times that based on what oj said Nicole was a great mother to her kids and a good wife to him. Again telling the truth about nicole is not trashing her. If nicole had a larger than normal (what ever that is) appetite for multiple dates, that does not take away from how good a mother she was. you cannot hide the part of her that you feel is not so good
and just tell all the good stuff and then clain to know her. imo
martin II

What I think is worse than anything anyone in this case has done (besides OJ actually murdering them) is the book that OJ tried to come out with. There is no one lower than OJ.

And, Nicole was with OJ for 17 years. She got with him when she was very very young. For 17 years she was loyal and faithful to OJ. The whole time that they were together OJ cheated on her. That's what most of their fights were over. He even admits to it. So, when Nicole and OJ break up and Nicole starts dating she dates a lot. So what. She was divorced. It doesn't bother me that Nicole was dating around. It doesn't bother me that she dated a lot. She was single. She was trying to get over OJ and become her own person. At least she wasn't doing this while she was with OJ. She was devastated by his cheating and it caused her to have low self esteem. I'm sure that the attention she was getting was helping her to have confident. We don't know if she actually slept with all of these guys anyways.

[martin II]

Why on earth would you write a book describing how you'd murder them? It is so unbelievable that I scarcely know what to say. Even if he didn't do it, it's tasteless and obnoxious. If he did kill them (I think he did), it's a slap in the face to both Nicole and Ron, their families, and the public. He should be ashamed of himself, whatever the case. :no: :flamemad:

I think oj could have done without any invovlement in that book. I was interested in knowing what kind of story Pablo Fenjves,(ghost writer) the person that wrote the book created for the book.imo
martin II

[AmyW]

I think oj could have done without any invovlement in that book. I was interested in knowing what kind of story Pablo Fenjves,(ghost writer) the person that wrote the book created for the book.imo
martin II


Yeah, I agree it would be interesting!

[tazzybaby]

I think oj could have done without any invovlement in that book. I was interested in knowing what kind of story Pablo Fenjves,(ghost writer) the person that wrote the book created for the book.imo
martin II


You are saying this as if OJ had nothing to do with the book. That is very false. OJ himself said that he was proud of the chapters. The only thing that he "claims" he didn't write was the chapter regarding how he'd murder them. But, he was very much a part of this book.

[martin II]

You are saying this as if OJ had nothing to do with the book. That is very false. OJ himself said that he was proud of the chapters. The only thing that he "claims" he didn't write was the chapter regarding how he'd murder them. But, he was very much a part of this book.

fbg

pablo funjves was paid $100,000 as the ghost writer to write the book. If you did not read the various media reports on the deal i cannot help you.
martin II

[martin II]

fbg



pablo funjves was paid $100,000 as the ghost writer to write the book. If you did not read the various media reports on the deal i cannot help you.
martin II

Both Fenjves and Regan worked at the National Enquirer in the 1970s and were "close," a source at the tabloid told the Daily News.

It is unclear how much Fenjves, who reportedly worked on the book with Simpson for six months, was paid to pen the 200-plus page tome. Fenjves would neither confirm nor deny his involvement yesterday, saying "ghost writers are contractually barred" from discussing projects.

[tazzybaby]

fbg

pablo funjves was paid $100,000 as the ghost writer to write the book. If you did not read the various media reports on the deal i cannot help you.
martin II

I'm tazzy :seeya:

No one is disputing that he was the ghost writer. But, do you understand that OJ himself said with his own mouth that he was proud of his own writing of the chapters that were before the "if I did it" chapter. So, out of his own mouth he wrote the book. The ghost writer does nothing but put it together. OJ can't spell so the ghost writer had to put it in correct English and sentences. OJ said he was proud of how the chapters turned out. He was patting himself on the back in other words. So, to say (or to insinuate) that OJ didn't write this book is not true. And, don't you think he read the book when it was finished? Of course.

[tazzybaby]

*snip*

It is unclear how much Fenjves, who reportedly worked on the book with Simpson for six months, was paid to pen the 200-plus page tome.

*snip.*



But, in your post before this you said that fenjves was paid $100,000.00.

:confused:

[martin II]

But, in your post before this you said that fenjves was paid $100,000.00.

:confused:

fbg

there were several links posted on this story by posters here.If you did not read them then you may want to now.

Pablo Fenjves 9the gost writer) wrote the book and was paid $100,000 for doing so.
matin II

[tazzybaby]

fbg

there were several links posted on this story by posters here.If you did not read them then you may want to now.

Pablo Fenjves 9the gost writer) wrote the book and was paid $100,000 for doing so.
matin II

Why do you keep calling me fbg? Do you need to wake up...lol :confused:

Martin, in the one post that you posted you said (and you didn't put a link so I am assuming that it is from your fingers) that it was unclear how much he was paid. But, in the post prior to that you put that he was paid $100,000. Maybe it is you who should do some reading (on your posts).

:confused:

PS. For the record, I've read them and know that he was paid $100,000.

[martin II]

I'm tazzy :seeya:

No one is disputing that he was the ghost writer. But, do you understand that OJ himself said with his own mouth that he was proud of his own writing of the chapters that were before the "if I did it" chapter. So, out of his own mouth he wrote the book. The ghost writer does nothing but put it together. OJ can't spell so the ghost writer had to put it in correct English and sentences. OJ said he was proud of how the chapters turned out. He was patting himself on the back in other words. So, to say (or to insinuate) that OJ didn't write this book is not true. And, don't you think he read the book when it was finished? Of course.

tazzy
i have posted links and reports made by people closer to the issue than i am.

Initially i read that all of the chapters with the exception of the 'MURDER' chapter were about nothing more than oj talking about his life prior to and including his life with nicole.

It has been reported that fenjvis was the ghost writer. I have also read a interview by oj where he said that when he first read the book he joked that
since fenjvis knew so much maby he killed nicole.

Let me get this right.

When you want to attack oj, he cannot even spell oj. When you want to cast more blame on him he can write a whole book.

I think the book was written by pablo, oj was given a finished transcript (MABY) and he agreed.

Since fred is planning to sue Regan, Harper Collins, Rupert, oj , the broker company and the lawyers. maby the author will be revealed
martin II

[martin II]

Why do you keep calling me fbg? Do you need to wake up...lol :confused:

Martin, in the one post that you posted you said (and you didn't put a link so I am assuming that it is from your fingers) that it was unclear how much he was paid. But, in the post prior to that you put that he was paid $100,000. Maybe it is you who should do some reading (on your posts).

:confused:

PS. For the record, I've read them and know that he was paid $100,000.

tazzy hi

It may be that some times you are beginning to sound like fbg. but i know you are different and more accurate and pleasant in your post. so i apologize.

It has been reported that he was paid $100,000. he did not verify this amount
in a link i posted after that. And Regan did not say how much.

I think that most of the stories have since reported that he was paid $100,000 to write the book for regan. imo
martin II

martin II

[martin II]

tazzy
hi

i can go back and find the link to the post about fenjvis if you need it.
martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy
i have posted links and reports made by people closer to the issue than i am.

Initially i read that all of the chapters with the exception of the 'MURDER' chapter were about nothing more than oj talking about his life prior to and including his life with nicole.

It has been reported that fenjvis was the ghost writer. I have also read a interview by oj where he said that when he first read the book he joked that
since fenjvis knew so much maby he killed nicole.

Let me get this right.

When you want to attack oj, he cannot even spell oj. When you want to cast more blame on him he can write a whole book.

I think the book was written by pablo, oj was given a finished transcript (MABY) and he agreed.

Since fred is planning to sue Regan, Harper Collins, Rupert, oj , the broker company and the lawyers. maby the author will be revealed
martin II

Hi Martin,

Did you actually hear the radio interview that OJ gave? I did. He said that he was proud of the chapters that he put together. He said that it was about Nicole and some was about Kato. He said he was proud of what he put together. He took credit for everything but the 1/2 chapter talking about the killings.

"Just because a book is ghostwritten does not necessarily mean that the credited author did not make a significant contribution to the work; a ghostwriter is often employed to polish and edit existing material, or to work directly with the credited author to shape the book from start to finish."

He has said all along that he didn't write the scenario of them being killed. But, Fenjves can't talk about it to dispute it or confirm it. Whether he wrote it or not he put his name on it. He approved it. He let them. That's the same IMO. And, OJ also said in the interview that he told them that if they put anything in there about cutting or stabbing he wouldn't approve it. So, that's showing that the had to okay the book. You say that you think that OJ did nothing and that Fenjves wrote it. So, are you saying that you don't believe OJ?

And, I'm not trying to attack OJ. He cannot spell. It is evident from his "suicide" letter. He is not a talented writer. He would definately need help to write a book. I never said he wrote the whole book. He worked with Fenjves to write the book.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

It may be that some times you are beginning to sound like fbg. but i know you are different and more accurate and pleasant in your post. so i apologize.

It has been reported that he was paid $100,000. he did not verify this amount
in a link i posted after that. And Regan did not say how much.

I think that most of the stories have since reported that he was paid $100,000 to write the book for regan. imo
martin II

martin II

Hi Martin,

I was confused because you were contradicting yourself. I didn't really know where you were trying to go with that. And, you were calling me FBG (not that I mind but that is not me). So, you had me wondering.

I believe that he was paid $100,000. I also believe that Fenjves was the ghost writer. But, being a ghost writer does not mean that he wrote it by himself.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy
hi

i can go back and find the link to the post about fenjvis if you need it.
martin II

Hi Martin,

I dont' need the link.

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

I was confused because you were contradicting yourself. I didn't really know where you were trying to go with that. And, you were calling me FBG (not that I mind but that is not me). So, you had me wondering.

I believe that he was paid $100,000. I also believe that Fenjves was the ghost writer. But, being a ghost writer does not mean that he wrote it by himself.

TAZZY

I have worked straight through for the last 3-4 days as the retail stores are
keeping us very busy.

so i guess i did need to wake up.

martin II

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

I was confused because you were contradicting yourself. I didn't really know where you were trying to go with that. And, you were calling me FBG (not that I mind but that is not me). So, you had me wondering.

I believe that he was paid $100,000. I also believe that Fenjves was the ghost writer. But, being a ghost writer does not mean that he wrote it by himself.

are you curious as to what was in the book?
martin II