OJ's new Book

[bobaugust]

Why did he test his own blood? To see if there was EDTA in human blood, because of his prior testimony. What happened after they were relieved is only meaningless if you have a closed mind and do not want to consider all the circumstances. You can choose to believe the MF wholeheartedly. If you lie about one thing you will lie about another, imho. The biggest proven liars in the case were LE, imho. No one can testify to what the MF saw when he went behind Kato's quarters as he was alone. Roberts was not called for a reason and I do not believe it was to protect Vanatter. I believe it was to protect the MF.

No, Martz didn't test his blood to see if there was EDTA in human blood. Martz testified it was "to distinguish between preserved blood and non preserved blood to show that I can do that on blood that had aged for several months."

There was no evidence of cross contamination, that's pure imaginary speculation. Minor mistakes and human error didn't change one single piece of physical evidence. Contamination does not change DNA it only makes it more difficult to identify. Despite contamination Simpson's DNA was identified in the blood found at Bundy. There was no speculation about test results, the results were the results.

Should we convict on evidence not tested or identified? No, evidence not collected or identified is irrelevant. All of the huge amount of relevant physical evidence that was collected in this case all pointed to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it pointed to anyone else, none if it eliminated Simpson. Should he have been convicted on this evidence? Yes.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

When did the defense ever challenge who's DNA it was? You are tying to make the same arguement the DA's did--one which the defense never contested.

You are totally wrong about evidence not being collected and/or identified. The police and the crime scene tech's have no way of knowing which pieces of evidence are germaine to the case and which items don't. The socks taken from the bedroom are a perfect example.

However, the evidence that was not collected or identified had everything to do with this case. The 3 bloody fingerprints---how can that not be relevant?
Yet, G's hold on so tight to the blood on the wire. Explain to me how a drop of blood on a wire can be found yet three bloody fingerprints are missed?

Does that make sense to you?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

When did the defense ever challenge who's DNA it was? You are tying to make the same arguement the DA's did--one which the defense never contested.

You are totally wrong about evidence not being collected and/or identified. The police and the crime scene tech's have no way of knowing which pieces of evidence are germaine to the case and which items don't. The socks taken from the bedroom are a perfect example.

However, the evidence that was not collected or identified had everything to do with this case. The 3 bloody fingerprints---how can that not be relevant?
Yet, G's hold on so tight to the blood on the wire. Explain to me how a drop of blood on a wire can be found yet three bloody fingerprints are missed?

Does that make sense to you?

limakey, I have no idea what you're trying to say about the identified DNA.

What am I totally wrong about evidence not being collected and identified? We were discussing the possible fingerprint in blood on the brass deadbolt on the rear gate at Bundy that was never collected, the blood drops on Nicole's back that the coroner washed away, and the bloody smear on the light switch cover outside Simpson's laundry room.

What three bloody fingerprints?

No one that I know is holding tight about the blood on the wire and I have no idea where you think there were three bloody fingerprints missed.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Snipped

Should we convict on evidence not tested or identified? No, evidence not collected or identified is irrelevant.

snipped
bobaugust

The RM erroneously testified to the quantitative amount of EDTA in human blood, allegedly after he had tested his own blood but destroyed the supporting data. This is the most unscientific method of experimentation of which I have ever heard.

Your post about relevancy is the most convoluted theory I have ever heard. I think that, if you responded in that manner to a question about uncollected and tested evidence during jury voir dire, both sides would have you dismissed for cause.

[bobaugust]

The RM erroneously testified to the quantitative amount of EDTA in human blood, allegedly after he had tested his own blood but destroyed the supporting data. This is the most unscientific method of experimentation of which I have ever heard.



Martz testified that his testing answered the question he was asked to determine. He was asked to determine if the gate or the sock blood originated from purple topped test tubes or test tubes that were preserved with EDTA.

He conclusively determined that they did not.

Martz destroyed the original blood evidence but he kept all of the documentation showing the results. If the defense wanted to duplicate his testing they could have obtained their own samples to do so.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg
"Although the defense continued to argue that EDTA was present in the blood, and that evidence was planted, they never did introduce any evidence of their own testing. Nor did they introduce test results on items we did not test for EDTA, such as the Bundy blood trail or blood in the Bronco. During the trial, Rock Harmon discovered that the defense did conduct EDTA testing on one of the blood drops from the Bundy trail. Legally the jury was not entitled to learn of this. But why would the defense not present their own test results? Maybe they did not like them."

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Martz testified that his testing answered the question he was asked to determine. He was asked to determine if the gate or the sock blood originated from purple topped test tubes or test tubes that were preserved with EDTA.

He conclusively determined that they did not.

Martz destroyed the original blood evidence but he kept all of the documentation showing the results. If the defense wanted to duplicate his testing they could have obtained their own samples to do so.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg
"Although the defense continued to argue that EDTA was present in the blood, and that evidence was planted, they never did introduce any evidence of their own testing. Nor did they introduce test results on items we did not test for EDTA, such as the Bundy blood trail or blood in the Bronco. During the trial, Rock Harmon discovered that the defense did conduct EDTA testing on one of the blood drops from the Bundy trail. Legally the jury was not entitled to learn of this. But why would the defense not present their own test results? Maybe they did not like them."

bobaugust

You know that is not correct. I believe it was Scheck who made a point of saying that, if anyone wanted to check the data on how he arrived at his results, they could not. The prosecution was able to ask if the defense did any tests on the blood.

[William Anthony]

Martz testified that his testing answered the question he was asked to determine. He was asked to determine if the gate or the sock blood originated from purple topped test tubes or test tubes that were preserved with EDTA.

He conclusively determined that they did not.

Martz destroyed the original blood evidence but he kept all of the documentation showing the results. If the defense wanted to duplicate his testing they could have obtained their own samples to do so.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg
"Although the defense continued to argue that EDTA was present in the blood, and that evidence was planted, they never did introduce any evidence of their own testing. Nor did they introduce test results on items we did not test for EDTA, such as the Bundy blood trail or blood in the Bronco. During the trial, Rock Harmon discovered that the defense did conduct EDTA testing on one of the blood drops from the Bundy trail. Legally the jury was not entitled to learn of this. But why would the defense not present their own test results? Maybe they did not like them."

bobaugust

ALL, Here is a link worth reading.

http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/articles/p60.htm

[bobaugust]

You know that is not correct. I believe it was Scheck who made a point of saying that, if anyone wanted to check the data on how he arrived at his results, they could not. The prosecution was able to ask if the defense did any tests on the blood.

Barry Scheck had nothing to do with the questioning of Roger Martz. As to the tests the defense performed, I guess you think you know more about it than Hank Goldberg. Funny.

July 25, 19945
MR. BLASIER: I want to ask you a couple more questions about destroying your data. Did you indicate that your criteria for when it's okay to destroy the data was when you thought a case was over?
MR. MARTZ: No. Once it's dictated.
MR. BLASIER: Once it's dictated.
MR. MARTZ: Once the case has been dictated and the report has left the laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. How long after the report's left the laboratory in your mind is it okay to destroy the data?
MR. MARTZ: Immediately.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that using that standard, that never allows other scientists to review your data?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean we provide the data like in this case, the printouts, but the electronic data is lost, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And as part of your function as a criminalist, as an expert, you testify in cases and there are often times there are experts on other sides of the case, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And is your understanding that it's common for one expert from one side of the case to look at the other expert's data to see if they made the right decision, right interpretations?
MR. MARTZ: In the 20 years that I've been in the FBI laboratory, no one has ever asked to look at the digital data until now.
*
MR. BLASIER: And these are things that you can no longer do because your data is gone, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Well, you can't do it on those data. You could always rerun the same samples or similar samples. There is bloodstain left in this particular case. If someone wanted to analyze that stain, they could certainly analyze it.

bobaugust

[sassylassy]

LATEST: OJ SIMPSON is glad his controversial book IF I DID IT has been scrapped, because he felt it was "too much like an admission of guilt".


http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/simpson%20wanted%20to%20drop%20controversial%20boo k_1021214

[William Anthony]

Barry Scheck had nothing to do with the questioning of Roger Martz. As to the tests the defense performed, I guess you think you know more about it than Hank Goldberg. Funny.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. How long after the report's left the laboratory in your mind is it okay to destroy the data?
MR. MARTZ: Immediately.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that using that standard, that never allows other scientists to review your data?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean we provide the data like in this case, the printouts, but the electronic data is lost, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And as part of your function as a criminalist, as an expert, you testify in cases and there are often times there are experts on other sides of the case, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And is your understanding that it's common for one expert from one side of the case to look at the other expert's data to see if they made the right decision, right interpretations?
MR. MARTZ: In the 20 years that I've been in the FBI laboratory, no one has ever asked to look at the digital data until now.
*
MR. BLASIER: And these are things that you can no longer do because your data is gone, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Well, you can't do it on those data. You could always rerun the same samples or similar samples. There is bloodstain left in this particular case. If someone wanted to analyze that stain, they could certainly analyze it.

bobaugust

There you go and I was correct it was the data that was destroyed. I never said that I knew more than HG. What I said was the prosecution could have asked if the defense did the test. There is nothing improper in that question.

[martin II]

LATEST: OJ SIMPSON is glad his controversial book IF I DID IT has been scrapped, because he felt it was "too much like an admission of guilt".


http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/simpson%20wanted%20to%20drop%20controversial%20boo k_1021214

classy sassy

Well it seems that OJ got the $1,000,000. The ghost writer got the $100,000 JR got fired, her publishing company was closed, R M kept his reputation in tack by cancelling the book,OJS lawyers got paid, the children has some money in their company and fred and his lawyers filed the suit in the wrong court and are now empty handed as they were before the book was announced.

martin II

[weezer]

classy sassy

Well it seems that OJ got the $1,000,000. The ghost writer got the $100,000 JR got fired, her publishing company was closed, R M kept his reputation in tack by cancelling the book,OJS lawyers got paid, the children has some money in their company and fred and his lawyers filed the suit in the wrong court and are now empty handed as they were before the book was announced.

martin II

and orenthal is still an admitted abuser, adulterer, liar, thief and double-murderer. Some things never change.

[sassylassy]

and orenthal is still an admitted abuser, adulterer, liar, thief and double-murderer. Some things never change.


correction :)

yes he admitted abuse....(well kinda sorta)

but he's never admitted to being a liar, adulterer or a double-murderer.....

I'm not sure about thief....did he admit to stealing the cable?

wink ;) wink

[William Anthony]

Barry Scheck had nothing to do with the questioning of Roger Martz. As to the tests the defense performed, I guess you think you know more about it than Hank Goldberg. Funny.

July 25, 19945
MR. BLASIER: I want to ask you a couple more questions about destroying your data. Did you indicate that your criteria for when it's okay to destroy the data was when you thought a case was over?
MR. MARTZ: No. Once it's dictated.
MR. BLASIER: Once it's dictated.
MR. MARTZ: Once the case has been dictated and the report has left the laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. How long after the report's left the laboratory in your mind is it okay to destroy the data?
MR. MARTZ: Immediately.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that using that standard, that never allows other scientists to review your data?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean we provide the data like in this case, the printouts, but the electronic data is lost, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And as part of your function as a criminalist, as an expert, you testify in cases and there are often times there are experts on other sides of the case, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And is your understanding that it's common for one expert from one side of the case to look at the other expert's data to see if they made the right decision, right interpretations?
MR. MARTZ: In the 20 years that I've been in the FBI laboratory, no one has ever asked to look at the digital data until now.
*
MR. BLASIER: And these are things that you can no longer do because your data is gone, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Well, you can't do it on those data. You could always rerun the same samples or similar samples. There is bloodstain left in this particular case. If someone wanted to analyze that stain, they could certainly analyze it.

bobaugust

Here is what I found interesting about the link I provided.

"What was wrong with the laboratory testing? First, it was not clear whether the method had ever been used before. Most likely the method was developed quickly under a great deal of time pressure. In retrospect, FBI chemists now believe that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the LC/MS/MS (2) instrumentation because a water blank instead of a matrix blank had been run before the sample. Second, the EDTA concentration was not rigorously quantitated. Certainly, the volume of the blood stain could have been estimated. EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood, which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS. It appeared that the amount of EDTA detected in the forensic blood samples was orders of magnitude below 4.5 mM. Regardless of what happened in the Simpson trial, it became apparent that a definitive and valid method for determining EDTA in human blood was needed. "

[weezer]

correction :)

yes he admitted abuse....(well kinda sorta)

but he's never admitted to being a liar, adulterer or a double-murderer.....

I'm not sure about thief....did he admit to stealing the cable?

wink ;) wink

I'm surprised he hasn't blamed the cable stealing on Nicole -- seems like everything else he did wrong was her fault........IMO :eek:

Actually, he has admitted to being an adulterer and he didn't have to admit to the rest -- it was proven.

[sassylassy]

I'm surprised he hasn't blamed the cable stealing on Nicole -- seems like everything else he did wrong was her fault........IMO :eek:

Actually, he has admitted to being an adulterer and he didn't have to admit to the rest -- it was proven.


I think if he would suggest something so insane they would lock him up in the rubber room.....lol

[martin II]

Martz testified that his testing answered the question he was asked to determine. He was asked to determine if the gate or the sock blood originated from purple topped test tubes or test tubes that were preserved with EDTA.

He conclusively determined that they did not.

Martz destroyed the original blood evidence but he kept all of the documentation showing the results. If the defense wanted to duplicate his testing they could have obtained their own samples to do so.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg
"Although the defense continued to argue that EDTA was present in the blood, and that evidence was planted, they never did introduce any evidence of their own testing. Nor did they introduce test results on items we did not test for EDTA, such as the Bundy blood trail or blood in the Bronco. During the trial, Rock Harmon discovered that the defense did conduct EDTA testing on one of the blood drops from the Bundy trail. Legally the jury was not entitled to learn of this. But why would the defense not present their own test results? Maybe they did not like them."

bobaugust

F Martz, the prosecutions witness on EDTA.

The FBI lab was investigated by the justic department after the trial because of problems in other cases where Martz testified.
Martz was DEMOTED for testifying ABOVE his expertise level and for testifying in a manner not acceptable to the FBI and he was required to have his work closely supervised.imo

martin II

[martin II]

I'm surprised he hasn't blamed the cable stealing on Nicole -- seems like everything else he did wrong was her fault........IMO :eek:

Actually, he has admitted to being an adulterer and he didn't have to admit to the rest -- it was proven.

wezer
that calbe situation has you tied up in a knot. it seems. Or you are just doing more oj bashing.imo

I think he was fined $25,000 for the cable caper and it was paid. You may be able to prove that it was not paid and i would be pleased to receive this proof.

If what you say is true then i guess oj does not have cable in his house. haha
martin II

[martin II]

and orenthal is still an admitted abuser, adulterer, liar, thief and double-murderer. Some things never change.

weezer

My point is that oj, the ghost writer and ojs lawyers walked away with all the money. Freds and his lawyers cups are still empty. He has batted ZERO in 12 years.sooner or later the donations will dry up as it is not wise to toss good money at a loosing cause.
martin II

[martin II]

I'm surprised he hasn't blamed the cable stealing on Nicole -- seems like everything else he did wrong was her fault........IMO :eek:

Actually, he has admitted to being an adulterer and he didn't have to admit to the rest -- it was proven.

U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard awarded the damages, plus lawyers' fees and other costs, after granting a motion for summary judgment in a civil suit against Simpson.

In a raid on Simpson's Miami home in 2001, U.S. government agents seized illegal devices known as "bootloaders'' that authorities said were used to steal television programming.

Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, said Tuesday the judge "basically denied us our right to a jury trial...This was a decision made by a judge in chambers. They say he did it; we say he didn't.''

"A jury should be able to make that decision.''

Simpson was aware of Friday's ruling, Galanter added. Asked whether Simpson would pay the damages and other costs, the lawyer said: "We are examining our legal options...We want our day in court.''

Galanter has 10 days to respond, or the summary judgment stands.

[weezer]

weezer

My point is that oj, the ghost writer and ojs lawyers walked away with all the money. Freds and his lawyers cups are still empty. He has batted ZERO in 12 years.sooner or later the donations will dry up as it is not wise to toss good money at a loosing cause.
martin II

and orenthal is still an admitted abuser, adulterer, liar, thief and double-murderer. Some things never change.

[weezer]

U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard awarded the damages, plus lawyers' fees and other costs, after granting a motion for summary judgment in a civil suit against Simpson.

In a raid on Simpson's Miami home in 2001, U.S. government agents seized illegal devices known as "bootloaders'' that authorities said were used to steal television programming.

Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, said Tuesday the judge "basically denied us our right to a jury trial...This was a decision made by a judge in chambers. They say he did it; we say he didn't.''

"A jury should be able to make that decision.''

Simpson was aware of Friday's ruling, Galanter added. Asked whether Simpson would pay the damages and other costs, the lawyer said: "We are examining our legal options...We want our day in court.''

Galanter has 10 days to respond, or the summary judgment stands.

and what was the final outcome? Did orenthal have his day in court or did the judgment stand?

[martin II]

I'm surprised he hasn't blamed the cable stealing on Nicole -- seems like everything else he did wrong was her fault........IMO :eek:

Actually, he has admitted to being an adulterer and he didn't have to admit to the rest -- it was proven.

weezer
But nicole wrote oj a letter admitting to him that at least some the their problems were caused by her.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Here is what I found interesting about the link I provided.

"What was wrong with the laboratory testing? First, it was not clear whether the method had ever been used before. Most likely the method was developed quickly under a great deal of time pressure. In retrospect, FBI chemists now believe that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the LC/MS/MS (2) instrumentation because a water blank instead of a matrix blank had been run before the sample. Second, the EDTA concentration was not rigorously quantitated. Certainly, the volume of the blood stain could have been estimated. EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood, which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS. It appeared that the amount of EDTA detected in the forensic blood samples was orders of magnitude below 4.5 mM. Regardless of what happened in the Simpson trial, it became apparent that a definitive and valid method for determining EDTA in human blood was needed. "

I read that in the article that was written a couple years after the criminal trial and I saw nothing in it that would contradict Martz's conclusions that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood originated from purple topped test tubes or test tubes that were preserved with EDTA.

We also know there is other evidence that proves the defense claims these blood drops were planted are false claims.

bobaugust

[martin II]

and orenthal is still an admitted abuser, adulterer, liar, thief and double-murderer. Some things never change.

double murder is all in your mind. the tryers of fact would dissagree with you.
martin II

[weezer]

double murder is all in your mind. the tryers of fact would dissagree with you.
martin II

ahh but the evidence proves it.

[martin II]

ahh but the evidence proves it.

i don't think you know too much about the evidence that was presented in court or the testimony as you did not even see the trial live on tv. You got you info from tv summaries and printed testimony.
martin Ii:no:

[weezer]

i don't think you know too much about the evidence that was presented in court or the testimony as you did not even see the trial live on tv. You got you info from tv summaries and printed testimony.
martin Ii:no:

yes, I can see how you think watching a tv show would be better than actually reading what was testified to by the witnesses -- NOT. :shrug:

[2L8 4A D8]

wezer
that calbe situation has you tied up in a knot. it seems. Or you are just doing more oj bashing.imo

<snipped>

martin II

"Or you are just doing more OJ bashing." Do you even realize what you say? I don't think so!

I think that us G's can do a lot of OJ bashing if we feel like it! OJ deserves to be bashed for what he did and what he got away with. However, the victims and the victims' families do not deserve to be bashed. The victims didn't ask to be slaughtered by none other than a raging, narcisstic, psychotic, sociopath ~ your hero and idol, OJ Simpson!

You are the absolute worst on this Board and these Threads when it comes to bashing Nicole, Ron, The Brown's and The Goldman's! What? You think that you are "entitled" to do all of the bashing that you want, but the rest of us are not? Get real and GMAB!

Whatever is good for the Goose(s) is just as good for the Gander(s) IMO! HA HA HA!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

yes, I can see how you think watching a tv show would be better than actually reading what was testified to by the witnesses -- NOT. :shrug:

weezer
iI see you are up to your old trucks again. TWISTING AND STREATCHING and nchanging whit i posted.

The jury was in the court room and heard every word of testimony and judged
the credibility of the witness as they testified.

You were at work , you said, did not see any of the trial by being in the courtroom or seeing the testimony LIVE ON TV.

So yes just reading testimnony without the benefit of evaluating the witnesses credibility does put you at a real disadvantage.

This has been discussed many times here but you seem not to be to comprehend the issue.

martin II

[martin II]

yes, I can see how you think watching a tv show would be better than actually reading what was testified to by the witnesses -- NOT. :shrug:

weezer
iI see you are up to your old trucks again. TWISTING AND STREATCHING and nchanging whit i posted.

The jury was in the court room and heard every word of testimony and judged
the credibility of the witness as they testified.

You were at work , you said, did not see any of the trial by being in the courtroom or seeing the testimony LIVE ON TV.

So yes just reading testimnony without the benefit of evaluating the witnesses credibility does put you at a real disadvantage.

This has been discussed many times here but you seem not to be to comprehend the issue.

martin II

[martin II]

weezer
iI see you are up to your old trucks again. TWISTING AND STREATCHING and nchanging whit i posted.

The jury was in the court room and heard every word of testimony and judged
the credibility of the witness as they testified.

You were at work , you said, did not see any of the trial by being in the courtroom or seeing the testimony LIVE ON TV.

So yes just reading testimnony without the benefit of evaluating the witnesses credibility does put you at a real disadvantage.

This has been discussed many times here but you seem not to be to comprehend the issue.

martin II
typo
above should be TRICKS not trucks
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

OJ ORDERED TO STOP SPENDING

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/08/simpson.lawsuit.ap/index.html

Thoughts?

Kate

[sassylassy]

OJ ORDERED TO STOP SPENDING

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/08/simpson.lawsuit.ap/index.html

Thoughts?

Kate

now I am confused :shrug: I thought that was all dismissed?

[Kate Sachel]

now I am confused :shrug: I thought that was all dismissed?


I had thought so too, but this breaking news on CNN.

Kate

[martin II]

now I am confused :shrug: I thought that was all dismissed?

sassy
the hearing on the frozen bank accounts is for 2/20 It must have been different from the suite that was tossed.
martin II

[William Anthony]

now I am confused :shrug: I thought that was all dismissed?

Good afternoon,

As always, it s a pleasure hearing from you. I think this is form without substance. Imho, the Cali. State court cannot order Simpson to appear before it, nor can it order a restraining order that has in effect in Fla..

[weezer]

typo
above should be TRICKS not trucks
martin II

thanks -- what is 'streatching'?

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8812815]thanks -- what is 'streatching'?[/QUOT

you can be so petty.

STRETCHING or you can use LYING or FABRICATING or MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Good afternoon,

As always, it s a pleasure hearing from the luscious lips of yours. I think this is form without substance. Imho, the Cali. State court cannot order Simpson to appear before it, nor can it order a restraining order that has in effect in Fla..

QUESTION

1. Are there two actions by fred or one?

2. if two were both filed in CA?
martin II

[William Anthony]

QUESTION

1. Are there two actions by fred or one?

2. if two were both filed in CA?
martin II

I do not know. Judging from the link supplied by Classy, the order came from the Cali. court, unless they have some strong long arm statue, which does not seem to be the case, they have no jurisdiction over Simpson.

[sassylassy]

QUESTION

1. Are there two actions by fred or one?

2. if two were both filed in CA?
martin II

umm I am starting to think there are 2.....

there has to be?!

No...

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8812815]thanks -- what is 'streatching'?[/QUOT

you can be so petty.

STRETCHING or you can use LYING or FABRICATING or MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS
MARTIN ii

don't get defensive -- I thought that's what you meant but wanted to make sure.

[martin II]

umm I am starting to think there are 2.....

there has to be?!

No...

sassy

yep
i read the federal suite and did not see referances to freezing of accounts. So i believe there were two but one now.

all three defendants are located in florida except a broker that brokered the deal for Regan books. maby freds lawyer has a CA judge in pocket if he is able to force oj to stop spending from a florida bank account.:shrug:

martin II

[martin II]

I do not know. Judging from the link supplied by Classy, the order came from the Cali. court, unless they have some strong long arm statue, which does not seem to be the case, they have no jurisdiction over Simpson.

william

so i wonder if oj obeyed the order?

don't see how he would leave money in that account kowing a suite was comming.

If oj had set up a trust years ago for his kids, is itpossible that he could add to the trust after he got this new cash? or would the first trust be closed to new asset injection.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
maby freds lawyer has a CA judge in pocket if he is able to force oj to stop spending from a florida bank account.:shrug:




"MABY" Martin is just making up trash again! :punch:

[martin II]

umm I am starting to think there are 2.....

there has to be?!

No...

sassy

i found this.
not sure of accuracy.
martin II

http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/?p=4339

A Los Angeles judge clamped down on O.J. Simpson’s spending on Friday, some two weeks after another judge froze money the ex-football star earned from his aborted book and TV deal about the murders of his ex-wife and her friend.

Superior Court Judge Gerald Rosenberg issued a limited restraining order prohibiting Simpson from spending royalties or otherwise maneuvering funds from any past deals, including media, books and magazines, until a hearing on February 20.

The order does not apply to the advance Simpson received for his quasi-confessional book "If I Did It."

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Manuel Real temporarily froze that money following a separate lawsuit filed in December by the father of murder victim Ron Goldman.

[martin II]

sassy

i found this.
not sure of accuracy.
martin II

http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/?p=4339

A Los Angeles judge clamped down on O.J. Simpson’s spending on Friday, some two weeks after another judge froze money the ex-football star earned from his aborted book and TV deal about the murders of his ex-wife and her friend.

Superior Court Judge Gerald Rosenberg issued a limited restraining order prohibiting Simpson from spending royalties or otherwise maneuvering funds from any past deals, including media, books and magazines, until a hearing on February 20.

The order does not apply to the advance Simpson received for his quasi-confessional book "If I Did It."

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Manuel Real temporarily froze that money following a separate lawsuit filed in December by the father of murder victim Ron Goldman.


sassy
please check your pm
martin II

[socaldiva]

sassy
please check your pm
martin II

You felt it necessary to quote yourself in order to post this? Good grief!

[William Anthony]

william

so i wonder if oj obeyed the order?

don't see how he would leave money in that account kowing a suite was comming.

If oj had set up a trust years ago for his kids, is itpossible that he could add to the trust after he got this new cash? or would the first trust be closed to new asset injection.

martin II

I cannot think of any circumstances where the trust would be closed. The purpose of the trust is to generate revenue.

[2L8 4A D8]

thanks -- what is 'streatching'?[/QUOT

you can be so petty.

STRETCHING or you can use LYING or FABRICATING or MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS
MARTIN ii

You are the King of Pettiness! "Maby" if you would either (1) learn how to spell; (2) use spellcheck or (3) proofread your posts before submitting them, "maby" you wouldn't get the comments from Posters that you do! Duh! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[sassylassy]

getting back to the topic ...

according to this New York times interview OJS spent the estimated $663,000
he recieved so I'm not sure what funds they are freezing....:shrug:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/474070p-398729c.html

[2L8 4A D8]

sassy
please check your pm
martin II

Everybody and their Brother who accepts PM's knows that you receive a Pop Up notice of a PM as soon as you log on. Apparently not you, though, which doesn't surprise me! Sorry, that you just can't wait for someone to check their PM's. However, the rest of us don't need to be a part of your anxiety by constantly having to read "hey so-and-so, please check your PM's!" GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

getting back to the topic ...

according to this New York times interview OJS spent the estimated $663,000
he recieved so I'm not sure what funds they are freezing....:shrug:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/474070p-398729c.html

sassy hi

I think the objective of the suite that was tossed was to try to get a ruling for any new books/video oj may do in the future. but they lost so far.

martin II

[martin II]

sassy/limakey

I have always thought that oj could have done without involvement in this hypothetical "If i did it book" project at least as far as the PR hits he would expect to receive. But i guess when the money was put in front of him, he decided to do what many others have done, take the blood money and forget about keeping the issue alive.(forcing the family to relive the murders)imo jmo
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

sassy/limakey

I have always thought that oj could have done without involvement in this hypothetical "If i did it book" project at least as far as the PR hits he would expect to receive. But i guess when the money was put in front of him, he decided to do what many others have done, take the blood money and forget about keeping the issue alive.(forcing the family to relive the murders)imo jmo
martin II

Yeah, "Tin Cup" OJ took the blood money just like everybody else did! What was the name of that first book of his? Oh yeah, "I Want to Tell You!"

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

I think if he would suggest something so insane they would lock him up in the rubber room.....lol

Classy,

Although I think you are too much of a lady, fair, and understanding to have been involved in a recent occurrence, let me say that I was informed that many found my reference to your avatar as perverted. There have been many who have commented on your avatar, but for some reason they found my comment to be perverted and complained quite vigorously as I understand. Let me say that there was nothing offensive or sexually suggestive in my post. It was a post as I sometimes do make on the appearance of your avatar and you ability to make succinct posts. I am called to task on how others misconstrue my posts, which I do not understand. In any event I have made a promise to make no further comments on your avatar. I would like this poster world to know that I do not know whether you are a man or a woman. I have had no physical contact with you. I do not know where you reside. Under those circumstances, especially not knowing your gender, I vehemently deny that my post was in anyway perverted or sexually suggestive. As I consider you to be a lady of class and understanding and value your opinion, I felt compelled to explain to you, regardless of what others thought I meant, what I really meant. I ask you did anyone ask you if you found my remarks sexually suggestive or perverted, since they were directed to you. I know that some will say this is O/T and I am through with it from this point. However, I did not want to have your or my reputation damaged, so I felt compelled to make this public denial.

[martin II]

Classy,

Although I think you are too much of a lady, fair, and understanding to have been involved in a recent occurrence, let me say that I was informed that many found my reference to your avatar as perverted. There have been many who have commented on your avatar, but for some reason they found my comment to be perverted and complained quite vigorously as I understand. Let me say that there was nothing offensive or sexually suggestive in my post. It was a post as I sometimes do make on the appearance of your avatar and you ability to make succinct posts. I am called to task on how others misconstrue my posts, which I do not understand. In any event I have made a promise to make no further comments on your avatar. I would like this poster world to know that I do not know whether you are a man or a woman. I have had no physical contact with you. I do not know where you reside. Under those circumstances, especially not knowing your gender, I vehemently deny that my post was in anyway perverted or sexually suggestive. As I consider you to be a lady of class and understanding and value your opinion, I felt compelled to explain to you, regardless of what others thought I meant, what I really meant. I ask you did anyone ask you if you found my remarks sexually suggestive or perverted, since they were directed to you. I know that some will say this is O/T and I am through with it from this point. However, I did not want to have your or my reputation damaged, so I felt compelled to make this public denial.


william

I personally never felt any dissrespect on your part towards sassy in your complimentary post to her. I did not know it was a problem since so far she has not complained so i am puzzled as to why another poster would be offended by a compliment made to someone other than the complaining poster.

It is refreshing to hear compliments rather the regular normal negative attacks made by some here.
IMO JMO
Martin II

[martin II]

getting back to the topic ...

according to this New York times interview OJS spent the estimated $663,000
he recieved so I'm not sure what funds they are freezing....:shrug:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/474070p-398729c.html

sassy
i agree

One thing is for sure no one, will be able to get money paid to the TAX MAN.
martinII

[martin II]

blood money.
Another opinion

http://www.dellgines.com/?p=685

"Since that time, OJ and the murder has been the source of probably hundreds if not thousands of books, television reports and exposes and the like.

The public has eaten it up from the beginning.

Now, as the man who has right or wrongly been the source of the profiteering of the news media (obviously the covered the case in concentration because of ratings and ratings equals profits) the pundits and participants(Mark Furhman bullied his way onto MSNBC, Marsha Clark as a news commentator, Darden a book Deal, Kato a book deal) and more seeks to profit off his own pariah status HIT THE BREAKS! This my friends is the hypocrisy of America. When a brutal murder is exploited by the news media for big ratings and profits it is ok. When active and passive participants write books and participate in “special reports” for thousands and dollars the exploiting of the deaths are no problem. When the man who most people is guilty attempts to profit off the infamy the public gave him, hell no.

It is obvious to me the American public is less interested about respecting the dead in Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldmen and more interested in hating OJ. If it was about reverence from the dead then this outrage should have occurred from the beginning by the moralistic public. Instead they gobbled up the media and infotainment on the deaths from every source. To me that is not only hypocrisy, but also a sad testament to our society. "

[weezer]

blood money.
Another opinion

http://www.dellgines.com/?p=685

"Since that time, OJ and the murder has been the source of probably hundreds if not thousands of books, television reports and exposes and the like.

The public has eaten it up from the beginning.

Now, as the man who has right or wrongly been the source of the profiteering of the news media (obviously the covered the case in concentration because of ratings and ratings equals profits) the pundits and participants(Mark Furhman bullied his way onto MSNBC, Marsha Clark as a news commentator, Darden a book Deal, Kato a book deal) and more seeks to profit off his own pariah status HIT THE BREAKS! This my friends is the hypocrisy of America. When a brutal murder is exploited by the news media for big ratings and profits it is ok. When active and passive participants write books and participate in “special reports” for thousands and dollars the exploiting of the deaths are no problem. When the man who most people is guilty attempts to profit off the infamy the public gave him, hell no.

It is obvious to me the American public is less interested about respecting the dead in Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldmen and more interested in hating OJ. If it was about reverence from the dead then this outrage should have occurred from the beginning by the moralistic public. Instead they gobbled up the media and infotainment on the deaths from every source. To me that is not only hypocrisy, but also a sad testament to our society. "

did you bother to read this individual's blog before you posted it? Good Lord!

[William Anthony]

william

I personally never felt any dissrespect on your part towards sassy in your complimentary post to her. I did not know it was a problem since so far she has not complained so i am puzzled as to why another poster would be offended by a compliment made to someone other than the complaining poster.

It is refreshing to hear compliments rather the regular normal negative attacks made by some here.
IMO JMO
Martin II

Martin,

I have learned from Classy, the Lovely One, Terrific TBaby and the poster, who I promised not to refer to as anything, a proper and fitting way to respond to posters who seem to misconstrue and take other's post in a negative way, because of what they think. I remember a poster that referred to him/her self as a redneck, making a comment about liking Classy's lips. I do not know if posters called him a pervert and complained to the moderator about his/her remark. However, let's stay on topic before the moderator gets some more complaints.

[martin II]

did you bother to read this individual's blog before you posted it? Good Lord!

WEEZER

The person that wrote this opinion about books being written was expressing his opinion just like you express yours. OK
Martin II

[martin II]

Martin,

I have learned from Classy, the Lovely One, Terrific TBaby and the poster, who I promised not to refer to as anything, a proper and fitting way to respond to posters who seem to misconstrue and take other's post in a negative way, because of what they think. I remember a poster that referred to him/her self as a redneck, making a comment about liking Classy's lips. I do not know if posters called him a pervert and complained to the moderator about his/her remark. However, let's stay on topic before the moderator gets some more complaints.

william

There is a quesiton as to who this person that called himself REDNECK really is.
martin II

[martin II]

did you bother to read this individual's blog before you posted it? Good Lord!

weezer

PS
I read the complete posting on the site and found that i agree with his clain about Hypocrisy by others that wrote books keeping the issue alive and their claim that oj was talking blood money. Most took their share of blood money long before oj did.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

william

There is a quesiton as to who this person that called himself REDNECK really is.
martin II

I am only interested in understanding why seemingly some posters can make remarks that others do not complain about, whereas, my post made in the most innocent fashion are misconstrued and complained about.

[sassylassy]

Classy,

Although I think you are too much of a lady, fair, and understanding to have been involved in a recent occurrence, let me say that I was informed that many found my reference to your avatar as perverted. There have been many who have commented on your avatar, but for some reason they found my comment to be perverted and complained quite vigorously as I understand. Let me say that there was nothing offensive or sexually suggestive in my post. It was a post as I sometimes do make on the appearance of your avatar and you ability to make succinct posts. I am called to task on how others misconstrue my posts, which I do not understand. In any event I have made a promise to make no further comments on your avatar. I would like this poster world to know that I do not know whether you are a man or a woman. I have had no physical contact with you. I do not know where you reside. Under those circumstances, especially not knowing your gender, I vehemently deny that my post was in anyway perverted or sexually suggestive. As I consider you to be a lady of class and understanding and value your opinion, I felt compelled to explain to you, regardless of what others thought I meant, what I really meant. I ask you did anyone ask you if you found my remarks sexually suggestive or perverted, since they were directed to you. I know that some will say this is O/T and I am through with it from this point. However, I did not want to have your or my reputation damaged, so I felt compelled to make this public denial.


WOW!

where do I start?!...well first off there is no need to say sorry to me, I never heard or read your comments & even if I did they wont upset me, I guess I`m too cool & easy going to let something so silly upset me.:cool:

so no worries from me & my big fat hot red lips!

okay now back to the topic......
:seeya:

[martin II]

WOW!

where do I start?!...well first off there is no need to say sorry to me, I never heard or read your comments & even if I did they wont upset me, I guess I`m too cool & easy going to let something so silly upset me.:cool:

so no worries from me & my big fat hot red lips!

okay now back to the topic......
:seeya:

sassy

you are very evenhanded and always in control.
thanks
martin II

[socaldiva]

Classy,

Although I think you are too much of a lady, fair, and understanding to have been involved in a recent occurrence, let me say that I was informed that many found my reference to your avatar as perverted. There have been many who have commented on your avatar, but for some reason they found my comment to be perverted and complained quite vigorously as I understand. Let me say that there was nothing offensive or sexually suggestive in my post. It was a post as I sometimes do make on the appearance of your avatar and you ability to make succinct posts. I am called to task on how others misconstrue my posts, which I do not understand. In any event I have made a promise to make no further comments on your avatar. I would like this poster world to know that I do not know whether you are a man or a woman. I have had no physical contact with you. I do not know where you reside. Under those circumstances, especially not knowing your gender, I vehemently deny that my post was in anyway perverted or sexually suggestive. As I consider you to be a lady of class and understanding and value your opinion, I felt compelled to explain to you, regardless of what others thought I meant, what I really meant. I ask you did anyone ask you if you found my remarks sexually suggestive or perverted, since they were directed to you. I know that some will say this is O/T and I am through with it from this point. However, I did not want to have your or my reputation damaged, so I felt compelled to make this public denial.


This rambling, blathering post belongs in a PM, NOT on this board :rolleyes: :mad:

[William Anthony]

This rambling, blathering post belongs in a PM, NOT on this board :rolleyes: :mad:

I have satisified my sufficiency. I am through with it.:seeya:

[socaldiva]

I have satisified my sufficiency. I am through with it.:seeya:

Bully for you! Next time take it to the PM'S!

[weezer]

I have satisified my sufficiency. I am through with it.:seeya:

how exactly do you satisfy a "sufficiency"?

[William Anthony]

Bully for you! Next time take it to the PM'S!


:seeya: :seeya:

[sassylassy]

:seeya: :seeya:


umm looks like the PC police have spoken...:lol:

[William Anthony]

how exactly do you satisfy a "sufficiency"?

I can only inform you of how I satisfy mine, and when I have I do not partake of anymore because it would be stubbornly dishful.

[William Anthony]

umm looks like the PC police have spoken...:lol:

Classy

We must obey those who are our superiors.

[socaldiva]

umm looks like the PC police have spoken...:lol:


We know how you & your comrades are ever so suspicious of any type of police ;)

[William Anthony]

We know how you & your comrades are ever so suspicious of any type of police ;)

I cannot speak for anyone else. I am not suspicious, just allow the warranted amount of caution when dealing with them.

[sassylassy]

We know how you & your comrades are ever so suspicious of any type of police ;)

LOL WTH is a comrade?

I laugh everytime I hear that word, isnt that word from 1945 :tongue:
or the cold war or something...LOL

[socaldiva]

LOL WTH is a comrade?

I laugh everytime I hear that word, isnt that word from 1945 :tongue:
or the cold war or something...LOL

LOL "isn't that a word from 1945"???? Do you think most words originated recently? LOL

[sassylassy]

LOL "isn't that a word from 1945"???? Do you think most words originated recently? LOL

LOL- no i dont...

but I would guess only a old timer would use such outdated vocabulary...

[martin II]

LOL WTH is a comrade?

I laugh everytime I hear that word, isnt that word from 1945 :tongue:
or the cold war or something...LOL

yep

it is rarely used except in china n vietnam and other communist countries. you can never tell where posters that post here are located.imo
martion II

[socaldiva]

LOL- no i dont...

but I would guess only a old timer would use such outdated vocabulary...


I guess a little 20 something would consider anyone over 30 as an "old timer". :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

We know how you & your comrades are ever so suspicious of any type of police ;)

I arduously deny that I was ever a member or affiliate of the Communist party. I find this post highly offensive and insulting and ask you to refrain from calling me that again.

[socaldiva]

I arduously deny that I was ever a member or affiliate of the Communist party. I find this post highly offensive and insulting and ask you to refrain from calling me that again.


More efforts by William to deflect from his obnoxious posts :rolleyes: I never implied anyone was a member of affliate of the Communist Party. Pick up a dictionary & :read:

[martin II]

I cannot speak for anyone else. I am not suspicious, just allow the warranted amount of caution when dealing with them.

william
recently three black men were going home from a party for one that was to get married the next morning.
undercover cops put 50 shots into their car. killed one critically wonded another. no gun or any kind of weapon was found on the men or in the car.

Around here we look at the cope with a sharp eye. wanna be cops that snitch included. imo jmo
martin II

[sassylassy]

I arduously deny that I was ever a member or affiliate of the Communist party. I find this post highly offensive and insulting and ask you to refrain from calling me that again.

I know wth I am not part of a communist party ???

so I dont know why they heck they call us "comrades" .....

I dont want to hear it again either, or I will report it!

[sassylassy]

More efforts by William to deflect from his obnoxious posts :rolleyes: I never implied anyone was a member of affliate of the Communist Party. Pick up a dictionary & :read:

yeah sure try to blame it on William ....

that is what the word means.:mad: if you like I will be more than happy to post the meaning for you!

[socaldiva]

I know wth I am not part of a communist party ???

so I dont know why they heck they call us "comrades" .....

I dont want to hear it again either, or I will report it!

You admitted that you don't even know the word & you are going to report it? Get a dictionary before you embarass yourself further :lol:

[martin II]

I arduously deny that I was ever a member or affiliate of the Communist party. I find this post highly offensive and insulting and ask you to refrain from calling me that again.


i have never been called communist. i am sure i am not one.
comrad does see like a word spoken by someone out of touch with reality and language in 2007 imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

More efforts by William to deflect from his obnoxious posts :rolleyes: I never implied anyone was a member of affliate of the Communist Party. Pick up a dictionary & :read:

I find it highly insulting. That is the way I interpreted it. It has a double meaning. People have misinterpreted my posts. I have stopped using words that they misconstrued. At the risk of being redundant, I am respectfully requesting you to refrain.

[sassylassy]

You admitted that you don't even know the word & you are going to report it? Get a dictionary before you embarass yourself further :lol:


whatever ....I know what it means, it would appear you dont .....
either way you can stop using the term, some find it insulting!


Thanks very much!

[socaldiva]

whatever ....I know what it means, it would appear you dont .....
either way you can stop using the term, some find it insulting!

Thanks very much!

You know what it means? You just posted a few minutes ago that you didn't.
Some find your references to your "big, fat lips" highly offensive yet you refuse to refrain from that rubbish. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

You know what it means? You just posted a few minutes ago that you didn't.
Some find your references to your "big, fat lips" highly offensive yet you refuse to refrain from that rubbish. :tongue:

Why, Classy made that post a few hours ago, and no one complained. Do I sense a little quid pro quo?

[socaldiva]

Why, Classy made that post a few hours ago, and no one complained. Do I sense a little quid pro quo?

How do you know if anyone complained? ;) Are you now speaking for Sassy? The post was directed to her, not you.

[sassylassy]

You know what it means? You just posted a few minutes ago that you didn't.
Some find your references to your "big, fat lips" highly offensive yet you refuse to refrain from that rubbish. :tongue:

umm this is the first I heard about my lips, so I have no idea what u are talking about....

but anyways you asked me not to call you hon, & I did...so we are asking for you to stop using the word "comrade" so please respectfully do so.....


Thanks again...

[William Anthony]

You know what it means? You just posted a few minutes ago that you didn't.
Some find your references to your "big, fat lips" highly offensive yet you refuse to refrain from that rubbish. :tongue:

Is it too difficult for you to act in a manner that I did when I was informed that some found my posts offensive. I refrained and, when asked not to refer to people by the nic's I coined, I refrained. I think that it would be polite and professional of you to refrain, when told that some find your words offensive.

[William Anthony]

How do you know if anyone complained? ;) Are you now speaking for Sassy? The post was directed to her, not you.

I know who it was directed to. You have injected yourself into conversations I was having with others. Besides that the word comrades is plural. Just please, refrain from using it in the future. My respectful request is not that difficult. Is it?

[socaldiva]

Is it too difficult for you to act in a manner that I did when I was informed that some found my posts offensive. I refrained and, when asked not to refer to people by the nic's I coined, I refrained. I think that it would be polite and professional of you to refrain, when told that some find your words offensive.

You have not refrained, only to a specific few requests. You still make your attempts to make salicious postings. You wouldn't know "polite & professional" if it bit you.

[William Anthony]

You have not refrained, only to a specific few requests. You still make your attempts to make salicious postings. You wouldn't know "polite & professional" if it bit you.

This post is highly insulting. :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[socaldiva]

This post is highly insulting. :seeya: :


You are so transparent! The only reason you keep inserting this "I am highly insulted" b.s. is to try & counter the garbage you post.

:seeya: :seeya: back at ya!

[martin II]

Why, Classy made that post a few hours ago, and no one complained. Do I sense a little quid pro quo?

I find the description to be accurate. lips that is. nothing wrong with it unless one is lonely and angry and is looking for a fight constantly.
imo
martin aII

[William Anthony]

You are so transparent! The only reason you keep inserting this "I am highly insulted" b.s. is to try & counter the garbage you post.

:seeya: :seeya: back at ya!

It's okay. Let me see if I can find the last informative posts you made on any Simpson thread.

[William Anthony]

william
recently three black men were going home from a party for one that was to get married the next morning.
undercover cops put 50 shots into their car. killed one critically wonded another. no gun or any kind of weapon was found on the men or in the car.

Around here we look at the cope with a sharp eye. wanna be cops that snitch included. imo jmo
martin II

I have found that people rapidly loose respects for snitches. They are often forced to go into hiding. Some are even sent to another country I hear. I can respect the police, because they are getting paid. Some snitches just snitch to be snitching. Do you know if there was a snitch in the Simpson criminal case. I know Jill S and Ship tried to be ones.

[socaldiva]

I have found that people rapidly loose respects for snitches. They are often forced to go into hiding. Some are even sent to another country I hear. I can respect the police, because they are getting paid. Some snitches just snitch to be snitching. Do you know if there was a snitch in the Simpson criminal case. I know Jill S and Ship tried to be ones.

Jill S & Ship tried to be "snitches"????

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Around here we look at the cope with a sharp eye. wanna be cops that snitch included. imo jmo
martin II


Another veiled attempt to refer to me as a wanna be cop? You are making false posts again. The next time you post this, I will report you.

[martin II]

Another veiled attempt to refer to me as a wanna be cop? You are making false posts again. The next time you post this, I will report you.

diva
i have not posted anything to or about you So you just need to find someone to fight with other than me as i have no interest in reading your post or posting to you. i have told you many times before I HAVE YOU ON IGNOER FOR MONTHS but you continue to stalk my every post looking to fight and or give INSUL .SO PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE.
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

It's okay. Let me see if I can find the last informative posts you made on any Simpson thread.

NEVER EVER NEVER EVER

MARTIN ii

[martin II]

NEVER EVER NEVER EVER

MARTIN ii

correction

I can not rmember when the last time was.
martin ii

[weezer]

yeah sure try to blame it on William ....

that is what the word means.:mad: if you like I will be more than happy to post the meaning for you!

what part of this exactly do you find offensive?

"a person who shares in one's activities, occupation, etc.; companion, associate, or friend."

[socaldiva]

diva
i have not posted anything to or about you So you just need to find someone to fight with other than me as i have no interest in reading your post or posting to you. i have told you many times before I HAVE YOU ON IGNOER FOR MONTHS but you continue to stalk my every post looking to fight and or give INSUL .SO PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE.
MARTIN ii


Another lie from Martin! You posted that I was "lonely & angry" and a cop wannabe. All lies! Also you lied that you have me on ignore. Addtionally you lied and claimed you weren't banned & I was wrong! Yet, you post here that you want to be left alone? I'd say you want to post your trash about me & others and not be called on it! Fat chance!

[sassylassy]

what part of this exactly do you find offensive?

"a person who shares in one's activities, occupation, etc.; companion, associate, or friend."

The term "comrade" (and its equivalent in other languages) usually means "a fellow socialist" or "a fellow Communist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comrade

I prefer not to be called anything...I dont call anyone else names here, so I request the same respect back- thats all!

Ciao!

[socaldiva]

NEVER EVER NEVER EVER

MARTIN ii

Still posting about me after you post that you want to be left alone! You are such a joke.

[socaldiva]

The term "comrade" (and its equivalent in other languages) usually means "a fellow socialist" or "a fellow Communist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comrade

I prefer not to be called anything...I dont call anyone else names, so I request the same respect back- thats all!

Thanks!

Here is the definition from the link you posted:

"Comrade is a term meaning "friend," "colleague," or "ally." The term originally carried a strong military connotation, and referred to a roommate"

I see that you scrolled down to pick up the political version.

[weezer]

The term "comrade" (and its equivalent in other languages) usually means "a fellow socialist" or "a fellow Communist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comrade

I prefer not to be called anything...I dont call anyone else names here, so I request the same respect back- thats all!

Ciao!

no problem

[sassylassy]

--snip--
recently three black men were going home from a party for one that was to get married the next morning.
undercover cops put 50 shots into their car. killed one critically wonded another. no gun or any kind of weapon was found on the men or in the car.

martin II

sorry all ...I know this is o/t-

martin-I read about that story in marie clair (or some mag) I was shocked & sadden-what a horrible story.

anyhow we cant talk about it here, cuz it's really really off topic!

[sassylassy]

Here is the definition from the link you posted:

"Comrade is a term meaning "friend," "colleague," or "ally." The term originally carried a strong military connotation, and referred to a roommate"

I see that you scrolled down to pick up the political version.


I dont like the term "comrade" & wish not to be referred to one, I have asked you nicely...I dont call anyone else names here so I request the same respect back.

Thank you.

[socaldiva]

I dont like the term "comrade" & wish not to be referred to one, I have asked you nicely...I dont call anyone else names here so I request the same respect back.

Thank you.

It hasn't been used since you mentioned it, however relative to your claim that you don't call anyone names, I would suggest that someone commandeered your computer whilst you were gone. Someone using your nic referred to me as an "old timer" today. I don't find that "respectful".

[sassylassy]

I mentioned it :confused:??

please refer to your post where you called me a comrade.

#1330

"We know how you & your comrades are ever so suspicious of any type of police"

so with that said, I am sorry if you felt I dissed your age, that really wasnt my intent!

the term is old & thats really what I was mocking, not you.

Thanks!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I mentioned it :confused:??

please refer to your post where you called me a comrade.



To clarify for you: It hasn't been used again since you mentioned that it was offensive.

[sassylassy]

To clarify for you: It hasn't been used again since you mentioned that it was offensive.

Thank you....

[2L8 4A D8]

I arduously deny that I was ever a member or affiliate of the Communist party. I find this post highly offensive and insulting and ask you to refrain from calling me that again.

No matter what we would call you and your comrades, it would be highly offensive and insulting to all of you. Bottom line, it all comes down to Pettiness! And this, as usual, is nothing but Pettiness!

Comrade ~ Friend, or passionate companion or "Peer" in French

Since you have nominated yourself as Top Dog of the NG's, why don't you step up to the plate and knock off all of this petty bullsh*t? :punch:

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

william
recently three black men were going home from a party for one that was to get married the next morning.
undercover cops put 50 shots into their car. killed one critically wonded another. no gun or any kind of weapon was found on the men or in the car.

Around here we look at the cope with a sharp eye. wanna be cops that snitch included. imo jmo
martin II

Socaldiva: Here it is again. Another reference re: you, the wannabe cop and snitch! I don't care how much he uses imo or jmo! IMO, he needs to be held accountable. :flamemad: That is why I didn't take it to PM's! I want a paper trail for future reference!

[2L8 4A D8]

umm this is the first I heard about my lips, so I have no idea what u are talking about....

but anyways you asked me not to call you hon, & I did...so we are asking for you to stop using the word "comrade" so please respectfully do so.....


Thanks again...

As far as I am concerned, Miss Sharing the Love, when and if Freshwater tells me that the word "comrade" is offensive and to stop using it, I will refrain. In fact, why don't you go running to her right now and ask her what her opinion is? Ask her to make a list of all of the offensive words and put them in the Bait Bicker & Bull Thread for one and all to see! I mean, like, isn't that a novel idea, like WOW?

Until then, don't tell me what to say or not to say!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

You have not refrained, only to a specific few requests. You still make your attempts to make salicious postings. You wouldn't know "polite & professional" if it bit you.

:beer: Excellent post as usual! How many times did I have to post to him? I think that I ended one post with, "You're like a child having to be told over and over and over and over again!" Good Grief!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

I dont like the term "comrade" & wish not to be referred to one, I have asked you nicely...I dont call anyone else names here so I request the same respect back.

Thank you.

Where do you get off saying that you don't call people names here? You did it when you were first here and you're still doing it now that you have come back for the second time! Get off of it, Miss Holier Than Thou!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

It's okay. Let me see if I can find the last informative posts you made on any Simpson thread.

I went back to Day 1 since you first logged on here to try and find an informative post made by you on any Simpson Thread, but couldn't find any! Geez, what's up with that? :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

You are so transparent! The only reason you keep inserting this "I am highly insulted" b.s. is to try & counter the garbage you post.

:seeya: :seeya: back at ya!

That and he thinks that it will carry some weight with Freshwater! I think that both you and I could state that to him everytime that he posts to us. The last time that I looked, three can play his game. Let's go for it! LOL!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

diva
i have not posted anything to or about you So you just need to find someone to fight with other than me as i have no interest in reading your post or posting to you. i have told you many times before I HAVE YOU ON IGNOER FOR MONTHS but you continue to stalk my every post looking to fight and or give INSUL .SO PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE.
MARTIN ii

Oh yes you have and you do. You seem to forget that I was there when you threw out your original post to her ~ those many, many, many months ago when you were what now, rayraytwo! Maybe you've forgotten, but I didn't and haven't. You need to be reported and I hope that she does just that!

JMO and MOO!!

[smalltowngal]

Didn't OJ make the comment, I am sure I saw him on some show. He said he wrote the book because he needed the money for his kids?

[William Anthony]

I mentioned it :confused:??

please refer to your post where you called me a comrade.

#1330

"We know how you & your comrades are ever so suspicious of any type of police"

so with that said, I am sorry if you felt I dissed your age, that really wasnt my intent!

the term is old & thats really what I was mocking, not you.

Thanks!

Classy Sassy Lassy,

As always you show that you are a lady by your willingness to apologize.

[William Anthony]

:beer: Excellent post as usual! How many times did I have to post to him? I think that I ended one post with, "You're like a child having to be told over and over and over and over again!" Good Grief!

JMO and MOO!!

:seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

I went back to Day 1 since you first logged on here to try and find an informative post made by you on any Simpson Thread, but couldn't find any! Geez, what's up with that? :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

:seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

That and he thinks that it will carry some weight with Freshwater! I think that both you and I could state that to him everytime that he posts to us. The last time that I looked, three can play his game. Let's go for it! LOL!

JMO and MOO!!

:seeya: :seeya:

[martin II]

2l

what i am thinking is that on almost every argument or attack on others on this thread, you have been right in the middle of it. either by telling poster what they can post and what they cannot post. Threatening to report posters and generally distracting from the subject at hand. oj simpson trial.

Hopefully you will tire of this activity soon and allow poster to discuss the subjects without your attacks on them.

martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

2l

what i am thinking is that on almost every argument or attack on others on this thread, you have been right in the middle of it. either by telling poster what they can post and what they cannot post. Threatening to report posters and generally distracting from the subject at hand. oj simpson trial.

Hopefully you will tire of this activity soon and allow poster to discuss the subjects without your attacks on them.

martin II

Blah Blah Blah and more Blah! Thought you had me on Ignore? Sorry, as long and you and William continue denying what you say and do, I will continue bringing it to your attention and to his attention! Only you call it "Threatening to Report" because you know that you are constantly at fault and do need to be reported!

I will never tire placing the blame on where the blame lies. It's the principle of the matter with me!

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

That and he thinks that it will carry some weight with Freshwater! I think that both you and I could state that to him everytime that he posts to us. The last time that I looked, three can play his game. Let's go for it! LOL!

JMO and MOO!!

I know exactly what he's doing. He's so transparent, yet he thinks he's slick.:tongue:

[2L8 4A D8]

I know exactly what he's doing. He's so transparent, yet he thinks he's slick.:tongue:

Right on Diva! Since he doesn't want to be called a "comrade" maybe I'll start calling him "Slick Willy" instead! :tongue: LMAO!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

:seeya:
martin II

[socaldiva]

I guess Martin has decided to mimic W.A's behavior with his wave. One question: Who's he waving at if he has 2L8 & myself "on ignore"? :tongue:

[2L8 4A D8]

I guess Martin has decided to mimic W.A's behavior with his wave. One question: Who's he waving at if he has 2L8 & myself "on ignore"? :tongue:

You know how he always posts to himself Diva?

Well now, he's :seeya: to himself! HA HA HA HA!

He's got us on Ignore, yeah right! HA HA HA HA!

He's nothing but a Puppet, he sure is! HA HA HA HA!

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Blah Blah Blah and more Blah! Thought you had me on Ignore? Sorry, as long and you and William continue denying what you say and do, I will continue bringing it to your attention and to his attention! Only you call it "Threatening to Report" because you know that you are constantly at fault and do need to be reported!

I will never tire placing the blame on where the blame lies. It's the principle of the matter with me!

JMO and MOO!!


:seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

You know how he always posts to himself Diva?

Well now, he's :seeya: to himself! HA HA HA HA!

He's got us on Ignore, yeah right! HA HA HA HA!

He's nothing but a Puppet, he sure is! HA HA HA HA!

JMO and MOO!!

:seeya: :seeya:

[Martyrdom]

william

There is a quesiton as to who this person that called himself REDNECK really is.
martin II

You speakin' 'bout lil old me? I guess ya think I got a double identity cause I agree with a whole lotta the folks here who think you're 'bout good enough for a big joke and that's about it.

I know you feel dumb and all since we proved that you're actually rayraytwo but that don't mean ya gotta assume that everybody else has multiple nics too;)

[n.n]

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.

Well, I can imagine that is very unpleasant to be called a murderer when you are not.
Say Hi! to Mr. Goldman the next time you meet him. You must be close friends. lol

[n.n]

You speakin' 'bout lil old me? I guess ya think I got a double identity cause I agree with a whole lotta the folks here who think you're 'bout good enough for a big joke and that's about it.

I know you feel dumb and all since we proved that you're actually rayraytwo but that don't mean ya gotta assume that everybody else has multiple nics too;)

I think this poster deserves a point tor two for infraction. :D

[n.n]

I know exactly what he's doing. He's so transparent, yet he thinks he's slick.:tongue:

Maybe, it would help to contribute some facts about the case instead of constantly stirring the pot ... Any new evidence in the case that we haven't heard of? Any new insights?

[weezer]

Well, I can imagine that is very unpleasant to be called a murderer when you are not.
Say Hi! to Mr. Goldman the next time you meet him. You must be close friends. lol

I don't personally know the Goldmans -- That does not keep me from admiring their tenacity in going after the Butcher of Brentwood: orenthal james simpson.

[William Anthony]

I don't personally know the Goldmans -- That does not keep me from admiring their tenacity in going after the Butcher of Brentwood: orenthal james simpson.

I did not personally know JC but that did not stop me from admiring the tenacitiy with which he defended Simpson.

[n.n]

I don't personally know the Goldmans -- That does not keep me from admiring their tenacity in going after the Butcher of Brentwood: orenthal james simpson.

Your post suggested you were in contact with them, since you claim Mr. Goldman is doing fine ... So that was just another guess?

lol

[Kayleighjo]

Well, I can imagine that is very unpleasant to be called a murderer when you are not.
Say Hi! to Mr. Goldman the next time you meet him. You must be close friends. lol

Interesting how it's always the ones who comment that another person should recieve infraction points that are right up in the fray of everything.

:tongue:

[2L8 4A D8]

Maybe, it would help to contribute some facts about the case instead of constantly stirring the pot ... Any new evidence in the case that we haven't heard of? Any new insights?

Do you contribute any worthwhile facts about the case? NO!

Do you constantly stir the pot? YES!

Do you contribute any new evidence in the case? NO!

Do you contribute any new insights? NO!

Why should anyone bother? You wouldn't believe anything anyway! It's just a waste of time!

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Do you contribute any worthwhile facts about the case? NO!

Do you constantly stir the pot? YES!

Do you contribute any new evidence in the case? NO!

Do you contribute any new insights? NO!

Why should anyone bother? You wouldn't believe anything anyway! It's just a waste of time!

JMO and MOO!!

Is this a self-analysis? If not, I think you have insulted a new poster who was seeking information on the case.

[n.n]

Do you contribute any worthwhile facts about the case? NO!

Do you constantly stir the pot? YES!

Do you contribute any new evidence in the case? NO!

Do you contribute any new insights? NO!

Why should anyone bother? You wouldn't believe anything anyway! It's just a waste of time!

JMO and MOO!!

lol

I was right after all.

"Why should anyone bother? ..." lol That sums it up very well.

[weezer]

I did not personally know JC but that did not stop me from admiring the tenacitiy with which he defended Simpson.

LOL -- one big difference: cochran didn't kick his tenacity into gear until orenthal put money on the table.................

[martin II]

Do you contribute any worthwhile facts about the case? NO!

Do you constantly stir the pot? YES!

Do you contribute any new evidence in the case? NO!

Do you contribute any new insights? NO!

Why should anyone bother? You wouldn't believe anything anyway! It's just a waste of time!

JMO and MOO!!

It is my opinion that we need new posters as it does help to have new opinions. I see no reason for you to attack and insult this new poster simply because you don't agree with her post. After all her post was not made to you.imo
martin II

[weezer]

It is my opinion that we need new posters as it does help to have new opinions. I see no reason for you to attack and insult this new poster simply because you don't agree with her post. After all her post was not made to you.imo
martin II

I think 2l is too far off the mark with the new poster -- I haven't seen any contribution by n.n. other than trying to stir trouble and insulting other posters.

[martin II]

I think 2l is too far off the mark with the new poster -- I haven't seen any contribution by n.n. other than trying to stir trouble and insulting other posters.

weezer

I dissagree. Attacks do not add much to the discussion.imo

martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

It is my opinion that we need new posters as it does help to have new opinions. I see no reason for you to attack and insult this new poster simply because you don't agree with her post. After all her post was not made to you.imo
martin II

Again, I thought that you had me on IGNORE! Again, obviously you DON'T!

Attacking and Insulting is in the Eyes of the Beholder ~ NN is an NG and you are an NG. It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to know which side that the both of you are on!

That is my perrogative. I can either agree or disagree with a Poster. Again, what part of "I have a right to my opinion and JMO and MOO" don't you understand Martin? It's getting pretty tiring to have to continually hold your hand and walk you through everything!

Again, the post doesn't have to be addressed to me! What part of that don't you get? :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

I think 2l is too far off the mark with the new poster -- I haven't seen any contribution by n.n. other than trying to stir trouble and insulting other posters.

weezer

I dissagree. Attacks do not add much to the discussion.imo

martin II

Thank you Weezer was your astute observation and common sense.

By all means Martin, show ALL of us any Posts made by NN where she has made any contribution to this Board and these Threads in the short time that she has been here. :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!! For those of you who do not know what that means, it is Just My Opinion and My Opinion Only!

[William Anthony]

LOL -- one big difference: cochran didn't kick his tenacity into gear until orenthal put money on the table.................

And what do you think the lawyers for Goldman want?

[weezer]

And what do you think the lawyers for Goldman want?

we weren't talking about the lawyers -- we were discussing tenacity. I simply said cochran thought orenthal was guilty when he was being paid as a talking head and changed his opinion when orenthal paid him as a defense attorney.

[William Anthony]

we weren't talking about the lawyers -- we were discussing tenacity. I simply said cochran thought orenthal was guilty when he was being paid as a talking head and changed his opinion when orenthal paid him as a defense attorney.

Why do you think the lawyers are showing such tenacity? Is it only fair to speak of one lawyer?

[weezer]

Why do you think the lawyers are showing such tenacity? Is it only fair to speak of one lawyer?

geez -- I wasn't speaking of the lawyers' tenacity. I said I admired the Goldmans for their tenacity in making the murderer accountable for butchering two human beings.

[William Anthony]

geez -- I wasn't speaking of the lawyers' tenacity. I said I admired the Goldmans for their tenacity in making the murderer accountable for butchering two human beings.

This is your post

"Originally Posted by fbgweezer
LOL -- one big difference: cochran didn't kick his tenacity into gear until orenthal put money on the table................. "

This is the post, which I was asking you about.

[weezer]

This is your post

"Originally Posted by fbgweezer
LOL -- one big difference: cochran didn't kick his tenacity into gear until orenthal put money on the table................. "

This is the post, which I was asking you about.

Good Gawd! you were the one talking about lawyers -- not me!

"Originally Posted by William Anthony
I did not personally know JC but that did not stop me from admiring the tenacitiy with which he defended Simpson."

[William Anthony]

Good Gawd! you were the one talking about lawyers -- not me!

"Originally Posted by William Anthony
I did not personally know JC but that did not stop me from admiring the tenacitiy with which he defended Simpson."

Yes and that was your response in which you mentioned Cochran's tenacity. I only asked was it fair to talk about other lawyers. I am enjoying our conversation on the other thread. This one I believe is a little O/T.

[weezer]

Yes and that was your response in which you mentioned Cochran's tenacity. I only asked was it fair to talk about other lawyers. I am enjoying our conversation on the other thread. This one I believe is a little O/T.

Last word on this: I did not mention cochran's tenacity --- I simply said he didn't have any until orenthal put money on the table. Up to that point, ole cochran thought he was guilty. :tongue:

[2L8 4A D8]

we weren't talking about the lawyers -- we were discussing tenacity. I simply said cochran thought orenthal was guilty when he was being paid as a talking head and changed his opinion when orenthal paid him as a defense attorney.

Mark Garegos did the same thing re: Scott Peterson. He went on LKL blowing his mouth off about how guilty Scott was. Then Scott's parents (idiots) totally disregarded Garegos' guilty words against their Son and then hired him to defend him!

Too bad OJ didn't have the Jurors that Scott did because there was more evidence against OJ than Scott and we all know where Scott is now!

Don't tell me that the OJ Verdict wasn't a Travesty of Justice!

JMO and MOO!!

[weezer]

Mark Garegos did the same thing re: Scott Peterson. He went on LKL blowing his mouth off about how guilty Scott was. Then Scott's parents (idiots) totally disregarded Garegos' guilty words against their Son and then hired him to defend him!

Too bad OJ didn't have the Jurors that Scott did because there was more evidence against OJ than Scott and we all know where Scott is now!

Don't tell me that the OJ Verdict wasn't a Travesty of Justice!

JMO and MOO!!

I've always thought it ironic that the jurors felt they had anything in common with orenthal and cochran.........

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Mark Garegos did the same thing re: Scott Peterson. He went on LKL blowing his mouth off about how guilty Scott was. Then Scott's parents (idiots) totally disregarded Garegos' guilty words against their Son and then hired him to defend him!


Isn't that a hoot? :tongue:

[2L8 4A D8]

Isn't that a hoot? :tongue:

Yep Diva, it sure is! :eek:

[martin II]

I've always thought it ironic that the jurors felt they had anything in common with orenthal and cochran.........

weezer
i am not sure the jury felt that they had anything in common with oj or cochran but i am sure that they had great respect for cochrans legal abilties
and how he and the other dream team members were able to show them that the prosecution had not proved their case as required by law.

As far a oj was concerned they saw him as a accused that they would have sent to jail if the prosecution had been able to prove their case as required.
martin II

[n.n]

Btw., I believe Scott Peerson is innocent, too. Why? Because he is a man and a husband (just kidding) ....

[2L8 4A D8]

Btw., I believe Scott Peerson is innocent, too. Why? Because he is a man and a husband (just kidding) ....

What, is this some kind of joke to you? Well, I for one am extremely offended by your humor! Just because you put "(just kidding)" doesn't absolve you of being so crass. Since you have stated that you feel that OJ Simpson is also innocent, it doesn't surprise me that you think that SP is innocent too!

Scott Peterson killed his innocent, beautiful wife ~ which in turn also killed his unborn Son. OJ Simpson killed his innocent, beautiful ex-wife and her friend, Ron Goldman! What a pair! I bet that you just sleep like a baby at night, right?

Of course, you just had to make one of your "contributions" to the Board (insert gagging icon)! Spare us, please! :rolleyes:

Thank you!

JMO and MOO!!

[weezer]

weezer
i am not sure the jury felt that they had anything in common with oj or cochran but i am sure that they had great respect for cochrans legal abilties
and how he and the other dream team members were able to show them that the prosecution had not proved their case as required by law.

As far a oj was concerned they saw him as a accused that they would have sent to jail if the prosecution had been able to prove their case as required.
martin II

the jury didn't see orenthal -- they saw a black man and they were bound and determined to 'take care of one of their own.' You need to accept the jurors for what they were.

[martin II]

the jury didn't see orenthal -- they saw a black man and they were bound and determined to 'take care of one of their own.' You need to accept the jurors for what they were.

weezer

maby you need to understand that the jury did not see everything as race based as you seem to. They had no obilgation to come to the conclusion you demanded of them or that you thought that you were intitled to. They had no reason to even consider what you thought.
try to remember that.
martin II

[n.n]

Martin, the jurors did the right thing. As I said before, the prosecution had no case.

[William Anthony]

the jury didn't see orenthal -- they saw a black man and they were bound and determined to 'take care of one of their own.' You need to accept the jurors for what they were.

Yes, the jurors were intelligent, understoods the law, understood their duty, understood the burden of proof and saw the case, or lack thereof, for what it was, imho.

[n.n]

weezer

maby you need to understand that the jury did not see everything as race based as you seem to. They had no obilgation to come to the conclusion you demanded of them or that you thought that you were intitled to. They had no reason to even consider what you thought.
try to remember that.
martin II

Fact is that the jury didn't find Mr. Simpson guilty despite sitting in the courtroom for months and months. It means that the prosecution could not convince them otherwise. It is insulting to accuse the jury of deliberately delivering a false verdict.

[William Anthony]

The jury was intelligent, understood the law....

[weezer]

you guys are so full of it -- the jury spoke and when they did, they made it clear that they delivered a verdict to America not on whether or not orenthal james simpson was a double murderer (as every single piece of evidence proved) but to send a message to white America. cochran demanded it and the jury delivered it. No one believes that any of you guys give a rat's behind about the murders or the victims.

[martin II]

Fact is that the jury didn't find Mr. Simpson guilty despite sitting in the courtroom for months and months. It means that the prosecution could not convince them otherwise. It is insulting to accuse the jury of deliberately delivering a false verdict.

n.n
what is more disgusting is that some people,believing that they have a right (for some reason) to have the verdict affirm what they believe, have totally ignored the standard required of the prosecution. They seem to accept all the problems in the prosecutions case as just innocent mistakes, oversights or call the defense experts paid hands.

There were other defense experts that did more damage to the prosecutiuons case than J Cochran yet he is the one that receives most of the attacks.

What is also strange is that these same individuals have attacked M Clarke C Darden and other DAS for screwing up the case and making all kinds of tatical mistakes but then overlook these issues when they are forced to look at the standard of PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

martin II

[William Anthony]

you guys are so full of it -- the jury spoke and when they did, they made it clear that they delivered a verdict to America not on whether or not orenthal james simpson was a double murderer (as every single piece of evidence proved) but to send a message to white America. cochran demanded it and the jury delivered it. No one believes that any of you guys give a rat's behind about the murders or the victims.

The verdict was based on the burden of proof, imho. If the verdict also served to invigorate the conscious of America, we should not on the basis of that duality negate the importance of the time honored system of jurisprudence in which an accused has the right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers. We should not so hastily dispose of the fact that the dream team, which was led by a magnanimous and brilliant esquire. gave the world a tutorial in the art of legal advocacy.

[n.n]

n.n
what is more disgusting is that some people,believing that they have a right (for some reason) to have the verdict affirm what they believe, have totally ignored the standard required of the prosecution. They seem to accept all the problems in the prosecutions case as just innocent mistakes, oversights or call the defense experts paid hands.

There were other defense experts that did more damage to the prosecutiuons case than J Cochran yet he is the one that receives most of the attacks.

What is also strange is that these same individuals have attacked M Clarke C Darden and other DAS for screwing up the case and making all kinds of tatical mistakes but then overlook these issues when they are forced to look at the standard of PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

martin II

I totally agree.
Mr. Cochran probably received most attention because he was the most charismatic one.
The jury could not help but deliver the verdict they did.

[weezer]

The verdict was based on the burden of proof, imho. If the verdict also served to invigorate the conscious of America, we should not on the basis of that duality negate the importance of the time honored system of jurisprudence in which an accused has the right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers. We should not so hastily dispose of the fact that the dream team, which was led by a magnanimous and brilliant esquire. gave the world a tutorial in the art of legal advocacy.

LOL -- thanks william, I needed that laugh.

It is my belief that had the jury not shown themselves to be so race biased and ignorant, America would have learned to accept the verdict. But, because the jury spoke and made clear their bias and their ignorance, America reacted negatively.

[weezer]

I totally agree.
Mr. Cochran probably received most attention because he was the most charismatic one.
The jury could not help but deliver the verdict they did.

he's the one that's dead isn't he?

[n.n]

The verdict was based on the burden of proof, imho. If the verdict also served to invigorate the conscious of America, we should not on the basis of that duality negate the importance of the time honored system of jurisprudence in which an accused has the right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers. We should not so hastily dispose of the fact that the dream team, which was led by a magnanimous and brilliant esquire. gave the world a tutorial in the art of legal advocacy.

Amen again,
What I view as troubling in this case is that Mr. Simpson, had he not the means to hire an excellent team, would have had no chance to defend himself adequately. The thought of getting caught in such a system is very scary.

[Kayleighjo]

he's the one that's dead isn't he?

Indeed Johnny is. I'm currently waiting to hear news that he's launched a class action suit on behalf of the damned.

[Kayleighjo]

Amen again,
What I view as troubling in this case is that Mr. Simpson, had he not the means to hire an excellent team, would have had no chance to defend himself adequately. The thought of getting caught in such a system is very scary.

I know! The thought that a guilty person could actually be punished for his crimes keeps me awake at night.

[2L8 4A D8]

I totally agree.
Mr. Cochran probably received most attention because he was the most charismatic one.
The jury could not help but deliver the verdict they did.

Yeah, 'ol Johnnie Cochran was just Jesus Christ personified wasn't he? Yeah, Johnnie Cochran was a charismatic, magnanimous and brilliant esquire ~ NOT!

However, as Weezer stated: "Last word on this: I did not mention cochran's tenacity --- I simply said he didn't have any until orenthal put money on the table. Up to that point, ole cochran thought he was guilty."

Sounds more like 'ol Johnnie Cochran was a two-faced, lying hypocrite who used the race card to assure that he got his guilty-a** client off and the moronic, idiot Jurors bought all of his cr@p hook, line and sinker! :mad:

JMO and MOO!!

[weezer]

Amen again,
What I view as troubling in this case is that Mr. Simpson, had he not the means to hire an excellent team, would have had no chance to defend himself adequately. The thought of getting caught in such a system is very scary.

it is troubling isn't it? do you also find his abusing Nicole, lying and cheating also troubling? Maybe, just maybe if he hadn't spent 17 years beating on her physically, verbally and emotionally, he wouldn't have been the suspect in this case.

[weezer]

Indeed Johnny is. I'm currently waiting to hear news that he's launched a class action suit on behalf of the damned.

LOL -- perfect!

[martin II]

LOL -- thanks william, I needed that laugh.

It is my belief that had the jury not shown themselves to be so race biased and ignorant, America would have learned to accept the verdict. But, because the jury spoke and made clear their bias and their ignorance, America reacted negatively.

weezer

America does not have to agree with a court verdict in order for the verdict to be valid. The purpose of a trial is not to take the temperature of what Americans think. Opinion polls are used when one wants to get the general public opinion on a subject.

The only Americans that were in the best position to understand the trial
were the tryers of fact. At least that is how the CJS is set up.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Sounds more like 'ol Johnnie Cochran was a two-faced, lying hypocrite who used the race card to assure that he got his guilty-a** client off and the moronic, idiot Jurors bought all of his cr@p hook, line and sinker! :mad:

JMO and MOO!!


Sound like an accurate description of Cochran to me.:beer:

[William Anthony]

Indeed Johnny is. I'm currently waiting to hear news that he's launched a class action suit on behalf of the damned.

He is dead but his memory and accomplishments surpass his longevity. There are some who are destined to die in hatred and obscurity, imho. I sincerely hope that I will not belong to that latter group.

[weezer]

He is dead but his memory and accomplishments surpass his longevity. There are some who are destined to die in hatred and obscurity, imho. I sincerely hope that I will not belong to that latter group.

anything good that cochran may or may not have accomplished outside of the simpson case has been overwritten by the lows he sunk to.

[William Anthony]

anything good that cochran may or may not have accomplished outside of the simpson case has been overwritten by the lows he sunk to.

There are many in the legal profession, including my professor on trial techniques and evidence, who hold him in high esteem. I realize that there are those who disagree, but most of the legal community (his profession and his peers) still recognize his accomplishments. He did nothing more than he took an oath to do, which was to give his client the best defense possible as do others in his profession.

[martin II]

anything good that cochran may or may not have accomplished outside of the simpson case has been overwritten by the lows he sunk to.

weezer
i doubt that your opinion on JC would be accepted by people in his legal profession or by people that KNOW him and his accomplishments.



martin II

[martin II]

weezer

The cochran group law has 19 offices in 14 states operating under j cochrans name. It does not seem that these law firms believe that are operating under a disgraced name.

martin II

[William Anthony]

weezer
i doubt that your opinion on JC would be accepted by people in his legal profession or by people that KNOW him and his accomplishments.



martin II

Martin,

JC's name seems to draw such deep rooted bitterness from some, but paramount praise from others.

[martin II]

Martin,

JC's name seems to draw such deep rooted bitterness from some, but paramount praise from others.

william

There are the informed and then there are those that don't care about being informed.
martin II

[William Anthony]

william

There are the informed and then there are those that don't care about being informed.
martin II


Msrtin,

He exuded confidence. It was as if the courtroom was his palace.

[weezer]

william

There are the informed and then there are those that don't care about being informed.
martin II

the man was a slime -- made his living off of his own people, abused his wife, was a liar and cheat, and helped a double murderer walk free. He died didn't he?

[William Anthony]

the man was a slime -- made his living off of his own people, abused his wife, was a liar and cheat, and helped a double murderer walk free. He died didn't he?

We all must die. Not one of us is perfect. I do not know what you mean by the remark he made his living off his own people. Are you saying, he only defended members of the Black race?

[n.n]

There are many in the legal profession, including my professor on trial techniques and evidence, who hold him in high esteem. I realize that there are those who disagree, but most of the legal community (his profession and his peers) still recognize his accomplishments. He did nothing more than he took an oath to do, which was to give his client the best defense possible as do others in his profession.

So says the lawyer in my family; the police officer in my family was shaking his head in disbelief over the botched investigation ...

[William Anthony]

So says the lawyer in my family; the police officer in my family was shaking his head in disbelief over the botched investigation ...

As JC said, a rush to judgment.

[martin II]

the man was a slime -- made his living off of his own people, abused his wife, was a liar and cheat, and helped a double murderer walk free. He died didn't he?

weezer

After serving as a prosecutror in LA J Cochran made sure that people harmed by the city, state received justic in the CJS. So in that way he made his living bringing justice to the people and forced the city/state to pay him and the client.

He died a honorable and beloved man and this was evident by the size of the crowd at his funeral. We should all be so lucky.
martin II

[martin II]

Msrtin,

He exuded confidence. It was as if the courtroom was his palace.

william'
he certainly owned the oj courtroom. Ask C Darden
martin II

[socaldiva]

the man was a slime -- made his living off of his own people, abused his wife, was a liar and cheat, and helped a double murderer walk free. He died didn't he?

Yes, he was a slime & very OJ like. Seems like the only thing Cochran didn't do that OJ did, was commit murder.

[2L8 4A D8]

william

There are the informed and then there are those that don't care about being informed.
martin II

IMO, certainly not by the likes of YOU or any of your pals! :rolleyes:

[2L8 4A D8]

weezer
i doubt that your opinion on JC would be accepted by people in his legal profession or by people that KNOW him and his accomplishments.

martin II

Unfortunately, people in the legal profession or people that know JC and his accomplishments pale in comparison of the contempt that is held re: JC by the American people (public) and people (public) the World over!

The acquittal of OJ Simpson will go down in the annals of history as the biggest Travesity of Justice ~ all thanks to none other than JC himself and the moronic, idiotic Jury! Yeah, what a Legacy! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

So says the lawyer in my family; the police officer in my family was shaking his head in disbelief over the botched investigation ...

Oh WOW! One lawyer and one police officer! WOW! Thanks for that contribution! GMAB! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

the man was a slime -- made his living off of his own people, abused his wife, was a liar and cheat, and helped a double murderer walk free. He died didn't he?

Yeah, brain tumor/brain cancer, something like that. A very horrible/awful way to die. Poor guy! Karma comes to mind! IMO!

[William Anthony]

william'
he certainly owned the oj courtroom. Ask C Darden
martin II

Martin,

Have you ever known Simpson to practice law and be come renown in his practice of that profession?

[William Anthony]

william'
he certainly owned the oj courtroom. Ask C Darden
martin II

Martin,

I have found that some, who have little respect and knowledge of the law, fail to understand that JC did a masterful job and displayed how to hold the prosecution to its burden of proof. If the standard was any lower and lawyers had not learned from JC's magnificent demonstration, there would be many more innocent falsely convicted, imho. That is not to say that Simpson was innocent, only to say that the illustrious JC illuminated the darkened abyss of the prosecution's lack of credible evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty.

[Kayleighjo]

Martin,

I have found that some, who have little respect and knowledge of the law, fail to understand that JC did a masterful job and displayed how to hold the prosecution to its burden of proof. If the standard was any lower and lawyers had not learned from JC's magnificent demonstration, there would be many more innocent falsely convicted, imho. That is not to say that Simpson was innocent, only to say that the illustrious JC illuminated the darkened abyss of the prosecution's lack of credible evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty.

It's not so much that peeple don't understand, I think that the defense made the only argument they could given the damning forensic evidence in the case – by making it a race issue and attacking the police department’s investigative methods and by spinning fairytales that sounded great to anyone not inclined to dig a little deeper.

I think the major error lies in the testimony and evidence that Ito allowed to be presented – and by allowing evidence that should have been precluded, I think it's possible that some people may have felt justified in questioning whether the proof beyond a reasonable doubt burden was met. (I, myself, am not one of those people).

Interestingly, I think that if the same facts were presented at a trial today the result would be the complete opposite given the acceptance of blood/DNA evidence by the legal and scientific communities.

Basically, I think the outcome of the case was a product of the time. It makes me feel old but the world was a lot different in 1994

[martin II]

Martin,

I have found that some, who have little respect and knowledge of the law, fail to understand that JC did a masterful job and displayed how to hold the prosecution to its burden of proof. If the standard was any lower and lawyers had not learned from JC's magnificent demonstration, there would be many more innocent falsely convicted, imho. That is not to say that Simpson was innocent, only to say that the illustrious JC illuminated the darkened abyss of the prosecution's lack of credible evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty.

william

I agree with your post.

I think in many cases the defendant is always at a dissadvantage as far as public opinion is concerned. Some seem to be of the opinion of 'the defendant must be guilty. otherwise the DA would not have charged him.

Some consider themselves more law and order than others simply because they belong to one group or the other.

Without defense lawyers the system would be unfair to all. Most unbiased people credited J Cochram/dream team with a splendid,creative and successful presentaiton that caused the flaws in the prosecutions case to be apparent and obvious. However, only those that truly understood the concept of PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT and were able to accept that their original opinion of guilt(before the trial) was wrong, are able to undrstand why simpson was found NOT GUILTY.imo

The jury did their job and did it well.

martin II

[Kayleighjo]

**snipped

william

However, only those that truly understood the concept of PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT and were able to accept that their original opinion of guilt(before the trial) was wrong, are able to undrstand why simpson was found NOT GUILTY.imo

The jury did their job and did it well.

martin II

And then there were those of us (like me) who had to accept that their original opinion of innocence (before the trial) was wrong, and able to understand based on the evidence that Simpson was guilty and then come to terms with the fact that America hold racial animosity to the point where jurors would let a guilty man walk free based on ill feelings of racial unjust.

The jury didn't do their job and they didn't do it well.

[William Anthony]

**snipped



And then there were those of us (like me) who had to accept that their original opinion of innocence (before the trial) was wrong, and able to understand based on the evidence that Simpson was guilty and then come to terms with the fact that America hold racial animosity to the point where jurors would let a guilty man walk free based on ill feelings of racial unjust.

The jury didn't do their job and they didn't do it well.

I would like to disagree. The jury looked at the evidence, giving weight to it under the many mistakes, contradictions, contamination, errors, lies, and inferences of planting by someone who had motive, access and opportunity. The jury saw a glove, which was alleged to have been worn by the murderer, that did not fit the hand of the accused.

[Kayleighjo]

I would like to disagree. The jury looked at the evidence, giving weight to it under the many mistakes, contradictions, contamination, errors, lies, and inferences of planting by someone who had motive, access and opportunity. The jury saw a glove, which was alleged to have been worn by the murderer, that did not fit the hand of the accused.

You mis-speak here William. Have you forgotten about the couple of jurors who publicly commented after trial that they felt that the glove really did fit and felt that OJ was just trying to make it look like it didn't?

[William Anthony]

You mis-speak here William. Have you forgotten about the couple of jurors who publicly commented after trial that they felt that the glove really did fit and felt that OJ was just trying to make it look like it didn't?

No, there may have been a couple out of the 12 but the majority ruled. I think that the fit or non-fit of the glove must be taken into consideration with all the evidence. I did review that tape with the glove demonstration, and, if he was acting, he deserved the Academy Award. He tried laboriously to pull those gloves on to his hands and even tugged at the areas in between his fingers. Whether or not the latex played a part is a question that will remain unresolved. The fact is the prosecution made another mistake with the demonstration.

[Kayleighjo]

No, there may have been a couple out of the 12 but the majority ruled. I think that the fit or non-fit of the glove must be taken into consideration with all the evidence. I did review that tape with the glove demonstration, and, if he was acting, he deserved the Academy Award. He tried laboriously to pull those gloves on to his hands and even tugged at the areas in between his fingers. Whether or not the latex played a part is a question that will remain unresolved. The fact is the prosecution made another mistake with the demonstration.

It doesn't matter if it was two or twelve, the glove was apparently not important enough to give that much weight to or you wouldn't have two jurors vote not guilty while publicly admitting that they felt the glove did fit.

[William Anthony]

It doesn't matter if it was two or twelve, the glove was apparently not important enough to give that much weight to or you wouldn't have two jurors vote not guilty while publicly admitting that they felt the glove did fit.

I agree that the glove was not the most important evidence in the case and that it was simply a part of other evidence, which given the weight assigned, that did not fit.

[martin II]

I agree that the glove was not the most important evidence in the case and that it was simply a part of other evidence, which given the weight assigned, that did not fit.

william

Shapero of the defense team tried on the gloves the night/day before the demonstraiton and all (defense) agreed that because this try on, they knew that the golves would not fit oj's very large hands.
If the prosecution had taken the time to do the same instead of listening to that foolish 'GLOVE EXPERT" they hired, they would not have had egg all over their face by forcing the demonstration in open court and the gloves did not fit.

The fact that 2 jurors thought the glove fit only means that all 12 did not agree on all details of the evidence. But when every thing was taken as a whole they all agreed that oj did not kill anyone.
martihn II

[William Anthony]

william

Shapero of the defense team tried on the gloves the night/day before the demonstraiton and all (defense) agreed that because this try on, they knew that the golves would not fit oj's very large hands.
If the prosecution had taken the time to do the same instead of listening to that foolish 'GLOVE EXPERT" they hired, they would not have had egg all over their face by forcing the demonstration in open court and the gloves did not fit.

The fact that 2 jurors thought the glove fit only means that all 12 did not agree on all details of the evidence. But when every thing was taken as a whole they all agreed that oj did not kill anyone.
martihn II

Martin,

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the prosecution failed to link Simpson to the murders, which was their weakest link.

[martin II]

Martin,

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the prosecution failed to link Simpson to the murders, which was their weakest link.

william

At the points where actual proof was required the prosecution had none. They were forced to try to creat suggestions and 'HE MUST HAVE' type presentaitons to try to creat the necessary story required for the jury to understand what happened.

Darden was suppose to show that abuse leads to murder. HE FAILED. Then
their efforts to create a story of motive FAILED.

Then they had two or three DNA EXPERTS wax on for weeks about a subject
that no one in the court room or here understood.

The prosecution was not able to present a cohesive undrstandble story line
of what happened and the defense team was able to show the jury that there was reasonable doubt. That was all that was required.

So it was not the jury that failed as they only listened to what was presented and contested.

The prosecution blew this case as they did not prove that oj killed anyone beyond a reasonable doubt.imo

Martin II

[Kayleighjo]

Martin,

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the prosecution failed to link Simpson to the murders, which was their weakest link.

You know, I'm not even sure that I can say that the jurors in the criminal trial agreed that OJ didn't kill anyone. I think there were a couple that said that they thought he probably did it but that the State didn't meet the burden necessary for a conviction.

[William Anthony]

You know, I'm not even sure that I can say that the jurors in the criminal trial agreed that OJ didn't kill anyone. I think there were a couple that said that they thought he probably did it but that the State didn't meet the burden necessary for a conviction.

Yes, and that burden was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I have said, if the burden was by preponderance, more likely than not, I think the verdict would have been different.

[martin II]

Yes, and that burden was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I have said, if the burden was by preponderance, more likely than not, I think the verdict would have been different.

william

All jury member have PERSONAL opinions about one piece of the evidence or another but they are not suppose to make decisions based on their personal opinions according to the jury instrucitons given by the judge.

This jury sat through 9 months of prosecution and defense witnesses and they were able to judge the credibility of each.

Condidering all of the prosecutions problems with this evidence and lying witnesses it is easy for the defense to show that there were serious problems
with their case that created boubt.

Blame it on ineffective prosecution or excellant defense but it was not proven that oj killed anyone.
martin II

[Kayleighjo]

Yes, and that burden was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I have said, if the burden was by preponderance, more likely than not, I think the verdict would have been different.

I know you have and I'm sorry because my reply was supposed to be directed to Martin because he's the one who stated that the jurors decided that OJ didn't kill anyone ... but I see that I posted it to you inadvertantly.

[William Anthony]

william

All jury member have PERSONAL opinions about one piece of the evidence or another but they are not suppose to make decisions based on their personal opinions according to the jury instrucitons given by the judge.

This jury sat through 9 months of prosecution and defense witnesses and they were able to judge the credibility of each.

Condidering all of the prosecutions problems with this evidence and lying witnesses it is easy for the defense to show that there were serious problems
with their case that created boubt.

Blame it on ineffective prosecution or excellant defense but it was not proven that oj killed anyone.
martin II

Martin,

Quite right.

[weezer]

Martin,

Quite right.

so after "condidering" it, you didn't have any "boubt"? :eek:

[William Anthony]

so after "condidering" it, you didn't have any "boubt"? :eek:

After condidering it, I had as much boubt as the prosecution had poof.

[martin II]

Martin,

Quite right.

During the oj trial the lapd lab was exposed as a sub par operation in many
aspects.

After the oj trial the city/state ordered a complete overhaul of the colleciton, storing, testing and training of techs along with i am sure new and more up to date equipment and new protocols.

Prior to the oj trial and during the oj trial all results for this lab are suspect.

It was not as bad at the situation in San Francisco where a lab tech had been found to have given false lab results in 500 cases but it was not up to national standards by no means.

martin II

[William Anthony]

During the oj trial the lapd lab was exposed as a sub par operation in many
aspects.

After the oj trial the city/state ordered a complete overhaul of the colleciton, storing, testing and training of techs along with i am sure new and more up to date equipment and new protocols.

Prior to the oj trial and during the oj trial all results for this lab are suspect.

It was not as bad at the situation in San Francisco where a lab tech had been found to have given false lab results in 500 cases but it was not up to national standards by no means.

martin II

The substandard condititons of the lab may have led to faulty DNA results. I started reviewing the testimony of Kestler. She should have been ashamed of herself. She was a manager, who, by her own testimony, seldom managed. I wonder if she backed up to get her pay check?

[martin II]

The substandard condititons of the lab may have led to faulty DNA results. I started reviewing the testimony of Kestler. She should have been ashamed of herself. She was a manager, who, by her own testimony, seldom managed. I wonder if she backed up to get her pay check?

WILLIAM
Another issues with that lab is that people other then lab tech had access to the lab at any time 24/7. lapd detectives included.

martin II

[martin II]

The substandard condititons of the lab may have led to faulty DNA results. I started reviewing the testimony of Kestler. She should have been ashamed of herself. She was a manager, who, by her own testimony, seldom managed. I wonder if she backed up to get her pay check?

william

Dr Cotton testified that she could not verify that the samples sent to her were collected,stored and packaged according to required standards. she only
test what she is given.
martin II

[William Anthony]

WILLIAM
Another issues with that lab is that people other then lab tech had access to the lab at any time 24/7. lapd detectives included.

martin II

You mean like the Bronco was secured.

[martin II]

it is troubling isn't it? do you also find his abusing Nicole, lying and cheating also troubling? Maybe, just maybe if he hadn't spent 17 years beating on her physically, verbally and emotionally, he wouldn't have been the suspect in this case.

weezer
i do undrstand that the issue of alledge abuse is of interest you to, one must remember that oj was charged with two murders. No place in the charges by the DA is abuse listed as a charge.

I have no idea why nicole would have stayed with oj for 17 years if what you think happened was true.
martin II

[martin II]

You mean like the Bronco was secured.

william
correct, like the bronco.And they expected people to believe that story,
one guy at the storage facility rambeled in the glove compartment or something like that.it was leff unattended for what a week or two.

martin ii

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I have no idea why nicole would have stayed with oj for 17 years if what you think happened was true.
martin II

That's because you don't understand domestic abuse. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes women longer than that to get out & some never do. It doesn't mean the abuse never existed.

[Kayleighjo]

That's because you don't understand domestic abuse. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes women longer than that to get out & some never do. It doesn't mean the abuse never existed.

Amen to that. I really wish that people would stop asking "why didn't she leave" and start asking "why doesn't he stop beating her"!

[William Anthony]

william

Dr Cotton testified that she could not verify that the samples sent to her were collected,stored and packaged according to required standards. she only
test what she is given.
martin II

Martin,

So, in effect she was not sure whether or not she was verifying contaminated results or not.

[martin II]

Martin,

So, in effect she was not sure whether or not she was verifying contaminated results or not.

william
corect
Dr Cotton was asked if she could verify that the samples were collected in a accepted collection manner. She stated that she was not involved in this procedure and only could verify how she received the samples.

However Dr Cotton's lab had done work for the lapd lab on other ocassions and had some previous business relationship with the lab.A good reason to give assistance to them in her testimony.

Martin II

[martin II]

Martin,

So, in effect she was not sure whether or not she was verifying contaminated results or not.

William

As i see it, If the lapd lab was operating according to some accepted national
standards on the issue of collecting ,storing, testing packaging and lab tech
training there would have been no reason for the lab to be overhauled/ reoganized after the oj trial.

The fact that it was, indicates that there were major problems in this lab and that the results of their activities could not be trusted.imo

martin II

[William Anthony]

William

As i see it, If the lapd lab was operating according to some accepted national
standards on the issue of collecting ,storing, testing packaging and lab tech
training there would have been no reason for the lab to be overhauled/ reoganized after the oj trial.

The fact that it was, indicates that there were major problems in this lab and that the results of their activities could not be trusted.imo

martin II

Martin,

I agree and the defense did a good job of exposing both the possible contamination and corruption within LE.

[2L8 4A D8]

Uh huh, just keep on trying desperately to convince yourselves of OJ's innocence! LMAO! :chicken: :chicken: :chicken:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

William

As i see it, If the lapd lab was operating according to some accepted national
standards on the issue of collecting ,storing, testing packaging and lab tech
training there would have been no reason for the lab to be overhauled/ reoganized after the oj trial.

The fact that it was, indicates that there were major problems in this lab and that the results of their activities could not be trusted.imo

martin II

Martin,

We do not have to convince ourselves of anything, since the jury said not guilty. It appears that some must try to convince everyone else that Simpson is guilty, a task that they, like the prosecution, have failed to do.

[socaldiva]

Uh huh, just keep on trying desperately to convince yourselves of OJ's innocence! LMAO! :chicken: :chicken:

JMO and MOO!!

Yep...& the operative word seems to be "desperate" ;)