Goldmans Sue

[Kate Sachel]

Kinetic Kate

In any segment of a population or race you will most assuredly find those that are racists. That particular segment will rejoice anytime they feel that there is an event, which supports its agenda. The question is not what those people felt that had no process in the decision making of the trial, but, what were the thoughts of those that did.

As I have found you to be honest, open minded and willing to discuss matters in a respectful and civil manner, let me state that most jurors desire to hear a case that makes sense from the beginning to the end. The last time Simpson was seen on the night of the murders in Nicole's presence was at the recital. He was seen on videotape in a pleasant mood. He discussed her figure/appearance in the black dress with Kato. There is no evidence that Nicole and Simpson argued on that fatal night. Do you think that the prosecution offered a conclusive theory on why Simpson would have committed murder on that particular night, since Nicole and he had many prior arguments that did not end in a killing?

Before we dive in I would like to clarify a point. As you aware, I understand the jury's verdict of the criminal trial and agree that questions were raised reagrding certain issues that were difficult to answer in the moment. With that, you are also aware that I firmly and fully believe that OJ is the killer based on evidence both presented and left out of the criminal trial and based on evidence and testimony presented in the civil trial.

Having said that, no I do not believe that the prosecution offered a conlcusive theory on why OJ committed murder that night.

One of the most important points to remember regarding his demeanor in the public eye at the recital is that OJ's public image is the most important thing in the world to him. Do you believe that he wanted to present a brooding, depressed, or angry indivudal whose ex-wife had just left him again and openly snubbed him in front of the family.

Ron Fischman, one of OJ's staunchest supporters and who so desperately attempted to avoid a summons to be deposed in the civil trial to the point where he tried to run over the server, admitted in his deposition that on the night of the recital OJ was dark and sullen and that OJ made the statement regarding Nicole that he was "gonna get her, but good".

So which is it? Do you not agree that it is possible that he was sullen and dark in the presence of his close friend, and then put on a relaxed and happy demeanor to the public after the recital was finished?

I do not agree that there is no evidence that OJ was quite angry with Nicole, I simply believe that the prosecution did not set forth a decent case.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin II

All
Are there any comment about the SPECIFIC comments about why white america took the position they seems to take after the acquittal of OJ.
martin II



I took this from a larger post above from a frontline interview.

Are there any comments about this subject as it relates to why some whites opinion about race were formed as they were. Or any comments?
martin II

"And then white America said: "Well, wait a minute. We had granted you honorary status, which means you have to play by our rules. You have to accept the reality that race doesn't exist. But now you're saying it exists. You have to accept the reality that race no longer is hugely significant, and it no longer rules America. But now you're saying it does. Well, if you say it does, then we're going to go back to our ways as well." All bets were off with O.J.'s acquittal."

Specific comments: I think the man is an idiot who demoralizes blacks and claims to have a deeper meaning behind the thought process of whites, when in reality it is OJ Simpson who did not accept his own African American heritage and tried to make himself white. He claimed that race did not exist in his world, but then he murdered two people and used racism as his scapegoat.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin II

All
Are there any comment about the SPECIFIC comments about why white america took the position they seems to take after the acquittal of OJ.
martin II



I took this from a larger post above from a frontline interview.

Are there any comments about this subject as it relates to why some whites opinion about race were formed as they were. Or any comments?
martin II

"And then white America said: "Well, wait a minute. We had granted you honorary status, which means you have to play by our rules. You have to accept the reality that race doesn't exist. But now you're saying it exists. You have to accept the reality that race no longer is hugely significant, and it no longer rules America. But now you're saying it does. Well, if you say it does, then we're going to go back to our ways as well." All bets were off with O.J.'s acquittal."

Other specific comments: It belongs in the "Role of Race" thread.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Before we dive in I would like to clarify a point. As you aware, I understand the jury's verdict of the criminal trial and agree that questions were raised reagrding certain issues that were difficult to answer in the moment. With that, you are also aware that I firmly and fully believe that OJ is the killer based on evidence both presented and left out of the criminal trial and based on evidence and testimony presented in the civil trial.

Having said that, no I do not believe that the prosecution offered a conlcusive theory on why OJ committed murder that night.

One of the most important points to remember regarding his demeanor in the public eye at the recital is that OJ's public image is the most important thing in the world to him. Do you believe that he wanted to present a brooding, depressed, or angry indivudal whose ex-wife had just left him again and openly snubbed him in front of the family.

Ron Fischman, one of OJ's staunchest supporters and who so desperately attempted to avoid a summons to be deposed in the civil trial to the point where he tried to run over the server, admitted in his deposition that on the night of the recital OJ was dark and sullen and that OJ made the statement regarding Nicole that he was "gonna get her, but good".

So which is it? Do you not agree that it is possible that he was sullen and dark in the presence of his close friend, and then put on a relaxed and happy demeanor to the public after the recital was finished?

I do not agree that there is no evidence that OJ was quite angry with Nicole, I simply believe that the prosecution did not set forth a decent case.

Kate

Fine, on that note, I think we can begin a civil and respectful dialogue. I will begin on points on which we agree. The prosecution did not set forth a decent case, or, in other words put forth a pitiful one. Let us now take the testimony of Ron Fishman where Simpson allegedly said that he was going to get her but good. We have all said things that have been taken out of context. I do not see how that testimony could have survived a hearsay objection, unless it cause Fishman to warn Nicole. Given some of the posts about Cora, it could be credibly argued that Fishman had a reason to slant his testimony. In short, Fishman's testimony could be argued to appear fishy.

In regard to the dark and sullen look, .I have been asked by people with whom I am having a conversation, why I am looking that way. The look had nothing to do with them and was related to something else that was on my mind while they were talking. Just as quickly as the brought it to my attention, the look passed. Given that the look was before the video was taken, we can surmise that, as you have stated, he was acting for the camera, or that he was over whatever caused the look.

As I see it thus far, there is evidence for both guilt and non guilt, but still no evidence of anything that would have caused him to commit murder.

[martin II]

here are the full comments of MR Dyson on the subject. Not a interpretation.
martinII

But did the African Americans rejoicing at O.J.'s acquittal really believe he was innocent?

Absolutely not. I don't think we should make the mistake of believing that black people who celebrated a) thought O.J. was innocent, or b) were even concerned most about O.J. as opposed to their Uncle Charlie or Bubba or their sister Shanaynay or their Aunt Jackie, who had been screwed by a system that never paid attention to them.

Again, O.J. was beyond his body. "O.J." was a term that represented every black person that got beat up by the criminal justice system, and now we have found some vindication, and guess what, white America? It was with a black man that you loved. It was with a black man that you said was better than us. It was with a black man that you said wasn't like us. He was different than we are. He wasn't a troublemaker. He didn't cause racial consternation, or he wasn't controversial. Ha, ha, ha. The very guy you thought was so perfect turns out to be the one who turned the tables on you. That was a delicious irony of the victory as well.

[littlebit]

Fine, on that note, I think we can begin a civil and respectful dialogue. I will begin on points on which we agree. The prosecution did not set forth a decent case, or, in other words put forth a pitiful one. Let us now take the testimony of Ron Fishman where Simpson allegedly said that he was going to get her but good. We have all said things that have been taken out of context. I do not see how that testimony could have survived a hearsay objection, unless it cause Fishman to warn Nicole. Given some of the posts about Cora, it could be credibly argued that Fishman had a reason to slant his testimony. In short, Fishman's testimony could be argued to appear fishy.

In regard to the dark and sullen look, .I have been asked by people with whom I am having a conversation, why I am looking that way. The look had nothing to do with them and was related to something else that was on my mind while they were talking. Just as quickly as the brought it to my attention, the look passed. Given that the look was before the video was taken, we can surmise that, as you have stated, he was acting for the camera, or that he was over whatever caused the look.

As I see it thus far, there is evidence for both guilt and non guilt, but still no evidence of anything that would have caused him to commit murder.

Are you saying that Orenthal had no reason to kill Nichole? I have always thought that he was jealous of her.

[William Anthony]

Are you saying that Orenthal had no reason to kill Nichole? I have always thought that he was jealous of her.

I was speaking of the evidence presented by the prosecution. There was no evidence presented that he was so jealous of her on that night that he flew into a murderous rage. Could he have, yes? Could he have decided to move on with his life and let her do likewise, yes? I am merely stating that we can speculate in either direction, because the prosecution failed to show evidence of his motive. Although, the prosecution did not have to show motive, I have been taught that jurors expect it. The prosecution alluded to the motive when the pictures taken after the recital were used. The pictures did not show Simpson as being upset, much less being in a rage.

[littlebit]

I was speaking of the evidence presented by the prosecution. There was no evidence presented that he was so jealous of her on that night that he flew into a murderous rage. Could he have, yes? Could he have decided to move on with his life and let her do likewise, yes? I am merely stating that we can speculate in either direction, because the prosecution failed to show evidence of his motive. Although, the prosecution did not have to show motive, I have been taught that jurors expect it. The prosecution alluded to the motive when the pictures taken after the recital were used. The pictures did not show Simpson as being upset, much less being in a rage.

I see. I think that something must have happened to anger him other than the recital.

[Kate Sachel]

I was speaking of the evidence presented by the prosecution. There was no evidence presented that he was so jealous of her on that night that he flew into a murderous rage. Could he have, yes? Could he have decided to move on with his life and let her do likewise, yes? I am merely stating that we can speculate in either direction, because the prosecution failed to show evidence of his motive. Although, the prosecution did not have to show motive, I have been taught that jurors expect it. The prosecution alluded to the motive when the pictures taken after the recital were used. The pictures did not show Simpson as being upset, much less being in a rage.

I would agree that showing motive in a case such as this is key.

OJ Simpson was a picture perfect All-American athlete and I think that many people really struggled with needing to understand why he would commit the act of murder.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I see. I think that something must have happened to anger him other than the recital.

I don't personally believe it was one incident that triggered his rage. I believe it was a culmination of events that lead up to it.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I would agree that showing motive in a case such as this is key.

OJ Simpson was a picture perfect All-American athlete and I think that many people really struggled with needing to understand why he would commit the act of murder.

Kate

I will respond to both the Luxurious Littlebit's post and your's. You have hit the nail on the head. We can all agree that, if Simpson was the murderer, something more than not sitting with the estranged family or going to dinner with them, must have occurred in order for him to commit murder. This is the start of the downfall in the prosecution's case, imho. Let's consider how the victims were killed. It is not a far stretch to speculate that, if the murders were committed in 1-1/2 minutes by a single person, it was not the first time the person committed murder. What are your feelings on this?

[littlebit]

I will respond to both the Luxurious Littlebit's post and your's. You have hit the nail on the head. We can all agree that, if Simpson was the murderer, something more than not sitting with the estranged family or going to dinner with them, must have occurred in order for him to commit murder. This is the start of the downfall in the prosecution's case, imho. Let's consider how the victims were killed. It is not a far stretch to speculate that, if the murders were committed in 1-1/2 minutes by a single person, it was not the first time the person committed murder. What are your feelings on this?

I am eating lunch. I will think about it. I will give you my answer later.

[Kate Sachel]

I will respond to both the Luxurious Littlebit's post and your's. You have hit the nail on the head. We can all agree that, if Simpson was the murderer, something more than not sitting with the estranged family or going to dinner with them, must have occurred in order for him to commit murder. This is the start of the downfall in the prosecution's case, imho. Let's consider how the victims were killed. It is not a far stretch to speculate that, if the murders were committed in 1-1/2 minutes by a single person, it was not the first time the person committed murder. What are your feelings on this?

Good question.

I don't think it has to mean that the killer has killed before. I have been reading up on rage and how it impacts a person's mind and physical body. I have been angry before, but never rageful. In fact, I don't believe that I have ever even cursed at an individual so the aspect of rage gets difficult to wrap my mind around.

However, apparently a person who goes into rage experiences surges of adrenaline coursing through their body, which in turn can give physical strength otherwise not demonstrated when the body is relaxed or even just angry.

With that, I believe that the scenario is possible with Simpson being a first-time killer. It also really does depend on whether or not he was forced to confront Nicole and Ron together, or if Nicole had already been rendered unconscious when Ron showed up, which is what the autopsy report suggests.

One and one half minutes is quite a longer time that it might appear.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

OJ ORDERED TO STOP SPENDING

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

Thoughts?

Kate

[weezer]

Are you saying that Orenthal had no reason to kill Nichole? I have always thought that he was jealous of her.

obsessed . . .

[William Anthony]

Good question.

I don't think it has to mean that the killer has killed before. I have been reading up on rage and how it impacts a person's mind and physical body. I have been angry before, but never rageful. In fact, I don't believe that I have ever even cursed at an individual so the aspect of rage gets difficult to wrap my mind around.

However, apparently a person who goes into rage experiences surges of adrenaline coursing through their body, which in turn can give physical strength otherwise not demonstrated when the body is relaxed or even just angry.

With that, I believe that the scenario is possible with Simpson being a first-time killer. It also really does depend on whether or not he was forced to confront Nicole and Ron together, or if Nicole had already been rendered unconscious when Ron showed up, which is what the autopsy report suggests.

One and one half minutes is quite a longer time that it might appear.

Kate

I will agree with everything in your post, as mine was not complete. When one takes a look at the autopsies in connection with the absence of any heard screaming or yelling other than the hey, hey, hey, we see that the killer was purposeful in the places he stabbed in order to incapacitate the victims while murdering them. I doubt that anyone could control their rage to a point to act with such precision.

[socaldiva]

OJ ORDERED TO STOP SPENDING

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

Thoughts?

Kate


The link didn't work for me, but I heard a little something about this on the radio this morning. I think it's GREAT!

[martin II]

littlebit

Paulas phone call did not cause oj to kill anyone.
Oj was not in any rage at the recital.
Comments about nicoles dress did not cause him to kill anyone.
OJ was not in some kind of cocain induced rage.
Oj had moved on with his life.

Oj had too much going for himself in his personal and business life to destroy himself by killing Nicole. There was absoluteyl no benefit for Oj to kill Nicole.
He did not seem to have any problem finding a replacement as it has been stated that he actually had too many women.
so no OJSimpson did not kill anyone imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

OJ ORDERED TO STOP SPENDING

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

Thoughts?

Kate

My initial thoughts are that, if the Federal Court is without jurisdiction, most assuredly the State court is.

[Kate Sachel]

The link didn't work for me, but I heard a little something about this on the radio this morning. I think it's GREAT!

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

[socaldiva]

littlebit

Paulas phone call did not cause oj to kill anyone.
Oj was not in any rage at the recital.
Comments about nicoles dress did not cause him to kill anyone.
OJ was not in some kind of cocain induced rage.
Oj had moved on with his life.

Oj had too much going for himself in his personal and business life to destroy himself by killing Nicole. There was absoluteyl no benefit for Oj to kill Nicole.
He did not seem to have any problem finding a replacement as it has been stated that he actually had too many women.
so no OJSimpson did not kill anyone imo
martin II

:rolleyes: How to you profess to know these things that you state definitively? I've got a news flash for you, having a lot going for you in terms of wealth & business has nothing to do with mental health & the ability to lose it. Gawd.

[martin II]

I will agree with everything in your post, as mine was not complete. When one takes a look at the autopsies in connection with the absence of any heard screaming or yelling other than the hey, hey, hey, we see that the killer was purposeful in the places he stabbed in order to incapacitate the victims while murdering them. I doubt that anyone could control their rage to a point to act with such precision.

william
i agree with your last sentance.
On the one hand some believe oj was in a hateful rage and that the murders were a rage killing.
However the autopsie reports do indicate that the killer/s knew exactly where on the body to attack to cause death to come for sure.
Some have said that Ron did in fact put up a great struggle while Nicole was unconcious on the other side of the walk.

RON was stabbed and cut with a purpose so was nicole.

So i see no out of control person in a rage making these specific stabbing decisions during the murders. I do see that a professional killer woulr not be in a rage but just killing in a certain cold blooded way to cause death.

I believe this would require more than one person and more than 1 1/2 minutes. imo
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

william
i agree with your last sentance.
On the one hand some believe oj was in a hateful rage and that the murders were a rage killing.
However the autopsie reports do indicate that the killer/s knew exactly where on the body to attack to cause death to come for sure.
Some have said that Ron did in fact put up a great struggle while Nicole was unconcious on the other side of the walk.

RON was stabbed and cut with a purpose so was nicole.

So i see no out of control person in a rage making these specific stabbing decisions during the murders. I do see that a professional killer woulr not be in a rage but just killing in a certain cold blooded way to cause death.

I believe this would require more than one person and more than 1 1/2 minutes. imo
martin II

Actually, Ron's killing was described by the coroner as a "rage" killing, and Nicole's was described as "precise".

Kate

[martin II]

My initial thoughts are that, if the Federal Court is without jurisdiction, most assuredly the State court is.

I am wondering how much if any money is left in any account other than his pension account.
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
So i see no out of control person in a rage making these specific stabbing decisions during the murders. I do see that a professional killer woulr not be in a rage but just killing in a certain cold blooded way to cause death.


Following your theory, I guess if a person full of rage attacks you, you end up walking away as they are not precise. Geesh!

[William Anthony]

Actually, Ron's killing was described by the coroner as a "rage" killing, and Nicole's was described as "precise".

Kate

I think that would imply that there was a killer or two killers. If there was one, then the killer was enraged at Ron and Nicole was a secondary murder.
If there were two, then one was enraged at Ron and the other was eliminating a witness. I must ask who gave the description?

[martin II]

I think that would imply that there was a killer or two killers. If there was one, then the killer was enraged at Ron and Nicole was a secondary murder.
If there were two, then one was enraged at Ron and the other was eliminating a witness. I must ask who gave the description?

A coronor, forgot his name, that did not do the autopsy gave his opinion that it was a rage killing in his testimony.imo
I would think that a person in a rage would just slash and stab without any concern for the specific parts of the body that would cause quick death.
in this case it appears that this was not the case.

martin II

[William Anthony]

A coronor, forgot his name, that did not do the autopsy gave his opinion that it was a rage killing in his testimony.imo
I would think that a person in a rage would just slash and stab without any concern for the specific parts of the body that would cause quick death.
in this case it appears that this was not the case.

martin II

I wonder if this is the same source to which the other poster was referring.

[Kate Sachel]

I wonder if this is the same source to which the other poster was referring.

Dr. Golden ... the one who performed the autopsies.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

A coronor, forgot his name, that did not do the autopsy gave his opinion that it was a rage killing in his testimony.imo
I would think that a person in a rage would just slash and stab without any concern for the specific parts of the body that would cause quick death.
in this case it appears that this was not the case.

martin II

Do you realize that Ron was stabbed almost 40 times? He was just "slashed and stabbed", but in being stabbed that many times it makes sense to me that major arteries were hit in the process ... whether purposely or not.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Dr. Golden ... the one who performed the autopsies.

Kate

Thank you. What do you think of Ron being the intended victim and the possibiltiy of two or more killers?

[martin II]

Thank you. What do you think of Ron being the intended victim and the possibiltiy of two or more killers?

WILLIAM
Rons Jugular was one of the very first wounds inflicted by a killer that was mostly behind him and had a head lock on him.This indicatred that the killer knew where to inflict this death wound early on with all purpose. Not by chance. same for the aorta(sp) the others were 'testing" wounds and general cuts.imo

martin II

[bobaugust]

I will agree with everything in your post, as mine was not complete. When one takes a look at the autopsies in connection with the absence of any heard screaming or yelling other than the hey, hey, hey, we see that the killer was purposeful in the places he stabbed in order to incapacitate the victims while murdering them. I doubt that anyone could control their rage to a point to act with such precision.

The over thirty stabs and cuts to Ron Goldman are what tells us this killer didn't know what it took to kill someone. All he did was continue stabbing and cutting until Goldman ceased to struggle. Dr. Spitz opined that the killing wound happened early in the struggle, a stab to Simpson's left flank that cut his aorta. Spitz explained how Goldman would have immediately weakened and his attacker continued to stab and cut him until he dropped him to the ground and bled to death.

Spitz testified that it would have taken only a minute or less for the killer to inflict all of those wounds. There was no precision in any of Goldman's wounds. No forensic expert from either side ever said that.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The over thirty stabs and cuts to Ron Goldman are what tells us this killer didn't know what it took to kill someone. All he did was continue stabbing and cutting until Goldman ceased to struggle. Dr. Spitz opined that the killing wound happened early in the struggle, a stab to Simpson's left flank that cut his aorta. Spitz explained how Goldman would have immediately weakened and his attacker continued to stab and cut him until he dropped him to the ground and bled to death.

Spitz testified that it would have taken only a minute or less for the killer to inflict all of those wounds. There was no precision in any of Goldman's wounds. No forensic expert from either side ever said that.

bobaugust

Then you know more than the coroner, and you disagree with the information posted by the poster I have promised not to call anything. It seems you disregard all the information that tends to conflict with your determination that Simpson and Simpson alone was the killer.

[bobaugust]

I think that would imply that there was a killer or two killers. If there was one, then the killer was enraged at Ron and Nicole was a secondary murder.
If there were two, then one was enraged at Ron and the other was eliminating a witness. I must ask who gave the description?

There is no evidence of a second killer. If Nicole was unconscious when Simpson attacked and killed Ron he could have then returned to Nicole and sliced her throat.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Dr. Golden ... the one who performed the autopsies.

Kate

If we can, let us follow through on the description of Nicole's death as a precise killing. To me this would indicate that that the killer was deliberate, purposeful, cold, calculating and premeditated in his/her conduct. This would imply that the killer was not in a rage. This would indicate that the motive for this killing was not jealousy, but either for financial gain or for retribution. Given the number of posts on the board about the measly amount of money she received from Simpson and the fact that he was not a good father, it is possible to rule out a financial or custodial motive for the killings. Are we in agreement?

[bobaugust]

A coronor, forgot his name, that did not do the autopsy gave his opinion that it was a rage killing in his testimony.imo
I would think that a person in a rage would just slash and stab without any concern for the specific parts of the body that would cause quick death.
in this case it appears that this was not the case.

martin II

martin II, no that wasn't what happened in this case. The cuts and wounds that Goldman sustained were not precise or specific and he did not die quickly. That's why Dr. Golden opined it was a rage killing.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Then you know more than the coroner, and you disagree with the information posted by the poster I have promised not to call anything. It seems you disregard all the information that tends to conflict with your determination that Simpson and Simpson alone was the killer.

The coroner never testified that the wounds to Goldman were precise and specific and I have no idea what information you are referring to.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, no that wasn't what happened in this case. The cuts and wounds that Goldman sustained were not precise or specific and he did not die quickly. That's why Dr. Golden opined it was a rage killing.

bobaugust

bob
it was my understanding that the jugular and or aorta wonds would have killed ron regardless of the other wounds as he became immediately weaken

martin Ii

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence of a second killer. If Nicole was unconscious when Simpson attacked and killed Ron he could have then returned to Nicole and sliced her throat.

bobaugust

There is circumstantial evidence that Ron's death was done by someone with rage, while Nicole's was done by someone with a purposeful intent. There is evidence that was not collected that could or could not have been linked to Simpson. Ergo, it is premature in our speculations to rule out the possibilty of two killers.

[Kate Sachel]

There is circumstantial evidence that Ron's death was done by someone with rage, while Nicole's was done by someone with a purposeful intent. There is evidence that was not collected that could or could not have been linked to Simpson. Ergo, it is premature in our speculations to rule out the possibilty of two killers.


Well, in all of that blood what are your thoughts regarding only one set of footprints?

Kate

[bobaugust]

If we can, let us follow through on the description of Nicole's death as a precise killing. To me this would indicate that that the killer was deliberate, purposeful, cold, calculating and premeditated in his/her conduct. This would imply that the killer was not in a rage. This would indicate that the motive for this killing was not jealousy, but either for financial gain or for retribution. Given the number of posts on the board about the measly amount of money she received from Simpson and the fact that he was not a good father, it is possible to rule out a financial or custodial motive for the killings. Are we in agreement?

Nicole's killing was not a rage killing. The evidence is that after Simpson killed Goldman he returned to Nicole, put one foot on her back, lifted her head with his left hand and sliced her throat nearly decapitating her. Simpson could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Goldman.

That doesn't mean Simpson didn't go to Bundy with no intention of killing Nicole, it means that Simpson never expected Ron Goldman to show up and things didn't go like he may have planned them.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bob
it was my understanding that the jugular and or aorta wonds would have killed ron regardless of the other wounds as he became immediately weaken

martin Ii

martin II, there were several wounds that were fatal wounds. Spitz explained they came after Goldman's aorta was cut. That's why most of Ron's bleeding was internal. No expert ever opined any of these wounds were precise. The killer randomly stabbed and cut Goldman until he no longer continued to struggle and then dropped him to the ground. Goldman did not die quickly, he bled to death on the ground.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I am wondering how much if any money is left in any account other than his pension account.
martin II

martin II, I have heard from a reliable source that Simpson's pension is almost depleted. It seems at the beginning of this case he had take money from it and it's now running out. Maybe that's the reason for his book deals, but as time goes on we may see if this information is correct.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The coroner never testified that the wounds to Goldman were precise and specific and I have no idea what information you are referring to.

bobaugust

you are playing with words
martinIi

[bobaugust]

There is circumstantial evidence that Ron's death was done by someone with rage, while Nicole's was done by someone with a purposeful intent. There is evidence that was not collected that could or could not have been linked to Simpson. Ergo, it is premature in our speculations to rule out the possibilty of two killers.

What complete bull crap. There's not a trace of evidence of a second killer. The fact that some blood on the rear gate and on Nicole's back was not collected in no way indicates the possibility of a second killer. Pure fantasy.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Well, in all of that blood what are your thoughts regarding only one set of footprints?

Kate

Can you conceive of a killer(s) leaving the scene, without tracking in blood, and by some other means than the gate? How were the police able to tramp around in the scene without leaving foot prints?

[martin II]

martin II, there were several wounds that were fatal wounds. Spitz explained they came after Goldman's aorta was cut. That's why most of Ron's bleeding was internal. No expert ever opined any of these wounds were precise. The killer randomly stabbed and cut Goldman until he no longer continued to struggle and then dropped him to the ground. Goldman did not die quickly, he bled to death on the ground.

bobaugust

if goldman did not die quickly then maby it took more than 1 1/2 minutes
martin Ii

[bobaugust]

you are playing with words
martinIi

martin II, no, you're the one playing with words. Neither the coroner nor any of the experts who testified in this case said what you are saying.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, I have heard from a reliable source that Simpson's pension is almost depleted. It seems at the beginning of this case he had take money from it and it's now running out. Maybe that's the reason for his book deals, but as time goes on we may see if this information is correct.

bobaugust

bob
it is reported that he got $1,000,000 from that non book if i did it. rummors has it that there is another book in the works. If he keeps this up and protects his money from fred he may make it for a few more years.
martin II

[William Anthony]

Nicole's killing was not a rage killing. The evidence is that after Simpson killed Goldman he returned to Nicole, put one foot on her back, lifted her head with his left hand and sliced her throat nearly decapitating her. Simpson could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Goldman.

That doesn't mean Simpson didn't go to Bundy with no intention of killing Nicole, it means that Simpson never expected Ron Goldman to show up and things didn't go like he may have planned them.

bobaugust

Is the manner of Nicole's killing evidence or a theory? The person to whom I promised not to refer to as anything gave the name of the coroner and his description of the killing. Could you rephrase your second paragraph? There are so many double negatives in the first sentence, until I am uncertain as to what you are saying. Thank you.

[martin II]

martin II, no, you're the one playing with words. Neither the coroner nor any of the experts who testified in this case said what you are saying.

bobaugust

bob
it is my belief that the killer knew exactly where the arteries were located that would cause immediatly great loss of blood from the closed blood system
and that these locations were cut early on which caused Ron to become very wear very early so i am not sure what kind of fight he put up or long it lasted
but more than some think it took.

martin II

[William Anthony]

What complete bull crap. There's not a trace of evidence of a second killer. The fact that some blood on the rear gate and on Nicole's back was not collected in no way indicates the possibility of a second killer. Pure fantasy.

bobaugust

I do not wish to continue a conversation with you if you cannot respond in a polite, courteous, and respectful manner. Thank you.

[bobaugust]

Can you conceive of a killer(s) leaving the scene, without tracking in blood, and by some other means than the gate? How were the police able to tramp around in the scene without leaving foot prints?

The killer aliens from outer space were transported back to their space ship and their space suits were not made of fibers so they never left any fiber evidence.

There isn't one single shred of evidence of a second killer.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The killer aliens from outer space were transported back to their space ship and their space suits were not made of fibers so they never left any fiber evidence.

There isn't one single shred of evidence of a second killer.

bobaugust

That's because it was not collected.

[martin II]

Is the manner of Nicole's killing evidence or a theory? The person to whom I promised not to refer to as anything gave the name of the coroner and his description of the killing. Could you rephrase your second paragraph? There are so many double negatives in the first sentence, until I am uncertain as to what you are saying. Thank you.

william

The killer of ron and nicole is theory
The time they were killed is theory
The kind if knife used is theory
The sequence of wounds is theory
The time of death is theory
who made the foot prints is theory.
what time the dog barked in theory
The time the attack started is theory

etc
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*

The killer of ron and nicole is theory


No, it's supported by evidence & common sense, unlike your rambling offers of what you think transpired.

[William Anthony]

william

The killer of ron and nicole is theory
The time they were killed is theory
The kind if knife used is theory
The sequence of wounds is theory
The time of death is theory
who made the foot prints is theory.
what time the dog barked in theory
The time the attack started is theory

etc
martin II

Every time my dog barks, I check to see who is killing who. That is irrefutable evidence that someone is being killed, maybe in China.

[socaldiva]

Every time my dog barks, I check to see who is killing who. That is irrefutable evidence that someone is being killed, maybe in China.

No one here claimed that a barking dog was evidence of a murder :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

No one here claimed that a barking dog was evidence of a murder :rolleyes:

What pray tell did the prosecution used to establish the time line of the murders?

[bobaugust]

Is the manner of Nicole's killing evidence or a theory? The person to whom I promised not to refer to as anything gave the name of the coroner and his description of the killing. Could you rephrase your second paragraph? There are so many double negatives in the first sentence, until I am uncertain as to what you are saying. Thank you.

The manner of Nicole's killing is based on the evidence of her wounds.

The over thirty stabs and cuts Goldman sustained are what tells knowledgeable people that the killer was an amateur and didn't know what it took to kill Goldman. I have no idea what some person described to you, but I don't believe any expert in this case ever described Goldman's wounds as precise.

bobaugust

[martin II]

WILLIAM
Here is something on the rag used to smear foot prints at bundy.
i am looking for more.
martin II

it is from wagner
watch bob try to attack wagner.


SEQUENCE: From this analysis, I infer that a particular sequence of events occurred in the area between Nicole's head and the alcove threshold...

1. Some source of blood was unleashed
2. A rag was used to make certain patterns indistinct and produce a "haze" thereby
3. Something occurred that resulted in more blood dribbled onto some parts of the haze
4 The rag may have been used again, selectively, as at "F"
5. The cap and glove were deposited
6. Latest of all, the flow from Nicole's blood pool ran over much of this.

However, previous analyses of other evidence has led me to understand that Nicole's throat was slit while she was kneeling over the first step, her body was repositioned into the position in which it was found, and her legs were jammed under the fence to the south. Other evidence leads to the conclusion that Goldman was murdered on the front walk, his body was carried the few feet to the edge of the alcove and heaved in there, and Simpson's cap and gloves were planted to frame him before the assailants left the scene. In this context, the foregoing is understood to specifically be...

1. Nicole's throat was slit, eventually producing much blood, and her was body re-positioned.
2. To conceal the specifics a rag was quickly swiped around the tiles to the north of her body.
3. Goldman's body, dripping blood, was carried to the edge of the alcove and heaved in.
4. The rag was used again to cover up foot prints of the trip to the alcove.
5. The cap and gloves were planted.
6. The flow from Nicole's slowly spreading blood pool ran over som

[martin II]

What pray tell did the prosecution used to establish the time line of the murders?

you see NOT A CLUE

hahahaha

martin II

[socaldiva]

What pray tell did the prosecution used to establish the time line of the murders?

What part of "no one here is posting" don't you understand? More twist & spin from William.

[socaldiva]

you see NOT A CLUE
hahahaha
martin II

No you don't have a CLUE Martin, but you insist on posting here anyway. The only thing your posts are good for are a LAUGH.

[William Anthony]

The manner of Nicole's killing is based on the evidence of her wounds.

The over thirty stabs and cuts Goldman sustained are what tells knowledgeable people that the killer was an amateur and didn't know what it took to kill Goldman. I have no idea what some person described to you, but I don't believe any expert in this case ever described Goldman's wounds as precise.

bobaugust

I distinctly remember the experts testfying that they could not tell exactly how Nicole was killed, meaning the chronology of the stab wounds, only which ones were fatal. They speculated on how she was killed. Therefore, the evidence failed to establish exactly how she was killed. The speculation/theory is only based on speculation as to when the wounds were inflicted. What amature do you know, who can incapacitate a person while killing them, and keep them from screaming? I would hate to seem him/her when he/she became proficient.

[William Anthony]

What part of "no one here is posting" don't you understand? More twist & spin from William.

What part of what you post do you not understand. Here is your original post.

":No one here claimed that a barking dog was evidence of a murder "
There is some spining going on, but not from William. Do you have anything you want to add to the discussion on motive or the possibility of two killers, or the killer being someone other than Simpson, which may persuade others?

[bobaugust]

I do not wish to continue a conversation with you if you cannot respond in a polite, courteous, and respectful manner. Thank you.

I found your statement that "it is premature in our speculation to rule out the possibility of two killers" so ridiculous that bull crap was the best description I could think of to describe it. I now realize that I have been overestimating your knowledge and ability to understand the reality of the evidence in this case so I will eliminate those kind of descriptions in future postings.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I found your statement that "it is premature in our speculation to rule out the possibility of two killers" so ridiculous that bull crap was the best description I could think of to describe it. I now realize that I have been overestimating your knowledge and ability to understand the reality of the evidence in this case so I will eliminate those kind of descriptions in future postings.

bobaugust


:no: :seeya: :seeya:

[martin II]

wagner talks about blood smears made with a rag to cover foot prints ay bundy


I consider that the smear at E is a deliberate effort to wipe away some indication of the perpetrator's presence (as a shoe print, or some other pattern in blood that would have revealed something about the crime that was inconsistent with Simpson as the murderer). The instrument for this wiping could have been a damp towel or rag.


There are at least a dozen places on the front walk where there are thin (less than 1/4" wide) streaks in blood (for example, those at M in Figure 2). Sometimes these occur in pairs or triads, and when they do, the individual streaks are parallel to the others. I consider that these are artifacts of the wiping rag. When a piece of cloth is held crumpled, some creases will stick out farther than the general bunch, and when the cloth is passed over a patch of liquid stain it will leave streaks like these. This pattern is characteristic of a light brushing motion with the rag. If much pressure is applied, a smear results, and that is not seen up near Nicole's body. (A smear is seen, however at the other end of the front walk, near the sidewalk.)

[weezer]

william

The killer of ron and nicole is theory
The time they were killed is theory
The kind if knife used is theory
The sequence of wounds is theory
The time of death is theory
who made the foot prints is theory.
what time the dog barked in theory
The time the attack started is theory

etc
martin II

the blood is orenthal's
the hat is orenthal's
the glove is orenthal's
the fibers are orenthal's
the footprints are orenthal's
the motive to harm Nicole is orenthal's

[martin II]

:no: :seeya: :seeya:

william

Now i am wondering if bob has been giving way too much validity to the giga bites of info he was pasted on his hard drive. Which would lead him to be blind to the nonvaildity of the paid prosecution lying witnesses like vanhatter furhman fung mazzalo bodiazak and MARTZ.imo
martin II

[martin II]

the blood is orenthal's
the hat is orenthal's
the glove is orenthal's
the fibers are orenthal's
the footprints are orenthal's
the motive to harm Nicole is orenthal's

weezer

hat = must have been
glove =must have been
fibers = don't know where they came from no proof
oj not seen in bm shoes on 6.12
No motive as he had dropped her and was busy with paula, greta and a few others.

all in your mind and you have on numerious occassions proven that you have a history of streatching and twisting facts to fit your agenda. right
martin II

[martin II]

weezer
a few days ago you made the comment that WHITE PEOPLE WERE PLAYING BY DIFFERENT RULES.

I asked you to explain your comment as you did appear to be serious about the issue but i have not found your response. I have interest in this issue
and would like to hear your more detailed explination on your comment.

what do you mean WHITE PEOPLE WERE PLAYING BY DIFFERENT RULES and
THE JOKE WAS ON US

MARTIN ii

[socaldiva]

*snip*What part of what you post do you not understand. Here is your original post.


I did not say there was a post that I didn't understand. You are utterly confused and/or spinning! Give it up!

[bobaugust]

I distinctly remember the experts testfying that they could not tell exactly how Nicole was killed, meaning the chronology of the stab wounds, only which ones were fatal. They speculated on how she was killed. Therefore, the evidence failed to establish exactly how she was killed. The speculation/theory is only based on speculation as to when the wounds were inflicted. What amature do you know, who can incapacitate a person while killing them, and keep them from screaming? I would hate to seem him/her when he/she became proficient.

I don't know any amateur or professional killers. Ron Goldman was fighting for his life and probably not screaming. Simpson's dog was continuously barking during the murders. What ever sounds were made probably couldn't have been heard over that kind of loud barking.

The killing was far from being proficient. Here are some excerpts from a book written by one of the FBI's premier investigators and pioneer in profiling to solve crimes all over this country. He penetrates the minds and motives of some of the most terrifying serial killers and includes a chapter in his book about the Bundy murders.

Journey Into Darkness, John Douglas

"The killing is at close range and confrontational. The weapon is a knife, which tells you this is a very personal type of crime.

The killing of the female victim is efficient and almost military style along with a tremendous amount of "overkill." At the same time, there are disorganized elements that suggest it didn't go quite the way he planned, and that though he is mature, he has little, if any, experience in crime. There is an obvious lack of control relating to the male victim and evidence of panic when things didn't go quite his way.

The mere fact of leaving a cap and glove at the scene and wearing shoes which leave a distinctive footprint speak to a lack of criminal sophistication and experience. He also cut himself, probably as he comes around her throat.

There is a lot of bleeding and she bled out on this first step which was probably where the fatal assault took place. Her throat is cut so deeply she's practically decapitated. The other stab wounds are much more concentrated and
directed than they are with Goldman. The killer didn't have trouble controlling her as he did with Ron. He stabbed her repeatedly, not because he 'had' to but because he 'wanted' to. And this is another reason I say the woman was the primary victim, not the man: the attacker knew her and knew her well.

As we've noted, there's no sexual assault, so this isn't a scenario where she pissed off a rapist. This kind of overkill represents rage directed at a particular person especially since so many blows were directed at the neck. This is not a stranger murder. He did not have to do what he did simply to kill her. He was making a statement. He was punishing her.

The wounds on the male victim are different. Goldman put up an incredible struggle, one hell of a fight. The types of wounds on him - the defense wounds on the hands and arms and the deeper thrusts to the body - show that the
(killer) was doing what he had to strictly to kill him. He wasn't interested in punishing him or making a point. He was just trying to neutralize him.

But the offender whacks her on the head with blunt force--boom--probably the butt of the knife, probably sufficient to knock her out.

He then goes to Goldman who is about five or six feet away near a palm tree growing up through the ground. This is maybe two or three seconds later and Ron is caught off guard by the attack on Nicole. He's trapped in this small
area--a four-by-six-foot space with a fence behind him--and he's blocked by this palm tree. Instinctively, he goes into a pugilistic stand--we can tell this from the defense wounds-- and he's also stabbed in his left thigh and left abdomen. There's a struggle between the two men. The shirt Goldman's wearing is twisted around his body so that when he's stabbed and stabbed again the holes don't seem to line up with the stab wounds when the body is
examined later.

By this point the offender has worked himself up into a frenzy. As soon as he's got Ron neutralized, which is not easy, he goes back to Nicole, lifts her head from behind, and cuts her throat, slicing right through her voice box, nearly taking her head off.

The (killer) then goes back to Goldman because he has to make sure he finishes him off. We know he goes back because her blood is found on the bottom of one of Goldman's shoes. Now, this is very, very important, because it tells you that the offender is not a professional killer. This is not a hit man. He doesn't know exactly what it takes to kill this guy. He has to come back and check on him. He sees that Goldman is dying and he goes back and stabs him multiple times. In fact, he's actually stabbed more times than Brown, even though the personalized sort of attack is reserved for her. That's because even though she's the one he's out to punish, to revenge himself on, the male is the greater physical threat. That's another reason we know the crimes were committed by a single offender. Two or more killers would have been able to control the situation better. You wouldn't have the evidence of such a struggle on Goldman's body.

But from my experience, killers--whether they're first-timers or multiple-- don't figure on getting caught. Had this unexpected man not appeared on the scene and slowed him down and thrown him off, he would have gotten back home in plenty of time to pull off his alibi and be on the road to the airport for his flight to Chicago without anyone being the wiser. What he might have planned was to be able to get to the airport in plenty of time, then call a friend of his and say. 'I'm worried, I've been trying to call Nicole all evening and I can't reach her. Could you go over and check to make sure she and the kids are okay?' That not only establishes his alibi but also prevents the children from finding their mother.

And remember that, in addition to being a world famous football player, he's also naturally very charming and experienced as an actor. He knows how he has to behave to throw suspicion off him, like conversing amiably with people and signing autographs like he always does. In his mind, he's obviously justified the crime. 'She forced me into it.' So he's already got a certain amount of peace with it."

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I don't know any amateur or professional killers. Ron Goldman was fighting for his life and probably not screaming. Simpson's dog was continuously barking during the murders. What ever sounds were made probably couldn't have been heard over that kind of loud barking.

The killing was far from being proficient. Here are some excerpts from a book written by one of the FBI's premier investigators and pioneer in profiling to solve crimes all over this country. He penetrates the minds and motives of some of the most terrifying serial killers and includes a chapter in his book about the Bundy murders.

Journey Into Darkness, John Douglas

"The killing is at close range and confrontational. The weapon is a knife, which tells you this is a very personal type of crime.

The killing of the female victim is efficient and almost military style along with a tremendous amount of "overkill." At the same time, there are disorganized elements that suggest it didn't go quite the way he planned, and that though he is mature, he has little, if any, experience in crime. There is an obvious lack of control relating to the male victim and evidence of panic when things didn't go quite his way.

The mere fact of leaving a cap and glove at the scene and wearing shoes which leave a distinctive footprint speak to a lack of criminal sophistication and experience. He also cut himself, probably as he comes around her throat.

There is a lot of bleeding and she bled out on this first step which was probably where the fatal assault took place. Her throat is cut so deeply she's practically decapitated. The other stab wounds are much more concentrated and
directed than they are with Goldman. The killer didn't have trouble controlling her as he did with Ron. He stabbed her repeatedly, not because he 'had' to but because he 'wanted' to. And this is another reason I say the woman was the primary victim, not the man: the attacker knew her and knew her well.

As we've noted, there's no sexual assault, so this isn't a scenario where she pissed off a rapist. This kind of overkill represents rage directed at a particular person especially since so many blows were directed at the neck. This is not a stranger murder. He did not have to do what he did simply to kill her. He was making a statement. He was punishing her.

The wounds on the male victim are different. Goldman put up an incredible struggle, one hell of a fight. The types of wounds on him - the defense wounds on the hands and arms and the deeper thrusts to the body - show that the
(killer) was doing what he had to strictly to kill him. He wasn't interested in punishing him or making a point. He was just trying to neutralize him.

But the offender whacks her on the head with blunt force--boom--probably the butt of the knife, probably sufficient to knock her out.

He then goes to Goldman who is about five or six feet away near a palm tree growing up through the ground. This is maybe two or three seconds later and Ron is caught off guard by the attack on Nicole. He's trapped in this small
area--a four-by-six-foot space with a fence behind him--and he's blocked by this palm tree. Instinctively, he goes into a pugilistic stand--we can tell this from the defense wounds-- and he's also stabbed in his left thigh and left abdomen. There's a struggle between the two men. The shirt Goldman's wearing is twisted around his body so that when he's stabbed and stabbed again the holes don't seem to line up with the stab wounds when the body is
examined later.

By this point the offender has worked himself up into a frenzy. As soon as he's got Ron neutralized, which is not easy, he goes back to Nicole, lifts her head from behind, and cuts her throat, slicing right through her voice box, nearly taking her head off.

The (killer) then goes back to Goldman because he has to make sure he finishes him off. We know he goes back because her blood is found on the bottom of one of Goldman's shoes. Now, this is very, very important, because it tells you that the offender is not a professional killer. This is not a hit man. He doesn't know exactly what it takes to kill this guy. He has to come back and check on him. He sees that Goldman is dying and he goes back and stabs him multiple times. In fact, he's actually stabbed more times than Brown, even though the personalized sort of attack is reserved for her. That's because even though she's the one he's out to punish, to revenge himself on, the male is the greater physical threat. That's another reason we know the crimes were committed by a single offender. Two or more killers would have been able to control the situation better. You wouldn't have the evidence of such a struggle on Goldman's body.

But from my experience, killers--whether they're first-timers or multiple-- don't figure on getting caught. Had this unexpected man not appeared on the scene and slowed him down and thrown him off, he would have gotten back home in plenty of time to pull off his alibi and be on the road to the airport for his flight to Chicago without anyone being the wiser. What he might have planned was to be able to get to the airport in plenty of time, then call a friend of his and say. 'I'm worried, I've been trying to call Nicole all evening and I can't reach her. Could you go over and check to make sure she and the kids are okay?' That not only establishes his alibi but also prevents the children from finding their mother.

And remember that, in addition to being a world famous football player, he's also naturally very charming and experienced as an actor. He knows how he has to behave to throw suspicion off him, like conversing amiably with people and signing autographs like he always does. In his mind, he's obviously justified the crime. 'She forced me into it.' So he's already got a certain amount of peace with it."

bobaugust


A nice theory. However, it is pure speculation.

[bobaugust]

A nice theory. However, it is pure speculation.

Speculation based on the evidence and knowledgeable reasonable explanations from an expert about one inexperienced killer.

bobaugust

[martin II]

A nice theory. However, it is pure speculation.

william
i am sure a few gs will send bob a order to cut the size of his post.
martin II

[William Anthony]

Speculation based on the evidence and knowledgeable reasonable explanations from an expert about one inexperienced killer.

bobaugust

Equals a therory.

[martin II]

Equals a therory.

more like a idea
martin II

[martin II]

more like a idea
martin II

or a notion
martin ii

[martin II]

anna nicole smith.
dropped dead today

[socaldiva]

anna nicole smith.
dropped dead today

How sweet of you to word it this way :rolleyes: WTH does this have to do with the Simpson case? Do you think that you are the only one privy to other news? The rest of us can read you know. :rolleyes:

[2L8 4A D8]

weezer
a few days ago you made the comment that WHITE PEOPLE WERE PLAYING BY DIFFERENT RULES.

I asked you to explain your comment as you did appear to be serious about the issue but i have not found your response. I have interest in this issue
and would like to hear your more detailed explination on your comment.

what do you mean WHITE PEOPLE WERE PLAYING BY DIFFERENT RULES and
THE JOKE WAS ON US

MARTIN ii

This is Off Topic and irrelevant to the "Goldmans Sue" Thread. It's obvious that Weezer is finished with her explanations, but you keep DEMANDING that she give you a "more detailed 'explination' on her comment!" Give it up for God's sake!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

william
i am sure a few gs will send bob a order to cut the size of his post.
martin II

No. Bob has a right to post as much as he wants, pages and pages. It is William who should be taken to task for not "snipping" Bob's post when making his reply! Duh! What an absolute **** you are! :punch:

JMO and MOO!!

[littlebit]

I will respond to both the Luxurious Littlebit's post and your's. You have hit the nail on the head. We can all agree that, if Simpson was the murderer, something more than not sitting with the estranged family or going to dinner with them, must have occurred in order for him to commit murder. This is the start of the downfall in the prosecution's case, imho. Let's consider how the victims were killed. It is not a far stretch to speculate that, if the murders were committed in 1-1/2 minutes by a single person, it was not the first time the person committed murder. What are your feelings on this?

I see the possibility of more than one killer. I still believe Orenthal is the killer.

[2L8 4A D8]

I see the possibility of more than one killer. I still believe Orenthal is the killer.

Why do you keep on saying, "I still believe Orenthal is the killer" or "I still believe that OJ is guilty?" Who are you trying to convince? Yourself or us? Just curious!

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Well, in all of that blood what are your thoughts regarding only one set of footprints?

Kate

I do not think my first answer was clear or complete. The shoes may not have belonged to Simpson. I made a remark that JMK never confessed to killing Jon Benet Ramsey. Simpson never said he did not wear a pair of the BMs, only that he did not own a pair, which can mean that those shoes were bought for him to wear during broadcasts. With that said, I must ask was there ever any evidence presented that Nicole or he ever purchased a pair of BMs? I am sure they did not buy out the retailer's supply. It is entirely possible that the killer left through the back gate, or that the killers left through the back gate or that one killer left through the back gate and the other exited in another direction. I will post the link I found about the dog's paw prints and the footprints in response to bobaugust's post. We are able to speculate that the dog may have been following one killer, while the other exited through the rear gate.

[William Anthony]

No. Bob has a right to post as much as he wants, pages and pages. It is William who should be taken to task for not "snipping" Bob's post when making his reply! Duh! What an absolute **** you are! :punch:

JMO and MOO!!

Did you read that there is not a problem with bandwith? Why should I be taken to task? Why are you so insistent on having me taken to task when I did nothing worng? WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO HARASS ME WHEN I HAVE ASKED FOR THE HARASSMENT TO STOP?

[martin II]

I do not think my first answer was clear or complete. The shoes may not have belonged to Simpson. I made a remark that JMK never confessed to killing Jon Benet Ramsey. Simpson never said he did not wear a pair of the BMs, only that he did not own a pair, which can mean that those shoes were bought for him to wear during broadcasts. With that said, I must ask was there ever any evidence presented that Nicole or he ever purchased a pair of BMs? I am sure they did not buy out the retailer's supply. It is entirely possible that the killer left through the back gate, or that the killers left through the back gate or that one killer left through the back gate and the other exited in another direction. I will post the link I found about the dog's paw prints and the footprints in response to bobaugust's post. We are able to speculate that the dog may have been following one killer, while the other exited through the rear gate.

william
the bloomingdales sale manager that normally sold oj his shoes stated that he did not sell oj those BM shoes.
IMO
MARTIN ii

[William Anthony]

Nicole's killing was not a rage killing. The evidence is that after Simpson killed Goldman he returned to Nicole, put one foot on her back, lifted her head with his left hand and sliced her throat nearly decapitating her. Simpson could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Goldman.

That doesn't mean Simpson didn't go to Bundy with no intention of killing Nicole, it means that Simpson never expected Ron Goldman to show up and things didn't go like he may have planned them.

bobaugust

This speculation conflicts with the information supplied by the poster who I promised not to refer to as anything. When you have two prosecution expets diagreeing, it can only amount to reasonable doubt, imho.

[William Anthony]

william
the bloomingdales sale manager that normally sold oj his shoes stated that he did not sell oj those BM shoes.
IMO
MARTIN ii

Thank you Martin.

I know that networks supply hosts with clothes to wear and/or keep. Do you know if they do the same for broadcasters?

[martin II]

Thank you Martin.

I know that networks supply hosts with clothes to wear and/or keep. Do you know if they do the same for broadcasters?

william

In most cases they do. Most networks have a wardrobe manager that is responsible for securing dress apparel, shoes ,hats unbrellas etc for on air broadcasters.

The bloomingdales sales manager also said he would never have sold oj those bm shoes because of the weather in buffalo ny.

However since there was never a picture showing the complete bottom of the sole of the bm shoes that oj was suppose to have had on, there is no way to compare them to a bm sole.

martin II

martin II

[martin II]

I do not think my first answer was clear or complete. The shoes may not have belonged to Simpson. I made a remark that JMK never confessed to killing Jon Benet Ramsey. Simpson never said he did not wear a pair of the BMs, only that he did not own a pair, which can mean that those shoes were bought for him to wear during broadcasts. With that said, I must ask was there ever any evidence presented that Nicole or he ever purchased a pair of BMs? I am sure they did not buy out the retailer's supply. It is entirely possible that the killer left through the back gate, or that the killers left through the back gate or that one killer left through the back gate and the other exited in another direction. I will post the link I found about the dog's paw prints and the footprints in response to bobaugust's post. We are able to speculate that the dog may have been following one killer, while the other exited through the rear gate.


william

I am wondering what was in the spots on the tiles before they were wipped with that cloth rag. maby other foot prints.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

william

In most cases they do. Most networks have a wardrobe manager that is responsible for securing dress apparel, shoes ,hats unbrellas etc for on air broadcasters.

The bloomingdales sales manager also said he would never have sold oj those bm shoes because of the weather in buffalo ny.

However since there was never a picture showing the complete bottom of the sole of the bm shoes that oj was suppose to have had on, there is no way to compare them to a bm sole.

martin II

martin II

I took owned to mean purchased or possesed. If they were BMs that he wore for the broadcast, did the prosecution ever call the wardrobe manager to ask what became of the shoes, no? They had a footprint that they could not link to any shoe owned by Simpson. Imho, they were a couple of feet (pun intended) short of proving the case on this issue.

[littlebit]

Why do you keep on saying, "I still believe Orenthal is the killer" or "I still believe that OJ is guilty?" Who are you trying to convince? Yourself or us? Just curious!

JMO and MOO!!

Which word didn't you understand? I was saying what I believe. Why are you questioning me? Are you a moderator? Just curious!

[Kate Sachel]

I took owned to mean purchased or possesed. If they were BMs that he wore for the broadcast, did the prosecution ever call the wardrobe manager to ask what became of the shoes, no? They had a footprint that they could not link to any shoe owned by Simpson. Imho, they were a couple of feet (pun intended) short of proving the case on this issue.

But they did have a footprint that they could link to a shoe worn on more than one occassion by Simpson. A shoe that, in addition to claiming he never owned, he claimed he never even wore.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

This speculation conflicts with the information supplied by the poster who I promised not to refer to as anything. When you have two prosecution expets diagreeing, it can only amount to reasonable doubt, imho.


How does that conflict with the information I supplied?

Kate

[William Anthony]

How does that conflict with the information I supplied?

Kate

Bobaugust claims that Nicole's was a rage killing. Therefore, the two experts’ opinions conflict. I am happy to see that you responded so that we can continue our discussion. Did you see the link I provided on the dog paws? What I found more interesting were the tire tracks. I have found it hard to believe that Simpson would have parked the Bronco anywhere near the home, if he was the killer. There are too many people that would have recognized him and Nicole, for him to have taken such a risky chance, imho.
What are your thoughts on the parking of the Bronco so close to the Bundy residence? I feel that both he and the Bronco were easily recognizable. Do you have any idea as how I can and should refer to you?

[Kate Sachel]

Bobaugust claims that Nicole's was a rage killing. Therefore, the two experts’ opinions conflict. I am happy to see that you responded so that we can continue our discussion. Did you see the link I provided on the dog paws? What I found more interesting were the tire tracks. I have found it hard to believe that Simpson would have parked the Bronco anywhere near the home, if he was the killer. There are too many people that would have recognized him and Nicole, for him to have taken such a risky chance, imho.
What are your thoughts on the parking of the Bronco so close to the Bundy residence? I feel that both he and the Bronco were easily recognizable. Do you have any idea as how I can and should refer to you?

YOu may want to re-read his post ... he states that Nicole's killing was not a rage killing.

Kate

[martin II]

Bobaugust claims that Nicole's was a rage killing. Therefore, the two experts’ opinions conflict. I am happy to see that you responded so that we can continue our discussion. Did you see the link I provided on the dog paws? What I found more interesting were the tire tracks. I have found it hard to believe that Simpson would have parked the Bronco anywhere near the home, if he was the killer. There are too many people that would have recognized him and Nicole, for him to have taken such a risky chance, imho.
What are your thoughts on the parking of the Bronco so close to the Bundy residence? I feel that both he and the Bronco were easily recognizable. Do you have any idea as how I can and should refer to you?


william

It is strange in this computer age and with advance graphic capabilities that some do not believe that a picture cannot be manipulated to change heads of two people, trousers and even shoes.

However there is NO picture that shows the complete botton of the sole of the shoes oj was suppose to have had on at that ball game. So no conneciton of oj to any bloody footprints imo

martinII

[martin II]

Bobaugust claims that Nicole's was a rage killing. Therefore, the two experts’ opinions conflict. I am happy to see that you responded so that we can continue our discussion. Did you see the link I provided on the dog paws? What I found more interesting were the tire tracks. I have found it hard to believe that Simpson would have parked the Bronco anywhere near the home, if he was the killer. There are too many people that would have recognized him and Nicole, for him to have taken such a risky chance, imho.
What are your thoughts on the parking of the Bronco so close to the Bundy residence? I feel that both he and the Bronco were easily recognizable. Do you have any idea as how I can and should refer to you?

WILLIAM

If my memory serves me correctly previously bob has said that the paula phone call set oj off with anger. Also something about oj was driving around, got angry and decided to go kill nicole.correct bob?

Now above he states that Nicoles murder was not a rage killing but Rons was a rage kiling.
So guess if oj was the killer he was not angry with nicole. just killed her on PG
hahaha
martin II

[William Anthony]

YOu may want to re-read his post ... he states that Nicole's killing was not a rage killing.

Kate

I understand what you are saying, because you read his most recent post. I truly understand why you do not read all his posts, but sometimes he posts something I have never read before. This is a portion of his post that preceeded the one were he claimed it was not a rage killing. He relied on this excerpt from a book and he has, I believe, previously stated that Simpson killed her in a fit of rage. I think you may now understand why I have a problem with some of his posts and refer to them as circular arguments, as they tend to run into each other. Have you decided how I should refer to you?

Yesterday, 09:47 PM
bobaugust
Super Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,804

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony
I distinctly remember the experts testfying that they could not tell exactly how Nicole was killed, meaning the chronology of the stab wounds, only which ones were fatal. They speculated on how she was killed. Therefore, the evidence failed to establish exactly how she was killed. The speculation/theory is only based on speculation as to when the wounds were inflicted. What amature do you know, who can incapacitate a person while killing them, and keep them from screaming? I would hate to seem him/her when he/she became proficient.

"I don't know any amateur or professional killers. Ron Goldman was fighting for his life and probably not screaming. Simpson's dog was continuously barking during the murders. What ever sounds were made probably couldn't have been heard over that kind of loud barking.

The killing was far from being proficient. Here are some excerpts from a book written by one of the FBI's premier investigators and pioneer in profiling to solve crimes all over this country. He penetrates the minds and motives of some of the most terrifying serial killers and includes a chapter in his book about the Bundy murders.

Journey Into Darkness, John Douglas

"The killing is at close range and confrontational. The weapon is a knife, which tells you this is a very personal type of crime.

The killing of the female victim is efficient and almost military style along with a tremendous amount of "overkill." At the same time, there are disorganized elements that suggest it didn't go quite the way he planned, and that though he is mature, he has little, if any, experience in crime. There is an obvious lack of control relating to the male victim and evidence of panic when things didn't go quite his way.

The mere fact of leaving a cap and glove at the scene and wearing shoes which leave a distinctive footprint speak to a lack of criminal sophistication and experience. He also cut himself, probably as he comes around her throat.

There is a lot of bleeding and she bled out on this first step which was probably where the fatal assault took place. Her throat is cut so deeply she's practically decapitated. The other stab wounds are much more concentrated and
directed than they are with Goldman. The killer didn't have trouble controlling her as he did with Ron. He stabbed her repeatedly, not because he 'had' to but because he 'wanted' to. And this is another reason I say the woman was the primary victim, not the man: the attacker knew her and knew her well.

As we've noted, there's no sexual assault, so this isn't a scenario where she pissed off a rapist. This kind of overkill represents rage directed at a particular person especially since so many blows were directed at the neck. This is not a stranger murder. He did not have to do what he did simply to kill her. He was making a statement. He was punishing her.

I can understand your confusion by his posts.

[martin II]

william


Someone held nicole by her hair or face and almost completely cut her head off. How is it possible not to call this action that of a person in a rage.

martin II

[martin II]

william


Someone held nicole by her hair or face and almost completely cut her head off. How is it possible not to call this action that of a person in a rage.

martin II

sorry

this action that of a person NOT in a rage

[Kate Sachel]

I understand what you are saying, because you read his most recent post. I truly understand why you do not read all his posts, but sometimes he posts something I have never read before. This is a portion of his post that preceeded the one were he claimed it was not a rage killing. He relied on this excerpt from a book and he has, I believe, previously stated that Simpson killed her in a fit of rage. I think you may now understand why I have a problem with some of his posts and refer to them as circular arguments, as they tend to run into each other. Have you decided how I should refer to you?

Yesterday, 09:47 PM
bobaugust
Super Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,804

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony
I distinctly remember the experts testfying that they could not tell exactly how Nicole was killed, meaning the chronology of the stab wounds, only which ones were fatal. They speculated on how she was killed. Therefore, the evidence failed to establish exactly how she was killed. The speculation/theory is only based on speculation as to when the wounds were inflicted. What amature do you know, who can incapacitate a person while killing them, and keep them from screaming? I would hate to seem him/her when he/she became proficient.

"I don't know any amateur or professional killers. Ron Goldman was fighting for his life and probably not screaming. Simpson's dog was continuously barking during the murders. What ever sounds were made probably couldn't have been heard over that kind of loud barking.

The killing was far from being proficient. Here are some excerpts from a book written by one of the FBI's premier investigators and pioneer in profiling to solve crimes all over this country. He penetrates the minds and motives of some of the most terrifying serial killers and includes a chapter in his book about the Bundy murders.

Journey Into Darkness, John Douglas

"The killing is at close range and confrontational. The weapon is a knife, which tells you this is a very personal type of crime.

The killing of the female victim is efficient and almost military style along with a tremendous amount of "overkill." At the same time, there are disorganized elements that suggest it didn't go quite the way he planned, and that though he is mature, he has little, if any, experience in crime. There is an obvious lack of control relating to the male victim and evidence of panic when things didn't go quite his way.

The mere fact of leaving a cap and glove at the scene and wearing shoes which leave a distinctive footprint speak to a lack of criminal sophistication and experience. He also cut himself, probably as he comes around her throat.

There is a lot of bleeding and she bled out on this first step which was probably where the fatal assault took place. Her throat is cut so deeply she's practically decapitated. The other stab wounds are much more concentrated and
directed than they are with Goldman. The killer didn't have trouble controlling her as he did with Ron. He stabbed her repeatedly, not because he 'had' to but because he 'wanted' to. And this is another reason I say the woman was the primary victim, not the man: the attacker knew her and knew her well.

As we've noted, there's no sexual assault, so this isn't a scenario where she pissed off a rapist. This kind of overkill represents rage directed at a particular person especially since so many blows were directed at the neck. This is not a stranger murder. He did not have to do what he did simply to kill her. He was making a statement. He was punishing her.

I can understand your confusion by his posts.

Oh! Indeed you are correct that I hadn't read that posting and was referring to his most recent. I understand the conflict.

Given the evidence presented, I do not believe that Nicole's was a rage killing but I do believe it was a personal killing.

You may call me Kate.

Kate

[William Anthony]

sorry

this action that of a person NOT in a rage

Martin,

You are confusing me, smile. I think you mean that Nicole's murder was a rage killing. It is possible for bobaugust to call it both, immro, depending on whether or not doing so convicts Simpson, smile.

[William Anthony]

Oh! Indeed you are correct that I hadn't read that posting and was referring to his most recent. I understand the conflict.

Given the evidence presented, I do not believe that Nicole's was a rage killing but I do believe it was a personal killing.

You may call me Kate.

Kate

Then we have reached a consensus. Likewise, I believe the killing to be personal and precise, as you posted. Given those facts, I would surmise that the motive was not one of jealousy or over a custody battle. I see a killing of this nature as more aligned with a financial motive or a necessity to avoid detection. With those thoughts in mind, it would appear that the killer(s) were enraged with Ron and that he was the intended victim. Therefore, given those postulates, the killer would be someone known to both Ron and Nicole, who knew that Ron was expected at Nicole’s. This would tend to eliminate Simpson? I know that his elimination at this point is premature. What are your thoughts on the above?

[martin II]

Martin,

You are confusing me, smile. I think you mean that Nicole's murder was a rage killing. It is possible for bobaugust to call it both, immro, depending on whether or not doing so convicts Simpson, smile.

correct
martinII

[martin II]

correct
martinII

william

i am trying to answer about 20 work related e-mails as i try to post. so please excuse the confusion.]

martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Then we have reached a consensus. Likewise, I believe the killing to be personal and precise, as you posted. Given those facts, I would surmise that the motive was not one of jealousy or over a custody battle. I see a killing of this nature as more aligned with a financial motive or a necessity to avoid detection. With those thoughts in mind, it would appear that the killer(s) were enraged with Ron and that he was the intended victim. Therefore, given those postulates, the killer would be someone known to both Ron and Nicole, who knew that Ron was expected at Nicole’s. This would tend to eliminate Simpson? I know that his elimination at this point is premature. What are your thoughts on the above?


Frankly I disagree. The type of killing that Nicole experienced is the most common type of killing that occurs between an estranged husband and wife with a history of abuse.

By "type" of killing I mean with a knife, the stabbings in the neck, and the throat slit.

Kate

[William Anthony]

william

i am trying to answer about 20 work related e-mails as i try to post. so please excuse the confusion.]

martin II

No problem!

[William Anthony]

Frankly I disagree. The type of killing that Nicole experienced is the most common type of killing that occurs between an estranged husband and wife with a history of abuse.

By "type" of killing I mean with a knife, the stabbings in the neck, and the throat slit.

Kate

I believe that statistics will prove that abusers usually use a gun and often commit murder/suicide. I have never heard of a abuser stabbing himself to death. This does not mean it did not happen, only that I never heard of it. There is a lack of evidence, which the jury heard, that the abuse continued. To me it is more consistent with Ron being the intended victim and killed out of rage, as you posted. I do not know whether or not the killer(s) knew Nicole or whether she was killed to avoid the killer(s) being detected. Since the murders occurred at Bundy and Ron only said hey, hey, hey and/or had some sort of argument with the killer(s), that evidence suggests to me that the killer(s) knew Ron and Nicole.

[sassylassy]

Frankly I disagree. The type of killing that Nicole experienced is the most common type of killing that occurs between an estranged husband and wife with a history of abuse.

By "type" of killing I mean with a knife, the stabbings in the neck, and the throat slit.

Kate


see I thought the same thing, and ne night I was watching American Justice (or something) & someone had their throat cut the same way, as Nicole & they were saying that this type of crime meant this wasnt personal.....

so that kinda threw me for a loop- so I thought I would share that with U

:beer:

[martin II]

see I thought the same thing, and ne night I was watching American Justice (or something) & someone had their throat cut the same way, as Nicole & they were saying that this type of crime meant this wasnt personal.....

so that kinda threw me for a loop- so I thought I would share that with U

:beer:

sassy

there was another guy think his name was canter, that knew ron from the bar he worked at (monkey bar maby) and he was supose to have been involved in drug sales.imo His neck was cut like nicoles with a knife and it was said it was a drug killing .
martinII

[William Anthony]

Frankly I disagree. The type of killing that Nicole experienced is the most common type of killing that occurs between an estranged husband and wife with a history of abuse.

By "type" of killing I mean with a knife, the stabbings in the neck, and the throat slit.

Kate

Kate, here is a link that I found which states that from 1974-2000 guns werw the most used weapon in those type of cases.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/reports/spousal.html

[weezer]

Kate, here is a link that I found which states that from 1974-2000 guns werw the most used weapon in those type of cases.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/reports/spousal.html

do you have one for the US? that one quotes Canadian statistics.

[martin II]

do you have one for the US? that one quotes Canadian statistics.

we are basically the same with the exception of a few quirks and different flags. not much difference in Toronto and Boston other than Toronto is a beautiful city.
imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

do you have one for the US? that one quotes Canadian statistics.

No, but here is a link connecting spousal abuse with guns.

http://crimemagazine.com/guns.htm

Have you found one asking people not to sell knives to spousal abusers?

[socaldiva]

we are basically the same with the exception of a few quirks and different flags. not much difference in Toronto and Boston other than Toronto is a beautiful city.
imo
martin II

Canada & America are the same, except a "few quirks & different flags"? :lol:

[sassylassy]

sassy

there was another guy think his name was canter, that knew ron from the bar he worked at (monkey bar maby) and he was supose to have been involved in drug sales.imo His neck was cut like nicoles with a knife and it was said it was a drug killing .
martinII


yes, I heard about Brett. and there was 2 other guys I believe that were brutally murdered as well.....when you piece those crimes all together it makes you think umm maybe something else was going on.....

[sassylassy]

Kate, here is a link that I found which states that from 1974-2000 guns werw the most used weapon in those type of cases.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/reports/spousal.html

I wonder if there is a profile that shows the most common way victims of D.V were murdered....that is something I would really like to see.

[martin II]

yes, I heard about Brett. and there was 2 other guys I believe that were brutally murdered as well.....when you piece those crimes all together it makes you think umm maybe something else was going on.....

I think bret ran the Monkey bar and ron. nicole and fay and i think R Greer
frequented this bar. Another guy that knew bret died when someone put a bomb in his car.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

I understand what you are saying, because you read his most recent post. I truly understand why you do not read all his posts, but sometimes he posts something I have never read before. This is a portion of his post that preceeded the one were he claimed it was not a rage killing. He relied on this excerpt from a book and he has, I believe, previously stated that Simpson killed her in a fit of rage. I think you may now understand why I have a problem with some of his posts and refer to them as circular arguments, as they tend to run into each other. Have you decided how I should refer to you?



I posted excerpts from John Douglas' book about these murders to show how ridiculous your claims are about a second killer based on how Ron was killed. As to whether or not Simpson's killing was a rage killing or not would depend on someone's definition of what a rage killing is.

When Ron Goldman walked in on Simpson and surprised him, Simpson attacked Ron. Simpson didn't know what it took to kill someone so he just continued stabbing and cutting Ron until he stopped struggling. I referred to that as a rage killing.

John Douglas believes that the kind of overkill of Nicole, the blows directed to her neck and her head nearly cut off, represents rage.

There is no conflict here we all agree that whatever you call the killings the fact is that Simpson and only Simpson killed both victims.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This speculation conflicts with the information supplied by the poster who I promised not to refer to as anything. When you have two prosecution expets diagreeing, it can only amount to reasonable doubt, imho.

You keep referring to some mysterious poster who supposedly supplied you with some mysterious information and then you say two prosecution witnesses disagree.

What posting?
What prosecution witnesses?
What information?

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

william
i am sure a few gs will send bob a order to cut the size of his post.
martin II

Did you read that there is not a problem with bandwith? Why should I be taken to task? Why are you so insistent on having me taken to task when I did nothing worng? WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO HARASS ME WHEN I HAVE ASKED FOR THE HARASSMENT TO STOP?

Man are you paranoid or what? I was responding to Martin's post to you. He posts about how a few G's will send an order to cut the size of Bob's post! I just found it quite odd that he takes us to task, but didn't take you to task for "snipping" Bob's post yourself when you were responding to it.

It's your problem if you think that I am harrassing you. It is not harrassing. If it were, you have been harrassing me from Day 1! Maybe we should take it to Freshwater since you are having such a problem about nothing!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Which word didn't you understand? I was saying what I believe. Why are you questioning me? Are you a moderator? Just curious!

What would a Moderator have to do with the above questions? Are you a Moderator? Just curious! :rolleyes:

I asked the question because I was very suspect. Now I am not because you have just confirmed my suspicions. Thank you!

JMO and MOO!!

[littlebit]

What would a Moderator have to do with the above questions? Are you a Moderator? Just curious! :rolleyes:

I asked the question because I was very suspect. Now I am not because you have just confirmed my suspicions. Thank you!

JMO and MOO!!

I am happy to help. You are welcome.

[William Anthony]

Man are you paranoid or what? I was responding to Martin's post to you. He posts about how a few G's will send an order to cut the size of Bob's post! I just found it quite odd that he takes us to task, but didn't take you to task for "snipping" Bob's post yourself when you were responding to it.

It's your problem if you think that I am harrassing you. It is not harrassing. If it were, you have been harrassing me from Day 1! Maybe we should take it to Freshwater since you are having such a problem about nothing!

JMO and MOO!!

First, I did not snip bob's post. As for the rest of your post, this is a war that I do not... So, :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

I posted excerpts from John Douglas' book about these murders to show how ridiculous your claims are about a second killer based on how Ron was killed. As to whether or not Simpson's killing was a rage killing or not would depend on someone's definition of what a rage killing is.

When Ron Goldman walked in on Simpson and surprised him, Simpson attacked Ron. Simpson didn't know what it took to kill someone so he just continued stabbing and cutting Ron until he stopped struggling. I referred to that as a rage killing.

John Douglas believes that the kind of overkill of Nicole, the blows directed to her neck and her head nearly cut off, represents rage.

There is no conflict here we all agree that whatever you call the killings the fact is that Simpson and only Simpson killed both victims.

bobaugust

You have posted that Simpson killed her in a fit of rage and then posted this was not a rage killing. You posted the article that stated it was a rage killing. However, when Kate posted information about the killing being a precise killing, you then stated it was not a rage killing. Talk about spining! That rug you are spiining should reach around the world.

I do not know who we all are. I do not know who the killer was/is. There are several posters who do not believe Simpson is the killer. If you are atttemting to say that those of us who do not wholeheartlly agree with you are not we/human, then I find this post HIGHLY OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING Now, you are trying to say that it does not matter whether or not the killing was done in rage. Keep that yarn twirling! The prosecution based their case on the fact that Simpson was enraged, and, therefore, he killed Nicole. So you are disputing the prosecution.

[martin II]

You have posted that Simpson killed her in a fit of rage and then posted this was not a rage killing. You posted the article that stated it was a rage killing. However, when Kate posted information about the killing being a precise killing, you then stated it was not a rage killing. Talk about spining! That rug you are spiining should reach around the world.

I do not know who we all are. I do not know who the killer was/is. There are several posters who do not believe Simpson is the killer. If you are atttemting to say that those of us who do not wholeheartlly agree with you are not we/human, then I find this post HIGHLY OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING Now, you are trying to say that it does not matter whether or not the killing was done in rage. Keep that yarn twirling! The prosecution based their case on the fact that Simpson was enraged, and, therefore, he killed Nicole. So you are disputing the prosecution.


william

i thought previously bob stated that oj was driving around when he got the Paula call. that call just flipped him completely into a murdering rage and he just drove on over to bundy and cut nicole and her boyfriend up.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

william

i thought previously bob stated that oj was driving around when he got the Paula call. that call just flipped him completely into a murdering rage and he just drove on over to bundy and cut nicole and her boyfriend up.imo
martin II

I wonder if bobaugust is a spin doctor by profession?

[2L8 4A D8]

First, I did not snip bob's post. As for the rest of your post, this is a war that I do not... So, :seeya: :seeya:

Yes, please do both of us a favor and don't post to me, period! And yes, it would be nice to see you Practice What Your Signature Preaches!

JMO and MOO!!

[Kate Sachel]

Kate, here is a link that I found which states that from 1974-2000 guns werw the most used weapon in those type of cases.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/reports/spousal.html

In Canada, which is where this link references, gins are the most commonly used.

According to a 1997 report issued by the Department of Justice, the slashing of a throat with a knife is what is listed as the most common method of killing in an abusive relationship when the killer does not wish to kill him/herself as well. I believe you should be able to find the report online, but if not I have the paper copy and can scan it into a PDF format and then email it to you.

Kate

[bobaugust]

You have posted that Simpson killed her in a fit of rage and then posted this was not a rage killing. You posted the article that stated it was a rage killing. However, when Kate posted information about the killing being a precise killing, you then stated it was not a rage killing. Talk about spining! That rug you are spiining should reach around the world.

I do not know who we all are. I do not know who the killer was/is. There are several posters who do not believe Simpson is the killer. If you are atttemting to say that those of us who do not wholeheartlly agree with you are not we/human, then I find this post HIGHLY OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING Now, you are trying to say that it does not matter whether or not the killing was done in rage. Keep that yarn twirling! The prosecution based their case on the fact that Simpson was enraged, and, therefore, he killed Nicole. So you are disputing the prosecution.

No, I posted that Simpson killed Nicole because he could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Ron Goldman. John Douglas wrote that when Simpson killed Nicole he believes the kind of overkill, the blows directed to her neck and her head nearly decapitated represents rage.

I said to call either or both of these killings rage killings depends on your definition of what a rage killing is.

You say you do not know who the killer was. That's your problem, not mine. I and other posters here do know that Simpson was the killer. We know from all the evidence that points only to Simpson and from Simpson's lying testimony.

Your postings have certainly degenerated since you have been posting here. Now you have resorted to relying on mysterious posters and mysterious information to make your arguments. And you still haven't even explained what that information is or what prosecution witnesses you now claim contradicted each other. The only thing consistent about your postings since you were banned is your crying wolf that you have been insulted in many of your responses. Good one, William.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

In Canada, which is where this link references, gins are the most commonly used.

According to a 1997 report issued by the Department of Justice, the slashing of a throat with a knife is what is listed as the most common method of killing in an abusive relationship when the killer does not wish to kill him/herself as well. I believe you should be able to find the report online, but if not I have the paper copy and can scan it into a PDF format and then email it to you.

Kate

I posted another link from America that was interested in the banning sale of guns to spousal abusers and others.

[William Anthony]

No, I posted that Simpson killed Nicole because he could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Ron Goldman. John Douglas wrote that when Simpson killed Nicole he believes the kind of overkill, the blows directed to her neck and her head nearly decapitated represents rage.

I said to call either or both of these killings rage killings depends on your definition of what a rage killing is.

You say you do not know who the killer was. That's your problem, not mine. I and other posters here do know that Simpson was the killer. We know from all the evidence that points only to Simpson and from Simpson's lying testimony.

Your postings have certainly degenerated since you have been posting here. Now you have resorted to relying on mysterious posters and mysterious information to make your arguments. And you still haven't even explained what that information is or what prosecution witnesses you now claim contradicted each other. The only thing consistent about your postings since you were banned is your crying wolf that you have been insulted in many of your responses. Good one, William.

bobaugust

Unfortunately, I may not be able to go back and find your posts in which you claimed Simpson killed Nicole in a fit or rage, as did the prosecution. I have named the poster who posted the information that conflicts with yours-Kate.

Kate now seems to want to say that Simpson killed Nicole as a result of esculating spousal abuse. Do you agree? The prosecution was prevented from presenting this theory. You now claim to disagree with the prosecution that Simpson killed Nicole from rage.

I have never heard something so proposterous as to state that a rage killing depends on your defition of a rage killing? Either the killer was in a fit of rage when he killed, or he while he was killing he grew to a fit of rage. Please tell me what your defintiton of a rage killing is.

Yes, I have consistenly been insulted, since I was banned. I was told that insulting posts were not appropriate. Therefore, I do not think it appropriate that posters insult me. I do not knwo what you mean by crying wolf. Recently I was informed that the most innocent of my remarks were foung to be "pervy", because of the manner in which some posters interpreted them. Out of respect for the board, even though they were not intended to mean anything untoward, I apologized and promised not to speak on the subject again. Others and I have found some posts offensive and insulting. Yet, no one has apoligized. If you are saying that I am crying wolf by informing posters of the posts I find insulting, then I am guilty as charged.

[William Anthony]

No, I posted that Simpson killed Nicole because he could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Ron Goldman. John Douglas wrote that when Simpson killed Nicole he believes the kind of overkill, the blows directed to her neck and her head nearly decapitated represents rage.

I said to call either or both of these killings rage killings depends on your definition of what a rage killing is.

You say you do not know who the killer was. That's your problem, not mine. I and other posters here do know that Simpson was the killer. We know from all the evidence that points only to Simpson and from Simpson's lying testimony.

Your postings have certainly degenerated since you have been posting here. Now you have resorted to relying on mysterious posters and mysterious information to make your arguments. And you still haven't even explained what that information is or what prosecution witnesses you now claim contradicted each other. The only thing consistent about your postings since you were banned is your crying wolf that you have been insulted in many of your responses. Good one, William.

bobaugust

I had some down time, so I found this post from you. I think we can see what you have previoulsy claimed from this post. Your opinion of the evidence seems to change faster than some alleged Simpson committed the two murders on that night.

01-11-2007, 01:05 AM
bobaugust
Super Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,757

Quote:
Originally Posted by limakey
While OJ Simpson's father was gay, it was his father who answered the call when OJ was in trouble. Mrs. Simpson called him when OJ needed more discipline. I don't care how gay a parent is, it doesn't mean they don't know right from wrong or how to discipline their child.

And Mrs. Simpson didn't look like the type of mom who took alot of "stuff" from her children. I wouldn't have gone up against her anymore then I would against my own mom.

"I would think anyone growing up poor would have a much different outlook on life. What makes OJ Simpson rather unique is that he always planned for the day when he could no longer play the game. He saw pro athletes who had it all while they played the game, thought the money would just keep pouring in, he knew different. That is why he played such a central role in the health insurance and pension plan for NFL players---which by the way was used for "drafts" for other professional leagues.

limakey, I agree with your posting and what makes Simpson so pitiful is he threw everything he ever worked for in his life away in one night of selfish, uncontrolled, jealous revenge and rage."

bobaugust

[weezer]

*Snipped*Quote:
Originally Posted by limakey

"I would think anyone growing up poor would have a much different outlook on life. What makes OJ Simpson rather unique is that he always planned for the day when he could no longer play the game. He saw pro athletes who had it all while they played the game, thought the money would just keep pouring in, he knew different. That is why he played such a central role in the health insurance and pension plan for NFL players---which by the way was used for "drafts" for other professional leagues.

I've seen this referred to before but cannot find anything to substantiate the story. Do you have anything that can point me in the direction to read about it?

[martin II]

*Snipped*

I've seen this referred to before but cannot find anything to substantiate the story. Do you have anything that can point me in the direction to read about it?

weezer
i had read this sompleace long ago also.

you may be able to go to NFL history players insurence etc and find what you want.

martin II

[martin II]

I had some down time, so I found this post from you. I think we can see what you have previoulsy claimed from this post. Your opinion of the evidence seems to change faster than some alleged Simpson committed the two murders on that night.

01-11-2007, 01:05 AM
bobaugust
Super Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,757

Quote:
Originally Posted by limakey
While OJ Simpson's father was gay, it was his father who answered the call when OJ was in trouble. Mrs. Simpson called him when OJ needed more discipline. I don't care how gay a parent is, it doesn't mean they don't know right from wrong or how to discipline their child.

And Mrs. Simpson didn't look like the type of mom who took alot of "stuff" from her children. I wouldn't have gone up against her anymore then I would against my own mom.

"I would think anyone growing up poor would have a much different outlook on life. What makes OJ Simpson rather unique is that he always planned for the day when he could no longer play the game. He saw pro athletes who had it all while they played the game, thought the money would just keep pouring in, he knew different. That is why he played such a central role in the health insurance and pension plan for NFL players---which by the way was used for "drafts" for other professional leagues.

limakey, I agree with your posting and what makes Simpson so pitiful is he threw everything he ever worked for in his life away in one night of selfish, uncontrolled, jealous revenge and rage."

bobaugust


william
'bob knows he has said oj was in a RAGE when he went to bundy so i don't know why he is trying to change his posiiton now?
martin II

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

I've seen this referred to before but cannot find anything to substantiate the story. Do you have anything that can point me in the direction to read about it?

That was not my post. My post dealt with bobaugust's denial that he said that Nicole's was a rage killing. He has posted a portion of a book that he relied on, while reaching his conclusion that Simpson was the murderer. Perhaps, I need to ask him why he felt Simpson was enraged when he allegedly killed Ron but not Nicole.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

I've seen this referred to before but cannot find anything to substantiate the story. Do you have anything that can point me in the direction to read about it?

I could not find an article on point but I did find this from an article;

"Yet another death scream resonating with Nicole’s belonged to Brett Cantor, the owner of a Hollywood nightclub called the Dragonfly. Nicole and Ron Goldman were regulars at the club. Cantor was murdered on July 30, 1993 in a vicious knife attack nearly identical to the one that dispatched Goldman. The club owner, too, had been cut from behind. The killer started on the lower left side of the neck, drew upward and away to the right. Both Goldman and Cantor were stabbed repeatedly on the arms and chest. In both cases, the knife had a long but thin blade. At one point, Shapiro planned to argue that the same killer was responsible for the bloody melee on Bundy, but the LAPD insisted (with psychic certainty) that there was no connection between the two cases (LaFontaine). "

I forgot to get the link.

[bobaugust]

That was not my post. My post dealt with bobaugust's denial that he said that Nicole's was a rage killing. He has posted a portion of a book that he relied on, while reaching his conclusion that Simpson was the murderer. Perhaps, I need to ask him why he felt Simpson was enraged when he allegedly killed Ron but not Nicole.

You're making things up again and you're wrong. I never posted that I relied on the book written by John Douglas to reach my conclusion that Simpson was the killer. Funny. I said I posted those excerpts to show how ridiculous your claims are about a second killer based on how Ron was killed. My conclusions were formed long before I ever read that book.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You're making things up again and you're wrong. I never posted that I relied on the book written by John Douglas to reach my conclusion that Simpson was the killer. Funny. I said I posted those excerpts to show how ridiculous your claims are about a second killer based on how Ron was killed. My conclusions were formed long before I ever read that book.

bobaugust

I see and stand corrected. You only read the book to reinforce your conclusion. I find you reference to my claim as "ridiculous" to be highly offensive and false. I have never stated there were two killers, only speculated on that possibility. The information posted by Kate allows me to speculate to the very real possibility of two killers, in that one victim was killed with rage and the other with precision. Additionally, because all the evidence was not collected and/or tested at Bundy, that does not allow me to eliminate that possibility.

[martin II]

You're making things up again and you're wrong. I never posted that I relied on the book written by John Douglas to reach my conclusion that Simpson was the killer. Funny. I said I posted those excerpts to show how ridiculous your claims are about a second killer based on how Ron was killed. My conclusions were formed long before I ever read that book.

bobaugust

bob

Now you know John Douglas was not at Bundy on 6/12 so he is guessing just like all the other BOTTON FEEDERS that wrote books.
martin II

[weezer]

bob

Now you know John Douglas was not at Bundy on 6/12 so he is guessing just like all the other BOTTON FEEDERS that wrote books.
martin II

"BOTTON" feeders? You mean like orenthal's "Let me tell you" and "If I did it"?

[sassylassy]

update---


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Attorneys for the father of murder victim Ron Goldman subpoenaed several Hollywood industry groups on Monday, seeking money O.J. Simpson was paid for TV appearances and work in such movies as "Naked Gun 33 and 1/3" and "The Towering Inferno."


Lawyers for Fred Goldman believe that Simpson has diverted the residual payments to avoid a $33.5 million judgment won in 1997 by the families of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070212/us_nm/simpson_hollywood_dc_2

[socaldiva]

bob

Now you know John Douglas was not at Bundy on 6/12 so he is guessing just like all the other BOTTON FEEDERS that wrote books.
martin II

That's funny, considering you were not "at Bundy on 6/12" either. I guess that means you are "guessing" too. John Douglas is a well respected professional that was an FBI Profiler, so I'd venture to say that his "guessing" is far more accurate than yours. :tongue:

[Kate Sachel]

I see and stand corrected. You only read the book to reinforce your conclusion. I find you reference to my claim as "ridiculous" to be highly offensive and false. I have never stated there were two killers, only speculated on that possibility. The information posted by Kate allows me to speculate to the very real possibility of two killers, in that one victim was killed with rage and the other with precision. Additionally, because all the evidence was not collected and/or tested at Bundy, that does not allow me to eliminate that possibility.

One correction if I may ... I did not say that OJ killed Nicole as a result of esculating spousal abuse. I said that the manner in which she was killed is consistent with the type of killing that goes along in a relationship that has included abuse. Yes, I do firmly believe that OJ battered Nicole physically and tormented her emotionally but I believe it was more "spousal obsession and rage" versus escalating abuse that led to his decision to murder her.

I believe that he lover her and that he hated her. I believe that he blamed her for the things that had gone awry in his life.

I do not believe there are two killers, I do believe that OJ killed alone. I believe that he had anger for her and an almost feeling of helplessness in the moment, and that he wanted to make her suffer and was precise in his killing of her. I believe that the rage became full blown when Ron appeared and I also believe that panic set in at that time. Rage over the fact that he more than likely assumed that Ron was there to romance Nicole, and panicked because he was hell-bent on making certain that no one would be alive to identify him.

Kate

[William Anthony]

One correction if I may ... I did not say that OJ killed Nicole as a result of esculating spousal abuse. I said that the manner in which she was killed is consistent with the type of killing that goes along in a relationship that has included abuse. Yes, I do firmly believe that OJ battered Nicole physically and tormented her emotionally but I believe it was more "spousal obsession and rage" versus escalating abuse that led to his decision to murder her.

I believe that he lover her and that he hated her. I believe that he blamed her for the things that had gone awry in his life.

I do not believe there are two killers, I do believe that OJ killed alone. I believe that he had anger for her and an almost feeling of helplessness in the moment, and that he wanted to make her suffer and was precise in his killing of her. I believe that the rage became full blown when Ron appeared and I also believe that panic set in at that time. Rage over the fact that he more than likely assumed that Ron was there to romance Nicole, and panicked because he was hell-bent on making certain that no one would be alive to identify him.

Kate

Kate,

I understand your speculations on how Simpson allegedly committed the murders. I speculate on the possibility of their being more than one killer, based on the fact that, imho, the evidence of the different type of killings and the prosecution's theory as to who was killedf first is more consistent with their being two killers. I find it somewhat inconsistent that a person so full of panic and/or rage would so hastily absolve himself of those emotions and kill the catalysit of his rage in a precise manner.

The concept that Simpson became enraged, becaudse he felt their was a romantic entanglement betewee Ron and Nicole, is also inconsistent with his prior conduct, I. e. he never murdered her when he saw her having an encounter with another suitor. The idea that he would then have killed Ron because he was jealous is inconsistent. I think whoever the killer was killed both in an effort to avoid detection.

Given that Ron was killed in rage, the evidence is consistent with Ron being tthe intended victim and Nicole being killed in a precise manner to avoid detection. I think that there are many ways to view the evidence and to summarily dismiss the notion of more than one killer is the exact position that the prosecution took, which led to their ultimate demise.

[William Anthony]

That's funny, considering you were not "at Bundy on 6/12" either. I guess that means you are "guessing" too. John Douglas is a well respected professional that was an FBI Profiler, so I'd venture to say that his "guessing" is far more accurate than yours. :tongue:

Many well respected so-called expert jave reached false conclusions.

[William Anthony]

Many well respected so-called expert jave reached false conclusions.

Correction,

Many so-called experts have...

[martin II]

"BOTTON" feeders? You mean like orenthal's "Let me tell you" and "If I did it"?

i was referrig to the hundreds of others that made a living on writing their opinions on the case over and over again and the tv media that opbviously had not concern for the famalies or the victims. They did not seem to be concerned with reminding the famalies of the murders then.
so They are the bottom fedders. all fed off of OJ.
martin II

[martin II]

Kate,

I understand your speculations on how Simpson allegedly committed the murders. I speculate on the possibility of their being more than one killer, based on the fact that, imho, the evidence of the different type of killings and the prosecution's theory as to who was killedf first is more consistent with their being two killers. I find it somewhat inconsistent that a person so full of panic and/or rage would so hastily absolve himself of those emotions and kill the catalysit of his rage in a precise manner.

The concept that Simpson became enraged, becaudse he felt their was a romantic entanglement betewee Ron and Nicole, is also inconsistent with his prior conduct, I. e. he never murdered her when he saw her having an encounter with another suitor. The idea that he would then have killed Ron because he was jealous is inconsistent. I think whoever the killer was killed both in an effort to avoid detection.

Given that Ron was killed in rage, the evidence is consistent with Ron being tthe intended victim and Nicole being killed in a precise manner to avoid detection. I think that there are many ways to view the evidence and to summarily dismiss the notion of more than one killer is the exact position that the prosecution took, which led to their ultimate demise.

william

based on the number of partners Faye Resnick said nicole had when she OJ did not let her back to rockingham I doubt finding out there was one more (RON) would have made any difference at all.

I also think that if this was a drug hit, Nicole could have been mistaken for Faye as she had lived there a few days earlier freebasing with no job.

I think the killer killed Nicole with the same purpose and professional expertise that the killer that killed B Canter and the Dragonfly guy.

Ron was actually killed with the same purpose but he was cut more imo because he tried to put up a fight.

imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

Correction,

Many so-called experts have...

He is not a "so-called expert". He worked for the FBI. Yet Martin refers to him as a "bottom feeder" out to make a buck on a book & seems to think his own wild speculations have more credibility. What a laugh.

[weezer]

i was referrig to the hundreds of others that made a living on writing their opinions on the case over and over again and the tv media that opbviously had not concern for the famalies or the victims. They did not seem to be concerned with reminding the famalies of the murders then.
so They are the bottom fedders. all fed off of OJ.
martin II

I do not believe what I'm reading! You of all people bashing someone else for not being nice to the families! Good Lawd!

[martin II]

I do not believe what I'm reading! You of all people bashing someone else for not being nice to the families! Good Lawd!

I am speaking to the many BOTTOM FEEDERS that made their fortunes writing about the murders AND OJ. without any regard for what they call the famalies and then have the gall to denounce OJ for a book about the same subject.

You do seem to read things without comprehension i have found. so i do understand why you have blasted off in the wrong direction.
martin II

[weezer]

I am speaking to the many BOTTOM FEEDERS that made their fortunes writing about the murders AND OJ. without any regard for what they call the famalies and then have the gall to denounce OJ for a book about the same subject.

You do seem to read things without comprehension i have found. so i do understand why you have blasted off in the wrong direction.
martin II

what wrong direction? I went in the direction I chose. You are always first in line to bash the victims and the families but are hypocrite enough to criticize other people for writing about their experiences?

[martin II]

I do not believe what I'm reading! You of all people bashing someone else for not being nice to the families! Good Lawd!

weezer

you talk negatively about the female black jurors,J Cochran everyone else on the defense team, Arnell and OJ. You don't call that bashing or maby you do. And it seems you agee with all the people that wrote these books for profit only withour regard for the famalies and then you bash OJ for doing the same.
That is a double standard.imo
martin II

[martin II]

what wrong direction? I went in the direction I chose. You are always first in line to bash the victims and the families but are hypocrite enough to criticize other people for writing about their experiences?

weezer

What kind of experiences did the talking heads and tv producers have in the case other than listening to the testimony.
martin II

[martin II]

Unfortunately, I may not be able to go back and find your posts in which you claimed Simpson killed Nicole in a fit or rage, as did the prosecution. I have named the poster who posted the information that conflicts with yours-Kate.

Kate now seems to want to say that Simpson killed Nicole as a result of esculating spousal abuse. Do you agree? The prosecution was prevented from presenting this theory. You now claim to disagree with the prosecution that Simpson killed Nicole from rage.

I have never heard something so proposterous as to state that a rage killing depends on your defition of a rage killing? Either the killer was in a fit of rage when he killed, or he while he was killing he grew to a fit of rage. Please tell me what your defintiton of a rage killing is.

Yes, I have consistenly been insulted, since I was banned. I was told that insulting posts were not appropriate. Therefore, I do not think it appropriate that posters insult me. I do not knwo what you mean by crying wolf. Recently I was informed that the most innocent of my remarks were foung to be "pervy", because of the manner in which some posters interpreted them. Out of respect for the board, even though they were not intended to mean anything untoward, I apologized and promised not to speak on the subject again. Others and I have found some posts offensive and insulting. Yet, no one has apoligized. If you are saying that I am crying wolf by informing posters of the posts I find insulting, then I am guilty as charged.


william

the abuse between nicole and oj had dramatically decreased since the 1989 (i think it was) incident. imo
martin II

[Heyes]

I am speaking to the many BOTTOM FEEDERS that made their fortunes writing about the murders AND OJ. without any regard for what they call the famalies and then have the gall to denounce OJ for a book about the same subject.

You do seem to read things without comprehension i have found. so i do understand why you have blasted off in the wrong direction.
martin II


I just have to ask. Is there a bigger BOTTOM FEEDER than O.J.?
My opinion of this creature was sealed in stone after seeing him on the news. He used a horror convention as his venue? WTH! Signing autographs, bloody limbs a few feet away from his fat arse. seems like he's very proud of his handywork to me. And now he wants to tells us how he'd do it, if he'd done it? Are you f-ing kidding me?
I hope the Goldmans are just like a big ole tic right under orenthals skin! Permanently!
Go Fred and Kim! Keep it up. I admire you both!

[socaldiva]

I just have to ask. Is there a bigger BOTTOM FEEDER than O.J.?
My opinion of this creature was sealed in stone after seeing him on the news. He used a horror convention as his venue? WTH! Signing autographs, bloody limbs a few feet away from his fat arse. seems like he's very proud of his handywork to me. And now he wants to tells us how he'd do it, if he'd done it? Are you f-ing kidding me?
I hope the Goldmans are just like a big ole tic right under orenthals skin! Permanently!
Go Fred and Kim! Keep it up. I admire you both!

:beer: To your ENTIRE post :patriot: and no, I don't think there's a bigger BOTTOM FEEDER than OJ.....

[bobaugust]

I see and stand corrected. You only read the book to reinforce your conclusion. I find you reference to my claim as "ridiculous" to be highly offensive and false. I have never stated there were two killers, only speculated on that possibility. The information posted by Kate allows me to speculate to the very real possibility of two killers, in that one victim was killed with rage and the other with precision. Additionally, because all the evidence was not collected and/or tested at Bundy, that does not allow me to eliminate that possibility.

The evidence is that one knife is consistent with making every wound on both victims by one killer. The answer to the question if one or both victims were killed in a rage is based only on what someone's definition of a rage killing is. What expert testified that any wound on either victim was made with precision?

The fact that there isn't one single shred of physical evidence found at Bundy that points to any other killer except Simpson is the reality that contradicts your imagined unsupported possibility of two killers. The fact that there was a couple of situations of some blood evidence that wasn't collected is meaningless. That blood more than likely came from the same three people all the other blood came from.

Your continuous crying wolf and using bold face type claiming comments are highly offensive is starting to become your trademark. Good job William.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I just have to ask. Is there a bigger BOTTOM FEEDER than O.J.?
My opinion of this creature was sealed in stone after seeing him on the news. He used a horror convention as his venue? WTH! Signing autographs, bloody limbs a few feet away from his fat arse. seems like he's very proud of his handywork to me. And now he wants to tells us how he'd do it, if he'd done it? Are you f-ing kidding me?
I hope the Goldmans are just like a big ole tic right under orenthals skin! Permanently!
Go Fred and Kim! Keep it up. I admire you both!

HEYES
HI
I think that all bottom feeders are about equal in this case. imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

HEYES
HI
I think that all bottom feeders are about equal in this case. imo
martin II

Hi Martin,

I think murderers are below everyone else. So they are the lowest of all lows of bottom feeders.

IMO

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

I think murderers are below everyone else. So they are the lowest of all lows of bottom feeders.

IMO

tazzy hi

i was expecting this respose from you.

well since oj was found not guilty of murdering anyone at bundy he is in the middle of the bottom feeders haha
martinII

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

i was expecting this respose from you.

well since oj was found not guilty of murdering anyone at bundy he is in the middle of the bottom feeders haha
martinII

Hi Martin,

But, he was found responsible for their deaths.....so, he's back at the bottom

:tongue:

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

But, he was found responsible for their deaths.....so, he's back at the bottom

:tongue:

tassy hi

so are you suggesting that we just forget about the criminal trial verdict because you don't agree with it?
Oj is not listed in the criminal records of LA as having been found guilty of killing anyoner.imo
martin II

[weezer]

tassy hi

so are you suggesting that we just forget about the criminal trial verdict because you don't agree with it?
Oj is not listed in the criminal records of LA as having been found guilty of killing anyoner.imo
martin II

the fact of the matter is, orenthal was found guilty of physical abuse (bottom feeder) and liable for the deaths of two human beings (double bottom feeder).

[martin II]

the fact of the matter is, orenthal was found guilty of physical abuse (bottom feeder) and liable for the deaths of two human beings (double bottom feeder).


TAZZY HI
When did oj have a trial for abuse and when was he convicted of abuse in a court of law.
martin II

[William Anthony]

The evidence is that one knife is consistent with making every wound on both victims by one killer. The answer to the question if one or both victims were killed in a rage is based only on what someone's definition of a rage killing is. What expert testified that any wound on either victim was made with precision?

The fact that there isn't one single shred of physical evidence found at Bundy that points to any other killer except Simpson is the reality that contradicts your imagined unsupported possibility of two killers. The fact that there was a couple of situations of some blood evidence that wasn't collected is meaningless. That blood more than likely came from the same three people all the other blood came from.

Your continuous crying wolf and using bold face type claiming comments are highly offensive is starting to become your trademark. Good job William.

bobaugust

Kate Sachel, and pardon me for involving you in this dispute, posted the name of the expert/coroner. He said Nicole's killing was precise and Ron's was in rage. Why are you disagreeing? Is it because you previously state Nicloe's killing was in rage, but, subsequently changed? I put the comments in bold that I find offensive so that the posters who make those types of remarks can cease with them, if they so desire, or they can continue after being informed. There, was testimony, as I recall, that the wounds could have been made with one or two knives. The wounds were consisten with both theories.

[William Anthony]

He is not a "so-called expert". He worked for the FBI. Yet Martin refers to him as a "bottom feeder" out to make a buck on a book & seems to think his own wild speculations have more credibility. What a laugh.

Being called an expert means that the court has qualified you as one based on your education, training and experience. It is only a term recognizing the fact that a person can impart an explanation of some special type of information.

[bobaugust]

Kate Sachel, and pardon me for involving you in this dispute, posted the name of the expert/coroner. He said Nicole's killing was precise and Ron's was in rage. Why are you disagreeing? Is it because you previously state Nicloe's killing was in rage, but, subsequently changed? I put the comments in bold that I find offensive so that the posters who make those types of remarks can cease with them, if they so desire, or they can continue after being informed. There, was testimony, as I recall, that the wounds could have been made with one or two knives. The wounds were consisten with both theories.

I do not recall Dr. Golden saying Nicole's killing was precise. Post that testimony please.

I haven't changed what I said about either killing. Both killings could be called rage killings based on the someone's definition of what a rage killing is.

The relevant fact here is that all of the wounds on both victims are consistent with one knife and one killer. All of the evidence found at Bundy points to only one killer. The fact that all of the wounds could have also been made with more than one knife is not evidence of more than one killer.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I do not recall Dr. Golden saying Nicole's killing was precise. Post that testimony please.

I haven't changed what I said about either killing. Both killings could be called rage killings based on the someone's definition of what a rage killing is.

The relevant fact here is that all of the wounds on both victims are consistent with one knife and one killer. All of the evidence found at Bundy points to only one killer. The fact that all of the wounds could have also been made with more than one knife is not evidence of more than one killer.

bobaugust

Did I say that the expert testified to that, no. I said Kate Sachel posted what the coroner stated.

You rely on definitions to excuse what you say, imho. However, you will not rely on different interpretations of testimony. As I have previously said, if I said I liked bobaugust, no one, who did not know of our relationship, would know just from reading those words whether or not I meant them.

The defense did not have to prove there was more than one killer; only point out evidence from which a reasonable doubt could be raised that there was only one killer, i.e. the jury could decide from the evidence that there was more than one killer.

[bobaugust]

Did I say that the expert testified to that, no. I said Kate Sachel posted what the coroner stated.

You rely on definitions to excuse what you say, imho. However, you will not rely on different interpretations of testimony. As I have previously said, if I said I liked bobaugust, no one, who did not know of our relationship, would know just from reading those words whether or not I meant them.

The defense did not have to prove there was more than one killer; only point out evidence from which a reasonable doubt could be raised that there was only one killer, i.e. the jury could decide from the evidence that there was more than one killer.

There you go again falling back on your lame excuse that the defense didn't have to prove there was more than one killer. We aren't talking about what the defense did or did not do we are tailing about the evidence that proves who the killer was.

The fact is that there isn't one single shred of evidence there was a second killer. Only one killer, Orenthal James Simpson. Your speculation there was more than one killer is based only on your imagination and is contradicted by the reality of all the known evidence. No evidence then no reasonable doubt.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

There you go again falling back on your lame excuse that the defense didn't have to prove there was more than one killer. We aren't talking about what the defense did or did not do we are tailing about the evidence that proves who the killer was.

The fact is that there isn't one single shred of evidence there was a second killer. Only one killer, Orenthal James Simpson. Your speculation there was more than one killer is based only on your imagination and is contradicted by the reality of all the known evidence. No evidence then no reasonable doubt.

bobaugust

No, not all the known evidence; only the evidence LE collected or chose to collect.

What you call a LAME EXCUSE is the foundation of our system of jurisprudence. You may want to change that and I would suggest that you lobby your representaives. Until they make that change, you are stuck with what it takes to prove Simpson guilty of murder. I will repeat that I am respectfully requesting you to stop using the words lame excuses as I find them highly offensive and insulting.

[weezer]

No, not all the known evidence; only the evidence LE collected or chose to collect.

What you call a LAME EXCUSE is the foundation of our system of jurisprudence. You may want to change that and I would suggest that you lobby your representaives. Until they make that change, you are stuck with what it takes to prove Simpson guilty of murder. I will repeat that I am respectfully requesting you to stop using the words lame excuses as I find them highly offensive and insulting.

He has to use 'lame' because the other word anyone else would use would get the poster banned. The evidence that WAS collected proved orenthal james simpson murdered two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. No amount of imagined 'cross contamination' or imagined LE 'out to get orenthal' could change someone else's DNA to orenthal's DNA.

[William Anthony]

He has to use 'lame' because the other word anyone else would use would get the poster banned. The evidence that WAS collected proved orenthal james simpson murdered two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. No amount of imagined 'cross contamination' or imagined LE 'out to get orenthal' could change someone else's DNA to orenthal's DNA.

What about the evidence that was not? To whom did that belong? I do not know if the use of another word would get someone banned or not. Why don't you try it out?

[bobaugust]

No, not all the known evidence; only the evidence LE collected or chose to collect.

What you call a LAME EXCUSE is the foundation of our system of jurisprudence. You may want to change that and I would suggest that you lobby your representaives. Until they make that change, you are stuck with what it takes to prove Simpson guilty of murder. I will repeat that I am respectfully requesting you to stop using the words lame excuses as I find them highly offensive and insulting.

What the LE collected is the evidence in this case. No one knew who that evidence would point to until it was tested. The reality is that every single piece of relevant physical evidence that was collected pointed to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it pointed to anyone else.

What I said has nothing to with the foundation of our system of jurisprudence. That's the weak and ineffectual (lame) excuse you use when when you're confronted with the factual evidence that contradicts your unsupported speculation about a second killer.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

What the LE collected is the evidence in this case. No one knew who that evidence would point to until it was tested. The reality is that every single piece of relevant physical evidence that was collected pointed to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it pointed to anyone else.

What I said has nothing to with the foundation of our system of jurisprudence. That's the weak and ineffectual (lame) excuse you use when when you're confronted with the factual evidence that contradicts your unsupported speculation about a second killer.

bobaugust

The foundation of our legal system is that the defendant has the right to confront the evidence against him. In doing that he/whe can point to the blunders made by the police and evidence overlooked, as well as, the reasons why the evidence should not be trusted. The only ineffectual thing in this case, imho, was the weak case the prosecution put forth. What is your theory on Simpson's motive, i. e. what caused him to go into a murderous rage?

[2L8 4A D8]

What about the evidence that was not? To whom did that belong? I do not know if the use of another word would get someone banned or not. Why don't you try it out?

Since you have Freshwater in "your back pocket" you know that we would be banned! You would just love that wouldn't you? All IMO!

[bobaugust]

The foundation of our legal system is that the defendant has the right to confront the evidence against him. In doing that he/whe can point to the blunders made by the police and evidence overlooked, as well as, the reasons why the evidence should not be trusted. The only ineffectual thing in this case, imho, was the weak case the prosecution put forth. What is your theory on Simpson's motive, i. e. what caused him to go into a murderous rage?

Pointing to mistakes about some evidence that was not collected does not change the evidence that was collected. Simpson was proved to be the killer based on all of the collected evidence in this case. The few incidents where evidence was not collected only resulted in that evidence not being used against him.

As to trusting the evidence, the fact is that every single piece of relevant physical evidence including hair and fiber evidence all points to Simpson. None of it points to anyone else. The defense offered a multitude of different imagined theoretical possibilities for some of that evidence, not all of it and the reality is that one explanation is completely consistent with all of it. That explanation is that Simpson was the killer.

I don't believe there was only one reason that caused Simpson to go to Bundy that night dressed in all dark clothing and carrying a knife, it was an accumulation of things. The deterioration of Simpson and Nicole's relationship over the prior weeks and then the events that happened that day causing Simpson's anger to build. Normally he wouldn't have done anything about it but that night opportunity presented itself with an unexpected telephone call and Simpson made a conscious decision to do something he had always threatened to do.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Since you have Freshwater in "your back pocket" you know that we would be banned! You would just love that wouldn't you? All IMO!

I feel that you have gone far too far astray from human decency with this last comment. You suggest a relationship between Freshwater and me that does not exist. I consider this comment perverted.

[William Anthony]

Pointing to mistakes about some evidence that was not collected does not change the evidence that was collected. Simpson was proved to be the killer based on all of the collected evidence in this case. The few incidents where evidence was not collected only resulted in that evidence not being used against him.

As to trusting the evidence, the fact is that every single piece of relevant physical evidence including hair and fiber evidence all points to Simpson. None of it points to anyone else. The defense offered a multitude of different imagined theoretical possibilities for some of that evidence, not all of it and the reality is that one explanation is completely consistent with all of it. That explanation is that Simpson was the killer.

I don't believe there was only one reason that caused Simpson to go to Bundy that night dressed in all dark clothing and carrying a knife, it was an accumulation of things. The deterioration of Simpson and Nicole's relationship over the prior weeks and then the events that happened that day causing Simpson's anger to build. Normally he wouldn't have done anything about it but that night opportunity presented itself with an unexpected telephone call and Simpson made a conscious decision to do something he had always threatened to do.

bobaugust

Imho, your bias is showing through with this comment, "The few incidents where evidence was not collected only resulted in that evidence, being not used against him." There is no way of knowing whether the evidence would have exonerated or incriminated him, because it was uncollected. Therefore, you display your problem with comprehending the concept of reasonable doubt. I respectfully suggest that there can be no reasonable doubt in the minds of those who are predisposed toward conviction.

There was evidence submitted that he had resigned himself to the fact that his relationship with Nicole was terminated, and he had moved on. What is the unexpected phone call to which you refer?

[martin II]

Pointing to mistakes about some evidence that was not collected does not change the evidence that was collected. Simpson was proved to be the killer based on all of the collected evidence in this case. The few incidents where evidence was not collected only resulted in that evidence not being used against him.

As to trusting the evidence, the fact is that every single piece of relevant physical evidence including hair and fiber evidence all points to Simpson. None of it points to anyone else. The defense offered a multitude of different imagined theoretical possibilities for some of that evidence, not all of it and the reality is that one explanation is completely consistent with all of it. That explanation is that Simpson was the killer.

I don't believe there was only one reason that caused Simpson to go to Bundy that night dressed in all dark clothing and carrying a knife, it was an accumulation of things. The deterioration of Simpson and Nicole's relationship over the prior weeks and then the events that happened that day causing Simpson's anger to build. Normally he wouldn't have done anything about it but that night opportunity presented itself with an unexpected telephone call and Simpson made a conscious decision to do something he had always threatened to do.

bobaugust

Simpson had told Nicole that she couild not come back to rockingham as she had requested as he had moved on.

simpson was at recital sitting a few chairs(children in those seats) from nicole with the children. He went to get some flowers for his daughter and upon return stood in the back waiting for the end of the program

video after recital shows simpson talking and acting friendly with nicoles family
including denise.

when not invited to the dinner party he went home.

Kato stated that he was not angry but joking about the dress.

Paula made one of her regular hissy fit phone calls to oj , angry because he did not take her to the recital.( if paulas phone call angered him, it seems he would have been angry with her, NOT NICOLE)

So what were the events that made him decide to go and kill nicole?
martin II

[weezer]

Simpson had told Nicole that she couild not come back to rockingham as she had requested as he had moved on.

simpson was at recital sitting a few chairs(children in those seats) from nicole with the children. He went to get some flowers for his daughter and upon return stood in the back waiting for the end of the program

video after recital shows simpson talking and acting friendly with nicoles family
including denise.

when not invited to the dinner party he went home.

Kato stated that he was not angry but joking about the dress.

Paula made one of her regular hissy fit phone calls to oj , angry because he did not take her to the recital.( if paulas phone call angered him, it seems he would have been angry with her, NOT NICOLE)

So what were the events that made him decide to go and kill nicole?
martin II

Actually, Nicole told orenthal that she was not reconciling with him and had found a place to live away from Brentwood.

As far as the recital, Nicole had not saved a seat for orenthal -- not their usual and customary routine.

The public face orenthal put on after the recital has nothing to do with what he was feeling/thinking. The Browns seem like decent folks who had enough class not to be impolite to orenthal.

The fact that orenthal even 'joked' about what Nicole was wearing that night is weird to me. I thought she looked great and certainly was dressed for the occassion.

As bobaugust and many of us have stated all along, there was not 'one' thing that brought about that night -- it was a culmination -- and when opportunity was added to the mix, orenthal murdered her.

[William Anthony]

Actually, Nicole told orenthal that she was not reconciling with him and had found a place to live away from Brentwood.

As far as the recital, Nicole had not saved a seat for orenthal -- not their usual and customary routine.

The public face orenthal put on after the recital has nothing to do with what he was feeling/thinking. The Browns seem like decent folks who had enough class not to be impolite to orenthal.

The fact that orenthal even 'joked' about what Nicole was wearing that night is weird to me. I thought she looked great and certainly was dressed for the occassion.

As bobaugust and many of us have stated all along, there was not 'one' thing that brought about that night -- it was a culmination -- and when opportunity was added to the mix, orenthal murdered her.

And pray tell, what was this alleged opportunity?

[weezer]

And pray tell, what was this alleged opportunity?

Paula dumping him and the maid not coming home that night.

[William Anthony]

Paula dumping him and the maid not coming home that night.

Paula dumping him may go to motive. The maid not coming home has no signifcance, since Kato was there and the limo. driver was expected, and there is no evidence that Arnelle or anyone else was not expected. More importantly, imho, it is truly irrelevant, because the murders were not committed at his home. So again, I ask, pray tell, what was the opportunity?

[weezer]

Paula dumping him may go to motive. The maid not coming home has no signifcance, since Kato was there and the limo. driver was expected, and there is no evidence that Arnelle or anyone else was not expected. More importantly, imho, it is truly irrelevant, because the murders were not committed at his home. So again, I ask, pray tell, what was the opportunity?

The maid not coming home was very significant. It meant that there was no one else in the house that would know if he was there or not. The other people on the property did not live in the house. Arnelle and Kato did not know from looking at the house if he was there or not.

[William Anthony]

The maid not coming home was very significant. It meant that there was no one else in the house that would know if he was there or not. The other people on the property did not live in the house. Arnelle and Kato did not know from looking at the house if he was there or not.

There was nothing preventing Arnelle or Kato from going into the home to see if he was there, or seeing him on his return. You have not mentioned the limo. driver. Again, I ask what is this alleged opportunity?

[martin II]

Paula dumping him and the maid not coming home that night.

weezer

The maid is the one that asked to be off.

OJ knew that pauls was just mad for the moment as she had been before.OJ did not want to break his agreement with nicole about bringing others lovers in the presence of the kids. So that was not a big deal at all.

OJ would not go to bundy to kill nicole at 10:30 knowing he had to be back at roghingham at 10:45 to meet the limo driver imo

Noting wrong about oj joking about nicoles dress to kato and kato took it as just joking. that is from a man's perspective.

There is no regular seating arrange ment at a recital. the children were sitting next to nicole in the seats when oj got there. nothing wrong about that. they were all sitting togeather.

There was no behavior by oj that was sinister from the recital and the time of the dinner.

So nothing happened that made oj be in a rage that he would just decide to go kill nicole. nothing at all. there is no proof of this rage behavior at all.
martin II

[weezer]

There was nothing preventing Arnelle or Kato from going into the home to see if he was there, or seeing him on his return. You have not mentioned the limo. driver. Again, I ask what is this alleged opportunity?

Hmmm -- Arnelle and/or Kato were not allowed to come and go through the house. What does the limo driver have to do with it? orenthal expected to be back before time for the driver to arrive -- another miscalculation/screw-up on his part. The opportunity was no one being home to know his leaving and/or return.

[martin II]

There was nothing preventing Arnelle or Kato from going into the home to see if he was there, or seeing him on his return. You have not mentioned the limo. driver. Again, I ask what is this alleged opportunity?

william
you are absolutely correct.

Oj did not even know where Arnell was or if she would be home and in the house. Kato could have come to the yard or the house looking for oj for a number of reasons.oj had no way of knowing who would be at the house.
The maid is the one that asked to be off.
Why would oj go to bundy to kill nicole at 10:30 knowing he had to be at rockingham at 10;45 to meet the limo driver.

Some times people that are concerned about abuse can stretch a abuse situation to guarantee that muder will and did follow some previous abuse that was few years old. imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

Hmmm -- Arnelle and/or Kato were not allowed to come and go through the house. What does the limo driver have to do with it? orenthal expected to be back before time for the driver to arrive -- another miscalculation/screw-up on his part. The opportunity was no one being home to know his leaving and/or return.

This argument/theory is truly counterproductive to the arguments espoused by those Gs, who claim that kato was the alibi witness. According to your argument, he was not concerned about Kato, since Kato was not allowed in the house. Why would he then go and alert Kato that he was leaving, instead of, as alleged, sneaking away in the Bronco? He could have easily returned with a bag from McDonalds stating he had a big mac attack, if he had been seen. He knew the limo driver was expected and might see him on his return. Why would he use so narrow a time frame? Again, I ask where is this alleged opportunity?

[weezer]

william
you are absolutely correct.

Oj did not even know where Arnell was or if she would be home and in the house. Kato could have come to the yard or the house looking for oj for a number of reasons.oj had no way of knowing who would be at the house.
The maid is the one that asked to be off.
Why would oj go to bundy to kill nicole at 10:30 knowing he had to be at rockingham at 10;45 to meet the limo driver.

Some times people that are concerned about abuse can stretch a abuse situation to guarantee that muder will and did follow some previous abuse that was few years old. imo
martin II

orenthal didn't have to know where 'arnell' or kato were -- they did not live in the house and were not in a position (physically) to know his comings and goings.

why do you think it is important that it was the maid who asked to be off? the significance to the maid being gone is that it opened the window of opportunity for no one being in the house with orenthal and thus not knowing his leaving/returning.

The limo driver showed up long before he was suppose to.

The physical abuse may have stopped but obviously the verbal and emotional abuse continued right up to the night he murdered her.

[weezer]

This argument/theory is truly counterproductive to the arguments espoused by those Gs, who claim that kato was the alibi witness. According to your argument, he was not concerned about Kato, since Kato was not allowed in the house. Why would he then go and alert Kato that he was leaving, instead of, as alleged, sneaking away in the Bronco? He could have easily returned with a bag from McDonalds stating he had a big mac attack, if he had been seen. He knew the limo driver was expected and might see him on his return. Why would he use so narrow a time frame? Again, I ask where is this alleged opportunity?

it's not the Gs who claim kato as orenthal's alibi witness -- it is the NGs. The Gs understand that he didn't alert Kato that he was leaving. I believe he went to see if Kato was there and made up the lame excuse about no tip for the sky cap and going for a burger. He just didn't expect Kato to invite himself along. He was not expecting the limo driver to be there early. What makes you think it was such a narrow timeframe?

[William Anthony]

orenthal didn't have to know where 'arnell' or kato were -- they did not live in the house and were not in a position (physically) to know his comings and goings.

why do you think it is important that it was the maid who asked to be off? the significance to the maid being gone is that it opened the window of opportunity for no one being in the house with orenthal and thus not knowing his leaving/returning.

The limo driver showed up long before he was suppose to.

The physical abuse may have stopped but obviously the verbal and emotional abuse continued right up to the night he murdered her.

The "window of opportunity" conflicts with those who have stated he went to Kato to establish an alibi. If he was not concerned with Kato knowing his comings and goings, why alert him that he was leaving, unless he truly wanted change and was going to McDonalds before hitting golf balls, making phone calls, and/or sleeping?

[weezer]

The "window of opportunity" conflicts with those who have stated he went to Kato to establish an alibi. If he was not concerned with Kato knowing his comings and goings, why alert him that he was leaving, unless he truly wanted change and was going to McDonalds before hitting golf balls, making phone calls, and/or sleeping?

sure was alot for orenthal to do in such a short timeframe: "was going to McDonalds before hitting golf balls, making phone calls, and/or sleeping" -- probably would have taken about as long as driving to his ex-wife's house and butchering two people. :eek:

[William Anthony]

sure was alot for orenthal to do in such a short timeframe: "was going to McDonalds before hitting golf balls, making phone calls, and/or sleeping" -- probably would have taken about as long as driving to his ex-wife's house and butchering two people. :eek:

He couldn't have, because you have not shown me that "window of opportunity" I keep asking you for.

[weezer]

He couldn't have, because you have not shown me that "window of opportunity" I keep asking you for.

this is not that hard: the window of opportunity presented itself when orenthal approved his maid's request that she not return to rockingham that night. The maid not being in the house with orenthal on that particular night afforded him the opportunity to come and go without detection. orenthal took advantage of that opportunity to drive to Bundy and murdered two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. He left his blood, hair, hat, glove, fiber and size 12 Bruno Magli pigeon-toed footprints.

[William Anthony]

this is not that hard: the window of opportunity presented itself when orenthal approved his maid's request that she not return to rockingham that night. The maid not being in the house with orenthal on that particular night afforded him the opportunity to come and go without detection. orenthal took advantage of that opportunity to drive to Bundy and murdered two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. He left his blood, hair, hat, glove, fiber and size 12 Bruno Magli pigeon-toed footprints.

Why would he, if he could go and return without detection, alert Kato that he was leaving?

[martin II]

this is not that hard: the window of opportunity presented itself when orenthal approved his maid's request that she not return to rockingham that night. The maid not being in the house with orenthal on that particular night afforded him the opportunity to come and go without detection. orenthal took advantage of that opportunity to drive to Bundy and murdered two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. He left his blood, hair, hat, glove, fiber and size 12 Bruno Magli pigeon-toed footprints.

weezer

It was the maid that told oj she could not work that day. Not the other way around. There was no window of opportunity if oj planned to kill nicole at 1-:30 pm and be back at rockingham at 10:45.
I am sure if he wanted to kill nicole he could have figured a time and place that would given him more time and opportunity.imo
martin II

[martin II]

weezer

This window of opportunity you talk about was from about 10;30 to 10:45 for oj to kill nicole return home clean up and be ready for the limo driver at 10:45.

15 minutes.

martin II

[William Anthony]

weezer

It was the maid that told oj she could not work that day. Not the other way around. There was no window of opportunity if oj planned to kill nicole at 1-:30 pm and be back at rockingham at 10:45.
I am sure if he wanted to kill nicole he could have figured a time and place that would given him more time and opportunity.imo
martin II

Careful Martin,


Do not become too rational and logical.

[martin II]

weezer
this window of opportunity you talk about was from about 10:30 pm to 10:45 pm to kill nicole return home clean up get rid of stuff pack and be ready to come down stairs at 10;45 to meet the limo driver

15 minutes is not such a window of opportunity. imo
martin II

[weezer]

*Snipped*It was the maid that told oj she could not work that day. Not the other way around.

who said anything different? Good Gawd!

[littlebit]

Actually, Nicole told orenthal that she was not reconciling with him and had found a place to live away from Brentwood.

As far as the recital, Nicole had not saved a seat for orenthal -- not their usual and customary routine.

The public face orenthal put on after the recital has nothing to do with what he was feeling/thinking. The Browns seem like decent folks who had enough class not to be impolite to orenthal.

The fact that orenthal even 'joked' about what Nicole was wearing that night is weird to me. I thought she looked great and certainly was dressed for the occassion.

As bobaugust and many of us have stated all along, there was not 'one' thing that brought about that night -- it was a culmination -- and when opportunity was added to the mix, orenthal murdered her.

I don't understand. The Browns were polite by not letting Orenthal sit with them.

[bobaugust]

Imho, your bias is showing through with this comment, "The few incidents where evidence was not collected only resulted in that evidence, being not used against him." There is no way of knowing whether the evidence would have exonerated or incriminated him, because it was uncollected. Therefore, you display your problem with comprehending the concept of reasonable doubt. I respectfully suggest that there can be no reasonable doubt in the minds of those who are predisposed toward conviction.

There was evidence submitted that he had resigned himself to the fact that his relationship with Nicole was terminated, and he had moved on. What is the unexpected phone call to which you refer?

No not bias, only a reasonable inference since every other drop of blood collected in this case came from only three people, the two victims and Simpson.

Your claim that this uncollected blood may have come from someone else has no basis in fact since there isn't one other shred of physical or trace evidence found at Bundy that points to anyone else except the two victims and Simpson. And if by some astronomical chance this missing blood did come from someone else how does that exonerate Simpson? Does that mean that all of Simpson's blood and all of the physical and trace evidence that pointed to Simpson was not there?

The fact is that there isn't one single shred of real evidence that exonerates Simpson, only imaginary evidence. Imaginary evidence, imaginary claims.

The unexpected telephone call that gave Simpson the opportunity to go to Bundy that night was from his housekeeper Gigi at 8:00 p.m.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No not bias, only a reasonable inference since every other drop of blood collected in this case came from only three people, the two victims and Simpson.

Your claim that this uncollected blood may have come from someone else has no basis in fact since there isn't one other shred of physical or trace evidence found at Bundy that points to anyone else except the two victims and Simpson. And if by some astronomical chance this missing blood did come from someone else how does that exonerate Simpson? Does that mean that all of Simpson's blood and all of the physical and trace evidence that pointed to Simpson was not there?

The fact is that there isn't one single shred of real evidence that exonerates Simpson, only imaginary evidence. Imaginary evidence, imaginary claims.

The unexpected telephone call that gave Simpson the opportunity to go to Bundy that night was from his housekeeper Gigi at 8:00 p.m.

bobaugust

He was so upset at Gigi for requesting time off that he went and killed two people. He could have told her no and killed Nicole before she arrived. Why did he not kill Nicole on one of the other days the maid had off?

There was a fingerprint along with unidentified hairs that pointed or could have pointed to someone else.

You convict on no weapon, no bloody clothing, no shoes, no gloves, no eyewitness, no motive, and no case. He went to establish an alibi from someone who could not tell if he was home or not. He then took the alibi witness with him to eat before going to kill two people. He was one of the most noticeable people in Brentwood, but possibly took his car. He drove the wrong way from his house after the murders in a jeep cheorkee, which there were tire tracks left in the driveway and he did not own that vehicle. I guess he stole it, increasing his chances of capture. People who saw him after the murders noticed no cuts or bruises or bandages on his hands. There was no blood found in the limo.. You use this evidence to convict.

[bobaugust]

He was so upset at Gigi for requesting time off that he went and killed two people. He could have told her no and killed Nicole before she arrived. Why did he not kill Nicole on one of the other days the maid had off?

There was a fingerprint along with unidentified hairs that pointed or could have pointed to someone else.

You convict on no weapon, no bloody clothing, no shoes, no gloves, no eyewitness, no motive, and no case. He went to establish an alibi from someone who could not tell if he was home or not. He then took the alibi witness with him to eat before going to kill two people. He was one of the most noticeable people in Brentwood, but possibly took his car. He drove the wrong way from his house after the murders in a jeep cheorkee, which there were tire tracks left in the driveway and he did not own that vehicle. I guess he stole it, increasing his chances of capture. People who saw him after the murders noticed no cuts or bruises or bandages on his hands. There was no blood found in the limo.. You use this evidence to convict.

Simpson wasn't upset with Gigi at all. The fact is that Gigi had left for the weekend but intended to return that Sunday night. She testified it was her responsibility to be at Simpson's house when ever he flew out of town and she would help Simpson get ready before he left on his trips.

Simpson expected Gigi to return that night but at 8:00 p.m. Gigi called him and asked permission to stay overnight with her family and return in the morning. Simpson agreed. After that telephone call Simpson knew he would be alone in his house that night until the limousine arrived to take him to the airport. Three hours without a witness in his house. Opportunity.

After that telephone call Simpson changed his clothes putting on the dark colored sweat suit and went to Kaelin's room on the pretext that Kaelin had not tuned off the Jacuzzi and then again to supposedly get change for the skycap at the airport. Kaelin testified that was the first time Simpson ever came to his room. Simpson never told anyone about Gigi not returning that night. Not Kaelin, not Westec his home security company, not any one.

No, I don't convict Simpson on the evidence he successfully destroyed but on the evidence that he didn't destroy. His fresh blood drops found at Bundy, His hair found at Bundy. The fibers found at Bundy. Both victims blood in his Bronco as well a partial bloody shoe print made with Nicole's blood on his Bronco carpet. His fresh blood found in his Bronco and at Rockingham. Nicole's blood on his sock and the fibers found on his sock. Simpson's blood mixed with both victims blood on the killer's right hand glove as well as the fiber evidence found on that glove. Expensive gloves, the exact kind that photographs show him previously wearing. The bloody shoe prints made with the same size shoe he wore and by the exact kind of shoes that photographs show him previously wearing.

The fact is that a witness saw his Bronco as well as another witness identified him at the time he claimed he was at his house. The fact that he wasn't at home at the time of the murders contradicts his story. All of this is additional evidence that points to his guilt. And the fact that when Simpson testified his story changes, fabrications, and outright lies confirmed his guilt.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob

in your dreams OJ put on the black sweat suite ,THE MURDER CLOTHES,
and went to katos room so kato could see him in these clothes.
Pure nonsense and made up fantasy on your part.

No witness testified that he saw oj IN A BRONCO at bundy
martion II

[bobaugust]

bob

in your dreams OJ put on the black sweat suite ,THE MURDER CLOTHES,
and went to katos room so kato could see him in these clothes.
Pure nonsense and made up fantasy on your part.

No witness testified that he saw oj IN A BRONCO at bundy
martion II

martin II, the fact is that Kaelin testified that Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit when Simpson came to his room to ask for change for the skycap shortly after 9:00 p.m. that night. They then went to McDonalds.

Jill Shively saw Simpson's speeding Bronco at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente and identified Simpson a couple of minutes after Heidstra saw what was most likely Simpson's Bronco turn on Bundy and speed away.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Simpson wasn't upset with Gigi at all. The fact is that Gigi had left for the weekend but intended to return that Sunday night. She testified it was her responsibility to be at Simpson's house when ever he flew out of town and she would help Simpson get ready before he left on his trips.

Simpson expected Gigi to return that night but at 8:00 p.m. Gigi called him and asked permission to stay overnight with her family and return in the morning. Simpson agreed. After that telephone call Simpson knew he would be alone in his house that night until the limousine arrived to take him to the airport. Three hours without a witness in his house. Opportunity.

After that telephone call Simpson changed his clothes putting on the dark colored sweat suit and went to Kaelin's room on the pretext that Kaelin had not tuned off the Jacuzzi and then again to supposedly get change for the skycap at the airport. Kaelin testified that was the first time Simpson ever came to his room. Simpson never told anyone about Gigi not returning that night. Not Kaelin, not Westec his home security company, not any one.

No, I don't convict Simpson on the evidence he successfully destroyed but on the evidence that he didn't destroy. His fresh blood drops found at Bundy, His hair found at Bundy. The fibers found at Bundy. Both victims blood in his Bronco as well a partial bloody shoe print made with Nicole's blood on his Bronco carpet. His fresh blood found in his Bronco and at Rockingham. Nicole's blood on his sock and the fibers found on his sock. Simpson's blood mixed with both victims blood on the killer's right hand glove as well as the fiber evidence found on that glove. Expensive gloves, the exact kind that photographs show him previously wearing. The bloody shoe prints made with the same size shoe he wore and by the exact kind of shoes that photographs show him previously wearing.

The fact is that a witness saw his Bronco as well as another witness identified him at the time he claimed he was at his house. The fact that he wasn't at home at the time of the murders contradicts his story. All of this is additional evidence that points to his guilt. And the fact that when Simpson testified his story changes, fabrications, and outright lies confirmed his guilt.

bobaugust

No witness saw his Bronco. A witness testified to seeing a white jeep like vehicle, which is the type of vehicle that matched the tire tracks the tire tracks at Bundy. The witness who testified she saw him was not offered by the prosecution. Her testimony is contradicted by the timeline and Simpson.
It is a matter of who you believe (weight/credibility).

I am not talking about the evidence he allegedly destroyed. I am talking about the evidence that the prosecution failed to produce, including the bloody fingerprint and the missing blood.

There is no opportunity by the time line and by the fact that Kato could have noticed that he had left, and there were plenty of people who could have seen his return. Why would he give himself such a narrow time line? He could have waited for another time or picked any other day when he had more time and the maid was off? Without evidence of some event that caused him to fly into an uncontrollable murderous rage, nothing fits.

[William Anthony]

it's not the Gs who claim kato as orenthal's alibi witness -- it is the NGs. The Gs understand that he didn't alert Kato that he was leaving. I believe he went to see if Kato was there and made up the lame excuse about no tip for the sky cap and going for a burger. He just didn't expect Kato to invite himself along. He was not expecting the limo driver to be there early. What makes you think it was such a narrow timeframe?

Unless you are saying that Kate Sachel and bobaugust are not Gs, then I must disagree with your assertion that the NG's are the ones claiming he was trying to establish an alibi through Kato. There would be no need to alert Kato, if as you assert Kato was unconcerned with his comings and goings. I find it highly suspect that a defendant would only allow himself 30 minutes to go kill people, dispose of the weapon and clothing, dispose of the blood in the obvious places in his home where blood should have been found if he was the killer. The fact is that he did take Kato with him, which only shows me that he was hungry. I think anyone who would plan to commit a murder with intentions to avoid detection would plan for unexpected contingencies, unless it was a crime of passion (impulse). However, there is no proof that it was.

[martin II]

Unless you are saying that Kate Sachel and bobaugust are not Gs, then I must disagree with your assertion that the NG's are the ones claiming he was trying to establish an alibi through Kato. There would be no need to alert Kato, if as you assert Kato was unconcerned with his comings and goings. I find it highly suspect that a defendant would only allow himself 30 minutes to go kill people, dispose of the weapon and clothing, dispose of the blood in the obvious places in his home where blood should have been found if he was the killer. The fact is that he did take Kato with him, which only shows me that he was hungry. I think anyone who would plan to commit a murder with intentions to avoid detection would plan for unexpected contingencies, unless it was a crime of passion (impulse). However, there is no proof that it was.

if oj was standing at bundy just before the murders then he was there at about 10:30
He knew the limo would be there at 10:45 so he only gave himself 15 minutes
to do all he had to do and be ready for the limo
martinII

[martin II]

martin II, the fact is that Kaelin testified that Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit when Simpson came to his room to ask for change for the skycap shortly after 9:00 p.m. that night. They then went to McDonalds.

Jill Shively saw Simpson's speeding Bronco at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente and identified Simpson a couple of minutes after Heidstra saw what was most likely Simpson's Bronco turn on Bundy and speed away.

bobaugust

bob
heidstra never said he saw 'WHAT WAS MOSTLY LIKELY SIMPSONS BRONCO"
He said je saw a white colored jeep turn onto bundy as he was standing in the middle on the next blood at 10:45 pm

10:45 is the same time Kato said he heard the thumps on his back wall. so oj was either seen by Heidstra at 10;45 or he was falling onto Katos wall at 10:45
imo
martin II

[n.n]

Actually, Nicole told orenthal that she was not reconciling with him and had found a place to live away from Brentwood.

As far as the recital, Nicole had not saved a seat for orenthal -- not their usual and customary routine.

The public face orenthal put on after the recital has nothing to do with what he was feeling/thinking. The Browns seem like decent folks who had enough class not to be impolite to orenthal.

The fact that orenthal even 'joked' about what Nicole was wearing that night is weird to me. I thought she looked great and certainly was dressed for the occassion.

As bobaugust and many of us have stated all along, there was not 'one' thing that brought about that night -- it was a culmination -- and when opportunity was added to the mix, orenthal murdered her.

If Mrs. Simpson had been stalked -- I mean truly stalked -- she would not have chosen to find a place only five minutes away from her stalker. Also, did she have restraining orders against Mr. Simpson? That is usually the first thing a person in her alleged situation is applying for.
Furthermore, Mr. Simpson has/had the right to joke about whatever pleases him. Maybe in his opinion the dress was too provocative to be worn by the mother of his children.

So, in your opinion, Mr. Simpson just waited for the right moment to become enraged?

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8817165]No witness saw his Bronco. A witness testified to seeing a white jeep like vehicle, which is the type of vehicle that matched the tire tracks the tire tracks at Bundy. The witness who testified she saw him was not offered by the prosecution. Her testimony is contradicted by the timeline and Simpson.
It is a matter of who you believe (weight/credibility).

I am not talking about the evidence he allegedly destroyed. I am talking about the evidence that the prosecution failed to produce, including the bloody fingerprint and the missing blood.

Where did you get the information that the tire tracks behind Nicole's condo matched the tire tracks of a white jeep like vehicle?

The fact is that Heidstra never identified the make of the vehicle he saw only that it was white, jeep like, and had tinted windows. Simpson's Bronco was jeep like, white, and had tinted window. The fact is that Jill Shively saw Simpson's Bronco not far from Nicole's condos when it ran a red light at Bundy and San Vicente and identified Simpson shortly after Heidstra saw it. The fact is that Simpson's Bronco was not at Rockingham at the time of the murders.

Nothing Jill Shively testified to was contradicted by the timeline. Nothing Kato Kaelin testified to contradicted the time line. The times you seem to be referring to were only estimated times. Estimated times are not real times and don't tell us when an event happened only approximately when it happened. The only real times we know about in this case are times established by telephone records. It's the order that events happened in that tell us what Simpson did that night not different estimated times from different witnesses.

What you imagine Simpson could have done or that plenty of people could have seen his return is meaningless. The evidence in this case tells us what he actually did not what anyone someone imagines he could have done.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

if oj was standing at bundy just before the murders then he was there at about 10:30
He knew the limo would be there at 10:45 so he only gave himself 15 minutes
to do all he had to do and be ready for the limo
martinII

martin II, who says Simpson was expecting the limo at 10:45?

Dale St. John testified he picked Simpson up and drove him to the airport the week before 45 minutes before his flight was scheduled to depart and they made it to the airport with plenty of time to spare. Simpson's flight on June 12 was scheduled to depart at 11:45. Based on his previous trip he may very well have been expecting St. John about 11:00.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bob
heidstra never said he saw 'WHAT WAS MOSTLY LIKELY SIMPSONS BRONCO"
He said je saw a white colored jeep turn onto bundy as he was standing in the middle on the next blood at 10:45 pm

10:45 is the same time Kato said he heard the thumps on his back wall. so oj was either seen by Heidstra at 10;45 or he was falling onto Katos wall at 10:45
imo
martin II

martin II, the times you're referring to were estimated times not real times.

Estimated times don't tell us when an event happened only approximately when an event happened. The only real times we know are the times established by telephone records. The order events happened in tells what Simpson did that night not different estimated times from different witnesses.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, the times you're referring to were estimated times not real times.

Estimated times don't tell us when an event happened only approximately when an event happened. The only real times we know are the times established by telephone records. The order events happened in tells what Simpson did that night not different estimated times from different witnesses.

bobaugust

bob

Kato's estimate of the time he heard the thumps was backed by Ferrara.
Then you do not know what time Heidstra heard the hey hey hey or what time ron arrived at bundy or what time Park think it was each time he rang the bell.IMO
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

bob

Kato's estimate of the time he heard the thumps was backed by Ferrara.
Then you do not know what time Heidstra heard the hey hey hey or what time ron arrived at bundy or what time Park think it was each time he rang the bell.IMO
MARTIN ii


BOB

Kato estimated he heard the thumps at 10:40 10:45.Ferrara agreed.
martin II

[bobaugust]

BOB

Kato estimated he heard the thumps at 10:40 10:45.Ferrara agreed.
martin II

martin II, you're wrong again. Neither Ferrara not Kaelin looked at the time when Kaelin said he heard the thumps on his back wall. Ferrara testified that it was after 10:30. Kaelin estimated a time range from 10:40 to 10:50.

All were only time estimates. We know the actual time Park saw Kaelin when he left his room and walked around the house to check out the noises from Park's telephone records. That was about 10:56. Kaelin testified he left his room a few minutes after hearing those noises.

bobaugust

[n.n]

bob

in your dreams OJ put on the black sweat suite ,THE MURDER CLOTHES,
and went to katos room so kato could see him in these clothes.
Pure nonsense and made up fantasy on your part.

No witness testified that he saw oj IN A BRONCO at bundy
martion II

I've just read in the case files that someone saw a white truck who might have been a Blazer, some other model (I forgot), or perhaps a Bronco speeding away from Bundy, not south to Rockingham but north in the opposite direction. No mention was made of who the driver may have been ...

[n.n]

Simpson wasn't upset with Gigi at all. The fact is that Gigi had left for the weekend but intended to return that Sunday night. She testified it was her responsibility to be at Simpson's house when ever he flew out of town and she would help Simpson get ready before he left on his trips.

Simpson expected Gigi to return that night but at 8:00 p.m. Gigi called him and asked permission to stay overnight with her family and return in the morning. Simpson agreed. After that telephone call Simpson knew he would be alone in his house that night until the limousine arrived to take him to the airport. Three hours without a witness in his house. Opportunity.

After that telephone call Simpson changed his clothes putting on the dark colored sweat suit and went to Kaelin's room on the pretext that Kaelin had not tuned off the Jacuzzi and then again to supposedly get change for the skycap at the airport. Kaelin testified that was the first time Simpson ever came to his room. Simpson never told anyone about Gigi not returning that night. Not Kaelin, not Westec his home security company, not any one.

No, I don't convict Simpson on the evidence he successfully destroyed but on the evidence that he didn't destroy. His fresh blood drops found at Bundy, His hair found at Bundy. The fibers found at Bundy. Both victims blood in his Bronco as well a partial bloody shoe print made with Nicole's blood on his Bronco carpet. His fresh blood found in his Bronco and at Rockingham. Nicole's blood on his sock and the fibers found on his sock. Simpson's blood mixed with both victims blood on the killer's right hand glove as well as the fiber evidence found on that glove. Expensive gloves, the exact kind that photographs show him previously wearing. The bloody shoe prints made with the same size shoe he wore and by the exact kind of shoes that photographs show him previously wearing.

The fact is that a witness saw his Bronco as well as another witness identified him at the time he claimed he was at his house. The fact that he wasn't at home at the time of the murders contradicts his story. All of this is additional evidence that points to his guilt. And the fact that when Simpson testified his story changes, fabrications, and outright lies confirmed his guilt.

bobaugust

The blood drops were not fresh, and the prosecution was smart enough not to pursue the EDTA issue any further, in my opinion.

[n.n]

martin II, the times you're referring to were estimated times not real times.

Estimated times don't tell us when an event happened only approximately when an event happened. The only real times we know are the times established by telephone records. The order events happened in tells what Simpson did that night not different estimated times from different witnesses.

bobaugust

... you can't be serious. Do you really mean that if Mr. Simpson hadn't been the murderer, he should have "documents" to prove where he was exactly during the time frame the murders may have happened?

[bobaugust]

The blood drops were not fresh, and the prosecution was smart enough not to pursue the EDTA issue any further, in my opinion.

n.n, Im sorry but you're incorrect. All of police officers who saw the blood drops believed them to be fresh blood. Dennis Fung and Terrazas the first police officer to see them testified to that fact when they were asked about it.

The fresh blood trail started at the bodies, on the walkway, on the rear gate, and outside the rear gate, in Simpson's Bronco, on the pavement behind the parked Bronco, on Simpson's driveway, and on his foyer floor.

The prosecution witness Martz conducted tests on the gate and sock blood and found conclusively that they did not contain EDTA preserved blood. The defense claims that Simpson's blood found on the rear gate and Nicole's blood found on Simpson's sock were planted were proved to be false claims by other evidence.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

... you can't be serious. Do you really mean that if Mr. Simpson hadn't been the murderer, he should have "documents" to prove where he was exactly during the time frame the murders may have happened?

n.n, this has noting to do with Simpson's fabricated alibi it has to do with the estimated times witnesses testified to who saw Simpson that night.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Mr. Simpson has/had the right to joke about whatever pleases him. Maybe in his opinion the dress was too provocative to be worn by the mother of his children.


Sure he has/had a right to joke about whatever pleases him, that wasn't/isn't the point.

As for "maybe in his opinion the dress was too provocative to be worn by the mother of his children", he didn't worry about being a cheating father or abusing the mother of his children. Which actions do you find more troubling, the dress or the cheating & abuse?

[martin II]

I've just read in the case files that someone saw a white truck who might have been a Blazer, some other model (I forgot), or perhaps a Bronco speeding away from Bundy, not south to Rockingham but north in the opposite direction. No mention was made of who the driver may have been ...

n.n.
you are correct. The car had tinted windows so Heidstra could not see inside
as he was stand in the middle of the block away from bundy. There were many white suv's in and around brentwood.

at any rate oj could not be at bundy and dorothy at 10:45 and falling against katos wall at 10:45 that is for sure.
martin II

[martin II]

william

[Mutually exclusive events: Dispelling prosecution myth, we know that Simpson could not have reached the entrance without Kaelin seeing him on the driveway. And certainly, he could not have opened the Rockingham gate to affect entry, without alerting Kaelin. Futher, we know that, had he entered at this time -- that is, had he returned from Bundy at this time -- it would have been impossible for him to be associated with either Kaelin's earthquake, or the glove that was found behind Kaelin's room. Even more impossible, had Simpson just arrived, he could not have turned on the entry light, which had been off when Kaelin passed three minutes earlier.]

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/theory02.html

martin II

[bobaugust]

I've just read in the case files that someone saw a white truck who might have been a Blazer, some other model (I forgot), or perhaps a Bronco speeding away from Bundy, not south to Rockingham but north in the opposite direction. No mention was made of who the driver may have been ...

n.n, Heidstra never said it was any specific kind of car.

July 11, 1995
MR. DARDEN: The question is, did you tell Miss Kane that you saw a white Bronco pull out of the alley behind Bundy?
MR. HEIDSTRA: I can't recall that. I said big Jeep or Blazer like car. It could have been a Bronco. I don't know. But I didn't say specifically a Bronco.

Put this in the context with the evidence we know from other witnesses. Heidstra saw the white, Jeep like vehicle on Dorothy St. about five minutes or so after he heard two male voices coming from Nicole's condo. We believe Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco when Simpson left Bundy after committing the murders. It did turn right and speed away in the opposite direction of Rockingham, but that may have been because Simpson saw his barking dog coming towards him and he didn't want to turn towards it. Or he simply didn't want to drive by the front of Nicole's condo where he had left two dead bodies. So he turned right and sped away simply circling the block and returning to Bundy north of Nicole's condo and then continued on to San Vicente.

At San Vicente he ran a red light almost hitting Jill Shively's car traveling east. He slammed to a stop and was blocked by another car. Shively testified the drivers side window was open and the driver stuck out his hand and leaned out yelling at the driver of the car that was blocking him. He also glanced back at her and made eye contact with her. Shively testified she immediately recognized OJ Simpson.

After the car got out of the way Simpson sped away north on Bundy. When Simpson got to his house he was forced to park his Bronco outside his locked Rockingham gate. After quickly wiping up any blood he saw on the center console he left his Bronco and walked across his neighbors property to get to where his fence was at it's lowest point. Based on the difference in elevations between the two properties that was behind his guest house where Kaelin was staying. In the pitch dark when Simpson jumped from the top of his fence to the narrow south path he slammed against the back wall of Kaelin's room and unknowingly dropped his right hand glove that may have fallen out of the knapsack he was carrying. Those were the noises Kaelin heard.

Simpson then made his way down the south path and around his garage to his driveway. On the way to his front door he left the knapsack on the ground behind his parked Bentley. When he walked into the light from his front entrance he was seen by Allan Park. Simpson opened his front door and went into his house. Park testified that's when he saw lights come on downstairs in the house.

Just before Park saw Simpson he saw Kaelin walking around the house with a flashlight approaching the driveway. It had taken Simpson and Kaelin the same amount of time to get to the front of the house after the noises on the wall each going a different way. We know the actual time Park saw them because he was talking on the phone. Based on his telephone records it was about 10:55 p.m.

bobaugust

[martin II]

n.n, Heidstra never said it was any specific kind of car.

July 11, 1995
MR. DARDEN: The question is, did you tell Miss Kane that you saw a white Bronco pull out of the alley behind Bundy?
MR. HEIDSTRA: I can't recall that. I said big Jeep or Blazer like car. It could have been a Bronco. I don't know. But I didn't say specifically a Bronco.

Put this in the context with the evidence we know from other witnesses. Heidstra saw the white, Jeep like vehicle on Dorothy St. about five minutes or so after he heard two male voices coming from Nicole's condo. We believe Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco when Simpson left Bundy after committing the murders. It did turn right and speed away in the opposite direction of Rockingham, but that may have been because Simpson saw his barking dog coming towards him and he didn't want to turn towards it. Or he simply didn't want to drive by the front of Nicole's condo where he had left two dead bodies. So he turned right and sped away simply circling the block and returning to Bundy north of Nicole's condo and then continued on to San Vicente.

At San Vicente he ran a red light almost hitting Jill Shively's car traveling east. He slammed to a stop and was blocked by another car. Shively testified the drivers side window was open and the driver stuck out his hand and leaned out yelling at the driver of the car that was blocking him. He also glanced back at her and made eye contact with her. Shively testified she immediately recognized OJ Simpson.

After the car got out of the way Simpson sped away north on Bundy. When Simpson got to his house he was forced to park his Bronco outside his locked Rockingham gate. After quickly wiping up any blood he saw on the center console he left his Bronco and walked across his neighbors property to get to where his fence was at it's lowest point. Based on the difference in elevations between the two properties that was behind his guest house where Kaelin was staying. In the pitch dark when Simpson jumped from the top of his fence to the narrow south path he slammed against the back wall of Kaelin's room and unknowingly dropped his right hand glove that may have fallen out of the knapsack he was carrying. Those were the noises Kaelin heard.

Simpson then made his way down the south path and around his garage to his driveway. On the way to his front door he left the knapsack on the ground behind his parked Bentley. When he walked into the light from his front entrance he was seen by Allan Park. Simpson opened his front door and went into his house. Park testified that's when he saw lights come on downstairs in the house.

Just before Park saw Simpson he saw Kaelin walking around the house with a flashlight approaching the driveway. It had taken Simpson and Kaelin the same amount of time to get to the front of the house after the noises on the wall each going a different way. We know the actual time Park saw them because he was talking on the phone. Based on his telephone records it was about 10:55 p.m.

bobaugust


bob
your post is full of simpson MAY have turned in the opposite direction--or proberbly did tis because he MAY have not wanted etc
There is no proof that simpson jumped any fense. Only your ideas that he MUST have jumped the fense as a means of proving he dropped the glove.
You need what is called proof in order your position to believed beyond a doubt.

However i do understand that your post is only what you THINK happened.
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
However i do understand that your post is only what you THINK happened.
martin II

Are YOUR posts "proof" of what happened?

[bobaugust]

bob
your post is full of simpson MAY have turned in the opposite direction--or proberbly did tis because he MAY have not wanted etc
There is no proof that simpson jumped any fense. Only your ideas that he MUST have jumped the fense as a means of proving he dropped the glove.
You need what is called proof in order your position to believed beyond a doubt.

However i do understand that your post is only what you THINK happened.
martin II

martin II, There is evidence that Simpson jumped his fence. The kind of noises Kaelin described and the reality of what it would take to cause vibrations on that wall hard enough to move a picture on the other side. As well as the bent wire, and the fresh green leaves near the glove, and the fact that the glove was found where it was found. As well as the fact that Simpson could not have entered his property using either of his gates.

If you think Simpson didn't jump his fence to enter his property, tell us please how you think he did get onto his estate after returning from Bundy.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, There is evidence that Simpson jumped his fence. The kind of noises Kaelin described and the reality of what it would take to cause vibrations on that wall hard enough to move a picture on the other side. As well as the bent wire, and the fresh green leaves near the glove, and the fact that the glove was found where it was found. As well as the fact that Simpson could not have entered his property using either of his gates.

If you think Simpson didn't jump his fence to enter his property, tell us please how you think he did get onto his estate after returning from Bundy.

bobaugust

bob
since you think you know , tell me who testified to seeing oj in his south walkway on 6/12.
martin II

[socaldiva]

bob
since you think you know , tell me who testified to seeing oj in his south walkway on 6/12.
martin II

Why don't you answer Bob's question first??:tongue:

[n.n]

n.n, Im sorry but you're incorrect. All of police officers who saw the blood drops believed them to be fresh blood. Dennis Fung and Terrazas the first police officer to see them testified to that fact when they were asked about it.

The fresh blood trail started at the bodies, on the walkway, on the rear gate, and outside the rear gate, in Simpson's Bronco, on the pavement behind the parked Bronco, on Simpson's driveway, and on his foyer floor.

The prosecution witness Martz conducted tests on the gate and sock blood and found conclusively that they did not contain EDTA preserved blood. The defense claims that Simpson's blood found on the rear gate and Nicole's blood found on Simpson's sock were planted were proved to be false claims by other evidence.

bobaugust

The problem here is that it all is a case of he said/she said. I thougt there was EDTA in the blood, according to both experts. One expert claimed it was not enough EDTA for the blood to be from a vial. The other said just the opposite.

[n.n]

martin II, There is evidence that Simpson jumped his fence. The kind of noises Kaelin described and the reality of what it would take to cause vibrations on that wall hard enough to move a picture on the other side. As well as the bent wire, and the fresh green leaves near the glove, and the fact that the glove was found where it was found. As well as the fact that Simpson could not have entered his property using either of his gates.

If you think Simpson didn't jump his fence to enter his property, tell us please how you think he did get onto his estate after returning from Bundy.

bobaugust

Okay. Jumping the fence at the lowest possible point makes sense. I was wondering why in the world someone would walk all over a neighbor's lot, past the house, and then climb over a fence.
Why were the gates locked? That seems to be odd ...
I am getting more and more confused.

[martin II]

The problem here is that it all is a case of he said/she said. I thougt there was EDTA in the blood, according to both experts. One expert claimed it was not enough EDTA for the blood to be from a vial. The other said just the opposite.

n.n
thanks

And the prosecutions EDTA expert Mr Martz was demoted by the fbi for testitying above his expertise level, testifying in a manner not acceptable to the FBI and required to have his work closely supervised.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Okay. Jumping the fence at the lowest possible point makes sense. I was wondering why in the world someone would walk all over a neighbor's lot, past the house, and then climb over a fence.
Why were the gates locked? That seems to be odd ...
I am getting more and more confused.

n.n.

oj did not jump any fense. look at the shurbs, trees and vines between the Salingers and oj property.
Some want us to believe oj made his way through all this green and did not leave ONE broken branch of vines or trees. That ONE little bent wire that was found months later was caused by oj.

The rockingham gate could be opened manually enough for a person to walk in without the gate being opened fully. So there would not have been any reason to walk around the neighbors property looking for a place to jump a fense.imo

martin II
At any rate oj had been chipping golf balls and taking a nap in his house at10:30 pm while the murders were killing Nicole and ron imo

[2L8 4A D8]

<snipped>

At any rate oj had been chipping golf balls and taking a nap in his house at 10:30 pm while the murders were killing Nicole and ron imo

Uh huh! There's always two sides to every story:

Parks arrived at 10:25 p.m., which is dark the last time that I looked! At any rate, OJ must have gotten tired of chipping golf balls that he couldn't see in the dark, so he took a nap! Uh huh!

At any rate! JMO and MOO!!

Timeline according to "A Killer Among Us:"

10:25 p.m. - Mr. Allan Park arrives at OJ's Rockingham residence, at the Ashford street gate. He decides to wait a few minutes before buzzing OJ to let him know that he was there.

10:40 p.m. - Allan Park begins buzzing the Simpson residence on the Ashford Street entrance of the Rockingham residence.

<snipped>

Park testifies that he buzzed more than once with no response. He waits so long that he calls his boss and inquires as to what he should do. He's told to wait. Suddenly Park sees a black man of Simpson's height and weight cross the driveway and walk into the house. Moments later OJ miraculously answers the buzzer.

In the criminal trial OJ would claim that the figure Park saw wasn't him, that he'd overslept and was in the shower when Park arrived which is why he didn't open the gate.

However, in the civil trial, Simpson would suddenly change his story and claim that yes it was him that Park saw, he'd been outside in the yard chipping golf balls. Why the change in stories?

10:44 p.m. - OJ arrives back at the Rockingham estate after murdering Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. He hastily parks the Bronco, then reaches under the passenger seat trying to reach the dome light to replace it (hence the blood smears on the passenger side floorboard). He gives up the search for the light realizing he doesn't have much time and proceeds to climb the fence.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8817165]No witness saw his Bronco. A witness testified to seeing a white jeep like vehicle, which is the type of vehicle that matched the tire tracks the tire tracks at Bundy. The witness who testified she saw him was not offered by the prosecution. Her testimony is contradicted by the timeline and Simpson.
It is a matter of who you believe (weight/credibility).

I am not talking about the evidence he allegedly destroyed. I am talking about the evidence that the prosecution failed to produce, including the bloody fingerprint and the missing blood.

Where did you get the information that the tire tracks behind Nicole's condo matched the tire tracks of a white jeep like vehicle?

The fact is that Heidstra never identified the make of the vehicle he saw only that it was white, jeep like, and had tinted windows. Simpson's Bronco was jeep like, white, and had tinted window. The fact is that Jill Shively saw Simpson's Bronco not far from Nicole's condos when it ran a red light at Bundy and San Vicente and identified Simpson shortly after Heidstra saw it. The fact is that Simpson's Bronco was not at Rockingham at the time of the murders.

Nothing Jill Shively testified to was contradicted by the timeline. Nothing Kato Kaelin testified to contradicted the time line. The times you seem to be referring to were only estimated times. Estimated times are not real times and don't tell us when an event happened only approximately when it happened. The only real times we know about in this case are times established by telephone records. It's the order that events happened in that tell us what Simpson did that night not different estimated times from different witnesses.

What you imagine Simpson could have done or that plenty of people could have seen his return is meaningless. The evidence in this case tells us what he actually did not what anyone someone imagines he could have done.

bobaugust

I do not know of any tire tracks that tell you the color of a vehicle. The facts are that Heidstra testified to seeing a white jeep like vehicle, and there were tire tracks from a jeep Cherokee found at Bundy.

The evidence that was collected allows people to speculate and draw conclusions based on their attitudes and beliefs about what they think Simpson did. Those, who remain open and hold the prosecution to their burden of proof, realize that the evidence was insufficient.

[William Anthony]

martin II, the times you're referring to were estimated times not real times.

Estimated times don't tell us when an event happened only approximately when an event happened. The only real times we know are the times established by telephone records. The order events happened in tells what Simpson did that night not different estimated times from different witnesses.

bobaugust

The prosecution introduced Kato's phone records to show that he was on the phone and heard the alleged thumps at 10:45.

[William Anthony]

martin II, There is evidence that Simpson jumped his fence. The kind of noises Kaelin described and the reality of what it would take to cause vibrations on that wall hard enough to move a picture on the other side. As well as the bent wire, and the fresh green leaves near the glove, and the fact that the glove was found where it was found. As well as the fact that Simpson could not have entered his property using either of his gates.

If you think Simpson didn't jump his fence to enter his property, tell us please how you think he did get onto his estate after returning from Bundy.

bobaugust

That answer is easy. He never went to Bundy on that night.

[bobaugust]

The problem here is that it all is a case of he said/she said. I thougt there was EDTA in the blood, according to both experts. One expert claimed it was not enough EDTA for the blood to be from a vial. The other said just the opposite.

n.n, Roger Martz did the testing and conclusively determined that the gate or the sock blood did not originate from purple topped test tubes or test tubes that were preserved with EDTA.

Martz did additional testing days later. He included his own blood in that testing. One graph showed low levels of an ion that he looked for with EDTA, but very little levels compared with EDTA preserved blood. He said it could have been due to an artifact in the instrument due to some type of matrix effect with the blood.

July 25, 1995
MR. MARTZ: Yes. There was a very clear comparison. My blood that was preserved and Mr. Simpson and Mrs. Simpson's bloods that were preserved all contained a large amount of EDTA and my blood that was not preserved and the stain from the gate and the sock all showed indications of the 160 ion, but in none of those cases was I able to identify EDTA.

Martz said, "If the blood on the rear gate and the socks had come from the preserved tube, the EDTA indicators would have been just as high. Instead they're about a hundredth the size."

Dr. Rieders testified for the defense and he offered his opinion based on Martz's testing but he never did any testing himself.

Martz's opinions were later supported by other evidence that proved the neither Simpson's blood found on the rear gate or Nicole's blood found on Simpson's sock was planted. In addition to the seven police officers who testified to seeing blood on the rear gate the morning after the murders a crime scene photograph taken that morning clearly showed one of the blood drops on the rear gate. In the civil trial Dr. Cotton testified about Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock.

Triumph of Justice,
Dr. Cotton explained that when blood is drawn for testing by labs, it is preserved with the chemical EDTA, which stops the DNA in the blood from degrading. (Degradation is simply the breaking down of a chemical into its component parts over time.) But when she compared the degradation levels of Nicole's autopsy vial, Dr. Cotton found the autopsy vial contained the more degraded blood. The blood on the sock was fresher and richer in DNA content than the blood in the vial. Once blood has degraded, it is impossible to raise its DNA count; you can't pony it back up. Under the conspiracy theory, the blood used to plant on the sock came from Nicole's autopsy vial, but that blood had a lower DNA count than the blood on the sock. Nicole's blood was fresher when it spurted out and splashed onto Simpson's sock as he was killing her than two days later when the coroner collected it. This completely destroyed the notion of any planting; its impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again. Nicole's blood on the sock could not have been planted.

bobaugust