Goldmans Sue

[martin II]

william
Oj was in the house before Park thinks he saw him enter, other wise how
did the lights get turned on between katos trip pass the front door to the garage area and back pass the front door?

martin II

10::48 kato at pathway ashford side.

10:50 kato passes front door going to back pathway/garage area
and sees not lights on in front door area and no golf bag on bench
near front door.

10:52 Park on phone see oj going into front door. kato comes back from garage area see lights on and golf bag near bench.

question: if oj was going into the house for the first time when park saw him, How did the lights get turned on beween Katos first trip past the door going south and when he returned a few minutes later when he walked past the door and saw the lights on and the golf bag?


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

[bobaugust]

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

n.n, when Simpson returned to his estate and approached Ashford he saw that the limousine to take him to the airport had already arrived and was parked at his Ashford gate.

Simpson always parked his Bronco outside his Ashford gate. Not only because that's where his mail box was but because he didn't need a key or a remote to open that gate. Known only to Simpson, his family, and close friends the Ashford gate had a defective hinge. And if you knew how you could reach through the gate and lift it off it's hinge so it could be simply pushed open.

Simpson was forced to back up and park his Bronco outside his Rockingham gate. That gate was always kept locked. Simpson had no working remote opener in his Bronco and the only way to activate the gate to open it was from the inside the driveway or with a key. Simpson kept that key on a different key ring than his Bronco key but even if he had it he would not have used it and taken the chance the limo driver at his Ashford gate would hear it. Once the gate was activated it was not silent and would slowly swing open from one side, remain open for about 30, 40 seconds and then automatically swing back to close and lock.

Simpson had to find another way on to his estate. Based on the difference in elevations between his property and his neighbors property he knew his fence was at it's lowest point behind the guest house. That's why he made his way back there and scaled the fence.

It's against the rules on this discussion board to post links to personal web pages so I will send you a private message with the links and you can read all the details concerning this for yourself.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8817461]

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.

You still didn't answer my question. What leads you to believe that the tire tracks found behind Nicole's condo were from a Jeep Cherokee?

The fact is that Nicole drove a black Jeep Cherokee that was parked in the driveway behind her condo.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8817865]

You still didn't answer my question. What leads you to believe that the tire tracks found behind Nicole's condo were from a Jeep Cherokee?

The fact is that Nicole drove a black Jeep Cherokee that was parked in the driveway behind her condo.

bobaugust

The link that I previously posted on the Cherokee. Could the tracks have belonged to Nicole's vehicle, yes? Could the tracks have belonged to the Cherokee, jeep like vehicle Heidstra saw speeding away from the scene in the opposite direction of Simpson's home, yes? Whose burden was it to show that the tracks matched Nicole's vehicle, the prosecution? Did the prosecution fail to do this, yes? Given the above facts, can a reasonable inference be drawn that the killer drove a white Cherokee and drove off in a direction opposite of Simpson's residence, yes?

[martin II]

n.n, when Simpson returned to his estate and approached Ashford he saw that the limousine to take him to the airport had already arrived and was parked at his Ashford gate.

Simpson always parked his Bronco outside his Ashford gate. Not only because that's where his mail box was but because he didn't need a key or a remote to open that gate. Known only to Simpson, his family, and close friends the Ashford gate had a defective hinge. And if you knew how you could reach through the gate and lift it off it's hinge so it could be simply pushed open.

Simpson was forced to back up and park his Bronco outside his Rockingham gate. That gate was always kept locked. Simpson had no working remote opener in his Bronco and the only way to activate the gate to open it was from the inside the driveway or with a key. Simpson kept that key on a different key ring than his Bronco key but even if he had it he would not have used it and taken the chance the limo driver at his Ashford gate would hear it. Once the gate was activated it was not silent and would slowly swing open from one side, remain open for about 30, 40 seconds and then automatically swing back to close and lock.

Simpson had to find another way on to his estate. Based on the difference in elevations between his property and his neighbors property he knew his fence was at it's lowest point behind the guest house. That's why he made his way back there and scaled the fence.

It's against the rules on this discussion board to post links to personal web pages so I will send you a private message with the links and you can read all the details concerning this for yourself.

bobaugust

bob
there is no proof that oj jumped any fense. only what you would like to tell people he did so as to have answers to unanswered questions. imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

n.n, when Simpson returned to his estate and approached Ashford he saw that the limousine to take him to the airport had already arrived and was parked at his Ashford gate.

Simpson always parked his Bronco outside his Ashford gate. Not only because that's where his mail box was but because he didn't need a key or a remote to open that gate. Known only to Simpson, his family, and close friends the Ashford gate had a defective hinge. And if you knew how you could reach through the gate and lift it off it's hinge so it could be simply pushed open.

Simpson was forced to back up and park his Bronco outside his Rockingham gate. That gate was always kept locked. Simpson had no working remote opener in his Bronco and the only way to activate the gate to open it was from the inside the driveway or with a key. Simpson kept that key on a different key ring than his Bronco key but even if he had it he would not have used it and taken the chance the limo driver at his Ashford gate would hear it. Once the gate was activated it was not silent and would slowly swing open from one side, remain open for about 30, 40 seconds and then automatically swing back to close and lock.

Simpson had to find another way on to his estate. Based on the difference in elevations between his property and his neighbors property he knew his fence was at it's lowest point behind the guest house. That's why he made his way back there and scaled the fence.

It's against the rules on this discussion board to post links to personal web pages so I will send you a private message with the links and you can read all the details concerning this for yourself.

bobaugust

According to your scenario, he did not enter through the Rockingham gate. Please, explain the blood trail leading through the Rockingham gate from the outside to the inside of the estate. Is the blood trial not consistent with someone cutting their hand reaching into the bronco and going inside the house? Here is a link showing the drops.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/b_drops.htm

[martin II]

n.n, when Simpson returned to his estate and approached Ashford he saw that the limousine to take him to the airport had already arrived and was parked at his Ashford gate.

Simpson always parked his Bronco outside his Ashford gate. Not only because that's where his mail box was but because he didn't need a key or a remote to open that gate. Known only to Simpson, his family, and close friends the Ashford gate had a defective hinge. And if you knew how you could reach through the gate and lift it off it's hinge so it could be simply pushed open.

Simpson was forced to back up and park his Bronco outside his Rockingham gate. That gate was always kept locked. Simpson had no working remote opener in his Bronco and the only way to activate the gate to open it was from the inside the driveway or with a key. Simpson kept that key on a different key ring than his Bronco key but even if he had it he would not have used it and taken the chance the limo driver at his Ashford gate would hear it. Once the gate was activated it was not silent and would slowly swing open from one side, remain open for about 30, 40 seconds and then automatically swing back to close and lock.

Simpson had to find another way on to his estate. Based on the difference in elevations between his property and his neighbors property he knew his fence was at it's lowest point behind the guest house. That's why he made his way back there and scaled the fence.

It's against the rules on this discussion board to post links to personal web pages so I will send you a private message with the links and you can read all the details concerning this for yourself.

bobaugust


BOB

Please show me a picture indicating the difference in elavation of the sallingers and simpsons property so that your statement can be evaluated for the truth.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

<snipped>

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.

It figures! You don't have an answer and you can't give an answer so you refer back to this ridiculous theory that has been brought up before and gone over and over and over by the NG's, ad nauseum!

Good gawd! I am amazed that you didn't ask "Where is the picture showing OJ jumping his fence to enter his property!" Oh, wait, that's coming next, right? :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

It figures! You don't have an answer and you can't give an answer so you refer back to this ridiculous theory that has been brought up before and gone over and over and over by the NG's, ad nauseum!

Good gawd! I am amazed that you didn't ask "Where is the picture showing OJ jumping his fence to enter his property!" Oh, wait, that's coming next, right? :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!


I gave a response. I cannot help it if you did not like it. So, :seeya:

[2L8 4A D8]

I gave a response. I cannot help it if you did not like it. So, :seeya:

Typical NG cop-out because you still can't and don't have a reasonable and credible answer to Bob's question! I'll just consider the source, as will everybody else! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Typical NG cop-out because you still can't and don't have a reasonable and credible answer to Bob's question! I'll just consider the source, as will everybody else! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

I will only say that you are not the reasaonable or credible authority, and :seeya: .

[martin II]

n.n, when Simpson returned to his estate and approached Ashford he saw that the limousine to take him to the airport had already arrived and was parked at his Ashford gate.

Simpson always parked his Bronco outside his Ashford gate. Not only because that's where his mail box was but because he didn't need a key or a remote to open that gate. Known only to Simpson, his family, and close friends the Ashford gate had a defective hinge. And if you knew how you could reach through the gate and lift it off it's hinge so it could be simply pushed open.

Simpson was forced to back up and park his Bronco outside his Rockingham gate. That gate was always kept locked. Simpson had no working remote opener in his Bronco and the only way to activate the gate to open it was from the inside the driveway or with a key. Simpson kept that key on a different key ring than his Bronco key but even if he had it he would not have used it and taken the chance the limo driver at his Ashford gate would hear it. Once the gate was activated it was not silent and would slowly swing open from one side, remain open for about 30, 40 seconds and then automatically swing back to close and lock.

Simpson had to find another way on to his estate. Based on the difference in elevations between his property and his neighbors property he knew his fence was at it's lowest point behind the guest house. That's why he made his way back there and scaled the fence.

It's against the rules on this discussion board to post links to personal web pages so I will send you a private message with the links and you can read all the details concerning this for yourself.

bobaugust


bob
"simpson arrived at Ashford and BACKED THE BRONCO SOUTH down rockingham to the rockingham gate"?? where did you get this from? Proof please.
MARTIN ii

[bobaugust]

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

No the prosecution did not produce telephone records of that call. Kaelin only estimated the time he called Rachel, 10:10 and only estimated the time he heard the noises on his wall.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

Thank you for admitting that you believe Simpson was not at Bundy that night. At least now you have made it perfectly clear what category you fit in. We now know how to judge your credibility in discussions about this case.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

BOB

Please show me a picture indicating the difference in elavation of the sallingers and simpsons property so that your statement can be evaluated for the truth.
martin II

martin II, look at the photographs on this web page.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/backwalk.htm

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8817881]

The link that I previously posted on the Cherokee. Could the tracks have belonged to Nicole's vehicle, yes? Could the tracks have belonged to the Cherokee, jeep like vehicle Heidstra saw speeding away from the scene in the opposite direction of Simpson's home, yes? Whose burden was it to show that the tracks matched Nicole's vehicle, the prosecution? Did the prosecution fail to do this, yes? Given the above facts, can a reasonable inference be drawn that the killer drove a white Cherokee and drove off in a direction opposite of Simpson's residence, yes?

First you claim that the tire tracks matched the kind of vehicle Heidstra said he saw. Then you claimed the tire tracks matched a Jeep Cherokee.

Both claims are false. No one ever testified to that fact. The tire tracks were not matched to any kind of vehicle.

Heidstra never named the kind of vehicle he saw, he only said it was a white jeep like vehicle with tinted windows. When Heidstra was shown a photograph of Simpson's vehicle he said it resemble the vehicle he saw.

Your supposed reasonable inferences are not reasonable at all. Your concept of what you think is reasonable is very questionable since you think imaginary evidence is reasonable.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

According to your scenario, he did not enter through the Rockingham gate. Please, explain the blood trail leading through the Rockingham gate from the outside to the inside of the estate. Is the blood trial not consistent with someone cutting their hand reaching into the bronco and going inside the house? Here is a link showing the drops.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/b_drops.htm

Based on how the gate opened from one side and the fact that these blood drops were in the center of the driveway prove that Simpson didn't enter that gate.

Here is link to the photograph.
http://www.bobaugust.com/rockgate.jpg

The argument that the blood drops outside and inside the gate tell us that Simpson entered that gate, is incorrect. The placement of Simpson's blood drops contradict that argument.

The locked Rockingham gate could be opened by activating it three different ways. Pressing a button just inside the driveway, using a remote control, or using a key in the outside gate control on the stone wall to the right of the gate. When activated the heavy gate would slowly swing inward, from one side, stay open for about 30, 40 seconds, activate automatically, swing back and lock. The gate could also be deactivated and opened manually.

Simpson had no working remote control in his Bronco. All of the evidence suggests that he didn't have his master key with him. And more importantly Simpson didn't want to be seen or heard entering his estate. It was not a silent gate.

Look at the blood drops. If Simpson had used his master key, to open the gate, it would open the same way as if it the button was pressed or the remote control was used. As the gate activated and slowly swung open, Simpson would have entered on the left side. He would not have been in the position to drip two drops of blood in the center of his driveway. There is another explanation.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Thank you for admitting that you believe Simpson was not at Bundy that night. At least now you have made it perfectly clear what category you fit in. We now know how to judge your credibility in discussions about this case.

bobaugust

:beer: Thank You :beer: Thank You :beer:

[William Anthony]

No the prosecution did not produce telephone records of that call. Kaelin only estimated the time he called Rachel, 10:10 and only estimated the time he heard the noises on his wall.

bobaugust

I seem to recall that the time was verified by the phone records, whether they were marked an entered into evidence as an exhibit or used during Kato's testimony is another matter. When I have had an opportunity to review the tapes, I will provide you with a more definitive answer.

[William Anthony]

Thank you for admitting that you believe Simpson was not at Bundy that night. At least now you have made it perfectly clear what category you fit in. We now know how to judge your credibility in discussions about this case.

bobaugust

You asked a question based on the prosecution's failure to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I then responded with an answer illuminating that failure. It matters not what you or I believe. The thing that matters is what the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

Based on how the gate opened from one side and the fact that these blood drops were in the center of the driveway prove that Simpson didn't enter that gate.

Here is link to the photograph.
http://www.bobaugust.com/rockgate.jpg

The argument that the blood drops outside and inside the gate tell us that Simpson entered that gate, is incorrect. The placement of Simpson's blood drops contradict that argument.

The locked Rockingham gate could be opened by activating it three different ways. Pressing a button just inside the driveway, using a remote control, or using a key in the outside gate control on the stone wall to the right of the gate. When activated the heavy gate would slowly swing inward, from one side, stay open for about 30, 40 seconds, activate automatically, swing back and lock. The gate could also be deactivated and opened manually.

Simpson had no working remote control in his Bronco. All of the evidence suggests that he didn't have his master key with him. And more importantly Simpson didn't want to be seen or heard entering his estate. It was not a silent gate.

Look at the blood drops. If Simpson had used his master key, to open the gate, it would open the same way as if it the button was pressed or the remote control was used. As the gate activated and slowly swung open, Simpson would have entered on the left side. He would not have been in the position to drip two drops of blood in the center of his driveway. There is another explanation.

bobaugust

I guess I did not make myself clear. You have claimed he entered behind Kato's quarters by scaling the fence, although there is no blood on the pathway. There is blood by the gate and going through the gate. How do you know that he did not let the gate open completely and enter at the point the drops were found? You rely on physical evidence. There is physical evidence that he entered through the gate, but none that he entered from behind Kato's quarters. The only person who testified that he was behind Kato's quarters where the glove was found was the MF.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8817886]

First you claim that the tire tracks matched the kind of vehicle Heidstra said he saw. Then you claimed the tire tracks matched a Jeep Cherokee.

Both claims are false. No one ever testified to that fact. The tire tracks were not matched to any kind of vehicle.

Heidstra never named the kind of vehicle he saw, he only said it was a white jeep like vehicle with tinted windows. When Heidstra was shown a photograph of Simpson's vehicle he said it resemble the vehicle he saw.

Your supposed reasonable inferences are not reasonable at all. Your concept of what you think is reasonable is very questionable since you think imaginary evidence is reasonable.

bobaugust

Spinning that rug again, are you?

[bobaugust]

I seem to recall that the time was verified by the phone records, whether they were marked an entered into evidence as an exhibit or used during Kato's testimony is another matter. When I have had an opportunity to review the tapes, I will provide you with a more definitive answer.

The calls Kaelin made to Rachel were local calls. Kaelin's telephone records documented long distance calls.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The calls Kaelin made to Rachel were local calls. Kaelin's telephone records documented long distance calls.

bobaugust

As I have stated, I will review the tapes and when I am done I will let you know, if my recollection is correct.

[martin II]

The calls Kaelin made to Rachel were local calls. Kaelin's telephone records documented long distance calls.

bobaugust

BOB
You believe what kato said he remembers about oj sweat suite and don't believe him when he says what time he heard the thumps.
SELECTIVE
martin II

[bobaugust]

You asked a question based on the prosecution's failure to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I then responded with an answer illuminating that failure. It matters not what you or I believe. The thing that matters is what the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

I asked my question based on the fact that Simpson was not on his estate at the time of the murders.

The physical evidence proves Simpson was at Bundy. Simpson's fresh blood was found at Bundy. Both victim's blood was found in Simpson's Bronco some mixed with Simpson's blood. Both victim's blood was found on the killer's glove mixed with Simpson's blood. Nicole's blood was found on Simpson's sock along with Simpson's blood. Fiber evidence was found on Ron's shirt from the killer's clothing. The same fibers were found on the killer's glove and on Simpson's sock.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I guess I did not make myself clear. You have claimed he entered behind Kato's quarters by scaling the fence, although there is no blood on the pathway. There is blood by the gate and going through the gate. How do you know that he did not let the gate open completely and enter at the point the drops were found? You rely on physical evidence. There is physical evidence that he entered through the gate, but none that he entered from behind Kato's quarters. The only person who testified that he was behind Kato's quarters where the glove was found was the MF.

The blood evidence at the Rockingham gate doesn't tell us Simpson opened that gate and entered it, it only tells us that Simpson dripped his blood outside the gate and inside the gate. There is no evidence that Simpson would have or did leave the Rockingham gate wide open.

The evidence that supports the speculation that Simpson entered is estate by scaling his fence are the thumps and vibrations Kaelin heard and felt, that tilted a picture on the back wall of his room. The physical evidence is the fresh green leaves near the glove and the bent wire on the top of the fence opposite the glove.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I asked my question based on the fact that Simpson was not on his estate at the time of the murders.

The physical evidence proves Simpson was at Bundy. Simpson's fresh blood was found at Bundy. Both victim's blood was found in Simpson's Bronco some mixed with Simpson's blood. Both victim's blood was found on the killer's glove mixed with Simpson's blood. Nicole's blood was found on Simpson's sock along with Simpson's blood. Fiber evidence was found on Ron's shirt from the killer's clothing. The same fibers were found on the killer's glove and on Simpson's sock.

bobaugust

Why do you want to rehash the Magical socks, evidence of possible cross contamination and possible evidence planting and a glove that did not fit.

The fact is that the prosecution failed to show that he was not at home at the time of the murders.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818145]

Spinning that rug again, are you?

No I'm not spinning anything, just pointing out the false information and false claims you've made on this discussion group.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818343]

No I'm not spinning anything, just pointing out the false information and false claims you've made on this discussion group.

bobaugust

I posted the link that stated what the tire tracks were. You may disagree with what the link says but I FIND IT HIGHLY INSULTING THAT YOU WOULD STATE THAT THE INFORMATION WAS MY FALSE POST, WHEN IT CAME FROM A LINK.

you have every right to disagree with the link and Hiedstra did indeed testify that it was a white jeep like vehicle that he saw.

[bobaugust]

BOB
You believe what kato said he remembers about oj sweat suite and don't believe him when he says what time he heard the thumps.
SELECTIVE
martin II

martin II, yes I do believe Kaelin's testimony about the clothing he remembered Simpson was wearing that night. I also believe Kaelin didn't know exactly what time those noises and vibrations occurred on his back wall but I do believe what Kaelin said he did after he heard them.

Different estimated times from different witnesses do not tell us when an event happened, only approximately when it happened.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

BOB
You believe what kato said he remembers about oj sweat suite and don't believe him when he says what time he heard the thumps.
SELECTIVE
martin II

Martin,

Bobaugust selectively believes what is consistent with his conclusions and dismisses other things that are not as irrelevant, false, imaginary, and ridiculous, imho.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818616]

I posted the link that stated what the tire tracks were. You may disagree with what the link says but I FIND IT HIGHLY INSULTING THAT YOU WOULD STATE THAT THE INFORMATION WAS MY FALSE POST, WHEN IT CAME FROM A LINK.

you have every right to disagree with the link and Hiedstra did indeed testify that it was a white jeep like vehicle that he saw.

You insult yourself. I never saw you post or refer to any link in the messages you made these false statements. Post the link William and lets see what you're talking about.

on 2/16/07. 02:45 PM you responded to my posting and said,
"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."

On 2/17/07, 07:40 AM you responded to my posting and said,
"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."

bobaugust

[martin II]

Judge rules in favor oj fred on ojs past movie royalties.

martin II


http://www.accessatlanta.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/Other_Entertainment/Simpson_Lawsuit.html

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818621]

You insult yourself. I never saw you post or refer to any link in the messages you made these false statements. Post the link William and lets see what you're talking about.

on 2/16/07. 02:45 PM you responded to my posting and said,
"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."

On 2/17/07, 07:40 AM you responded to my posting and said,
"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."

bobaugust

I do not have time to look for my post. However, here is another post and we did have discussions on the issue of the tire tracks being identified as those on a jeep cherokee, when you informed me that Nicole had a cherokee and claimed the tire tracks meant nothing.

Here is another link, although it may be the one I perviously supplied. I do not think it is. Here is an excerpt from the article.

http://web2.airmail.net/marjo/lange.htm

"At the rear of the building there is a two-car garage that goes beneath the structure. He said there was also a driveway area before the garage , and then that leads out on to the rear alley. He was asked if he observed any cars to be parked in the garage area immediately adjacent to Nicole Simpson's house. He replied that there was a sports car underneath in the garage and a Jeep Cherokee in the driveway headed in an easterly direction, not in the garage but in the driveway of the residence. He pointed out that there would have not been enough room for another car to pull up in the garage, because there was quite a bit of sporting equipment in there. If that equipment had been removed a car could have been placed in the garage, but that there were an awful lot of things to prevent that. However he did say that there was room in the driveway adjacent to the Jeep Cherokee for another vehicle ( There were tire tracks found at the crime scene that did not match any of OJS vehicles.)."

[martin II]

Martin,

Bobaugust selectively believes what is consistent with his conclusions and dismisses other things that are not as irrelevant, false, imaginary, and ridiculous, imho.

william

bob selects what help his nonsense argument and rejects all reality that does not fit his agenda.

If one were to back up from the time park says he saw kato in the walkway
and allow the minutes for kate to get off the phone look for the flashlight and walk to the driveway, it is obvious his time of 10:45 thumps is accutate.

martin II

[martin II]

william

bob selects what help his nonsense argument and rejects all reality that does not fit his agenda.

If one were to back up from the time park says he saw kato in the walkway
and allow the minutes for kate to get off the phone look for the flashlight and walk to the driveway, it is obvious his time of 10:45 thumps is accutate.

martin II


william
haidstra estimated his time of 10:35 10:40 and 10:45 and bob believes all of it.
martin II

[William Anthony]

william

bob selects what help his nonsense argument and rejects all reality that does not fit his agenda.

If one were to back up from the time park says he saw kato in the walkway
and allow the minutes for kate to get off the phone look for the flashlight and walk to the driveway, it is obvious his time of 10:45 thumps is accutate.

martin II

Martin,

I agree and bobaugust changes his theories faster than Superman changed clothes.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818660]

I do not have time to look for my post. However, here is another post and we did have discussions on the issue of the tire tracks being identified as those on a jeep cherokee, when you informed me that Nicole had a cherokee and claimed the tire tracks meant nothing.



Yes I did inform you that Nicole drove a black Jeep Cherokee after you made your false statements. The discussions we had were about you not producing the evidence to support that false statement.

I understand why you don't want to take the time to find a posting you say you made with a link to an article that the tire tracks behind Nicole's condo were identified. It isn't true.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree and bobaugust changes his theories faster than Superman changed clothes.

william
bobs problem is that two witnesses he has said he believes have given what could be called conflicting testimony.

Kato thumps at 10;40 10;45
Heidstra hearing hey hey hey at 10:40 and some kind of car at 10:45.
Heidstra NEVER said the car was a white bronco. only some kind of white truck. there must be 100 white suvs in brentwood driving on sunday night.

The issue is OJ was at neither location. He was on his bed resting for his trip.
martin II

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818682]

Yes I did inform you that Nicole drove a black Jeep Cherokee after you made your false statements. The discussions we had were about you not producing the evidence to support that false statement.

I understand why you don't want to take the time to find a posting you say you made with a link to an article that the tire tracks behind Nicole's condo were identified. It isn't true.

bobaugust

No, while engaging you in a fruitless effort, imho, to have you understand that before anyone has the right to lable someone a criminal the accused has a right to have a trial in which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is a criminal, I am studying for college and do not have the time to look back at the posts I have peviously made.

Also, perhaps it was not tire tracks belonging to a jeep. However, in any event, by my latest post we know that there were tracks that were made that did not fit any vehicle Simpson owned. Does the expression, "If it does not fit, you must acquit", ring a bell?

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818705]

No, while engaging you in a fruitless effort, imho, to have you understand that before anyone has the right to lable someone a criminal the accused has a right to have a trial in which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is a criminal, I am studying for college and do not have the time to look back at the posts I have peviously made.

Also, perhaps it was not tire tracks belonging to a jeep. However, in any event, by my latest post we know that there were tracks that were made that did not fit any vehicle Simpson owned. Does the expression, "If it does not fit, you must acquit", ring a bell?

Yes that phrase fits your mentality just fine. Unknown tire tracks found in the alley behind Nicole's condo is completely irrelevant, but to you it's evidence that exonerates Simpson. That about sums up your ability to comprehend reality.

Simpson was proven to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial. Society labels him a killer who got away with murder, and rightly so.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818711]

Yes that phrase fits your mentality just fine. Unknown tire tracks found in the alley behind Nicole's condo is completely irrelevant, but to you it's evidence that exonerates Simpson. That about sums up your ability to comprehend reality.

Simpson was proven to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial. Society labels him a killer who got away with murder, and rightly so.

bobaugust

Today I was reading, and for the life of me I cannot remember exactly what is was and it was something other than the MF issue, oh yes, Hiedstra, who was left out of the civil trial. So, the civil trial did not include all the evidence of the criminal trial, which is another of the false claims you have posted.

You do not know what is relevant and admissible in a trial. That determination is made by the judge. I understand that you do not have the slightest comprehension of the reality of what is relevant. so therefore I will not consider your above remarks as HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. I know that you do not comprehend or do not want to comprehend the reality of what the civil trial proved, despite my attempts to educate you, therefore, as always I will consider the souce. Maybe he did get away with murder or maybe he did not. That is the basis of reasonable doubt. If the prosecution had put on credible trustworthy evidence, then there would be no doubt; that my dear friend is the reality, which, imho, you fail to comprehend or either choose to ignore. yoUR POST DOES BORDER ON BAITING AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO CEASE WITH SUCH TACTICS SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE IN A CIVIL AND RESPECTUFUL DEBATE/ARGUMENT/DISCUSSION/DISAGREEMENT.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818716]

Today I was reading, and for the life of me I cannot remember exactly what is was and it was something other than the MF issue, oh yes, Hiedstra, who was left out of the civil trial. So, the civil trial did not include all the evidence of the criminal trial, which is another of the false claims you have posted.

You do not know what is relevant and admissible in a trial. That determination is made by the judge. I understand that you do not have the slightest comprehension of the reality of what is relevant. so therefore I will not consider your above remarks as HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. I know that you do not comprehend or do not want to comprehend the reality of what the civil trial proved, despite my attempts to educate you, therefore, as always I will consider the souce. Maybe he did get away with murder or maybe he did not. That is the basis of reasonable doubt. If the prosecution had put on credible trustworthy evidence, then there would be no doubt; that my dear friend is the reality, which, imho, you fail to comprehend or either choose to ignore. yoUR POST DOES BORDER ON BAITING AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO CEASE WITH SUCH TACTICS SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE IN A CIVIL AND RESPECTUFUL DEBATE/ARGUMENT/DISCUSSION/DISAGREEMENT.

What was admissible in the criminal trial has nothing to do with your personal opinions as to what you consider reasonable. It has nothing to do with the false and misinformation you post on this discussion group. The fact that you don't find the evidence in this case credible and trustworthy doesn't mean other people, more reasonable thinking people, disagree with you and find the ridiculous imaginary arguments made by the defense had no credibility.

Heidstra was left out of the civil trial? Where do you get this false information? Heidstra was a plaintiff witness in the civil trial.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818720]

What was admissible in the criminal trial has nothing to do with your personal opinions as to what you consider reasonable. It has nothing to do with the false and misinformation you post on this discussion group. The fact that you don't find the evidence in this case credible and trustworthy doesn't mean other people, more reasonable thinking people, disagree with you and find the ridiculous imaginary arguments made by the defense had no credibility.

Heidstra was left out of the civil trial? Where do you get this false information? Heidstra was a plaintiff witness in the civil trial.

bobaugust


You are correct on the Hiedsta issue. What I was speaking of and could not remember is that the evidence of the barking dog was not used to establish the time line.

How can you, when you do not consider all the evidence missed, possibly contaminated and crossed contaminated, possibly planted. mistakes and errors committed by LE criticize anyone for their beliefs as to reasonable doubt.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818725]


You are correct on the Hiedsta issue. What I was speaking of and could not remember is that the evidence of the barking dog was not used to establish the time line.

How can you, when you do not consider all the evidence missed, possibly contaminated and crossed contaminated, possibly planted. mistakes and errors committed by LE criticize anyone for their beliefs as to reasonable doubt.

There wasn't a lot of evidence missed compared to the huge amount of evidence that was collected. Only a few explainable incidents. None of the hair or fibers that were entered into evidence was the result of cross contamination. Every claim of evidence planting was proved false. Mistakes and errors made by LE were all minor mistakes. Simple human error. No mistake ever changed one single piece of evidence that proved Simpson was the killer. There is no reasonable doubt when reasonable explanations are offered.

bobaugust

[martin II]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818725]


You are correct on the Hiedsta issue. What I was speaking of and could not remember is that the evidence of the barking dog was not used to establish the time line.

How can you, when you do not consider all the evidence missed, possibly contaminated and crossed contaminated, possibly planted. mistakes and errors committed by LE criticize anyone for their beliefs as to reasonable doubt.

william
it ssems that bob believes in reasonable doubt as long as he sets the standards for what is reasonable and everyone agrees.imo

martinii

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818711]

Yes that phrase fits your mentality just fine. Unknown tire tracks found in the alley behind Nicole's condo is completely irrelevant, but to you it's evidence that exonerates Simpson. That about sums up your ability to comprehend reality.

Simpson was proven to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial. Society labels him a killer who got away with murder, and rightly so.

bobaugust

bob
please explain what you mean by "society" labels him-----
martin II

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818730]

There wasn't a lot of evidence missed compared to the huge amount of evidence that was collected. Only a few explainable incidents. None of the hair or fibers that were entered into evidence was the result of cross contamination. Every claim of evidence planting was proved false. Mistakes and errors made by LE were all minor mistakes. Simple human error. No mistake ever changed one single piece of evidence that proved Simpson was the killer. There is no reasonable doubt when reasonable explanations are offered.

bobaugust

One item missed or not collected that could possibly exonnerate a person who maintains the presumption of innocence is one item too many, imho.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818740]

One item missed or not collected that could possibly exonnerate a person who maintains the presumption of innocence is one item too many, imho.

Why don't you tell us how you think one missed drop of blood would exonerate Simpson when every other drop of blood points only to him. Does that one drop of blood mean that Simpson's blood was not there? No. Does that one drop of blood mean that all the trace evidence wasn't there? No. Does that one drop of blood change even one single piece of evidence that points to Simpson? No. Does that one drop of blood change Simpson's lying testimony? No.

So tell us William how can one drop of blood exonerate Simpson?

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

If you came to believe that the glove was planted, would you believe Simpson was innocent?

If you came to believe that Simpson did cut his hand when he said he did, would you believe that he was innocent?

If you came to believe that the blood drops at Bundy were so degraded that it was impossible to tell who's blood it was, would you then believe he is innocent?

If you came to believe that the blood on the back gate was planted, would you then believe he was innocent?

If you came to believe that the bloody fingerprint on the back gate was in fact collected and tested and it wasn't Simpson's, would you then believe he is innocent?

What if Sydney Simpson did give a statement to the police that was made public and she said that she saw the blood drops before that night, would you then believe her father was innocent?

What if in that same statement, she says that told the cops where her father was right away, would you then believe he is innocent?

What if any of the Browns' saw the blood drops earilier in the day, before they went to watch Sydney dance, would you then believe he was innocent?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

If you came to believe that the glove was planted, would you believe Simpson was innocent?

If you came to believe that Simpson did cut his hand when he said he did, would you believe that he was innocent?

If you came to believe that the blood drops at Bundy were so degraded that it was impossible to tell who's blood it was, would you then believe he is innocent?

If you came to believe that the blood on the back gate was planted, would you then believe he was innocent?

If you came to believe that the bloody fingerprint on the back gate was in fact collected and tested and it wasn't Simpson's, would you then believe he is innocent?

What if Sydney Simpson did give a statement to the police that was made public and she said that she saw the blood drops before that night, would you then believe her father was innocent?

What if in that same statement, she says that told the cops where her father was right away, would you then believe he is innocent?

What if any of the Browns' saw the blood drops earilier in the day, before they went to watch Sydney dance, would you then believe he was innocent?

limakey, you're asking me to believe things that are not true so I can't answer your questions.

If hypothetically all the evidence against Simpson did not exist than I would believe he was innocent and Nicole and Ron would still be alive.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8818789]

Why don't you tell us how you think one missed drop of blood would exonerate Simpson when every other drop of blood points only to him. Does that one drop of blood mean that Simpson's blood was not there? No. Does that one drop of blood mean that all the trace evidence wasn't there? No. Does that one drop of blood change even one single piece of evidence that points to Simpson? No. Does that one drop of blood change Simpson's lying testimony? No.

So tell us William how can one drop of blood exonerate Simpson?

bobaugust

The one drop of blood, if different from Simpson's when placed in conjunction with the other unidentified and uncollected evidence that we have previously discussed, such as the bloody fingerprint and the tire tracks, would show that someone else was probably there on the night of the murders. In short what I am saying is that, as many of the experts admitted, they could not tell you when Simpson's blood was deposited there. It would be highly likely that Simpson could have bleed there at anytime prior to the night of the murders, because he had a parental and an estranged spousal connection to the scene. If the other evidence pointed to someone else other than Simpson, who had no connection to the scene or had a less frequent connection than did Simpson, then the evidence would point to that person as the killer. The problem, which I have been trying to get you to understand, is that the prosecution's failure to provide the best evidence, inter alia, contributed to the subsequent verdict, because things are not always simply a matter of black or white.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8818792]

The one drop of blood, if different from Simpson's when placed in conjunction with the other unidentified and uncollected evidence that we have previously discussed, such as the bloody fingerprint and the tire tracks, would show that someone else was probably there on the night of the murders. In short what I am saying is that, as many of the experts admitted, they could not tell you when Simpson's blood was deposited there. It would be highly likely that Simpson could have bleed there at anytime prior to the night of the murders, because he had a parental and an estranged spousal connection to the scene. If the other evidence pointed to someone else other than Simpson, who had no connection to the scene or had a less frequent connection than did Simpson, then the evidence would point to that person as the killer. The problem, which I have been trying to get you to understand, is that the prosecution's failure to provide the best evidence, inter alia, contributed to the subsequent verdict, because things are not always simply a matter of black or white.

That's complete bull crap and you know it.

The blood drops found at Bundy were fresh blood that were later identified as Simpson's blood. It isn't likely or even remotely possible that Simpson left that fresh blood on the Bundy walkway prior to that night. That's only your fantasy that is contradicted by the evidence and by Simpson's own words.

The unidentified tire tracks could have been left from any vehicle that had been in that alley at any time prior to the murders. The uncollected possible fingerprint was most likely Simpson's since there isn't one single shred of other evidence that any one else but Simpson and the two victims were at Bundy that night.

Your claim that just because something was not collected might point to someone else is contracted by the reality of all the other evidence that was collected. The reality is that the uncollected blood would have pointed to the same three people that all the other blood in this case pointed to. Your suggestion that everything that was randomly not collected or unidentified is all tied together and shows someone else was there is I'm sorry to say a completely ridiculous claim.

bobaugust



bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819006]

That's complete bull crap and you know it.

The blood drops found at Bundy were fresh blood that were later identified as Simpson's blood. It isn't likely or even remotely possible that Simpson left that fresh blood on the Bundy walkway prior to that night. That's only your fantasy that is contradicted by the evidence and by Simpson's own words.

The unidentified tire tracks could have been left from any vehicle that had been in that alley at any time prior to the murders. The uncollected possible fingerprint was most likely Simpson's since there isn't one single shred of other evidence that any one else but Simpson and the two victims were at Bundy that night.

Your claim that just because something was not collected might point to someone else is contracted by the reality of all the other evidence that was collected. The reality is that the uncollected blood would have pointed to the same three people that all the other blood in this case pointed to. Your suggestion that everything that was randomly not collected or unidentified is all tied together and shows someone else was there is I'm sorry to say a completely ridiculous claim.

bobaugust



bobaugust

We previously had this discussion about the freshness of the blood drops and the DF's testimony in comparrison with the MF's testimony. Your reality is based only own your preconceived conclusions, because it is impossible to know to whom the uncollected and untested blood would have pointed. I am, likewise, sorry to say that your claim to know who the uncollected and untested blood would have pointed is completely ridiculous. I REPEAT MY REQUEST TO HAVE YOU STOP CALLING MY POSTS/CLAIMS RIDICULOUS.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8819122]

We previously had this discussion about the freshness of the blood drops and the DF's testimony in comparrison with the MF's testimony. Your reality is based only own your preconceived conclusions, because it is impossible to know to whom the uncollected and untested blood would have pointed. I am, likewise, sorry to say that your claim to know who the uncollected and untested blood would have pointed is completely ridiculous. I REPEAT MY REQUEST TO HAVE YOU STOP CALLING MY POSTS/CLAIMS RIDICULOUS.

Yes we have had discussions about the freshness of the blood and I posted Dennis Fung's testimony. Are you implying that you don't believe what Dennis Fung said about that blood?

Is there anyone you believe who testified in this case or do you think every witness was a liar? How about Officer Terrazas the first patrol officer to see the blood at Bundy. Do you believe him?

October 28, 1996 Michael Terrazas
Q. Can you put on the board exhibit 76, please? (Steve complies.)
We have exhibit 76. And was the 117 marker there when you saw this area in the morning hours of June 13?
A. No, the marker was not there.
Q. And what is the object next to it?
A. It appears to be of blood.
Q. And could you describe whether or not that was a drop of blood that you saw in the early morning hours of June 13?
A. It appears to be the same drop of bloody observed on that night.
Q. Now, the drop of blood, as you observed it that night, can you describe it?
A. Bright red in color, looked moist.

I don't know who the uncollected blood came from but it most likely would have come from the same three people that all the other blood came from. It's funny how you call my claim ridiculous and then you request me to stop calling your claims ridiculous. Stop making ridiculous claims and I'll stop calling them ridiculous.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

We previously had this discussion about the freshness of the blood drops and the DF's testimony in comparrison with the MF's testimony. Your reality is based only own your preconceived conclusions, because it is impossible to know to whom the uncollected and untested blood would have pointed. I am, likewise, sorry to say that your claim to know who the uncollected and untested blood would have pointed is completely ridiculous. I REPEAT MY REQUEST TO HAVE YOU STOP CALLING MY POSTS/CLAIMS RIDICULOUS.

You can request it all you want and you can repeat it all you want, but the fact remains that Bob and all of us on this Board and these Threads have a right to our OPINIONS! Real sorry that you don't like them, but it is still our right!

If you don't agree, then I suggest that you take it up with Freshwater and see what she has to say about it. Then tell her to put her decision in a Sticky for one and all to see with their own eyes because I know that I won't just take your word for it! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

You can request it all you want and you can repeat it all you want, but the fact remains that Bob and all of us on this Board and these Threads have a right to our OPINIONS! Real sorry that you don't like them, but it is still our right!

If you don't agree, then I suggest that you take it up with Freshwater and see what she has to say about it. Then tell her to put her decision in a Sticky for one and all to see with their own eyes because I know that I won't just take your word for it! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

I have no problem with anyone stating their opinions or for anyone championing another's point of view as long as it is done in a respectful, civil, professional and appropriate manner. I will not be so presumptuous as to think that I have the right to TELL Freshwater anything. You may feel that your rights are different from mine, and, since you wanted to seek Freshwater to tell her what to do, then I suggest that you do so. I repeat that I FIND BOBAUGUST'S POST CALLING MY POSTS/CLAIMS RIDICULOUS TO BE UPROFESSIONAL AND REQUEST HIM TO CEASE AND DESIST. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE MY REQUESTS, THEN I SUGGEST THAT YOU DO NOT READ THEM. WITH THAT SAID, :seeya:

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819130]

Yes we have had discussions about the freshness of the blood and I posted Dennis Fung's testimony. Are you implying that you don't believe what Dennis Fung said about that blood?

Is there anyone you believe who testified in this case or do you think every witness was a liar? How about Officer Terrazas the first patrol officer to see the blood at Bundy. Do you believe him?

October 28, 1996 Michael Terrazas
Q. Can you put on the board exhibit 76, please? (Steve complies.)
We have exhibit 76. And was the 117 marker there when you saw this area in the morning hours of June 13?
A. No, the marker was not there.
Q. And what is the object next to it?
A. It appears to be of blood.
Q. And could you describe whether or not that was a drop of blood that you saw in the early morning hours of June 13?
A. It appears to be the same drop of bloody observed on that night.
Q. Now, the drop of blood, as you observed it that night, can you describe it?
A. Bright red in color, looked moist.

I don't know who the uncollected blood came from but it most likely would have come from the same three people that all the other blood came from. It's funny how you call my claim ridiculous and then you request me to stop calling your claims ridiculous. Stop making ridiculous claims and I'll stop calling them ridiculous.

bobaugust

Are you saying that you have the right to call my claims ridiculous and that I do not have the right to call yours the same. It appears to be. I do not think that any blood drop would appear bright red in color and moist approximately one and a half to two hours after it was deposited. I am reporting your last sentence.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8819161]

Are you saying that you have the right to call my claims ridiculous and that I do not have the right to call yours the same. It appears to be. I do not think that any blood drop would appear bright red in color and moist approximately one and a half to two hours after it was deposited. I am reporting your last sentence.

No I didn't say you don't have the right to call a statement I make ridiculous I said it's funny how you called my statement ridiculous and then asked me to stop calling your statements ridiculous. Make sure you report that too, please.

So now you're calling Terrazas a liar based on your expertise of how fresh blood should or should not look. Funny.

Lange saw the blood drops at Bundy some four hours after Terrazas, and Lange testified to seeing tailing on one of them. One of the crime scene photographs even showed tiny splatter marks on one of those drops of blood a couple of hours after that when it was photographed. More evidence that the blood was fresh blood.

Are you now going to call Lange a liar and the photographs fake?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819170]

No I didn't say you don't have the right to call a statement I make ridiculous I said it's funny how you called my statement ridiculous and then asked me to stop calling your statements ridiculous. Make sure you report that too, please.

So now you're calling Terrazas a liar based on your expertise of how fresh blood should or should not look. Funny.

Lange saw the blood drops at Bundy some four hours after Terrazas, and Lange testified to seeing tailing on one of them. One of the crime scene photographs even showed tiny splatter marks on one of those drops of blood a couple of hours after that when it was photographed. More evidence that the blood was fresh blood.

Are you now going to call Lange a liar and the photographs fake?

bobaugust

I have not called anyone anything other than the MF, because he admitted to such. I will only say that, in my experience, which I believe we all have, it is unusual to have a blood drop appear fresh several hours after it was allegedly depositied on a surface. However, Dr. Gerdees also tesified that the blood collected from the gate, items numered 115, 116, and 117 was more concentrated than the blood drops.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819170]

No I didn't say you don't have the right to call a statement I make ridiculous I said it's funny how you called my statement ridiculous and then asked me to stop calling your statements ridiculous. Make sure you report that too, please.

So now you're calling Terrazas a liar based on your expertise of how fresh blood should or should not look. Funny.

Lange saw the blood drops at Bundy some four hours after Terrazas, and Lange testified to seeing tailing on one of them. One of the crime scene photographs even showed tiny splatter marks on one of those drops of blood a couple of hours after that when it was photographed. More evidence that the blood was fresh blood.

Are you now going to call Lange a liar and the photographs fake?

bobaugust

The truth is that I had asked you several times before to stop calling my posts/claims ridiculous, but yet you persisted. I then stated that I would likewise call yours ridiculous but reiterated my request for you to desist. I know that some of my posts contradict what you believe the truth and the facts to be, but that is the nature a debate and an adversarial proceeding. It does not benefit the listener or the debate to engage in incendiary language designed to curtail and intelligent discussion, which I why I requested you to cease and desist.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8819176]

The truth is that I had asked you several times before to stop calling my posts/claims ridiculous, but yet you persisted. I then stated that I would likewise call yours ridiculous but reiterated my request for you to desist. I know that some of my posts contradict what you believe the truth and the facts to be, but that is the nature a debate and an adversarial proceeding. It does not benefit the listener or the debate to engage in incendiary language designed to curtail and intelligent discussion, which I why I requested you to cease and desist.

This discussion group is not a debate and I'm not debating you. My discussion of the Simpson case is based on the facts and evidence in this case that prove Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. Your imagined speculation, imagined evidence, and false information in no way changes the known evidence.

Unless you can point to someone else in this world who can bleed Simpson's fresh blood your claim that Simpson wasn't at Bundy the night of the murders is a false claim.

bobaugust

[sassylassy]

Update:

Judge Orders O.J.'s Past Income Go To Goldmans

A judge on Tuesday ordered that O.J. Simpson's income from past work in movies, television and commercials go directly to the family of murder victim Ron Goldman, but he rejected the family's bid to collect Simpson's earnings on future projects.

http://perezhilton.com/topics/headline_of_the_week/headline_of_the_week_weak_20070221.php


( I still dont think they will get any money from Simpson regardless of what the judge has to say, but I guess we will see)

[martin II]

Update:

Judge Orders O.J.'s Past Income Go To Goldmans

A judge on Tuesday ordered that O.J. Simpson's income from past work in movies, television and commercials go directly to the family of murder victim Ron Goldman, but he rejected the family's bid to collect Simpson's earnings on future projects.

http://perezhilton.com/topics/headline_of_the_week/headline_of_the_week_weak_20070221.php


( I still dont think they will get any money from Simpson regardless of what the judge has to say, but I guess we will see)

I think it is more about headlines and tv appearances than collecting money that they must know is beyond their reach.

I am assumming that freds lawyers are picking up new clients from the publicity they have received from these many cases they have filed for fred.

martin II

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819181]

This discussion group is not a debate and I'm not debating you. My discussion of the Simpson case is based on the facts and evidence in this case that prove Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. Your imagined speculation, imagined evidence, and false information in no way changes the known evidence.

Unless you can point to someone else in this world who can bleed Simpson's fresh blood your claim that Simpson wasn't at Bundy the night of the murders is a false claim.

bobaugust

I guess you are right, because a debate entertains two points of view. With that said, we ( the poster world) know that you will only discuss issues with those who have opinions similar to yours. Is this done so that you can reinforce your conclusion that you are right? Is this done, because you can not engage in an open an honest discussion of the evidence and the issues?

In any event, I feel compelled to inform you, unless you are the one that created this board, that my idea of the purpose of this board is two discuss, debate, argue and to gather information on the evidence, issues and other matters related to the Simpson trial. However, if this is your board or you are in control of this board, then I apologize for having the wrong idea.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8819191]

I guess you are right, because a debate entertains two points of view. With that said, we ( the poster world) know that you will only discuss issues with those who have opinions similar to yours. Is this done so that you can reinforce your conclusion that you are right? Is this done, because you can not engage in an open an honest discussion of the evidence and the issues?

In any event, I feel compelled to inform you, unless you are the one that created this board, that my idea of the purpose of this board is two discuss, debate, argue and to gather information on the evidence, issues and other matters related to the Simpson trial. However, if this is your board or you are in control of this board, then I apologize for having the wrong idea.

I do not debate with people offering irrational arguments about the evidence in this case, I inform them. If they aren't able to accept the reality of the evidence by using imaginary excuses then that's where it ends. Some posters either intentionally create contrary arguments to be objectionable others do it out of ignorance. Either way that's not engaging in an open and honest discussion.

It's apparent you understand how incriminating the evidence is in this case and in fact proves Simpson was the killer but you argue just to argue. You're intelligent enough to know that imaginary explanations do not contradict the reality of the physical evidence and you understand what it means when a defendant consistently lies under oath, you just want to play games.

I will continue to inform the uninformed posters here who post their opinions based on false and misinformation. If they aren't smart enough to realize how wrong they are after they are informed then that's their problem, not mine.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819224]

I do not debate with people offering irrational arguments about the evidence in this case, I inform them. If they aren't able to accept the reality of the evidence by using imaginary excuses then that's where it ends. Some posters either intentionally create contrary arguments to be objectionable others do it out of ignorance. Either way that's not engaging in an open and honest discussion.

It's apparent you understand how incriminating the evidence is in this case and in fact proves Simpson was the killer but you argue just to argue. You're intelligent enough to know that imaginary explanations do not contradict the reality of the physical evidence and you understand what it means when a defendant consistently lies under oath, you just want to play games.

I will continue to inform the uninformed posters here who post their opinions based on false and misinformation. If they aren't smart enough to realize how wrong they are after they are informed then that's their problem, not mine.

bobaugust

I get it everyone that disagrees with you are irrational, or doing it out of ignorance,or uninformed or aren't smart enough to realize how wrong they are after they are informed. Why is that you think that others have the problem, when you know so little about what it takes to prove someone guilty, and, only rely on what you believe the evidence supports?

[2L8 4A D8]

I do not debate with people offering irrational arguments about the evidence in this case, I inform them. If they aren't able to accept the reality of the evidence by using imaginary excuses then that's where it ends. Some posters either intentionally create contrary arguments to be objectionable others do it out of ignorance. Either way that's not engaging in an open and honest discussion.

It's apparent you understand how incriminating the evidence is in this case and in fact proves Simpson was the killer but you argue just to argue. You're intelligent enough to know that imaginary explanations do not contradict the reality of the physical evidence and you understand what it means when a defendant consistently lies under oath, you just want to play games.

I will continue to inform the uninformed posters here who post their opinions based on false and misinformation. If they aren't smart enough to realize how wrong they are after they are informed then that's their problem, not mine.

bobaugust

:beer: Excellent Post, Bob! And if I may suggest, please use your IGNORE button. It works wonders!

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8819232]

I get it everyone that disagrees with you are irrational, or doing it out of ignorance,or uninformed or aren't smart enough to realize how wrong they are after they are informed. Why is that you think that others have the problem, when you know so little about what it takes to prove someone guilty, and, only rely on what you believe the evidence supports?

I know what it takes to prove someone guilty. Evidence and a reasonable thinking jury who understands the evidence. There was plenty of evidence that proved Simpson guilty but there wasn't a reasonable thinking jury who wanted to understand it. Only a jury with an agenda to find a black hero not guilty by believing every imaginary claim the defense gave them so they could ignore the reality of the real evidence.

Besides the fact my discussions here are about who the killer was and not limited to only the information and evidence that was known at the time of the criminal trial.

bobaugust

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819224]

I do not debate with people offering irrational arguments about the evidence in this case, I inform them. If they aren't able to accept the reality of the evidence by using imaginary excuses then that's where it ends. Some posters either intentionally create contrary arguments to be objectionable others do it out of ignorance. Either way that's not engaging in an open and honest discussion.

It's apparent you understand how incriminating the evidence is in this case and in fact proves Simpson was the killer but you argue just to argue. You're intelligent enough to know that imaginary explanations do not contradict the reality of the physical evidence and you understand what it means when a defendant consistently lies under oath, you just want to play games.

I will continue to inform the uninformed posters here who post their opinions based on false and misinformation. If they aren't smart enough to realize how wrong they are after they are informed then that's their problem, not mine.

bobaugust

bob

are you suggesting that when you 'INFORM' the ones you believe are "uninformed" you have done something other than given you opinion on the subject?
martin II

[Kayleighjo]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8819232]

bob

are you suggesting that when you 'INFORM' the ones you believe are "uninformed" you have done something other than given you opinion on the subject?
martin II

Yeah, I'd say he gives the facts.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=martin II;8819300]

Yeah, I'd say he gives the facts.

What you are calling the facts are not what the jury determined the facts to be. The jury is the only people who can determine the facts, which they did, and, according to them, the facts did not show that Simpson was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. I think I understand that you are saying bobaugust gives the facts as he believes them to be. If this is what you meant, then I cannot disagree.

[Kayleighjo]

[

What you are calling the facts are not what the jury determined the facts to be. The jury is the only people who can determine the facts, which they did, and, according to them, the facts did not show that Simpson was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. I think I understand that you are saying bobaugust gives the facts as he believes them to be. If this is what you meant, then I cannot disagree.

In a court of law the jury is the only entity that can determine the facts. In real life it's a whole new ballgame.

I appreciate your zest for law and your hard work in your studies of it, but for once try to come out of that shell and talk about this case outside the courtroom.

Come on, even the term "innocent until proven guilty" is a requirement that exists only in a court of law and no place else.

Because if what you're saying is true, then the innocent men that are being let out of jail because it's proven later that the jury determined the facts incorrectly should go right back to jail.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=Kayleighjo;8819315]

What you are calling the facts are not what the jury determined the facts to be. The jury is the only people who can determine the facts, which they did, and, according to them, the facts did not show that Simpson was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. I think I understand that you are saying bobaugust gives the facts as he believes them to be. If this is what you meant, then I cannot disagree.


i agree.

most agree that we should have a jury system and allow the tryers of fact to determine the truth of the accusations against a defendant UNTIL THEY DISSAGREE WITH THE JURY DECISION. Then it seems that these same people believe that the facts should be determined by majority public opinion.
martin II

[William Anthony]

In a court of law the jury is the only entity that can determine the facts. In real life it's a whole new ballgame.

I appreciate your zest for law and your hard work in your studies of it, but for once try to come out of that shell and talk about this case outside the courtroom.

Come on, even the term "innocent until proven guilty" is a requirement that exists only in a court of law and no place else.

Because if what you're saying is true, then the innocent men that are being let out of jail because it's proven later that the jury determined the facts incorrectly should go right back to jail.

Thank you for realizing my appreciation for the law. Someone once said that, "If the King is the law, in America the law ought to be king." In real life and in the courtroom the jury is the only one who can determine the facts that give way to any legal force and effect.

Unfortunately, your second paragraph is correct, which leads to many incorrect verdicts.

Your last paragraph is the thought producing one. My original post was not artfully phrased. Let me say that the jury does not impose sentence. Therefore, the protection is provided so that the government or the Executive can rectify wrongful jury decisions. You have made me consider the wisdom of the Separation of Powers Doctrine. The court system is designed to protect the wrongly accused, in order to prevent their wrongful incarcerations. That is why those convicted on wrong jury decisions that have been proven wrong cannot go back to jail on the same charge. Unfortunately, the jury decisions afford the guilty more protection because once the jury renders a not guilty verdict, the guilty cannot be charged with that same crime again. In the matter of a not guilty verdict the jury's decision has been final, although I am not sure that this will not change by the Camm case. In the guilty verdict it is not, because of the government's power. Although our system is imperfect, it is well designed and has served the innocent.

We may engage in speculation of what the facts prove, but once the jury has spoken via a non guilty decision the facts remain unchanged, despite our speculations.

[n.n]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819235]

I know what it takes to prove someone guilty. Evidence and a reasonable thinking jury who understands the evidence. There was plenty of evidence that proved Simpson guilty but there wasn't a reasonable thinking jury who wanted to understand it. Only a jury with an agenda to find a black hero not guilty by believing every imaginary claim the defense gave them so they could ignore the reality of the real evidence.

Besides the fact my discussions here are about who the killer was and not limited to only the information and evidence that was known at the time of the criminal trial.

bobaugust

The jury, imo, had good reasons to decide that the prosecution had no proof beyond the shadow of a doubt to convict Mr. Simpson. That's all they have to decide. It doesn't matter whether they believe a deendant is guit or not -- the decision depends on whether the prosecution could prove their points.
Btw. did you really need the word "black" in front of hero?

I am sorry, but in your posts I cannot sort out facts, factoids or fiction. There are too many keys, gate openers, walking ere and there, black bags etc. that simply have no value as evidence.

PS: Finding the truth, even outside the court room, must rely on hard evidence, facts -- not on creating multiple scenarios. Such an approach would do as preparation for a fictional work, but never as the method of establishing the truth.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

The jury, imo, had good reasons to decide that the prosecution had no proof beyond the shadow of a doubt to convict Mr. Simpson.


The standard isn't "beyond a shadow of a doubt", it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

[n.n]

The standard isn't "beyond a shadow of a doubt", it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, in that case the jury must have had "reasonable" doubt. Otherwise, the verdict would have been different.

[bobaugust]

The jury, imo, had good reasons to decide that the prosecution had no proof beyond the shadow of a doubt to convict Mr. Simpson. That's all they have to decide. It doesn't matter whether they believe a deendant is guit or not -- the decision depends on whether the prosecution could prove their points.
Btw. did you really need the word "black" in front of hero?

I am sorry, but in your posts I cannot sort out facts, factoids or fiction. There are too many keys, gate openers, walking ere and there, black bags etc. that simply have no value as evidence.

PS: Finding the truth, even outside the court room, must rely on hard evidence, facts -- not on creating multiple scenarios. Such an approach would do as preparation for a fictional work, but never as the method of establishing the truth.

n.n, my discussions here are not limited to only the information available at the time of the criminal trial or the criminal trial verdict. A discussion as to who the killer was based on all the known information and evidence in this case.

Do I believe that Simpson should have been convicted in the criminal trial? Yes. But that's not the point. The civil trial was the real search for the truth as to who the killer was. New information and new evidence was presented. A huge amount of new information learned from the many witness depositions taken before the civil trial. Mistakes that the prosecutors made in the criminal trial were corrected. And the most important difference is that Simpson testified.

If you want to limit your discussion as to what happened in the criminal trial, and only the information and evidence from the criminal trial, or the criminal trial verdict that's your choice. But if you're interested in the truth as to who the killer was based on everything we know then I and other informed posters here will be happy to help you out.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

n.n, my discussions here are not limited to only the information available at the time of the criminal trial or the criminal trial verdict. A discussion as to who the killer was based on all the known information and evidence in this case.

Do I believe that Simpson should have been convicted in the criminal trial? Yes. But that's not the point. The civil trial was the real search for the truth as to who the killer was. New information and new evidence was presented. A huge amount of new information learned from the many witness depositions taken before the civil trial. Mistakes that the prosecutors made in the criminal trial were corrected. And the most important difference is that Simpson testified.

If you want to limit your discussion as to what happened in the criminal trial, and only the information and evidence from the criminal trial, or the criminal trial verdict that's your choice. But if you're interested in the truth as to who the killer was based on everything we know then I and other informed posters here will be happy to help you out.

bobaugust

I did not follow the civil trial, but I also will agree to help you in reaching a conclusion. I will operate from a different view point than bobaugust, since he has admitted that he was convinced, during the criminal trial that Simpson was guilty and the civil trial only confirmed his conclusions.

I will operate from the standpoint that I do not know whether or not Simpson was the killer and look to evidence showing whether he was or was not.

I do believe this is the correct way to view the evidence.

[bobaugust]

I did not follow the civil trial, but I also will agree to help you in reaching a conclusion. I will operate from a different view point than bobaugust, since he has admitted that he was convinced, during the criminal trial that Simpson was guilty and the civil trial only confirmed his conclusions.

I will operate from the standpoint that I do not know whether or not Simpson was the killer and look to evidence showing whether he was or was not.

I do believe this is the correct way to view the evidence.

That's funny since the only place you're looking for evidence is the criminal trial. As long as you continue to avoid the reality of what was learned after the criminal trial and presented in the civil trial including Simpson's lying testimony you will never know whether Simpson was the killer or not. Your lack of knowledge is by your choice of viewing only the evidence you select to view, not what is available.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

That's funny since the only place you're looking for evidence is the criminal trial. As long as you continue to avoid the reality of what was learned after the criminal trial and presented in the civil trial including Simpson's lying testimony you will never know whether Simpson was the killer or not. Your lack of knowledge is by your choice of viewing only the evidence you select to view, not what is available.

bobaugust

I look for evidence everywhere, not just that which tends to incriminate. Because, I did not follow the civil trial, does not mean that I will not go on an exploration (search, for those with delicate sensibilities) with n.n for the truth. I will look for evidence that was overlooked, uncollected, found, tested, untested, contaminated or cross contaminated or pristine. I will not soley rely on works of fiction by people on either side, because their views may be innately tainted.

[bobaugust]

I look for evidence everywhere, not just that which tends to incriminate. Because, I did not follow the civil trial, does not mean that I will not go on an exploration (search, for those with delicate sensibilities) with n.n for the truth. I will look for evidence that was overlooked, uncollected, found, tested, untested, contaminated or cross contaminated or pristine. I will not soley rely on works of fiction by people on either side, because their views may be innately tainted.

Well at least you admit that you don't know all the evidence against Simpson. If you really want to learn the truth I suggest you start learning what the defendant said. Put your prosecutor hat on and read Simpson's initial statement he gave the police under oath and then read his depositions and then his testimony in the civil trial, it might just well open your eyes as to what the truth really is.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Well at least you admit that you don't know all the evidence against Simpson. If you really want to learn the truth I suggest you start learning what the defendant said. Put your prosecutor hat on and read Simpson's initial statement he gave the police under oath and then read his depositions and then his testimony in the civil trial, it might just well open your eyes as to what the truth really is.

bobaugust

No, you are the only person I know who claims to know all the evidence. I have told you how I intend to look for evidence, but thank you for the suggestion.

[bobaugust]

No, you are the only person I know who claims to know all the evidence. I have told you how I intend to look for evidence, but thank you for the suggestion.

No, I don't claim to know all of the evidence, only obviously a lot more than you. You can avoid Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and lies all you want but until you learn about what he said you will never know the truth about who the killer was.

bobaugust

[Kayleighjo]

Well, in that case the jury must have had "reasonable" doubt. Otherwise, the verdict would have been different.

Jury nullification :read:

[William Anthony]

No, I don't claim to know all of the evidence, only obviously a lot more than you. You can avoid Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and lies all you want but until you learn about what he said you will never know the truth about who the killer was.

bobaugust

Please bobaugust, you have claimed several times to know the truth and the facts. If you are claiming that the truth and the facts you know are not based on all the evidence, then I apologize. You can arrive at the truth and the facts, without knowing all the evidence.

[William Anthony]

Jury nullification :read:


So far there has been no jury nullification of the verdict.

[Kayleighjo]

So far there has been no jury nullification of the verdict.

In your opinion.

[bobaugust]

Please bobaugust, you have claimed several times to know the truth and the facts. If you are claiming that the truth and the facts you know are not based on all the evidence, then I apologize. You can arrive at the truth and the facts, without knowing all the evidence.

Yes I have said that I base my beliefs on all the evidence meaning not just the evidence that was known at the time of the criminal trial. But I'm not going to say that I definitively know all the evidence in this case since once in a while I still learn something I may have missed or something new that I wasn't aware of.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Yes I have said that I base my beliefs on all the evidence meaning not just the evidence that was known at the time of the criminal trial. But I'm not going to say that I definitively know all the evidence in this case since once in a while I still learn something I may have missed or something new that I wasn't aware of.

bobaugust

You said you know the truth and the facts. I am pleased to know that you admit that you do not know everything (evidence). I am not trying to be argumentative. I must ask. if you do not know all the evidence, how can you know the truth and what the facts are?

I can understand that based on the evidence you have looked at you believe Simpson to be the killer. Is this what you are saying? Before, you have claimed that you know Simpson is the killer based on the evidence in the criminal and civil trials. I just want to understand so that we can hold a cordial and respectful and professional discussion.

[bobaugust]

You said you know the truth and the facts. I am pleased to know that you admit that you do not know everything (evidence). I am not trying to be argumentative. I must ask. if you do not know all the evidence, how can you know the truth and what the facts are?

I can understand that based on the evidence you have looked at you believe Simpson to be the killer. Is this what you are saying? Before, you have claimed that you know Simpson is the killer based on the evidence in the criminal and civil trials. I just want to understand so that we can hold a cordial and respectful and professional discussion.

My belief that Simpson was the killer was originally based on the evidence in the criminal trial. After reading the depositions and learning about the evidence presented in the civil trial, as well as reading many books regarding this case there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

My belief that Simpson was the killer was originally based on the evidence in the criminal trial. After reading the depositions and learning about the evidence presented in the civil trial, as well as reading many books regarding this case there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

Okay, let's begin with the evidence that was not collected. Would you, at least agree that evidence could have pointed to someone else?

[Suzee10]

Jury nullification :read:


I agree and I have said this all along, jury nullification. They had their bags packed and ready to go.

[bobaugust]

Okay, let's begin with the evidence that was not collected. Would you, at least agree that evidence could have pointed to someone else?

Okay lets begin with the evidence that wasn't collected. You pick out a couple of random incidents where some blood was missed and then speculate that blood may have come from someone other than the three people that all the other blood that was collected in this case came from. I don't find that credible speculation. Is it possible? Sure almost anything you can imagine may be possible but not believable. It's possible the earth will be hit by a meteor tomorrow and destroy all life as we know it. Possible, but not believable.

Besides the fact even in the furthest stretch of imagination if I was to play your game and agree that the randomly missed blood could point to someone else, how does that eliminate Simpson from being at Bundy?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Okay lets begin with the evidence that wasn't collected. You pick out a couple of random incidents where some blood was missed and then speculate that blood may have come from someone other than the three people that all the other blood that was collected in this case came from. I don't find that credible speculation. Is it possible? Sure almost anything you can imagine may be possible but not believable. It's possible the earth will be hit by a meteor tomorrow and destroy all life as we know it. Possible, but not believable.

Besides the fact even in the furthest stretch of imagination if I was to play your game and agree that the randomly missed blood could point to someone else, how does that eliminate Simpson from being at Bundy?

bobaugust

I am not playing a game. What I am doing is trying to engage in the type of discussion that will be most beneficial to all here. Since you have said that it is possible but not likely, I will accept that. You have also asked a question as to how that uncollected evidence eliminates Simpson. For the sake of the discussion, I will say it does not.

Now, we have the possibility that there were two murderers-one being Simpson and one being someone else, agreed? I think that I must state that when I say possible I mean that the idea cannot be ruled out at this point.

[William Anthony]

I agree and I have said this all along, jury nullification. They had their bags packed and ready to go.

I will agree with the position that the jury deliberations were completed at a rapid pace. I believe that there was not much for them to deliberate, due to the way the trial was presented.

[martin II]

the crininal trial jury deliberations.

Panelist Brenda Moran doesn't think they decided a moment too soon.

"We've taken this case serious for nine months," she told reporters Oct. 4, 1995, the day after Simpson's acquittal was announced. "It didn't take us nine more months to figure it out. We're not that ignorant."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 10 a.m., Cryer told the Los Angeles Times, they took a straw vote. It was 10-2 in favor of acquittal. One of the two negative votes came from a 61-year-old white woman, Anise Aschenbach, who would later tearfully say that while Simpson may be guilty, the evidence didn't prove it.

The other dissenter has not been identified.

When deliberations began, everyone spoke at once, said Sheila Woods, a 39-year-old health inspector.

"I guess they were so full over the nine months with things to say, that everyone just started kind of talking at the same time," Woods said in an ABC "Nightline" interview broadcast Sept. 29, 1995.

After the straw vote, some questions were still unresolved. Forewoman Amanda Cooley, 51, sent a note asking for the testimony of limo driver Allan Park to be read back.

Among the questions that jurors said troubled them:

Where, exactly, did Park see a shadowy figure at Simpson's estate?
What was that unidentified person wearing?
How many cars were in the driveway?
While waiting for the reading, they voted again. Now it was unanimous. As for the initial holdouts, Woods said, "I think what they did, they listened to the other 10 explain why they thought there was reasonable doubt, and then in the next vote, it was a 12 unanimous not guilty (decision)."

The volatile issues of racism and domestic violence did not sway them, Woods said.


martin II
----------------------------------------------------

[bobaugust]

I am not playing a game. What I am doing is trying to engage in the type of discussion that will be most beneficial to all here. Since you have said that it is possible but not likely, I will accept that. You have also asked a question as to how that uncollected evidence eliminates Simpson. For the sake of the discussion, I will say it does not.

Now, we have the possibility that there were two murderers-one being Simpson and one being someone else, agreed? I think that I must state that when I say possible I mean that the idea cannot be ruled out at this point.

Yes it can be ruled out there were two killers. There is no evidence of a second killer. All of the evidence points to only three people, the two victims and Simpson. Imaginary evidence is not real evidence. The fact that some blood was randomly missed is not evidence of a second killer. That blood more likely came from one the three people that all the other blood in this case was found to come from.

Based on your reasoning since there were two incidents where some blood was missed that could be evidence of two additional killers, right? Your using flawed reasoning.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I will agree with the position that the jury deliberations were completed at a rapid pace. I believe that there was not much for them to deliberate, due to the way the trial was presented.

william

I think that your knowledge of the law and the CJS brings needed clarity to the discussion of the simpson cases on the oj threads.


Although some have chosen to attack you for you success in your educational endeavors i would like to congradulate you on your tolorence
and sense of humor in addition to the wisdom your post bring to the threads.
Keep up the good work.
martin II

[sassylassy]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/oj_must_turn_ov.html

judge ruled OJS has to pay in past royalties but not his future earnings.:read:

[martin II]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/oj_must_turn_ov.html

judge ruled OJS has to pay in past royalties but not his future earnings.:read:

sassy
thanks for keeping us abrest on this issue.

WOW it seems that OJ won big time on this issue. I would like to see the judges decision but if this is the bottom line then fred has struck out big time again.
martin II

[Suzee10]

I will agree with the position that the jury deliberations were completed at a rapid pace. I believe that there was not much for them to deliberate, due to the way the trial was presented.


You mean the way Johnnie C. directed them to send a message. They did not do any thinking on their own they only followed directions.

[martin II]

You mean the way Johnnie C. directed them to send a message. They did not do any thinking on their own they only followed directions.

suzwee

the jury followed the judges directions about deliberations and credibility or noncredibility of witnesses testimony etc. They sent a message to the prosecution and it was don't expect us to convict when you have not proven your case beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law. Dont' give us a sham case full of mistakes and lies and expect us to convict because MARCIA CLARK said the defendant was guilty.
martin II

[martin II]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/oj_must_turn_ov.html

judge ruled OJS has to pay in past royalties but not his future earnings.:read:

sassy did you read the coments after the article?

martin II

[Suzee10]

suzwee

the jury followed the judges directions about deliberations and credibility or noncredibility of witnesses testimony etc. They sent a message to the prosecution and it was don't expect us to convict when you have not proven your case beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law. Dont' give us a sham case full of mistakes and lies and expect us to convict because MARCIA CLARK said the defendant was guilty.
martin II


The jury followed JC's instructions to send a message and it had nothing to do with credibility etc. He let them know it was their time to send a message and that is what they did. Nothing more. They would not have sent simpson to jail if they had seen him on tape commiting the murders.

[2L8 4A D8]

The jury followed JC's instructions to send a message and it had nothing to do with credibility etc. He let them know it was their time to send a message and that is what they did. Nothing more. They would not have sent simpson to jail if they had seen him on tape commiting the murders.

Or, as I have previously posted, the Jury wouldn't have found OJ Guilty even if they had all been sitting at the Bundy Crime Scene in lawn chairs sipping MaiTai's as the murders were occurring right before their eyes!

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

Or, as I have previously posted, the Jury wouldn't have found OJ Guilty even if they had all been sitting at the Bundy Crime Scene in lawn chairs sipping MaiTai's as the murders were occurring right before their eyes!

JMO and MOO!!

:D Sadly, I think that is the case.

[martin II]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/oj_must_turn_ov.html

judge ruled OJS has to pay in past royalties but not his future earnings.:read:


sassy hi

I have missed your post.

I am wondering if this order covers any book deals or just royalties from movies and film type ventures.

.39 cent for the year sounds a little odd.

martin II

[n.n]

Any other verdict would have been a mockery of justice: similar to the justice served in lynchigs. The jury, like other intelligent, unbiased people did understand that the prosecution had not proven the man's guilt. That's all they had to prove. They did an excellent job, understood what they were doing -- and were not blinded by hatred (of whatever kind). Judge Ito, in my opinion, was a fair judge and, thank goodndess, he prevented a trial strongly resembling a 17th century witch trials from taking place.

[n.n]

Also, I don't understand why so many people think that the defense's victory was Mr. Cochran's work alone. He had some high carat helpers: Scheck, Shapiro, for example. What did they have in common with the jury? Money, sex, race? Without their expertise and experience Cochran would have been lost.
The fact that Mr. Simpson could afford so many brilliant lawyers led to the accusations that he "bought" his verdict. Which was a welcome slogan used by closet-racists to vent their anger without being detected. Just my opinion.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Judge Ito, in my opinion, was a fair judge and, thank goodndess, he prevented a trial strongly resembling a 17th century witch trials from taking place.

Are you kidding? Ito did a horrible job. Maybe that's why, to this day, his is the only courtroom that doesn't display his name. It was reported on the radio the other day that this was the direct result of the Simpson case.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
He had some high carat helpers: Scheck, Shapiro, for example.

Shapiro stated it was his opinion that OJ did it. Was Shapiro a "closet racist" as well?

[martin II]

Also, I don't understand why so many people think that the defense's victory was Mr. Cochran's work alone. He had some high carat helpers: Scheck, Shapiro, for example. What did they have in common with the jury? Money, sex, race? Without their expertise and experience Cochran would have been lost.
The fact that Mr. Simpson could afford so many brilliant lawyers led to the accusations that he "bought" his verdict. Which was a welcome slogan used by closet-racists to vent their anger without being detected. Just my opinion.

N.N.

You have made a very astute observaiton, one which i agree with completely.
martinII

[socaldiva]

N.N.

You have made a very astute observaiton, one which i agree with completely.
martinII

So you also think people that disagree with the verdict are "closet racists"? That's ridiculous.

[martin II]

Also, I don't understand why so many people think that the defense's victory was Mr. Cochran's work alone. He had some high carat helpers: Scheck, Shapiro, for example. What did they have in common with the jury? Money, sex, race? Without their expertise and experience Cochran would have been lost.
The fact that Mr. Simpson could afford so many brilliant lawyers led to the accusations that he "bought" his verdict. Which was a welcome slogan used by closet-racists to vent their anger without being detected. Just my opinion.

n.n.
It may be that many people did not realize that a group of lawyers like the dream team existed for a black man. Some became angry when OJ did not roll over, hire a lesser gifted lawyer and just 'TAKE HIS MEDICINE' as they saw it. 20--30 years.IMO
MARTIN ii

[socaldiva]

n.n.
It may be that many people did not realize that a group of lawyers like the dream team existed for a black man. Some became angry when OJ did not roll over, hire a lesser gifted lawyer and just 'TAKE HIS MEDICINE' as they saw it. 20--30 years.IMO
MARTIN ii

How absurd. "many people did not realize that a group of lawyers like the dream team existed for a black man"? & that's why they're mad? WRONG. People were/are mad that a double murderer got off when it was so obvious he did it. Idiot, racist jurors are the reason. If OJ were purple, I'd say the same thing.

[n.n]

n.n.
It may be that many people did not realize that a group of lawyers like the dream team existed for a black man. Some became angry when OJ did not roll over, hire a lesser gifted lawyer and just 'TAKE HIS MEDICINE' as they saw it. 20--30 years.IMO
MARTIN ii

Sure. And for those people the real crime was the audacity to be rich enough to hire as many lawyers as it took to prove his innocence.

[n.n]

sassy hi

I have missed your post.

I am wondering if this order covers any book deals or just royalties from movies and film type ventures.

.39 cent for the year sounds a little odd.

martin II

I wish and hope that the Goldman's -- it seems to be Mr. Goldman in particular -- could let go of their hatred. It is so sad to see something like this happen. I think an experience like this is only adding to the hurt and grief they feel.

[sassylassy]

sassy did you read the coments after the article?

martin II

Hi ya Martin

yes I did !
& I was surprised by some of the feedback ...;)

[sassylassy]

sassy
thanks for keeping us abrest on this issue.

WOW it seems that OJ won big time on this issue. I would like to see the judges decision but if this is the bottom line then fred has struck out big time again.
martin II

Hi Martin :)

ur welcome ;)

I think ojs future earning are worth more now than his past royalties!

I mean really how much can the Goldmans make from the naked gun?

[socaldiva]

Hi Martin :)

ur welcome ;)

I think ojs future earning are worth more now than his past royalties!

I mean really how much can the Goldmans make from the naked gun?

Future earnings doing what? Siging autographs at horror conventions? :tongue:

[socaldiva]

Sure. And for those people the real crime was the audacity to be rich enough to hire as many lawyers as it took to prove his innocence.

OJ had been far wealthier in the years leading up to the murders & no one held his wealth against him. To the contrary, he will well accepted. No one resented him being rich, they resenting him buying his way out of 2 murders he clearly committed. imo

[sassylassy]

Future earnings doing what? Siging autographs at horror conventions? :tongue:

No, I was thinking more along the lines of writting a book for 3.5 Million dollars!
:tongue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15066202

[socaldiva]

No, I was thinking more along the lines of writting a book for 3.5 Million dollars!
:tongue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15066202

That was in October & the book was never released. :shrug: We were talking about future earnings, were we not?

[Suzee10]

Or, as I have previously posted, the Jury wouldn't have found OJ Guilty even if they had all been sitting at the Bundy Crime Scene in lawn chairs sipping MaiTai's as the murders were occurring right before their eyes!

JMO and MOO!!

I agree!!!

[Suzee10]

Any other verdict would have been a mockery of justice: similar to the justice served in lynchigs. The jury, like other intelligent, unbiased people did understand that the prosecution had not proven the man's guilt. That's all they had to prove. They did an excellent job, understood what they were doing -- and were not blinded by hatred (of whatever kind). Judge Ito, in my opinion, was a fair judge and, thank goodndess, he prevented a trial strongly resembling a 17th century witch trials from taking place.


The so called dream team was no better than any other team of attorneys. The jury was not going to send simpson to jail no matter attorney he had. The only person they listened to was JC.

As far as the judge, he was too busy being star struck to made any kind of rational judgement at all in this case.

[sassylassy]

That was in October & the book was never released. :shrug: We were talking about future earnings, were we not?

:confused: I'm thinking the book would be considered future earnings?

right the book wasnt released but ojs was still paid for it & was offered alot of money to pen it.

I read he is shopping around for another book deal, so who knows what he will get paid for that!

[sassylassy]

I would like to know if any of this money is going to towards the Brown's or if its just going towards the Goldmans?


A judge on Tuesday ordered that royalties or other earnings due former football star O.J. Simpson from his past work in movies, TV shows and commercials be paid directly to the family of murder victim Ron Goldman


http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/20/oj.simpson.ap/

[socaldiva]

:confused: I'm thinking the book would be considered future earnings?

right the book wasnt released but ojs was still paid for it & was offered alot of money to pen it.

I read he is shopping around for another book deal, so who knows what he will get paid for that!

Here is a statement from the link you provided:


Rosenberg deferred ruling Tuesday on a third request by the Goldmans, to collect any advance money Simpson may have received for the book and TV show "If I Did It." He scheduled a hearing on the matter for March 13.

[martin II]

I would like to know if any of this money is going to towards the Brown's or if its just going towards the Goldmans?


A judge on Tuesday ordered that royalties or other earnings due former football star O.J. Simpson from his past work in movies, TV shows and commercials be paid directly to the family of murder victim Ron Goldman


http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/20/oj.simpson.ap/

sassy
it looks like fred goldman sued for himself and did not include the browns. so he gets the .39 cent.
martin II

[weezer]

sassy
it looks like fred goldman sued for himself and did not include the browns. so he gets the .39 cent.
martin II

why would he have included the Browns? I doubt orenthal cares about the .39 cents since it's not enough to buy his dope, pay his cable bill or spend on the lap dances............

[martin II]

why would he have included the Browns? I doubt orenthal cares about the .39 cents since it's not enough to buy his dope, pay his cable bill or spend on the lap dances............

weezer

Fred asked for the money and he got it. what will he do with the .39 cent but become more angry.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer

Fred asked for the money and he got it. what will he do with the .39 cent but become more angry.
martin II

Or maybe he'll put it in his pocket and walk around knowing that every penny orenthal could have gotten from past royalties will now go in that same pocket. Small satisfaction but satisfaction nonetheless.

[martin II]

Or maybe he'll put it in his pocket and walk around knowing that every penny orenthal could have gotten from past royalties will now go in that same pocket. Small satisfaction but satisfaction nonetheless.

weezer
.39 last year, next year zero.

It is enough to cause fred to completely loose it.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
.39 last year, next year zero.

It is enough to cause fred to completely loose it.
martin II

.39 orenthal won't have in his pocket...........

the word is "lose" -- two completely different meanings and I doubt Fred will do anything except continue to make orenthal look over his shoulder.

[martin II]

.39 orenthal won't have in his pocket...........

the word is "lose" -- two completely different meanings and I doubt Fred will do anything except continue to make orenthal look over his shoulder.

weezre
i think oj must have known what the royalties were that fred stood to get.

If reports are correct oj may be signing his name to another book to get another advance that will dissapear like the first one.
martin II

[martin II]

.39 orenthal won't have in his pocket...........

the word is "lose" -- two completely different meanings and I doubt Fred will do anything except continue to make orenthal look over his shoulder.

weezer
i dissagree, i think fred will do someting, like go back to court monday and try again. 12 years in court and has has received .39 so far.

hopefully he will get more soon so he can pack it in.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
i dissagree, i think fred will do someting, like go back to court monday and try again. 12 years in court and has has received .39 so far.

hopefully he will get more soon so he can pack it in.
martin II

I've often wondered how you would react if you were in Fred's shoes. My guess is there is not many people who could 'pack it in' as the butcher of your child walks free and laughs in your fact that he got away with it. But, of course, I don't know -- maybe you could.

39 cents? orenthal gave up his beloved home, his trophy and his most prized of all -- his celebrity lifestyle. No, I think Fred has realized much more than 39 cents.

I think it will be interesting to watch this 'book deal' play out since I doubt that orenthal will get another shot at a book deal -- at least in this country and I'm not sure how many people in the rest of the world gives a hoot about him and what he has to say. Much less pay to read about it.

[martin II]

I've often wondered how you would react if you were in Fred's shoes. My guess is there is not many people who could 'pack it in' as the butcher of your child walks free and laughs in your fact that he got away with it. But, of course, I don't know -- maybe you could.

39 cents? orenthal gave up his beloved home, his trophy and his most prized of all -- his celebrity lifestyle. No, I think Fred has realized much more than 39 cents.

I think it will be interesting to watch this 'book deal' play out since I doubt that orenthal will get another shot at a book deal -- at least in this country and I'm not sure how many people in the rest of the world gives a hoot about him and what he has to say. Much less pay to read about it.

weezer

Ron is dead no money will change that. I would not stay in court for 12 years
with .39 cent to show for it.

I would think that fred could find a way to do more with the rest of his life
as the browns seem to have done.

"If i did it" reached number 20 on Amazon before it was pulled so there seems to be some kind of demand for that book. There are many internet distribution possibilities for such a book that are not controlled by normal retail stores that can be pressured by special interest groups.

So we will see if a book comes out and if it will sell.
It may be that oj will try to make a deal with fred to give him some of the profits from such a book.you think fred would accept.
martinii

[weezer]

weezer

Ron is dead no money will change that. I would not stay in court for 12 years
with .39 cent to show for it.

I would think that fred could find a way to do more with the rest of his life
as the browns seem to have done.

"If i did it" reached number 20 on Amazon before it was pulled so there seems to be some kind of demand for that book. There are many internet distribution possibilities for such a book that are not controlled by normal retail stores that can be pressured by special interest groups.

So we will see if a book comes out and if it will sell.
It may be that oj will try to make a deal with fred to give him some of the profits from such a book.you think fred would accept.
martinii

yes, Ron is dead and nothing can change that. What makes you think you wouldn't do what Fred has done? You've stayed on this board for years proclaiming orenthal's innocence. Why is it so different that Fred would continue to proclaim orenthal's guilt?

like I said, it will be interesting to see how any future book deals turn out. Since I don't personally know the Goldman's, I can't presume to know what they would do about any kind of offer although I seriously doubt that the Goldmans are open to discussing with the butcher any kind of deal.

What else do you think orenthal could offer by way of his explanation/excuse/theory about the night of the murders that he hasn't already said?

[martin II]

I've often wondered how you would react if you were in Fred's shoes. My guess is there is not many people who could 'pack it in' as the butcher of your child walks free and laughs in your fact that he got away with it. But, of course, I don't know -- maybe you could.

39 cents? orenthal gave up his beloved home, his trophy and his most prized of all -- his celebrity lifestyle. No, I think Fred has realized much more than 39 cents.

I think it will be interesting to watch this 'book deal' play out since I doubt that orenthal will get another shot at a book deal -- at least in this country and I'm not sure how many people in the rest of the world gives a hoot about him and what he has to say. Much less pay to read about it.


weezer

I am not as vindictive as some. i realize that i cannot change what has happened. I would never allow my enemy to occupy free space in my head over something i believe he did.

Remember fred has no more proof of oj's guilt than you. I am sure he responded to the media sound bites as you did.

There are so many people that have lost dear ones either by being killed by LE or others and cops or the killers have gone free.

Fred needs to accept what has happened and leave the tv and the court room alone. Getting some kind of enjoyment out of making oj simpson his life's work seems to be a little unproductive to me. But maby you would do the same as he. I don't know.
martin II

[martin II]

yes, Ron is dead and nothing can change that. What makes you think you wouldn't do what Fred has done? You've stayed on this board for years proclaiming orenthal's innocence. Why is it so different that Fred would continue to proclaim orenthal's guilt?

like I said, it will be interesting to see how any future book deals turn out. Since I don't personally know the Goldman's, I can't presume to know what they would do about any kind of offer although I seriously doubt that the Goldmans are open to discussing with the butcher any kind of deal.

What else do you think orenthal could offer by way of his explanation/excuse/theory about the night of the murders that he hasn't already said?

weezer

oj has told you where he was on the night of the murders you just seem to believe M Clarke.

martin II

[martin II]

weezer

Look at it this way

every time fred goes on tv and to court he is forcing himself to relive what happened to his son. Every time the court slams the door in his face he becomes more angry for loosing.

oj is basically ignoring fred and has moved on with his life.trying to make a living for him and his kids. so has the browns. so what is fred gaining?
martin II

[weezer]

weezer

Look at it this way

every time fred goes on tv and to court he is forcing himself to relive what happened to his son. Every time the court slams the door in his face he becomes more angry for loosing.

oj is basically ignoring fred and has moved on with his life.trying to make a living for him and his kids. so has the browns. so what is fred gaining?
martin II

Everytime Fred goes on tv and to court, he is reminding orenthal and the world that a butcher and double murderer is walking free among us. I don't see anger when Fred talks, I see a determined man. A man who is the conscience of the rest of us.

you are right about orenthal. He has continued lying, stealing and abusing. I don't know about the Browns -- obviously you feel you do. Somehow, I doubt very seriously that they have 'moved' on with their lives when it comes to the subject of their dead daughter/sister.

[martin II]

Everytime Fred goes on tv and to court, he is reminding orenthal and the world that a butcher and double murderer is walking free among us. I don't see anger when Fred talks, I see a determined man. A man who is the conscience of the rest of us.

you are right about orenthal. He has continued lying, stealing and abusing. I don't know about the Browns -- obviously you feel you do. Somehow, I doubt very seriously that they have 'moved' on with their lives when it comes to the subject of their dead daughter/sister.

weezer

how many americans do you believe think about oj and fred on a daily or weekly basis.how many do you think care.
Pople are thinking about the war, healthcare and their job security.

I have not seen a interview of the browns or them going into court. So i give them credit for dealing with reality although i am not a fan. I did read where DENISE said she had moved on. But then i saw her on tv when that book came out.

I think Oj has focused on raising his kids and getting them educated in good schools. So far he seem to be doing ok.
I also think he has focused on how he can make money to continue to support himself and his kids. His lawyers seem to be responding to fred without too much problem but it is costly(he has said)
I guess as long a fred goes to court Oj will pen books and make videos to pay the legal fees.

martin II

[weezer]

weezer

how many americans do you believe think about oj and fred on a daily or weekly basis.how many do you think care.
Pople are thinking about the war, healthcare and their job security.

I have not seen a interview of the browns or them going into court. So i give them credit for dealing with reality although i am not a fan. I did read where DENISE said she had moved on. But then i saw her on tv when that book came out.

I think Oj has focused on raising his kids and getting them educated in good schools. So far he seem to be doing ok.
I also think he has focused on how he can make money to continue to support himself and his kids. His lawyers seem to be responding to fred without too much problem but it is costly(he has said)
I guess as long a fred goes to court Oj will pen books and make videos to pay the legal fees.

martin II

On a daily basis, I'm sure very few Americans think about orenthal -- it's only when the Butcher of Brentwood crawls from his hole and tries to make money off of murdering two human beings does he put himself into the light of public opinion. And, we both know he doesn't fair very well when that happens.

It appears that both families have moved on with their day-to-day lives but you should never interpret actions as acquiescence.

[martin II]

On a daily basis, I'm sure very few Americans think about orenthal -- it's only when the Butcher of Brentwood crawls from his hole and tries to make money off of murdering two human beings does he put himself into the light of public opinion. And, we both know he doesn't fair very well when that happens.

It appears that both families have moved on with their day-to-day lives but you should never interpret actions as acquiescence.

fred has said that he will go after oj every day of his life and he has done just that. On tv he does look like a mean old angry critter to me.

LooK i don't think fred will ever be able to prevent oj from making money.


martin II

[weezer]

fred has said that he will go after oj every day of his life and he has done just that. On tv he does look like a mean old angry critter to me.

LooK i don't think fred will ever be able to prevent oj from making money.


martin II

I guess we see a different person when we look at Fred -- I see a man who still hurts from the loss of his child. I don't think anyone can prevent orenthal from trying to make money but the venue sure has changed for him don't you think? My goodness, one day the great guy appearing on commercials, movies and tv and the next doing signings at a horror show. What a come down.

[martin II]

I guess we see a different person when we look at Fred -- I see a man who still hurts from the loss of his child. I don't think anyone can prevent orenthal from trying to make money but the venue sure has changed for him don't you think? My goodness, one day the great guy appearing on commercials, movies and tv and the next doing signings at a horror show. What a come down.

weezer
oj has to work/sell where he can since he has been blackballed by some.

Horrow shows make money also.

At the show you talk about he was there for 4 hours and made $24,000 selling his signature on some shirts. Now who do you believe these people were that paid him $200.00 cash for signing one nylon football jersey.
fans or perople that hate him.

martin I

[weezer]

weezer
oj has to work/sell where he can since he has been blackballed by some.

Horrow shows make money also.

At the show you talk about he was there for 4 hours and made $24,000 selling his signature on some shirts. Now who do you believe these people were that paid him $200.00 cash for signing one nylon football jersey.
fans or perople that hate him.

martin I

you're kidding yourself if you think the people who approach the butcher are only fans --

[martin II]

you're kidding yourself if you think the people who approach the butcher are only fans --

thats not the quesiton as i don't know who there were.

who are these people that gave oj $200.00 cash for a signature shirt? fans or people that hate him?
martin II

[sassylassy]

Here is a statement from the link you provided:


Rosenberg deferred ruling Tuesday on a third request by the Goldmans, to collect any advance money Simpson may have received for the book and TV show "If I Did It." He scheduled a hearing on the matter for March 13.


The judge has made a ruling for the past royalties (which is what I am talking about) the Goldmans are going for future earning (as per above) but they havent made a ruling about that yet...:read:

[weezer]

thats not the quesiton as i don't know who there were.

who are these people that gave oj $200.00 cash for a signature shirt? fans or people that hate him?
martin II

it was probably a mixture but my guess is they were thinking they were buying something that would appreciate in value. Can you imagine what Lizzie Borden's autograph would be worth?

[martin II]

I guess we see a different person when we look at Fred -- I see a man who still hurts from the loss of his child. I don't think anyone can prevent orenthal from trying to make money but the venue sure has changed for him don't you think? My goodness, one day the great guy appearing on commercials, movies and tv and the next doing signings at a horror show. What a come down.

weezer
I don't think MGM will ask oj to act in a new movie. (but one never knows)
but at any rate tin cup will not receive any of the cash as it stands now if they do.

Oj knows his celebrity has been taken away by the powers that be in this society. He seems to have adjusted well to that fact of life. The jokes don't seem to bother him. he has a nice home in miami, some business ventures
two good kids and his friends.A big fat monthly retirement check, Regular golf games, travel to the carribean islands for relaxing and according to you, a occassional lap dance by a blond.

what the hell.
martin II

[sassylassy]

I guess we see a different person when we look at Fred -- I see a man who still hurts from the loss of his child. I don't think anyone can prevent orenthal from trying to make money but the venue sure has changed for him don't you think? My goodness, one day the great guy appearing on commercials, movies and tv and the next doing signings at a horror show. What a come down.

I see the same person you do FBG, I think Fred Goldman's loss is heart breaking!
what happened was truly horrible.

I agree what ojs is doing now is a step down from his previous life style, but what else can he do? I mean atleast he is out there trying to work & provide for his family.

imo imo

[martin II]

it was probably a mixture but my guess is they were thinking they were buying something that would appreciate in value. Can you imagine what Lizzie Borden's autograph would be worth?

weezer

Ok i agree, but it did not matter to them that he was at a commercial horrow trade show or a NFL convention. They wanted oj.

He does several of these type shows a year as they go on all the time so it is a good way to pick up good cash that fred cannot touch.
Oj was not the only person selling autographs at that show you know.
martin II

[weezer]

I see the same person you do FBG, I think Fred Goldman's loss is heart breaking!
what happened was truly horrible.

I agree what ojs is doing now is a step down from his previous life style, but what else can he do? I mean atleast he is out there trying to work & provide for his family.

imo imo

I understand that he's trying to find a way around the circumstances so he can live the life he'd become accustomed to. He said he used the money to pay his mortgage and tax bills. Wonder what he was doing with the money he was making if not providing for his family?

[weezer]

weezer

Ok i agree, but it did not matter to them that he was at a commercial horrow trade show or a NFL convention. They wanted oj.

He does several of these type shows a year as they go on all the time so it is a good way to pick up good cash that fred cannot touch.
Oj was not the only person selling autographs at that show you know.
martin II

they didn't want orenthal -- they wanted the autograph of the Butcher of Brentwood.

[sassylassy]

I understand that he's trying to find a way around the circumstances so he can live the life he'd become accustomed to. He said he used the money to pay his mortgage and tax bills. Wonder what he was doing with the money he was making if not providing for his family?

I would guess too that OJS is paying for the kids education, which we know can be pretty costly..

imo jmo

[weezer]

I would guess too that OJS is paying for the kids education, which we know can be pretty costly..

imo jmo

I don't know about what he pays for Nicole's children's education. Does anyone know if the children receive income from Nicole's esate?

[martin II]

i am wondering if oj were to get one of these blockbuster movie deals and the public knew that half of oj's profits would go to fred, would the public pay to see the movie (if it was a good movie) and would fred accept the money.
martin II

[sassylassy]

I don't know about what he pays for Nicole's children's education. Does anyone know if the children receive income from Nicole's esate?

well I'm sure whatever is being paid it's a pretty penny, education is costly!

I do recall hearing once that the money was in a trust till the kids turn 21....
I will see if I can find anything.

[weezer]

well I'm sure whatever is being paid it's a pretty penny, education is costly!

I do recall hearing once that the money was in a trust till the kids turn 21....
I will see if I can find anything.

yes, I put two kids through school and know it can be expensive. Maybe orenthal should have followed martin's advise for Nicole and tried living within his means.

I'll do some looking too on the trust thing. Maybe we can compare notes.

[martin II]

I understand that he's trying to find a way around the circumstances so he can live the life he'd become accustomed to. He said he used the money to pay his mortgage and tax bills. Wonder what he was doing with the money he was making if not providing for his family?

weezer
a good rule is NEVER COUNT ANOTHER MANS MONEY.
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

well I'm sure whatever is being paid it's a pretty penny, education is costly!

I do recall hearing once that the money was in a trust till the kids turn 21....
I will see if I can find anything.


One kid is in a major northeast university and the other is about to enter one.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
a good rule is NEVER COUNT ANOTHER MANS MONEY.
MARTIN ii

so does this mean you'll quit stewing over what Fred does or doesn't get from orenthal?

[martin II]

so does this mean you'll quit stewing over what Fred does or doesn't get from orenthal?

i read what media reports say fred did not get in court. i have no interest in how fred SPENDS HIS money.
martin II

[sassylassy]

yes, I put two kids through school and know it can be expensive. Maybe orenthal should have followed martin's advise for Nicole and tried living within his means.

I'll do some looking too on the trust thing. Maybe we can compare notes.


I havent found much about the trust, just this link that was dated Nov 06..

"Other money is locked in trust funds for the two children he had with Ms Brown, Sydney, 21, and Justin, 18"

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1708132006

[sassylassy]

One kid is in a major northeast university and the other is about to enter one.
martin II

I think Sydney is attending Boston University, I'm not to sure about Justin?

[martin II]

yes, I put two kids through school and know it can be expensive. Maybe orenthal should have followed martin's advise for Nicole and tried living within his means.

I'll do some looking too on the trust thing. Maybe we can compare notes.

weezer
i have not read that oj has asked anyone to participate in a IRS scam as nicole asked him.

oj seems to be taking care and educating his kids quite well. He knows how to make money.
martin II

[martin II]

I think Sydney is attending Boston University, I'm not to sure about Justin?

correct. i think justin starts in september. they have always been in private school.

martin II

[sassylassy]

I know both kids attended Gulliver Academy & the tuition is pretty costly...

example based on 2007-2007 fees grades 7-12 will cost 19,870.00 yearly
(not including about 800 or more in text books & admin fees)

http://www.gulliverschools.org

[sassylassy]

correct. i think justin starts in september. they have always been in private school.

martin II

Hi Martin

I havent found anything yet about what University Justin will be attending...

sounds like they are both bright kids, I think that's awesome---:seeya:

[martin II]

Hi Martin

I havent found anything yet about what University Justin will be attending...

sounds like they are both bright kids, I think that's awesome---:seeya:

sassy
my opinion is that oj has taken something that could have been a diseaster
and turned it into something to be proud of. It seems like there is a lot of love in that family. I hope they continue to do well.
martin II

[martin II]

Hi Martin

I havent found anything yet about what University Justin will be attending...

sounds like they are both bright kids, I think that's awesome---:seeya:

sassy
maby the University Of Miami
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
i have not read that oj has asked anyone to participate in a IRS scam as nicole asked him.

oj seems to be taking care and educating his kids quite well. He knows how to make money.
martin II

orenthal was a willing participant until Nicole kissed him off.

[socaldiva]

weezer
i dissagree, i think fred will do someting, like go back to court monday and try again. 12 years in court and has has received .39 so far.

hopefully he will get more soon so he can pack it in.
martin II

You sit here on this board 24/7 & yet you think Fred Goldman should "pack it in"? That's hysterical. Btw, are you getting paid to be here? :tongue:

[martin II]

orenthal was a willing participant until Nicole kissed him off.

naw

when he decided not to allow her back into his house, he decided not to support any more of her scemes. let her stand on her own.
martin II

[socaldiva]

naw

when he decided not to allow her back into his house, he decided not to support any more of her scemes. let her stand on her own.
martin II

You don't have your facts straight. That's NOT what happened.

[socaldiva]

i am wondering if oj were to get one of these blockbuster movie deals and the public knew that half of oj's profits would go to fred, would the public pay to see the movie (if it was a good movie) and would fred accept the money.
martin II

You can quit wondering. OJ is not going to get a "blockbuster movie deal". The public doesn't want to hear from him or see him. He'll never made a movie.

[weezer]

naw

when he decided not to allow her back into his house, he decided not to support any more of her scemes. let her stand on her own.
martin II

you're too funny! even orenthal said she told him she wasn't going to get back with him. He punished her by writing the IRS threat letter.

Personally, I think he was begging at the end. I base that on the fact that he bought her a very expensive lighter for her birthday/mother's day gift. Sounds like he was groveling.

[martin II]

orenthal was a willing participant until Nicole kissed him off.

weezer
I hear trouble trying to knock on my door so i think i will leave for now.
martin II

[socaldiva]

weezer
I hear trouble trying to knock on my door so i think i will leave for now.
martin II

:shrug: :seeya: :seeya:

[weezer]

I thought he had me on ignore?

oh, I'm sure he didn't mean You! ;)

[martin II]

you're too funny! even orenthal said she told him she wasn't going to get back with him. He punished her by writing the IRS threat letter.

Personally, I think he was begging at the end. I base that on the fact that he bought her a very expensive lighter for her birthday/mother's day gift. Sounds like he was groveling.

weezer

No i think oj did her a big favor by getting her to understand that it is over, you have to take your own responsivility. it must have worked as she went and got a apartment down the road someplece before she was snuffed.

oj gave all of his women expensive gifts. why not nicole. wonder why he baught her a lighter when he was always after her not to smoke.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer

No i think oj did her a big favor by getting her to understand that it is over, you have to take your own responsivility. it must have worked as she went and got a apartment down the road someplece before she was snuffed.

oj gave all of his women expensive gifts. why not nicole. wonder why he baught her a lighter when he was always after her not to smoke.
martin II

you really are a crude little man.

I think the lighter was him begging her to come back to him.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

No i think oj did her a big favor by getting her to understand that it is over, you have to take your own responsivility. it must have worked as she went and got a apartment down the road someplece before she was snuffed.



Your facts are WRONG again. "Snuffed"? You are really something else. :no:

How was your trip? Five minutes ago you said you "heard trouble at the door" and were leaving? :tongue:

[socaldiva]

*snip*
you really are a crude little man.



Very crude. He can't even seem to manage a little respect for a murdered Mother. What a pity.

[weezer]

Very crude. He can't even seem to manage a little respect for a murdered Mother. What a pity.

I've said he doesn't give a rat's behind about the victims or their families. He continues to prove me right.

[socaldiva]

I've said he doesn't give a rat's behind about the victims or their families. He continues to prove me right.

Agreed. It just seems to be about trying to redeem OJ at any cost & he's willing to reinvent the facts of the case & bash the victims in order to do it. It's wasted effort as he's not changing anyone's mind. imo

[n.n]

weezer

No i think oj did her a big favor by getting her to understand that it is over, you have to take your own responsivility. it must have worked as she went and got a apartment down the road someplece before she was snuffed.

oj gave all of his women expensive gifts. why not nicole. wonder why he baught her a lighter when he was always after her not to smoke.
martin II

I wonder why the prosecution didn't use that as evidence?

[2L8 4A D8]

weezer

Look at it this way

every time fred goes on tv and to court he is forcing himself to relive what happened to his son. Every time the court slams the door in his face he becomes more angry for loosing.

oj is basically ignoring fred and has moved on with his life.trying to make a living for him and his kids. so has the browns. so what is fred gaining?
martin II

How do you know what Fred is thinking, feeling and doing? You know squat! I admire and respect Fred Goldman and if he wants to spend the rest of his life hating and making OJ's life miserable, then more power to him. That's his business ~ not yours, mine or ours. I would do the same thing, as would most people!

Sharon Tate's Mother came to every one of Charles Manson's parole hearings and every Manson Family's parole hearings until the day that she died. Now her daughter (Sharon's Sister) is taking her Mother's place and voice at the parole hearings. I suppose you feel the same about Mrs. Tate as you do about Fred, right? :mad:

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

<snipped>

...His lawyers seem to be responding to fred without too much problem but it is costly(he has said). I guess as long a fred goes to court Oj will pen books and make videos to pay the legal fees.

martin II

Good for Fred and more power to him, as I have stated! As long as any money doesn't go into OJ's checking account or his pockets to pay his cable bill, his lap dances and his tee-off fees at the local golf course!

Yeah, those attorney's fees are a killer (just like OJ) aren't they? :tongue:

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

You can quit wondering. OJ is not going to get a "blockbuster movie deal". The public doesn't want to hear from him or see him. He'll never made a movie.

I agree Diva! If the general public is no longer interested in box office blockbuster Tom Cruise and his movies, who in the h311 would go see a movie starring OJ Simpson, even if they got in for free?

"Blockbuster Movie Deal" ~ Yeah, right! Some people are such ****** aren't they? :tongue:

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Agreed. It just seems to be about trying to redeem OJ at any cost & he's willing to reinvent the facts of the case & bash the victims in order to do it. It's wasted effort as he's not changing anyone's mind. imo

You're right, he's not changing any G's minds, but his pals sure do hang on his every word ~ like it was gospel! Pretty sad. They're all pretty sad IMO!

[socaldiva]

I agree Diva! If the general public is no longer interested in box office blockbuster Tom Cruise and his movies, who in the h311 would go see a movie starring OJ Simpson, even if they got in for free?

"Blockbuster Movie Deal" ~ Yeah, right! Some people are such ****** aren't they? :tongue:

JMO and MOO!!

OJ couldn't act his way out of a paper bag before, WTH would want to see him now? :tongue: They were such "blockbusters" that he is now receiving 39 cents in royalties? Hysterical!

[Kayleighjo]

weezer

No i think oj did her a big favor by getting her to understand that it is over, you have to take your own responsivility. it must have worked as she went and got a apartment down the road someplece before she was snuffed.

oj gave all of his women expensive gifts. why not nicole. wonder why he baught her a lighter when he was always after her not to smoke.
martin II


Snuffed? How classy.

[weezer]

Snuffed? How classy.

ain't he tho? right up there with his statements condoning physical abuse and calling another poster a derogatory name...........he's pretty pathetic

[sassylassy]

oh, I'm sure he didn't mean You! ;)

what does it matter:shrug: ....they all cant seem to ignore Martin ;)

[sassylassy]

sassy
maby the University Of Miami
martin II


Thanks Martin- I think I heard the same thing :read:

[sassylassy]

you're too funny! even orenthal said she told him she wasn't going to get back with him. He punished her by writing the IRS threat letter.

Personally, I think he was begging at the end. I base that on the fact that he bought her a very expensive lighter for her birthday/mother's day gift. Sounds like he was groveling.


groveling with a lighter? I have to disagree...that sounds cheap to me.
JMO of course :)

[sassylassy]

ain't he tho? right up there with his statements condoning physical abuse and calling another poster a derogatory name...........he's pretty pathetic

Those are some pretty serious accusations!

I have never read these comments posted from Martin :shrug:

[2L8 4A D8]

Those are some pretty serious accusations!

I have never read these comments posted from Martin :shrug:

Of course not, but what does it matter? Do a "search" of his posts. They are there. You just need to look for them! IMO!

[socaldiva]

what does it matter:shrug: ....they all cant seem to ignore Martin ;)

It "matters" because Martin swears that he has us on ignore, when he clearly doesn't. It goes to his lack of credibility ;)

[martin II]

socaldiva

I have you on ignore

I request that you stop posting to me after my post or using my name in your post to others

thanks

martin II

[martin II]

2L


I have you on ignore to avoid problems.

I request that you stop posting to me and stop using my name in your post to others.

thanks
martin II

[weezer]

groveling with a lighter? I have to disagree...that sounds cheap to me.
JMO of course :)

One of the on-going arguments between orenthal and Nicole was her smoking and his raging over it. The fact that he purchased her an expensive lighter as a present sure sounds like groveling to me.

[socaldiva]

socaldiva

I have you on ignore

I request that you stop posting to me after my post or using my name in your post to others

thanks

martin II

You are obviously not telling the truth about having me on ignore & I've already proved it. You've also proved that even though you claim to have me on ignore, it doesn't stop you from posting ABOUT ME. Based on that, I will continue to post as I see fit. ;)

[2L8 4A D8]

socaldiva

I have you on ignore

I request that you stop posting to me after my post or using my name in your post to others

thanks

martin II

You are obviously not telling the truth about having me on ignore & I've already proved it. You've also proved that even though you claim to have me on ignore, it doesn't stop you from posting ABOUT ME. Based on that, I will continue to post as I see fit. ;)

:beer: Excellent Post Diva! :beer:

2L

I have you on ignore to avoid problems.

I request that you stop posting to me and stop using my name in your post to others.

thanks
martin II

In answer to your above post ~ YEAH, WHAT SOCALDIVA SAID!

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
:beer: Excellent Post Diva! :beer:


Why thank you very kindly (more "country" talk) :D

[sassylassy]

It "matters" because Martin swears that he has us on ignore, when he clearly doesn't. It goes to his lack of credibility ;)

I guess some posters are just impossible to "Ignore" :shrug:

[sassylassy]

One of the on-going arguments between orenthal and Nicole was her smoking and his raging over it. The fact that he purchased her an expensive lighter as a present sure sounds like groveling to me.

He raged over her smoking? smoking is a filthy dirty habit and second hand smoke can kill!

I disagree that OJS would charm Nicole back with a lighter- compared to the other lavish gifts OJS bought Nicole!

I think winning her back w/ a lighter would be insulting--- but anyhow that's MOO :)

[Suzee10]

weezer

Ron is dead no money will change that. I would not stay in court for 12 years
with .39 cent to show for it.

I would think that fred could find a way to do more with the rest of his life
as the browns seem to have done.

"If i did it" reached number 20 on Amazon before it was pulled so there seems to be some kind of demand for that book. There are many internet distribution possibilities for such a book that are not controlled by normal retail stores that can be pressured by special interest groups.

So we will see if a book comes out and if it will sell.
It may be that oj will try to make a deal with fred to give him some of the profits from such a book.you think fred would accept.
martinii


I do not know if you have children or not, you certainly do not sound as if you do, but if someone had mudered my child I would hound them until the day they died or the day I died which ever came first. Fred Goldman and his family had no justice so he is only doing what any good parent would be doing.

[sassylassy]

I do not know if you have children or not, you certainly do not sound as if you do, but if someone had mudered my child I would hound them until the day they died or the day I died which ever came first. Fred Goldman and his family had no justice so he is only doing what any good parent would be doing.

imo it has nothing to do with having children or not-

if ppl think OJS didnt murder anyone, they would assume Fred Goldman is barking up the wrong tree :shrug:no?

IMO :)

[zeldaglutch]

The problem that I have with Fred Goldman is his need to remain in the public eye trying to take money away from OJ Simpson.

As a victim of a violent crime I believe that closure comes from within. My brother's murderers got away with beating, torturing, and hanging my brother. Then they left him hanging in that tree for a very long time like he was their trophy. http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=280414

No amount of money will make me feel better about what happened. Since his killers are free I had to find a way to feel closure in the face of them getting away with murder.

Every time Fred Goldman strikes out again it feels like a slap in the face to other victims of violent crimes that do not have someone famous to go after. Maybe I just feel like I have heard enough about what OJ got away with and the more money that Fred Goldman becomes entitled to is irrelevant because he still will not get it.

When my brother's story was coming out so was the Dahmer story. I had to turn the TV off because I could not get away from torture and gory details of murder. After I turned the TV back on the OJ thing happened. I had to turn the TV off because like other victims of violent crimes, I could not stop the pictures in my head. The imagination is a terrible thing for the mind of victims of violent crimes.

The next time I turned on the TV I found out that Dahmer had been murdered a long time ago. As I am reminded of these crimes I am reminded of my brother and how he must have suffered and I cannot stop the pictures.

Sorry, I cannot stop the pictures,:shrug:
Laurie

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Every time Fred Goldman strikes out again it feels like a slap in the face to other victims of violent crimes that do not have someone famous to go after.


:confused: I think that Fred Goldman would go after his Son's murderer regardless of whether or not he was famous.

[socaldiva]

imo it has nothing to do with having children or not-



Sure it does. If you don't have children you have no idea what it would be like to lose one, let alone under such horrific circumstances. If you don't have children, you have no concept of the attachment and love that you feel for a child you've raised since birth.

[socaldiva]

I guess some posters are just impossible to "Ignore" :shrug:

The problem with ignoring Martin's posts is that he posts so many things that are wrong, that if they go undisputed, they seem to take on a life of their own & certain other posters take it to be the gospel. Why are you worried about Martin & whether or not others have him on ignore? :shrug:

[socaldiva]

*snip*
He raged over her smoking? smoking is a filthy dirty habit and second hand smoke can kill!




Well gee....cigarette smoke didn't kill Nicole now did it? It was her raging, crazy exhusband :rolleyes:

I've got news for you, STD's can cause serious problems with your health, but that sure did stop OJ from cheating on his wife, did it? I'd call that a "filthy dirty habit". Last I heard, there isn't a cure for AIDS.

[martin II]

I guess some posters are just impossible to "Ignore" :shrug:

sassy

all i can do is use the ignore feature, i cannot stop the stalking of my post.

I agree about the lighter.

As i thought you have great taste.

martinII

[martin II]

I do not know if you have children or not, you certainly do not sound as if you do, but if someone had mudered my child I would hound them until the day they died or the day I died which ever came first. Fred Goldman and his family had no justice so he is only doing what any good parent would be doing.

It has nothing to do with whether i have children or not. It is about f goldmans behavior nothing else.
martin II

[weezer]

He raged over her smoking? smoking is a filthy dirty habit and second hand smoke can kill!

I disagree that OJS would charm Nicole back with a lighter- compared to the other lavish gifts OJS bought Nicole!

I think winning her back w/ a lighter would be insulting--- but anyhow that's MOO :)

In Nicole's case, it was a psychopathic ex-husband who murdered her! At any rate, I don't believe he was trying to 'win' her back with the lighter -- I believe it was his concession.

[weezer]

The problem that I have with Fred Goldman is his need to remain in the public eye trying to take money away from OJ Simpson.

As a victim of a violent crime I believe that closure comes from within. My brother's murderers got away with beating, torturing, and hanging my brother. Then they left him hanging in that tree for a very long time like he was their trophy. http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=280414

No amount of money will make me feel better about what happened. Since his killers are free I had to find a way to feel closure in the face of them getting away with murder.

Every time Fred Goldman strikes out again it feels like a slap in the face to other victims of violent crimes that do not have someone famous to go after. Maybe I just feel like I have heard enough about what OJ got away with and the more money that Fred Goldman becomes entitled to is irrelevant because he still will not get it.

When my brother's story was coming out so was the Dahmer story. I had to turn the TV off because I could not get away from torture and gory details of murder. After I turned the TV back on the OJ thing happened. I had to turn the TV off because like other victims of violent crimes, I could not stop the pictures in my head. The imagination is a terrible thing for the mind of victims of violent crimes.

The next time I turned on the TV I found out that Dahmer had been murdered a long time ago. As I am reminded of these crimes I am reminded of my brother and how he must have suffered and I cannot stop the pictures.

Sorry, I cannot stop the pictures,:shrug:
Laurie

Because orenthal is who is is/was, any action that the Goldmans take will make the news. I think you are being unjust toward them to state that they are in anyway responsible for media reporting of it.

Maybe Fred can't stop the pictures either.

[martin II]

Because orenthal is who is is/was, any action that the Goldmans take will make the news. I think you are being unjust toward them to state that they are in anyway responsible for media reporting of it.

Maybe Fred can't stop the pictures either.

there would be no fred on LKL if fred did not agree to be on.

martinII

[martin II]

In Nicole's case, it was a psychopathic ex-husband who murdered her! At any rate, I don't believe he was trying to 'win' her back with the lighter -- I believe it was his concession.


It could have been a going away gift. Her last fron him.
martin II

[Kayleighjo]

imo it has nothing to do with having children or not-

if ppl think OJS didnt murder anyone, they would assume Fred Goldman is barking up the wrong tree :shrug:no?

IMO :)

I have no way of knowing your background and whether or not you have kids, I can just offer up an opinion of my own. As a mother of two I can say with certainty that if something happened to one of my kids I would never let the person I felt was responsible rest for a moment ... regardless of another's opinion to whether that person was responsible or not.

[n.n]

The problem that I have with Fred Goldman is his need to remain in the public eye trying to take money away from OJ Simpson.

As a victim of a violent crime I believe that closure comes from within. My brother's murderers got away with beating, torturing, and hanging my brother. Then they left him hanging in that tree for a very long time like he was their trophy. http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=280414

No amount of money will make me feel better about what happened. Since his killers are free I had to find a way to feel closure in the face of them getting away with murder.

Every time Fred Goldman strikes out again it feels like a slap in the face to other victims of violent crimes that do not have someone famous to go after. Maybe I just feel like I have heard enough about what OJ got away with and the more money that Fred Goldman becomes entitled to is irrelevant because he still will not get it.

When my brother's story was coming out so was the Dahmer story. I had to turn the TV off because I could not get away from torture and gory details of murder. After I turned the TV back on the OJ thing happened. I had to turn the TV off because like other victims of violent crimes, I could not stop the pictures in my head. The imagination is a terrible thing for the mind of victims of violent crimes.

The next time I turned on the TV I found out that Dahmer had been murdered a long time ago. As I am reminded of these crimes I am reminded of my brother and how he must have suffered and I cannot stop the pictures.

Sorry, I cannot stop the pictures,:shrug:
Laurie

((Zelda)). I am very sorry you and your family had to go through all these experiences. Although nobody can really fathom the grief and pain of someone else, I know it was terrible. I lost a sister to liver cancer not too long ago. She was suffering far away from me, and the reports of how the disease was progressing conjured up the most terrifying images in me.
Again, I am very sorry.
And thank you for the reminder that there are thousands of other victims who don't get a fraction of the attention they deserve.

[Kayleighjo]

((Zelda)). I am very sorry you and your family had to go through all these experiences. Although nobody can really fathom the grief and pain of someone else, I know it was terrible. I lost a sister to liver cancer not too long ago. She was suffering far away from me, and the reports of how the disease was progressing conjured up the most terrifying images in me.
Again, I am very sorry.
And thank you for the reminder that there are thousands of other victims who don't get a fraction of the attention they deserve.

I'm sorry to hear about your sister ... what a devestating loss ... and I hope that you and your family are healing with each day that passes.

I don't agree with the majority of your opinions but absolutely agree that there are thousand of victims that don't get the attention they deserve.

[n.n]

I'm sorry to hear about your sister ... what a devestating loss ... and I hope that you and your family are healing with each day that passes.

I don't agree with the majority of your opinions but absolutely agree that there are thousand of victims that don't get the attention they deserve.

No problem. I am glad, though, that Zelda had us stop debating for a minute by putting things in a different perspective. I think that Mr. Goldman is in a similar position as Zelda. Most of the discussions/convesations about the case focus on Mrs. Simpson. His son's fate somehow seems to play only a subordinate role. I understand if Mr. Goldman feels that way, and when I am saying "I wish he could let go," I know that letting go is the most important step to healing. Mr. Goldman has not reached that point yet, in my opinon. Hopefully, he will find peace of mind some day.

[Kayleighjo]

No problem. I am glad, though, that Zelda had us stop debating for a minute by putting things in a different perspective. I think that Mr. Goldman is in a similar position as Zelda. Most of the discussions/convesations about the case focus on Mrs. Simpson. His son's fate somehow seems to play only a subordinate role. I understand if Mr. Goldman feels that way, and when I am saying "I wish he could let go," I know that letting go is the most important step to healing. Mr. Goldman has not reached that point yet, in my opinon. Hopefully, he will find peace of mind some day.

Bravo to this post.

I think that the fact that Ron has always been deemed somewhat of an "after thought" fuels Fred's anger that much more. And I totally understand that because I know I'd feel the same.

[martin II]

No problem. I am glad, though, that Zelda had us stop debating for a minute by putting things in a different perspective. I think that Mr. Goldman is in a similar position as Zelda. Most of the discussions/convesations about the case focus on Mrs. Simpson. His son's fate somehow seems to play only a subordinate role. I understand if Mr. Goldman feels that way, and when I am saying "I wish he could let go," I know that letting go is the most important step to healing. Mr. Goldman has not reached that point yet, in my opinon. Hopefully, he will find peace of mind some day.

n.n
great thought.

In America, Rons death would not get the same attention as a blue eyed blond white female. Obviously it did not.

martin II

[Kayleighjo]

n.n
great thought.

In America, Rons death would not get the same attention as a blue eyed blond white female. Obviously it did not.

martin II


Blue eyed, blonde, white females die everyday and do not get the attention that Nicole got. She got the attention because her ex-husband was OJ Simpson.

[weezer]

n.n
great thought.

In America, Rons death would not get the same attention as a blue eyed blond white female. Obviously it did not.

martin II

here's our pathetic little martin raising his racist head AGAIN.

[martin II]

here's our pathetic little martin raising his racist head AGAIN.

weezer

I have asked you not to use your little insulting adjectives when referring to me. several times i have asked.

Ron and nicole were both white.

Maby you can give a reason Nicole death received more attention than Rons.

MARTIN ii

[weezer]

weezer

I have asked you not to use your little insulting adjectives when referring to me. several times i have asked.

Ron and nicole were both white.

Maby you can give a reason Nicole death received more attention than Rons.

MARTIN ii

most people understand that it was because she was married to and murdered by a famous athlete.............

[martin II]

most people understand that it was because she was married to and murdered by a famous athlete.............

weezer

nicole was not married to or murdered by oj simpson on 6/12

martin II

[n.n]

I think the case got all the attention because it involved a star, a very beautiful woman, and promised to spill lots of intimate details of a troubled marrige. In short: it had all the makings for both tabloids and other papers to keep their writers busy and their readers happy.

[weezer]

*Snippednicole was not married

don't tell orenthal -- he obviously thought they were

[weezer]

I think the case got all the attention because it involved a star, a very beautiful woman, and promised to spill lots of intimate details of a troubled marrige. In short: it had all the makings for both tabloids and other papers to keep their writers busy and their readers happy.

me too. . .

[martin II]

*Snipped

don't tell orenthal -- he obviously thought they were

weezer

i am sure they had both gone their seperate ways. Oj notified nicole of his intentions to go on with his life when his lawyer sent her the IRS letter.

He was busy with Paula and seemed to have had Greta in the back of his mind.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
He was busy with Paula
martin II

He wasn't "busy" with Paula. Paula dumped him :tongue:

[sassylassy]

He wasn't "busy" with Paula. Paula dumped him :tongue:


Correction: Paula dumped OJS for what 24 hrs? then they were back together!

speaking of Paula, I read that her message to OJS was 30 mins long!

seems like a long time to be talking to a machine (if its true)....:tongue:

[sassylassy]

Sure it does. If you don't have children you have no idea what it would be like to lose one, let alone under such horrific circumstances. If you don't have children, you have no concept of the attachment and love that you feel for a child you've raised since birth.

I understand the attachment & bond a mother has, being one myself!
& your right- I have no idea what's like to lose one, & I pray I never do!

I'm just pointing out that regardless if you have children or not you can still understand & relate to that person's pain-on a human level

imo jmo

[socaldiva]

Correction: Paula dumped OJS for what 24 hrs? then they were back together!

speaking of Paula, I read that her message to OJS was 30 mins long!

seems like a long time to be talking to a machine (if its true)....:tongue:

"Correction"? What do you think you are correcting? :confused: Paula dumped OJ just prior to the murders. Fact. They did not get back together in 24 hrs. She was asked by someone to visit him in jail, which she did on multiple occasions. Doesn't mean they resumed their relationship.

I've never heard of a Paula leaving a 30 minute message & I don't know of any answering machine that would accomodate a message of that length :shrug:

[sassylassy]

The problem with ignoring Martin's posts is that he posts so many things that are wrong, that if they go undisputed, they seem to take on a life of their own & certain other posters take it to be the gospel. Why are you worried about Martin & whether or not others have him on ignore? :shrug:


I'm not worried about anything :confused:

I just wish you all would ignore each other!

peace out!
:beer:

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I'm not worried about anything :confused:



I thought it mattered to you, considering you were posting about it.......

[sassylassy]

"Correction"? What do you think you are correcting? :confused: Paula dumped OJ just prior to the murders. Fact. They did not get back together in 24 hrs. She was asked by someone to visit him in jail, which she did on multiple occasions. Doesn't mean they resumed their relationship.

I've never heard of a Paula leaving a 30 minute message & I don't know of any answering machine that would accomodate a message of that length

Yes agreed she left OJS a message on June 12 but as soon as she heard about the murders she jetted right back to OJS....so it wasnt much of a "break up" (thats what I'm pointing out as a correction)

(:read: U do recall Paula being at Robert Kardashian's home prior to the chase dont you???)

I also read Paula left a 30 min message- I'm not making this up :shrug:

JMO IMO MOO

[sassylassy]

I thought it mattered to you, considering you were posting about it.......

LOL...well I'm not sitting here shedding tears over it ;)