Jason Lamar Simpson - Where is the real Killer now?

[chickenhouse]

I stumbled upon a BBC documentary, I think in 2000 or 2001, that showed much of William C Dear's evidence. The documentary suggested a few alternate suspects but it was clear to me, and just made logical sense, that Jason Simpson was the murderer. I thought, "wow" then got on with my life.

It was only a few weeks ago that I thought about the case again, maybe there was something was in the media about it, and I bought "OJ is Guilty but not of Murder". It just further solidified my view that Jason is the killer that got away with it.

So I did a bit of research on the web to see what was being done about it in the US. Has a trial been considered? While there is a scattering of references to Jason and his possibility of guilt I didn't feel there was enough debate about it. What I did find is a small reference to Jason on wikipedia under OJ murder case.

It says "Jason Simpson was then killed by an unknown assasian, who was never revealed, on December 28, 2006. In Malibu, CA, he was shot dead after riding down the street in his red BMW after leaving work. There are theories that O.J. himself killed Jason, the family of Ron Goldman commited the crime, or the family of Nicole Brown killed him. But there are no true theories proven yet."

Is it true that Jason Simpson is now dead? Why can I not find any articles on the web in the media to confirm this?

I think this still needs to be resolved even if he is now dead. Even though OJ Simpson was found not guilty, he was found guilty in the civil case and he is guilty in the minds of most people. I could not think of anything worse that to be accused of somthing I didn't do. Someone owes it to OJ to set the record straight.

The way the world works now I think the only was the truth will come out is if someone makes a movie of the book "OJ is guilty but not of murder" and it wins the best picture oscar. People don't seek out information and they can't digest it unless it's packaged into a 80 min feature film.

[chickenhouse]

1. As an adolescent, Jason performed poorly in school and demostrated many antisocial behaviours.

2. Considered a "problem child" at an early age. Documented in articles of interviews given by OJ.

3. Jason overdosed on drugs and alcohol at age 14 and was rushed to hospital.

4. Jason reportedly had difficulty communicating with his mother and at an early age moved in OJ and Nicole because Marguerite could not control him.

5. As a teenager Jason flew into a fit of rage and attacked a statue of his father with a baseball bat.

6. Jason stole his father's car and was turned in by Nicole.

7. Ronald Shipp stated Jason began being physically abused by his father at a young age.

8. Ronald Shipp described him as having pschological problems, along with abusing drugs and alcohol.

9. Jason was treated at the UCLA Neuro-Psychiatirc Institute for a mental condition, later being diagnosed as "Intermittent Rage Disorder" accompanied by seizures. He was prescribed Depakote, a drug frequently prescribed to individuals suffering from rage.

10. Jason dropped out or flunked out of USC.

11. According to Shipp, Jason had possibly stalked Nicole Simpson while she lived at Gretna Green.

12. According to Shipp, Jason and Nicole would go out dancing and partying together.

13. On more than one occasion Jason left or was fired from his job as a prep chef. Indications were he was unable to get along with people of authority.

14. Jason attempted suicide by stabbing himself with a pair of scissors.

15. Jason, in a fit of rage, assaulted his girlfriend Jackie where in he nearly breaks her back by throwing her into an empty bathtub.

16. Jason attacked his girlfriend Jackie with a chef's knife and cuts off her hair.

17. Jason attempted suicide by cutting his wrists with a shard of broken glass.

18. Jason attempted suicide a second time. This time by overdosing on Depakote. He was committed to the psychiatric ward at Saint John's hospital.

19. Jason had repeatedly been warned not to use drugs and alcohol while taking medication, because it could further complicate his existing neurological condition but continued to do so.

20. Jason was arrested for assaulting his former employer, Paul Goldberg, with a kitchen knife. At the time of the murders, Jason was still on probation for this earlier offense on Paul Goldberg.

21. Just prior to the murders, Jason felt he was "going to rage," and checked into Cedars Sinai Hospital. Previously, when he was about to rage, he claimed to hallucinate by hearing voices of people who weren't there.

22. Two months prior to the murders Jason, in a blind rage, assaulted his girlfriend, Jennifer Green, at his birthday party. Later that night, according to an article, he tried to strangle her.

23. Two months prior to the murders Jason was known to have stopped taking his Depakote because, as he was reported to have said, "It's f**king with my head."

24. On the night before the murders, Nicole had arranged to eat at Jackson's restaurant, where Jason was the chef, but she failed to show up the next night.

25. At 7pm on the night of the murders, Nicole and her family ate at Mezzaluna's restaurant instead of at Jackson's, where Jason was the chef.

26. According to Jennifer Green, and a waiter at Jackson's, Jason left the restaurant where he worked at around 9:45pm, approximately 45 mins to an hour prior to the murders.

27. Jason's civil deposition indicated he did not spend the evening with Jennifer Green as she indicated, but went directly home after he dropped Jennifer off at her apartment.

28. Jason had no alibi after 10pm, he claimed to watch TV until 3am.

29. Supposedly Jason had an "air-tight" alibi that he was cooking for 200 people at Jackson's restaurant. On that particular night there were less than 40 patrons at the restaurant the entire night. Jason left before it closed.

30. Experts established that the probable murder weapon was a chef's knife.

31. Jason had his own chef knives and kept them with him.

32. Jason had in his possession a set of chef knives when he left Jackson's restaurant at approximately 9:45pm on the night of the murders.

33. Jason was allegedly upset that Nicole and her party did not come to Jackson's as arranged on the night of June 12, 1994.

34. Jason's blood chemistry is supposed to have similar genetic characteristics as OJ's.

35. OJ and Jason have approximately the same size feet. Jason also had access to OJ's clothes closet and is known to have taken items of clothing from his dad at will.

36. James G. Cron, crime scene expert, has studied the investigative material and determined that Jason Simpson should have been considered a major suspect in the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

37. England crime scene experts, Tery Merston and his partner, Peter Harpur, stated OJ is not the killer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman but in all probability, was at the crime scene after the murders. They both felt Jason Simpson should have been considered a major suspect.

38. Dr. Harvey Davisson, Dr. William Flynn, Dr. William Tedford and Dr. Charles Keller reviewed Jason's records and felt that Jason Simpson is psychologically disturbed and in need of help.

39. Robert Shapiro, OJ's attorney, has indicated that Jason was his first suspect expect for his "air-tight" alibi. The air-tight alibi has now proven to be false.

40. Jason was never interviewed by any of the LA Police Law Enforcement Agencies nor the Prosecutor's Office. Nor was he asked to furnish an alibi for the evening of Sunday, June 12th, 1994 in conjuction with the killings. Nor, according to sources, were Jason's fingerprints examined in comparison to the unidentified fingerprints at the crime scene.

41. Jason's psychiatrist shredded all of Jaosn's medical records after the murders.

42. On the day after the murders, June 13, 1994, OJ hired a well-known criminal attorney to represent Jason. This was prior to OJ's arrest for the murders.

43. Jason breaks through the police line to reach his father at the conclusion of the slow-speed car chase.

44. Jason wouldn't give Jackie any straight answers about the murders.

45. Marcia Clark and the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office considered this to be a "rage killing by an amatuer."

46. Jason bolted from the funeral home, visibly upset, at the time of Nicole Simpson's funeral, not wanting to view Nicole's body.

47. Jason was arrested for hit and run during OJ's trial.

[William Anthony]

34. Jason's blood chemistry is supposed to have similar genetic characteristics as OJ's.

35. OJ and Jason have approximately the same size feet. Jason also had access to OJ's clothes closet and is known to have taken items of clothing from his dad at will.

11. According to Shipp, Jason had possibly stalked Nicole Simpson while she lived at Gretna Green.

16. Jason attacked his girlfriend Jackie with a chef's knife and cuts off her hair.

21. Just prior to the murders, Jason felt he was "going to rage," and checked into Cedars Sinai Hospital. Previously, when he was about to rage, he claimed to hallucinate by hearing voices of people who weren't there.

22. Two months prior to the murders Jason, in a blind rage, assaulted his girlfriend, Jennifer Green, at his birthday party. Later that night, according to an article, he tried to strangle her.

40. Jason was never interviewed by any of the LA Police Law Enforcement Agencies nor the Prosecutor's Office. Nor was he asked to furnish an alibi for the evening of Sunday, June 12th, 1994 in conjuction with the killings. Nor, according to sources, were Jason's fingerprints examined in comparison to the unidentified fingerprints at the crime scene.

41. Jason's psychiatrist shredded all of Jaosn's medical records after the murders.

42. On the day after the murders, June 13, 1994, OJ hired a well-known criminal attorney to represent Jason. This was prior to OJ's arrest for the murders.

These facts substantiate the defense's claim to a rush to judgment.

[martin II]

34. Jason's blood chemistry is supposed to have similar genetic characteristics as OJ's.

35. OJ and Jason have approximately the same size feet. Jason also had access to OJ's clothes closet and is known to have taken items of clothing from his dad at will.

11. According to Shipp, Jason had possibly stalked Nicole Simpson while she lived at Gretna Green.

16. Jason attacked his girlfriend Jackie with a chef's knife and cuts off her hair.

21. Just prior to the murders, Jason felt he was "going to rage," and checked into Cedars Sinai Hospital. Previously, when he was about to rage, he claimed to hallucinate by hearing voices of people who weren't there.

22. Two months prior to the murders Jason, in a blind rage, assaulted his girlfriend, Jennifer Green, at his birthday party. Later that night, according to an article, he tried to strangle her.

40. Jason was never interviewed by any of the LA Police Law Enforcement Agencies nor the Prosecutor's Office. Nor was he asked to furnish an alibi for the evening of Sunday, June 12th, 1994 in conjuction with the killings. Nor, according to sources, were Jason's fingerprints examined in comparison to the unidentified fingerprints at the crime scene.

41. Jason's psychiatrist shredded all of Jaosn's medical records after the murders.

42. On the day after the murders, June 13, 1994, OJ hired a well-known criminal attorney to represent Jason. This was prior to OJ's arrest for the murders.

These facts substantiate the defense's claim to a rush to judgment.

william
about two weeks ago i read on the net a story about the a San Francisco le lab tach/manager had given false test results in court in 500 cases. The time frame i do not remember. But it goes to show that it does happen and in this case happened a lot. i did not save the article but will if i run across it again.

MARTIN ii

[William Anthony]

william
about two weeks ago i read on the net a story about the a San Francisco le lab tach/manager had given false test results in court in 500 cases. The time frame i do not remember. But it goes to show that it does happen and in this case happened a lot. i did not save the article but will if i run across it again.

MARTIN ii

That was just human error and/or mistake.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
about two weeks ago i read on the net a story about the a San Francisco le lab tach/manager had given false test results in court in 500 cases. The time frame i do not remember. But it goes to show that it does happen and in this case happened a lot. i did not save the article but will if i run across it again.

MARTIN ii

You read a "net story" that you can no longer find? That's rich.

Did any of those "500 cases" involve turning one person's DNA into another's?
IIRC 3 labs did testing. Are you claiming that all 3 lied? Are you also forgetting that the defense is allowed to do their own testing?

[William Anthony]

william
about two weeks ago i read on the net a story about the a San Francisco le lab tach/manager had given false test results in court in 500 cases. The time frame i do not remember. But it goes to show that it does happen and in this case happened a lot. i did not save the article but will if i run across it again.

MARTIN ii

Martin,

The defense is under no obligation to prove or disprove anything, which is what a lot of people forget. The defense has the option of pointing out that the prosecution failed to meet its burden.

[martin II]

Martin,

The defense is under no obligation to prove or disprove anything, which is what a lot of people forget. The defense has the option of pointing out that the prosecution failed to meet its burden.

william
i agree

I read a post today that indicatred that if the defense did not agree with the prosecution on a issue, they, the defense could test the blood themselves to prove the prosecution was wrong.
All the defense had to do is show the jury why the prosecutions presentation
cannot be believed beyond a reasonable doubt.
martin II

[Jayme K]

I think I'm going to start promoting the theory that the murders of Nicole and Ron can "be found in the drug world of OJ Simpson" since Hollywood producer Don Simpson's drug dealer claims that he sold drugs to OJ Simpson on the day of the murders.

[martin II]

I think I'm going to start promoting the theory that the murders of Nicole and Ron can "be found in the drug world of OJ Simpson" since Hollywood producer Don Simpson's drug dealer claims that he sold drugs to OJ Simpson on the day of the murders.

jayme
IF ron simpson is telling the truth about selling oj DRUGS on 6/12 ,then oj must have given the drugs to some one or tossed them in some way because when his blood was tested for drugs on 6/13 it only had TRACES OF MARIJUANA IN IT.
martin II

[William Anthony]

william
i agree

I read a post today that indicatred that if the defense did not agree with the prosecution on a issue, they, the defense could test the blood themselves to prove the prosecution was wrong.
All the defense had to do is show the jury why the prosecutions presentation
cannot be believed beyond a reasonable doubt.
martin II


Martin,

Exactly! The prosecution witnesses claimed they did not even see a gate at Bundy, but we are to believe their testimony.

[William Anthony]

jayme
IF ron simpson is telling the truth about selling oj DRUGS on 6/12 ,then oj must have given the drugs to some one or tossed them in some way because when his blood was tested for drugs on 6/13 it only had TRACES OF MARIJUANA IN IT.
martin II

Matin,

Kato found them when they went to McDonalds and he and the MF got high.

[Jayme K]

jayme
IF ron simpson is telling the truth about selling oj DRUGS on 6/12 ,then oj must have given the drugs to some one or tossed them in some way because when his blood was tested for drugs on 6/13 it only had TRACES OF MARIJUANA IN IT.
martin II

Hence my point. OJ makes the lame and unsupported argument that the key to the murders can be found in the drug world of Faye Resnick and claims that Nicole was spiraling out of control with drugs because of Faye's crowd and yet no drugs were in Nicole's system at her time of death.

So maybe the key is really in OJ's drug world. Maybe he was into a bad crowd that did and dealt drugs and pissed someone off and they murdered Nicole to get back at him. Maybe this and maybe that and maybe this ...

My point is that people need to quit floating dumb sh*t theories that have no evidenciary support and get with dealing with the real facts.

[William Anthony]

Hence my point. OJ makes the lame and unsupported argument that the key to the murders can be found in the drug world of Faye Resnick and claims that Nicole was spiraling out of control with drugs because of Faye's crowd and yet no drugs were in Nicole's system at her time of death.

So maybe the key is really in OJ's drug world. Maybe he was into a bad crowd that did and dealt drugs and pissed someone off and they murdered Nicole to get back at him. Maybe this and maybe that and maybe this ...

My point is that people need to quit floating dumb sh*t theories that have no evidenciary support and get with dealing with the real facts.

The real facts are that there was nothing found in Simpson's system that would indicate murder was a product of what was found and that Nicole's friends had been in rehab and had problems with narcotics. Is there any evidence that Simpson went to rehab or any of his friends?

[socaldiva]

*snip*

I read a post today that indicatred that if the defense did not agree with the prosecution on a issue, they, the defense could test the blood themselves to prove the prosecution was wrong.


That was my post. I thought you have me on ignore?:rolleyes:

[martin II]

Hence my point. OJ makes the lame and unsupported argument that the key to the murders can be found in the drug world of Faye Resnick and claims that Nicole was spiraling out of control with drugs because of Faye's crowd and yet no drugs were in Nicole's system at her time of death.

So maybe the key is really in OJ's drug world. Maybe he was into a bad crowd that did and dealt drugs and pissed someone off and they murdered Nicole to get back at him. Maybe this and maybe that and maybe this ...

My point is that people need to quit floating dumb sh*t theories that have no evidenciary support and get with dealing with the real facts.


jayme
so what do we do with DON SIMPSONS CLAIM of selling oj drugs on 6/12.

I think the claim of sometime drug use by nicole came from her friends namely Cora F. in her testimony.

Faye also said that she had seen oj do cocain. According to nicole faye was freebasing at her house and was causing people to come see her that made Nicole uneasy. This was in her letter to Cora.

If we take your suggestion that oj pissed some drug people off and they killed Nicole and ron, then oj was innocent of the crime of murder he was charged with. Which also means the jury got it right when they voted NOT GUILTY.
martin II

[weezer]

jayme
IF ron simpson is telling the truth about selling oj DRUGS on 6/12 ,then oj must have given the drugs to some one or tossed them in some way because when his blood was tested for drugs on 6/13 it only had TRACES OF MARIJUANA IN IT.
martin II

marijuana is a drug -- hello?

[William Anthony]

Now, we are reduced to the theory that a drug dealer gets mad at someone for buying from them.

[weezer]

Now, we are reduced to the theory that a drug dealer gets mad at someone for buying from them.

some poster were already there -- only in their theory, Nicole was killed because Faye owed money.

[William Anthony]

some poster were already there -- only in their theory, Nicole was killed because Faye owed money.

That would make more sense that someone (not saying who) owed money, which was the cause of Niclole's death, rather than someone buying drugs.

[martin II]

marijuana is a drug -- hello?

weezer
i will try to help you with this again.

Traces of Marijuana were found in oj's blood on 6/13. This means that if he had smoked it on 6/12 the test would not have read Traces. Since it read traces it indicates that he could have smoked it any time in the past two weeks or longer.

However i do understand that you seem to see marijuana and hard drugs (cocain.heron) as the same and obviously believe that oj smoked a joint on 6/12 which sent him out of control and he went and murdered his ex.

martin II

[weezer]

That would make more sense that someone (not saying who) owed money, which was the cause of Niclole's death, rather than someone buying drugs.

I always thought that if there was any validity to the drug theory, one or both person with drugs in their system (Faye/orenthal) would be the one dead --

[martin II]

That would make more sense that someone (not saying who) owed money, which was the cause of Niclole's death, rather than someone buying drugs.

william
what makes sense to me is that Faye was living at nicoles for about two weeks freebasing daily and had people comming to see her at Nicoles that nicole said she did not know and did not like. AND

A few days before nicole was killed Faye ran to the rehab.
martin II

[martin II]

I always thought that if there was any validity to the drug theory, one or both person with drugs in their system (Faye/orenthal) would be the one dead --

But there is the reported possibility that two other people were buying drugs and selling them and had become over their heads in debt. Everyone that deals drugs does not take them.
martin II

[Jayme K]

martinII and William Anthony:

Can't believe you both missed the fact that I was totally making fun of the whole drug theory.

Holy smokes, it's obvious that in your absolute haste to defend the jerk you jump on the defensive bandwagon right away without bothering to stop and notice the sarcasm.

[weezer]

weezer
i will try to help you with this again.

Traces of Marijuana were found in oj's blood on 6/13. This means that if he had smoked it on 6/12 the test would not have read Traces. Since it read traces it indicates that he could have smoked it any time in the past two weeks or longer.

However i do understand that you seem to see marijuana and hard drugs (cocain.heron) as the same and obviously believe that oj smoked a joint on 6/12 which sent him out of control and he went and murdered his ex.

martin II

the fact of the matter is, orenthal 'could' have smoke that joint the day of. . . .

I understand the difference between the drugs. I also understand that marijuana is considered a drug and is illegal.

[William Anthony]

I always thought that if there was any validity to the drug theory, one or both person with drugs in their system (Faye/orenthal) would be the one dead --

I think the killer would have murder someon close to the person who owed money not the person who spent money.

[William Anthony]

martinII and William Anthony:

Can't believe you both missed the fact that I was totally making fun of the whole drug theory.

Holy smokes, it's obvious that in your absolute haste to defend the jerk you jump on the defensive bandwagon right away without bothering to stop and notice the sarcasm.

I appreciated your sarcasm but you obviously did not appreciate mine.

[martin II]

I appreciated your sarcasm but you obviously did not appreciate mine.

WELL WTH

Ditto that for me.
martin II

[Jayme K]

WELL WTH

Ditto that for me.
martin II

Right ... nice cover, but it's pretty obvious you were all over debunking my "outrageous" theory.

E for effort though.

[martin II]

Right ... nice cover, but it's pretty obvious you were all over debunking my "outrageous" theory.

E for effort though.

Jayme k

Your theories were debumked. Who is running for cover is another issue.;)

martin II

[socaldiva]

Jayme k

Your theories were debumked. Who is running for cover is another issue.;)

martin II

"debumked"? :confused:

[2L8 4A D8]

Hence my point. OJ makes the lame and unsupported argument that the key to the murders can be found in the drug world of Faye Resnick and claims that Nicole was spiraling out of control with drugs because of Faye's crowd and yet no drugs were in Nicole's system at her time of death.

So maybe the key is really in OJ's drug world. Maybe he was into a bad crowd that did and dealt drugs and pissed someone off and they murdered Nicole to get back at him. Maybe this and maybe that and maybe this ...

My point is that people need to quit floating dumb sh*t theories that have no evidenciary support and get with dealing with the real facts.

What a great post Jayme, thanks! And, welcome to the Board. I hope that you will stay with us, but you might not because there are people who seem to tire of the bullsh*t that goes on here on a daily basis and end up leaving because of the "people that float dumb sh*t theories that have no evidenciary support!" And then there are the rest of us who have been here a long, long time! LOL!

JMO and MOO!!

:seeya:

[Jayme K]

Jayme k

Your theories were debumked. Who is running for cover is another issue.;)

martin II

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you meant debunked.

That said, obviously you took my sarcasm seriously enough to make the effort to debunk my theories which in turn gives away the fact that you had no idea that I was kidding.

Anyhoo, how exactly do you think it was debunked? Thus far I haven't seen you post anything that proves or disproves, I've only seen you post opinions.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=Jayme K;8833307]I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you meant debunked.

That said, obviously you took my sarcasm seriously enough to make the effort to debunk my theories which in turn gives away the fact that you had no idea that I was kidding.

Anyhoo, how exactly do you think it was debunked? Thus far I haven't seen you post anything that proves or disproves, I've only seen you post opinions.[/QUOTE

Jayme

I hope the typo did not upset you too much.

You never stated what you meant by drugs that oj was sold by D .S. on 6/12. But if it was not marijuana i can tell you he did not take any on 6/12 at least his blood test did not show it.

If drug dealers killed Nicole and Ron to ger back at OJ. Then oj was not guilty as sin, of murder.

That said, i will say :seeya:
martin II

[William Anthony]

Right ... nice cover, but it's pretty obvious you were all over debunking my "outrageous" theory.

E for effort though.

I think that we all use the word "obvious" much too often, as what is obvious to some remains a muddy river to others.

[Jayme K]

[QUOTE=Jayme K;8833307]I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you meant debunked.

That said, obviously you took my sarcasm seriously enough to make the effort to debunk my theories which in turn gives away the fact that you had no idea that I was kidding.

Anyhoo, how exactly do you think it was debunked? Thus far I haven't seen you post anything that proves or disproves, I've only seen you post opinions.[/QUOTE

Jayme

I hope the typo did not upset you too much.

You never stated what you meant by drugs that oj was sold by D .S. on 6/12. But if it was not marijuana i can tell you he did not take any on 6/12 at least his blood test did not show it.

If drug dealers killed Nicole and Ron to ger back at OJ. Then oj was not guilty as sin, of murder.

That said, i will say :seeya:
martin II

Let's clear this one up okay? My entire point is that I don't believe the majority of rubbish that's been flying out in theories around here. Why? Because there's nothing that supports them.

Don Simpson's drug dealer claims to have sold drugs to OJ on the night of the murders. So what? We don't know if he did or didn't, though I'm possibly leaning toward didn't. Faye Resnick was in rehab for an apparent relapse in her drug addiction. So what? People get clean and fall off the wagon all of the time, it doesn't mean that they're part of a deep sinister drug world that got two people murdered. And the list goes on of stupid things that no one has any factual support for as far as how a particular theory fits in with the murder.

P.S. Typos don't bother me, stupid people and theories do though.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=martin II;8833337]

Let's clear this one up okay? My entire point is that I don't believe the majority of rubbish that's been flying out in theories around here. Why? Because there's nothing that supports them.

Don Simpson's drug dealer claims to have sold drugs to OJ on the night of the murders. So what? We don't know if he did or didn't, though I'm possibly leaning toward didn't. Faye Resnick was in rehab for an apparent relapse in her drug addiction. So what? People get clean and fall off the wagon all of the time, it doesn't mean that they're part of a deep sinister drug world that got two people murdered. And the list goes on of stupid things that no one has any factual support for as far as how a particular theory fits in with the murder.

P.S. Typos don't bother me, stupid people and theories do though.

The search for intelligence begins with realizing how stupid one is. The theories on this board stem from the prosecution's complete failure to prove the theory of its case by CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. Therefore, people will speculate about what may or may not have happened. I for one do not believe it polite or appropriate to call other poster's stupid. However, this is just my personal opinion, and it seems that I may be wrong, because apparently some do so without fear of reprisal.

[Jayme K]

[QUOTE=Jayme K;8833586]

The search for intelligence begins with realizing how stupid one is. The theories on this board stem from the prosecution's complete failure to prove the theory of its case by CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. Therefore, people will speculate about what may or may not have happened. I for one do not believe it polite or appropriate to call other poster's stupid. However, this is just my personal opinion, and it seems that I may be wrong, because apparently some do so without fear of reprisal.

I find it interesting that you assume I was referring to martin; do you think he's stupid? Is that why you would seem to assume that?

I was making a statement in general that I will continue to make. Stupid people and stupid theories annoy me.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8833588]

I find it interesting that you assume I was referring to martin; do you think he's stupid? Is that why you would seem to assume that?

I was making a statement in general that I will continue to make. Stupid people and stupid theories annoy me.

Your assumption is wrong, as you will see that I never mentioned anyone's name in my post. I was talking about how freely some insulting words are cast in regard to theories that others do not agree with or feel that they are viable. I think that you attempt to cause a friction between Martin and me will fall on death ears, at least to the person with whom I have formed a cordial relationship. I think that you should not read into my post something that I did not say. I respect everyone's views and only wish that some could learn to disagree without becoming rude, obnoxious, and uncivil.

[Jayme K]

[QUOTE=Jayme K;8833594]

Your assumption is wrong, as you will see that I never mentioned anyone's name in my post. I was talking about how freely some insulting words are cast in regard to theories that others do not agree with or feel that they are viable. I think that you attempt to cause a friction between Martin and me will fall on death ears, at least to the person with whom I have formed a cordial relationship. I think that you should not read into my post something that I did not say. I respect everyone's views and only wish that some could learn to disagree without becoming rude, obnoxious, and uncivil.

I've never spoken to someone that seems so intent on believing that everything is a plot against him. No wonder you take up for OJ Simpson.

The fact that what you got out of my post is that I'm attempting to assasinate your "relationship" with martin is somewhat humerous, though alarmingly ludicrous.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8833600]

I've never spoken to someone that seems so intent on believing that everything is a plot against him. No wonder you take up for OJ Simpson.

The fact that what you got out of my post is that I'm attempting to assasinate your "relationship" with martin is somewhat humerous, though alarmingly ludicrous.

I have not accused everyone of plotting against me, although some lend themselves to that realm of believability. I did not post that you were attempting to assasinate anytying only to cause friction by reading into my post something I did not say. Your post was to Martin, but I found the use of the word stupid troublesome. I did not think that you were calling Martin stupid but was amazed that you could insinuate that any poster is stupid.

[Jayme K]

[QUOTE=Jayme K;8833604]

I have not accused everyone of plotting against me, although some lend themselves to that realm of believability. I did not post that you were attempting to assasinate anytying only to cause friction by reading into my post something I did not say. Your post was to Martin, but I found the use of the word stupid troublesome. I did not think that you were calling Martin stupid but was amazed that you could insinuate that any poster is stupid.

Do you live in the real world? In the real world there are, indeed, people that are stupid. There are murderers, rapists, and child molesters too and yet you pick out that it's amazing that a poster could be deemed stupid?

That one kinda stumps me, but oh well.

[martin II]

Jayme

Maby you should inform us if your recent post are another attempt to make more "OUTRAGEOUS" nonsense comments or are they an attempt to make
a valid opinion held by you.
martin II

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8833607]

Do you live in the real world? In the real world there are, indeed, people that are stupid. There are murderers, rapists, and child molesters too and yet you pick out that it's amazing that a poster could be deemed stupid?

That one kinda stumps me, but oh well.

Those people you have listed I would call maladapted. I do not think it appropriate for anyone to call a poster, with a different point of view, stupid, simply because the poster does not see the same things and reach the same conclusion as others who have assumed themselves to be smart.

[Jayme K]

Jayme

Maby you should inform us if your recent post are another attempt to make more "OUTRAGEOUS" nonsense comments or are they an attempt to make
a valid opinion held by you.
martin II

I'm deeply sorry that the truth hurts you martin.

I can't help it that you've got a complex, nor can I do anything about the big heavy cross you seem to think you heave upon your back as you trek your way through the muddy waters of racial dissent.

Seems like a personal demon you've gotta confront. Long story short, it's not my problem how you choose to interpret my posts.

[Jayme K]

[QUOTE=Jayme K;8833608]

Those people you have listed I would call maladapted. I do not think it appropriate for anyone to call a poster, with a different point of view, stupid, simply because the poster does not see the same things and reach the same conclusion as others who have assumed themselves to be smart.

Never in your life have you read a story or listened to someone speak and thought to yourself "wow, that sounds really dumb"?

If you tell me that you never have thought another person to be stupid then I'd go out on a limb and say I think your a liar.

Only difference is that I'm not afraid to say it out loud.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8833613]

Never in your life have you read a story or listened to someone speak and thought to yourself "wow, that sounds really dumb"?

If you tell me that you never have thought another person to be stupid then I'd go out on a limb and say I think your a liar.

Only difference is that I'm not afraid to say it out loud.

Of course, I have thought and called someone stupid during an argument. In an intelligent and civil debate, I find that comments like those are inappropriate and deter from the spirt of the debate. I applaud you forthrightness, but would only add that I do not think this is the forum for it.

[Jayme K]

[QUOTE=Jayme K;8833617]

Of course, I have thought and called someone stupid during an argument. In an intelligent and civil debate, I find that comments like those are inappropriate and deter from the spirt of the debate. I applaud you forthrightness, but would only add that I do not think this is the forum for it.

I highly beg to differ. I believe that a lack of forthrightness in any forum is an injustice to the meaning behind productive and honest debate. And yes, sometimes argument.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8833613]

Never in your life have you read a story or listened to someone speak and thought to yourself "wow, that sounds really dumb"?

If you tell me that you never have thought another person to be stupid then I'd go out on a limb and say I think your a liar.

Only difference is that I'm not afraid to say it out loud.

Jayme

you seem to be slinging around a lot of name calling directed at posters for some reason.

When you complete your DUMP of personal attack comments about posters here, maby you will find a way to post some comments about the actual subject of the thread.
martin II

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8833618]

I highly beg to differ. I believe that a lack of forthrightness in any forum is an injustice to the meaning behind productive and honest debate. And yes, sometimes argument.

I think that kind of forthrightness only tends to produce and argument from what was once an honest and intelligent debate. As you are aware injustice often is the result of a false sense of superiority. I can of like differing with you but we may be a little off topic and should consider PMs.

[chickenhouse]

I highly beg to differ. I believe that a lack of forthrightness in any forum is an injustice to the meaning behind productive and honest debate. And yes, sometimes argument.

Wow. Cool I finally get some discussion on my Jason Lamar thread and what is everyone talking about?

Forum etiquette.

Please can we stick to the topic? Jayme in your list of outrageous theories without evidence to support them do you include the Jason Lamar Theory. If you're not sure what the theory is all the evidence pointing to him as a suspect are on the first 2 posts to this topic.

Everyone else can you please tell me if you know if he is alive or not. If he is still alive can a OJ Simpson trial expert please fix the wikipedia.org document.

Thanks :)

[William Anthony]

Wow. Cool I finally get some discussion on my Jason Lamar thread and what is everyone talking about?

Forum etiquette.

Please can we stick to the topic? Jayme in your list of outrageous theories without evidence to support them do you include the Jason Lamar Theory. If you're not sure what the theory is all the evidence pointing to him as a suspect are on the first 2 posts to this topic.

Everyone else can you please tell me if you know if he is alive or not. If he is still alive can a OJ Simpson trial expert please fix the wikipedia.org document.

Thanks :)

I had suggested that we continue in PMs. I appreciate your sense of proprietorship about the thread you started. However, conversations on any thread take on a life of their own. Welcome aboard.

[martin II]

Wow. Cool I finally get some discussion on my Jason Lamar thread and what is everyone talking about?

Forum etiquette.

Please can we stick to the topic? Jayme in your list of outrageous theories without evidence to support them do you include the Jason Lamar Theory. If you're not sure what the theory is all the evidence pointing to him as a suspect are on the first 2 posts to this topic.

Everyone else can you please tell me if you know if he is alive or not. If he is still alive can a OJ Simpson trial expert please fix the wikipedia.org document.

Thanks :)

chickenhouse

I have read no media reports of jason not being alive. If anything had happened to him, i believe it would be headline media news.

martin II

[Jayme K]

Wow. Cool I finally get some discussion on my Jason Lamar thread and what is everyone talking about?

Forum etiquette.

Please can we stick to the topic? Jayme in your list of outrageous theories without evidence to support them do you include the Jason Lamar Theory. If you're not sure what the theory is all the evidence pointing to him as a suspect are on the first 2 posts to this topic.

Everyone else can you please tell me if you know if he is alive or not. If he is still alive can a OJ Simpson trial expert please fix the wikipedia.org document.

Thanks :)

I hate to point out the obvious but this is, in fact, a forum. Which means that forum etiquette is appropriate.

That said, I'm taking a a look at what you offered and I've just got to ask where you got all of this information. Some of it I definitely concede as factual that most people are aware of, but can you tell me if and how all of these "facts" have been supported and proven?

I know Jason's a tad looney, but I've not yet been able to find facts that support his presence at the crime scene.

And yes, Jason Simpson remains alive and well.

[Jayme K]

[QUOTE=Jayme K;8833617]

Jayme

you seem to be slinging around a lot of name calling directed at posters for some reason.

When you complete your DUMP of personal attack comments about posters here, maby you will find a way to post some comments about the actual subject of the thread.
martin II

I'll consider it ...

Okay, considered it and nope, I think I'm fine moving right along as I have been.

On the other hand, I may reconsider when you put your money where your mouth is and start practicing what you preach.

[Jayme K]

[QUOTE=Jayme K;8833623]

I think that kind of forthrightness only tends to produce and argument from what was once an honest and intelligent debate. As you are aware injustice often is the result of a false sense of superiority. I can of like differing with you but we may be a little off topic and should consider PMs.

Per usual I beg to differ. But then, I'm not really here to change your mind. If you want to send me a PM then feel free and I'll open it, but really I'm doubtful that you'll ever like much of what I have to say.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;8833624]

I'll consider it ...

Okay, considered it and nope, I think I'm fine moving right along as I have been.

On the other hand, I may reconsider when you put your money where your mouth is and start practicing what you preach.

Jayme

"Since you admit that you make "OUTRAGEOUS" post and then run for cover when these post are proven to be nonsense, i doubt that you have or would be able to comprehend any post i make.

So if you are open to suggestions, you can start by swallowing your personal attacks on me or others and then move to try to figure what to say that is not OT.

martin II

[socaldiva]

[QUOTE=Jayme K;8833653]*snip*

Jayme

"Since you admit that you make "OUTRAGEOUS" post and then run for cover when these post are proven to be nonsense, i doubt that you have or would be able to comprehend any post i make.



Since when did Jayme admit to "making OUTRAGEOUS" posts & running for cover?. Once again, I think you are confused. No big surprise there.

[2L8 4A D8]

Jayme

you seem to be slinging around a lot of name calling directed at posters for some reason.

When you complete your DUMP of personal attack comments about posters here, maby you will find a way to post some comments about the actual subject of the thread.
martin II

I find Jayme extremely refreshing, honest, not afraid to speak her mind, not afraid to speak the truth and not afraid to call a spade, a spade. I hope that she stays around for awhile and not be intimidated by the likes of the two of you!

As usual, the two of you are hurt by her posts because the truth hurts both of you so bad. Both of you have called ALL of us on this Board and these Threads worse and don't try to deny it! You might think that you are fooling Jayme (which I doubt; she seems like a pretty smart cookie to me), but you're not fooling the rest of US who have been here longer on this Board and these Threads than the two of you! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

I'll consider it ...

Okay, considered it and nope, I think I'm fine moving right along as I have been.

On the other hand, I may reconsider when you put your money where your mouth is and start practicing what you preach.

I am screaming my guts out from laughing so much and high-5'ing everybody that is walking by. Excellent. Excellent. Excellent Post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you! My gawd! Thank you! :beer: :tongue: :beer:

JMO and MOO!!

[Suzee10]

I stumbled upon a BBC documentary, I think in 2000 or 2001, that showed much of William C Dear's evidence. The documentary suggested a few alternate suspects but it was clear to me, and just made logical sense, that Jason Simpson was the murderer. I thought, "wow" then got on with my life.

It was only a few weeks ago that I thought about the case again, maybe there was something was in the media about it, and I bought "OJ is Guilty but not of Murder". It just further solidified my view that Jason is the killer that got away with it.

So I did a bit of research on the web to see what was being done about it in the US. Has a trial been considered? While there is a scattering of references to Jason and his possibility of guilt I didn't feel there was enough debate about it. What I did find is a small reference to Jason on wikipedia under OJ murder case.

It says "Jason Simpson was then killed by an unknown assasian, who was never revealed, on December 28, 2006. In Malibu, CA, he was shot dead after riding down the street in his red BMW after leaving work. There are theories that O.J. himself killed Jason, the family of Ron Goldman commited the crime, or the family of Nicole Brown killed him. But there are no true theories proven yet."

Is it true that Jason Simpson is now dead? Why can I not find any articles on the web in the media to confirm this?

I think this still needs to be resolved even if he is now dead. Even though OJ Simpson was found not guilty, he was found guilty in the civil case and he is guilty in the minds of most people. I could not think of anything worse that to be accused of somthing I didn't do. Someone owes it to OJ to set the record straight.

The way the world works now I think the only was the truth will come out is if someone makes a movie of the book "OJ is guilty but not of murder" and it wins the best picture oscar. People don't seek out information and they can't digest it unless it's packaged into a 80 min feature film.


simpson's blood was found at the crime scene not Jason's.

[Suzee10]

1. As an adolescent, Jason performed poorly in school and demostrated many antisocial behaviours.

2. Considered a "problem child" at an early age. Documented in articles of interviews given by OJ.

3. Jason overdosed on drugs and alcohol at age 14 and was rushed to hospital.

4. Jason reportedly had difficulty communicating with his mother and at an early age moved in OJ and Nicole because Marguerite could not control him.

5. As a teenager Jason flew into a fit of rage and attacked a statue of his father with a baseball bat.

6. Jason stole his father's car and was turned in by Nicole.

7. Ronald Shipp stated Jason began being physically abused by his father at a young age.

8. Ronald Shipp described him as having pschological problems, along with abusing drugs and alcohol.

9. Jason was treated at the UCLA Neuro-Psychiatirc Institute for a mental condition, later being diagnosed as "Intermittent Rage Disorder" accompanied by seizures. He was prescribed Depakote, a drug frequently prescribed to individuals suffering from rage.

10. Jason dropped out or flunked out of USC.

11. According to Shipp, Jason had possibly stalked Nicole Simpson while she lived at Gretna Green.

12. According to Shipp, Jason and Nicole would go out dancing and partying together.

13. On more than one occasion Jason left or was fired from his job as a prep chef. Indications were he was unable to get along with people of authority.

14. Jason attempted suicide by stabbing himself with a pair of scissors.

15. Jason, in a fit of rage, assaulted his girlfriend Jackie where in he nearly breaks her back by throwing her into an empty bathtub.

16. Jason attacked his girlfriend Jackie with a chef's knife and cuts off her hair.

17. Jason attempted suicide by cutting his wrists with a shard of broken glass.

18. Jason attempted suicide a second time. This time by overdosing on Depakote. He was committed to the psychiatric ward at Saint John's hospital.

19. Jason had repeatedly been warned not to use drugs and alcohol while taking medication, because it could further complicate his existing neurological condition but continued to do so.

20. Jason was arrested for assaulting his former employer, Paul Goldberg, with a kitchen knife. At the time of the murders, Jason was still on probation for this earlier offense on Paul Goldberg.

21. Just prior to the murders, Jason felt he was "going to rage," and checked into Cedars Sinai Hospital. Previously, when he was about to rage, he claimed to hallucinate by hearing voices of people who weren't there.

22. Two months prior to the murders Jason, in a blind rage, assaulted his girlfriend, Jennifer Green, at his birthday party. Later that night, according to an article, he tried to strangle her.

23. Two months prior to the murders Jason was known to have stopped taking his Depakote because, as he was reported to have said, "It's f**king with my head."

24. On the night before the murders, Nicole had arranged to eat at Jackson's restaurant, where Jason was the chef, but she failed to show up the next night.

25. At 7pm on the night of the murders, Nicole and her family ate at Mezzaluna's restaurant instead of at Jackson's, where Jason was the chef.

26. According to Jennifer Green, and a waiter at Jackson's, Jason left the restaurant where he worked at around 9:45pm, approximately 45 mins to an hour prior to the murders.

27. Jason's civil deposition indicated he did not spend the evening with Jennifer Green as she indicated, but went directly home after he dropped Jennifer off at her apartment.

28. Jason had no alibi after 10pm, he claimed to watch TV until 3am.

29. Supposedly Jason had an "air-tight" alibi that he was cooking for 200 people at Jackson's restaurant. On that particular night there were less than 40 patrons at the restaurant the entire night. Jason left before it closed.

30. Experts established that the probable murder weapon was a chef's knife.

31. Jason had his own chef knives and kept them with him.

32. Jason had in his possession a set of chef knives when he left Jackson's restaurant at approximately 9:45pm on the night of the murders.

33. Jason was allegedly upset that Nicole and her party did not come to Jackson's as arranged on the night of June 12, 1994.

34. Jason's blood chemistry is supposed to have similar genetic characteristics as OJ's.

35. OJ and Jason have approximately the same size feet. Jason also had access to OJ's clothes closet and is known to have taken items of clothing from his dad at will.

36. James G. Cron, crime scene expert, has studied the investigative material and determined that Jason Simpson should have been considered a major suspect in the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

37. England crime scene experts, Tery Merston and his partner, Peter Harpur, stated OJ is not the killer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman but in all probability, was at the crime scene after the murders. They both felt Jason Simpson should have been considered a major suspect.

38. Dr. Harvey Davisson, Dr. William Flynn, Dr. William Tedford and Dr. Charles Keller reviewed Jason's records and felt that Jason Simpson is psychologically disturbed and in need of help.

39. Robert Shapiro, OJ's attorney, has indicated that Jason was his first suspect expect for his "air-tight" alibi. The air-tight alibi has now proven to be false.

40. Jason was never interviewed by any of the LA Police Law Enforcement Agencies nor the Prosecutor's Office. Nor was he asked to furnish an alibi for the evening of Sunday, June 12th, 1994 in conjuction with the killings. Nor, according to sources, were Jason's fingerprints examined in comparison to the unidentified fingerprints at the crime scene.

41. Jason's psychiatrist shredded all of Jaosn's medical records after the murders.

42. On the day after the murders, June 13, 1994, OJ hired a well-known criminal attorney to represent Jason. This was prior to OJ's arrest for the murders.

43. Jason breaks through the police line to reach his father at the conclusion of the slow-speed car chase.

44. Jason wouldn't give Jackie any straight answers about the murders.

45. Marcia Clark and the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office considered this to be a "rage killing by an amatuer."

46. Jason bolted from the funeral home, visibly upset, at the time of Nicole Simpson's funeral, not wanting to view Nicole's body.

47. Jason was arrested for hit and run during OJ's trial.


Jason's actions also prove he knew simpson was guilty of murder. Jason was guilty of taking a bat and beating a statue of simpson. It looks more like if Jason had murdered someone it would not have been Nicole.

[Suzee10]

Hence my point. OJ makes the lame and unsupported argument that the key to the murders can be found in the drug world of Faye Resnick and claims that Nicole was spiraling out of control with drugs because of Faye's crowd and yet no drugs were in Nicole's system at her time of death.

So maybe the key is really in OJ's drug world. Maybe he was into a bad crowd that did and dealt drugs and pissed someone off and they murdered Nicole to get back at him. Maybe this and maybe that and maybe this ...

My point is that people need to quit floating dumb sh*t theories that have no evidenciary support and get with dealing with the real facts.


I agree J. The theories just get more and more idiotic.

[Suzee10]

I always thought that if there was any validity to the drug theory, one or both person with drugs in their system (Faye/orenthal) would be the one dead --


Correct, Flgweezer and Nicole and Ron had no drugs in there system. Seems as if everyone but them were doing the drugs, including simpson.

[2L8 4A D8]

Since when did Jayme admit to "making OUTRAGEOUS" posts & running for cover?. Once again, I think you are confused. No big surprise there.

:lol: Yeah, IMO, I think that Jayme knows that it is "No big surprise there" DIVA! :lol:

[Suzee10]

I'm deeply sorry that the truth hurts you martin.

I can't help it that you've got a complex, nor can I do anything about the big heavy cross you seem to think you heave upon your back as you trek your way through the muddy waters of racial dissent.

Seems like a personal demon you've gotta confront. Long story short, it's not my problem how you choose to interpret my posts.


I think you hit the nail on the head Jayme. Most all of the ng's seem to have some sort of persecution complex and when we accuse simpson they take it so personally. They need a doctor. :read:

[Suzee10]

I find Jayme extremely refreshing, honest, not afraid to speak her mind, not afraid to speak the truth and not afraid to call a spade, a spade. I hope that she stays around for awhile and not be intimidated by the likes of the two of you!

As usual, the two of you are hurt by her posts because the truth hurts both of you so bad. Both of you have called ALL of us on this Board and these Threads worse and don't try to deny it! You might think that you are fooling Jayme (which I doubt; she seems like a pretty smart cookie to me), but you're not fooling the rest of US who have been here longer on this Board and these Threads than the two of you! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!


They need doctors for their persecution complexes 2L8.:beer:

[2L8 4A D8]

They need doctors for their persecution complexes 2L8.:beer:

They sure do Suzee! Good to see you posting, as usual! :seeya:

[martin II]

Jason's actions also prove he knew simpson was guilty of murder. Jason was guilty of taking a bat and beating a statue of simpson. It looks more like if Jason had murdered someone it would not have been Nicole.

Suzee

If i may i think you may want to check the timeline of the event you refer to.
martin II

[socaldiva]

Suzee

If i may i think you may want to check the timeline of the event you refer to.
martin II

Who cares what the timeline was? The fact that he bashed a statue of his Dad shows who his anger was directed at & it wasn't Nicole. imo

[weezer]

[QUOTE=Jayme K;8833608]

Those people you have listed I would call maladapted.

Herein lies william's problem.................:D

[chickenhouse]

I hate to point out the obvious but this is, in fact, a forum. Which means that forum etiquette is appropriate.

That said, I'm taking a a look at what you offered and I've just got to ask where you got all of this information. Some of it I definitely concede as factual that most people are aware of, but can you tell me if and how all of these "facts" have been supported and proven?

I know Jason's a tad looney, but I've not yet been able to find facts that support his presence at the crime scene.

And yes, Jason Simpson remains alive and well.

I've posted in another thread that most of my information, well all of it in fact, came from reading William Dear's book "OJ is guilty but not of murder". The reason I sought out this forum is to find some answers and to try and satify in my own mind one way or the other whether OJ or his son did it.

The book is very compelling and goes through each piece of evidence step by step. It shows up a number of reasons why the evidence doesn't fit OJ as the killer and a number of reasons why it does fit Jason.

I'll concede that there has been no conclusive evidence put forward that proves Jason was the killer, but I think that can also be said about OJ. One thing to consider is the mindset of the LE at the time. They were convinced OJ was guilty so they didn't collect the evidence correctly, they didn't seal off the crime scene as they should have and they didn't even consider Jason a suspect. His blood fingerprints etc were never crossreferenced with that at the crimescene. The reason they never considered him a suspect was that he was thought to have had an air-tight alibi. Dear's investigations have shown that to be false.

If you are to believe William Dear he just went in and decided to investigate the murder out of his own pocket. He wasn't satisfied with what he was being told in the media. He didn't set out assuming OJ was guilty or Jason was guilty. He just came to that conclusion based on the evidence available plus new evidence found through his investigations and interviews will the people involved.

Now this Dear character seems to be a bit of an arrogant tosser. He must be being a PI. In the book he bangs on about his record of solving past murder cases. However be that as it may I don't have any reason to think he would make it all up. He is a lot more qualified to make an assessment on this than any of us on this forum.

What would be his motive for finding someone else other than OJ guilty? Well he has spent a lot of money and he needs to sell some books. But he has taken his evidence and got it independantly verified. He's putting his ego and his credibility on the line to try and get to the truth. From what I read in his book his ego is more important to him than money.

He had spent 6 years investigating the case and had access to medical records that had not been seen in the trial, all the evidence presented at the trial and new information through interviews.

I've asked several questions on this forum, and some people have made some good points and some bad points. But noone has convinced me that OJ was the murderer.

I will continue to look into this and I will try and get all the information I can to satify my own curiousity. I orginally thought OJ did it based solely on the fact that he did a runner. I think many people have not moved from that view regardless of what evidence is thrown in front of them. However I then saw the BBC documentary and read the book I am now convinced that Jason Lamar Simpson was the real killer.

[chickenhouse]

Who cares what the timeline was? The fact that he bashed a statue of his Dad shows who his anger was directed at & it wasn't Nicole. imo

All the evidence shows that he has been angry at a lot of people and acted out.

He was angry at his Dad several years before the murders. From various people interviewed by Dear OJ treated him very poorly and wanted him to do well at gridiron but Jason just wanted to be a chef. He took to a statue with a baseball bat.

He was angry with one of his girlfriends, so angry in fact that he cut off all her hair with one of his chef's knives that he carried around with him.

He was angry with another girlfriend and caused a scene witnessed by many people. Some of whom had to physically retrain him because they thought he would kill her.

Isn't it conceivable then, given that he used to hang out with Nicole going to parties and nightclubs, that he got angry with Nicole. Especially since she didn't come to his restaurant when she said she would and he wasn't taking his medication.

Yes he was angry with OJ many years BEFORE THE MURDERS.

[chickenhouse]

Thanks all for confirming Jason is still alive. Someone has removed the reference to his death from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oj_simpson_trial

That means he can still be brought to justice. If he is the real killer. :cuss:

[chickenhouse]

I just did my own little piece of research. Are you all proud of me? :D

Just near the end of the bronco phone transcript http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/new_docs/broncotranscript.html

In which OJ is seems distraught and suicidal. We hear him say this;

LANGE: O.J., you there? I'm still here. I'm still here, man. Pick it up! O.J.? You there? Are you there?

SIMPSON: I want him out of here. I want Arnelle (unintelligible)

LANGE: You there? Juice! O.J.!

Also from the bronco footage we see that Jason Simpson comes running up to the white bronco at the end of the car chase.

Is it possible that OJ is refering to Jason when he says "I want him out of here"? It seems likely that it's Jason given that he wants Arnelle instead.

Is it possible that he doesn't want to look at Jason because he's angry with him for murdering his ex-wife?

Just a hypothesis... I know.
Not evidence.... yes I'll concede that too.

But certainly worth considering when you look at the wider picture and the evidence collected in the investigation by William Dear.

[martin II]

I just did my own little piece of research. Are you all proud of me? :D

Just near the end of the bronco phone transcript http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/new_docs/broncotranscript.html

In which OJ is seems distraught and suicidal. We hear him say this;



Also from the bronco footage we see that Jason Simpson comes running up to the white bronco at the end of the car chase.

Is it possible that OJ is refering to Jason when he says "I want him out of here"? It seems likely that it's Jason given that he wants Arnelle instead.

Is it possible that he doesn't want to look at Jason because he's angry with him for murdering his ex-wife?

Just a hypothesis... I know.
Not evidence.... yes I'll concede that too.

But certainly worth considering when you look at the wider picture and the evidence collected in the investigation by William Dear.

chickenhouse
The other question is why did oj find it necessary to hire a lawyer for jason
on 6/13 as it is reported he did?
martinII

[weezer]

*Snipped*Also from the bronco footage we see that Jason Simpson comes running up to the white bronco at the end of the car chase.

Is it possible that OJ is refering to Jason when he says "I want him out of here"? It seems likely that it's Jason given that he wants Arnelle instead.

Is it possible that he doesn't want to look at Jason because he's angry with him for murdering his ex-wife?

Just a hypothesis... I know.

Did you notice Kato the dog going bonkers when he sees the Bronco? I always thought that orenthal was talking about the policeman. Maybe orenthal was wanting to talk to arnelle to make sure she'd done the wash?

[chickenhouse]

*Snipped*

Did you notice Kato the dog going bonkers when he sees the Bronco? I always thought that orenthal was talking about the policeman. Maybe orenthal was wanting to talk to arnelle to make sure she'd done the wash?


I doubt he was talking about a policeman. The way he says get him out of here. It's like "him" is someone known to OJ that he considers he has power over.

If it was a policeman wouldn't he say something like, get them out of here, I don't want to talk to them, tell them to leave me alone. etc.

[martin II]

*Snipped*

Did you notice Kato the dog going bonkers when he sees the Bronco? I always thought that orenthal was talking about the policeman. Maybe orenthal was wanting to talk to arnelle to make sure she'd done the wash?

weezer you are confused i believe

when the bronco ride took place oj had been back to brentwood for several days. He had planty of time to talk to Arnell prior to the bronco ride.

The dop acted normal considering the yard was full of LE and media.

Now if you have the ability to read the dogs mind --------

martin II

[martin II]

I doubt he was talking about a policeman. The way he says get him out of here. It's like "him" is someone known to OJ that he considers he has power over.

If it was a policeman wouldn't he say something like, get them out of here, I don't want to talk to them, tell them to leave me alone. etc.

i think oj knew he had a gun and all the cops had guns. The situation was not setteled. He did not know if the cops would start shooting or not. It was just too dangerous for Jason to approcah the bronco.
martin II

[Suzee10]

*Snipped*

Did you notice Kato the dog going bonkers when he sees the Bronco? I always thought that orenthal was talking about the policeman. Maybe orenthal was wanting to talk to arnelle to make sure she'd done the wash?


Oh she had done the wash and much more, but she did forget to reset the alarm system, bet simpson was upset oever that.:(

[martin II]

Oh she had done the wash and much more, but she did forget to reset the alarm system, bet simpson was upset oever that.:(

Suzee
OJ arrived back at Rockingham on 6/13. The bronco ride was some days later,
do you have evidence that Oj did not talk to Arnell between 6/13 and the day of the bronco ride?
martin II

[Jayme K]

:lol: Yeah, IMO, I think that Jayme knows that it is "No big surprise there" DIVA! :lol:

Yeah, some people are just nutcases but I tend to be able to pick them out and work my way through their trash.

[weezer]

Suzee
OJ arrived back at Rockingham on 6/13. The bronco ride was some days later,
do you have evidence that Oj did not talk to Arnell between 6/13 and the day of the bronco ride?
martin II

martin, look up the word 'sarcasm' -- Geez. Besides, we know he talked to her to tell her to wash the sweat suit.

[martin II]

martin, look up the word 'sarcasm' -- Geez. Besides, we know he talked to her to tell her to wash the sweat suit.

wezer

you mean you think he called Arnell to tell her to wash the sweat suite.
Otherwise phone records or tape of the conversation would be fine.
martin II

[chickenhouse]

i think oj knew he had a gun and all the cops had guns. The situation was not setteled. He did not know if the cops would start shooting or not. It was just too dangerous for Jason to approcah the bronco.
martin II

That could be true. But why would he then say "I want Arnelle" wouldn't that then put her in danger.

I think he was angry with Jason and didn't want to see him. IMO

Also according to William Dear (I haven't found it myself) OJ reportedly said that the cut on his hand happened when he was wrestling with his son Jason.

If OJ was there at the murder scene at the same time as Jason and wrestled with him to get the knife off him, that would explain the cut and could explain the timeline descrepancy. If he was there at the time of the murders he would have had plenty of time to get back to his house before the chauffer arrived. It means he doesn't have to wait for Jason's phonecall.

Maybe it was OJ who said "hey hey hey" trying to get Jason to stop.

[bobaugust]

Also according to William Dear (I haven't found it myself) OJ reportedly said that the cut on his hand happened when he was wrestling with his son Jason.



chickenhouse, Simpson said he was wrestling with his young son Justin, not Jason.

bobaugust

[Kayleighjo]

I'm deeply sorry that the truth hurts you martin.

I can't help it that you've got a complex, nor can I do anything about the big heavy cross you seem to think you heave upon your back as you trek your way through the muddy waters of racial dissent.

Seems like a personal demon you've gotta confront. Long story short, it's not my problem how you choose to interpret my posts.

Who are you and where have you been all my life? :D

:beer:

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8833613]

Herein lies william's problem.................:D

Sorry,

I did not see this post until now. William's problem is dealing with some people who cannot see their problems, but think they can diagnose other people's problems.

[2L8 4A D8]

Yeah, like your problem of constantly posting to yourself. But don't feel bad, Martin has this problem too! IMO! :punch:

[William Anthony]

I posted to the post made to me by FBG. I have asked some posters not to post to or about me, which was in response to some posters requesting that of me. I see that some posters may lack the decency to honor my requests, although I honor theirs. It is alright, because the poster world can see that they obviously are mistaken about that of which they speak.

[2L8 4A D8]

Look again! Anybody who is playing with a full deck can see that it says Originally Posted by William Anthony! Duh! IMO! :punch:

[William Anthony]

Anyone can see that the quote was by Fbg and, if you click on the arrow beside my name, it will take you to my post to which FBG responded and I then responded to Fbg. I consider the source, as I have redundantly stated.

Some decks do not have 26 cards, obviously.

[weezer]

*Snip*Some decks do not have 26 cards, obviously.

:lol: wonder what kind of cards you have :lol:

[socaldiva]

*Snip*

:lol: wonder what kind of cards you have :lol:


Alphabet flash cards? :hat:

[2L8 4A D8]

Anyone can see that the quote was by Fbg and, if you click on the arrow beside my name, it will take you to my post to which FBG responded and I then responded to Fbg. I consider the source, as I have redundantly stated.

Some decks do not have 26 cards, obviously.

Click this, paste that, click on arrow. Yeah right, freaking m***n! It still says Originally Posted by William Anthony no matter how you look at it! Duh! IMO!

[Suzee10]

That could be true. But why would he then say "I want Arnelle" wouldn't that then put her in danger.

I think he was angry with Jason and didn't want to see him. IMO

Also according to William Dear (I haven't found it myself) OJ reportedly said that the cut on his hand happened when he was wrestling with his son Jason.

If OJ was there at the murder scene at the same time as Jason and wrestled with him to get the knife off him, that would explain the cut and could explain the timeline descrepancy. If he was there at the time of the murders he would have had plenty of time to get back to his house before the chauffer arrived. It means he doesn't have to wait for Jason's phonecall.

Maybe it was OJ who said "hey hey hey" trying to get Jason to stop.


Oh please!!!! It was not Jason's blood at the crime scene etc., it was simpson's. Where do you people come up with these theories?

[2L8 4A D8]

Oh please!!!! It was not Jason's blood at the crime scene etc., it was simpson's. Where do you people come up with these theories?

From William Dear's book. It's like the OJ Simpson Bible to all of them! IMO!

[martin II]

*Snip*

:lol: wonder what kind of cards you have :lol:

I would suggest william has a full deck based on his most logical and knowledgable post here. others seem to be looking around for their missing cards. jmoo
martin II

[weezer]

I would suggest william has a full deck based on his most logical and knowledgable post here. others seem to be looking around for their missing cards. jmoo
martin II

not if he's only got 26 cards --

[William Anthony]

*Snip*

:lol: wonder what kind of cards you have :lol:

The decks that have 52 and two jokers, which I am trying to discard. There is also a card with printing on it that sometimes unfortunately tries to resemble the jokers.

[William Anthony]

Click on the arrow where it said originally posted by William Anthony and, if you can read with comprehension, you will understand that the post I responded to was in response to Fbg's, because you will see my original post and know that Fbg responded to that. However, if you just want to remain arumentative and insulting, then do not try to comprehend.

[volunteerdude]

YOU GOTTA BE AN ABSOLUTE IDIOT

If

1. all this evidence/facts/speculation doesnt show that his son had a part in this

2. That if someone committs murder and theres another party in the area that that witness is not going to get killed
Whether he liked her or not if she was in the area then either he killed her or poppa was with him and killed her while Jason killed Ron

Look at the crime scene

THATS RAGE

Both had fits of rage
Both too pills and drugs and alcohol

Its an epidenic of grand proportions in the United States

Its all due to the psychiatric community giving these patients hardcore medications that mess with their brains

Theres countless evidence in many murders

Columbine and VTECH as well

Ample security should have been patrolling the area as well

if the kids were there sleeping and the dog was whelping then the kids would have awoken to see whats going on
And at that age one of them would have called the cops if their parents were being harmed

Its typical for a father to protect his kids in any situation
He knew Jason was screwed up and wanted a good life for him
So he helped cover up the situation

THIS IS COMMON PEOPLE

Corruption is everywhere

You dont hear much about pharmaceuticals because most media and gov't get PAID from the health companies

Do the research and stop the drugging of kids

We get hundreds of letters from parents who look for help because their kids are being screwed up by the meds and their supposed to trust their dr but the dr doesnt care

The dr is there to prescribe medication, screening and get paid


My trheory stands that
A. Both OJ and Jason were at the crime scene
B. Jason was there alone and his father either knew or suspected

Theres nothing more to figure out

Alan
http://www.defensefoundationforchildren.com

[volunteerdude]

Nicole Brown Simpson's letter to O.J. Simpson
(This letter was introduced in Simpson's civil trial)
Text of undated letter from Nicole Brown Simpson to O.J. Simpson. Simpson testified he never received the letter.

O.J. --

I think I have to put this all in a letter. Alot of years ago I used to do much better in a letter, I'm gonna try it again now.

I'd like you to keep this letter if we split, so that you'll always know why we split. I'd also like you to keep it if we stay together, as a reminder.

Right now I am so angry! If I didn't know that the courts would take Sydney & Justin away from me if I did this I would (expletive) every guy including some that you know just to let you know how it feels.

I wish someone could explain all this to me. I see our marriage as a huge mistake & you don't.

I knew what went on in our relationship before we got married. I knew after 6 years that all the things I thought were going on -- were! All the things I gave in to -- all the "I'm sorry for thinking that" "I'm sorry for not believing you" -- "I'm sorry for not trusting you."

I made up with you all the time & even took the blame many times for your cheating. I know this took place because we fought about it alot & even discussed it before we got married with my family & a minister.

OK before the marriage I lived with it & dealt with (illegible) mainly because you finally said that we weren't married at the time.

I assumed that your recurring nasty attitude & mean streak was to cover up your cheating & a general disrespect for women & a lack of manners!

I remember a long time ago a girlfriend of yours wrote you a letter -- she said well you aren't married yet so let's get together. Even she had the same idea of marriage as me. She believed that when you marry you wouldn't be going out anymore -- adultery is a very important thing to many people.

It's one of the 1st 10 things I learned at Sunday school. You said it (illegible) some things you learn at school stick! And the 10 Comandments did!

I wanted to be a wonderful wife!

I believed you that it would finally be "you & me against the world" -- that people would be envious or in awe of us because we stuck through it & finally became one a real couple.

I let my guard down -- I thought it was finally gonna be you & me -- you wanted a baby (so you said) & I wanted a baby -- then with each pound you were terrible. You gave me dirty looks looks of disgust -- said mean things to me at times about my appearance walked out on me & lied to me.

I remember one day my mom said "he actually thinks you can have a baby & not get fat."

I gained 10 to 15 lbs more that I should have with Sydney. Well that's by the book -- Most women gain twice that. It's not like it was that much -- but you made me feel so ugly! I've battled 10 lbs up & down the scale since I was 15 -- It was no more X-tra weight than was normal for me to be up -- I believe my mom -- you thought a baby weighs 7 lbs & the woman should gain 7 lbs. I'd like to finally tell you that that's not the way it is -- And had you read those books I got you on pregnancy you may have known that.

Talk about feeling alone ....

In between Sydney & justin you say my clothes bothered you -- that my shoes were on the floor that I bugged you -- Wow that's so terrible! Try I had a low self esteem because since we got married I felt like the paragraph above.

There was also that time before Justin & after few months Sydney, I felt really good about how I got back into shape and we made out. You beat the holy hell out of me & we lied at the X-ray lab & said I fell off a bike ... Remember!??

Great for my self esteem.

There are a number of other instances that I could talk about that made my marriage so wonderful ... like the televised Clipper game & going to (illegible) before the game & your 40th birthday party & the week leading up to it. But I don't like talking about the past It depressed me.

Then came the pregnancy with Justin & oh how wonderful you treated me again -- I remember swearing to God & myself that under no circumstances would I let you be in that delivery room.

I hated you so much.

And since Justin birth & the mad New Years Eve beat up.

I just don't see how our stories compare -- I was so bad because I wore sweats & left shoes around & didn't keep a perfect house or comb my hair the way you liked it -- or had dinner ready at the precise moment you walked through the door or that I just plain got on your nerves sometimes.

I just don't see how that compares to infidelity, wife beating verbal abuse --

I just don't think everybody goes through this --

And if I wanted to hurt you or had it in me to be anything like the person you are -- I would have done so after the (illegible) incident. But I didn't even do it then. I called the cops to save my life whether you believe it or not. But I didn't pursue anything after that -- I didn't prosecute, I didn't call the press & I didn't make a big charade out of it. I waited for it to die down and asked for it to. But I've never loved you since or been the same.

It made me take a look at my life with you -- my wonderful life with the superstar that wonderful man, O.J. Simpson the father of my kids -- that husband of that terribly insecure (illegible) -- the girl with no self esteem (illegible) of worth -- she must be (illegible) those things to with a guy like that.

It certainly doesn't take a strong person to be with a guy like that and certainly no one would be envious of that life.

I agree after we married things changed -- we couldn't have house fulls of people like I used to have over & barbque for, because I had other responsabilities. I didn't want to go to alot of events & I'd back down at the last minute on fuctions & trips I admit I'm sorry --

I just believe that a relationship is based on trust -- and the last time I trusted you was at our wedding ceremony. it's just so hard for me to trust you again. Even though you say you're a different guy. That O.J. Simpson guy brought me alot of pain heatache -- I tried so hard with him -- I wanted so to be a good wife. But he never gave me a chance.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/ifididit.html

[weezer]

YOU GOTTA BE AN ABSOLUTE IDIOT

If

1. all this evidence/facts/speculation doesnt show that his son had a part in this

and you would have to be an absolute idiot to believe Jason could have been the murderer (or even at the scene) and not left some kind of forensic evidence that he had been there that night. How do you think he got orenthal's blood to drip around the crime scene? There was blood of all three victims in the Bronco -- how do you think it got there if orenthal was coming and going to the Bronco over at Rockingham during the time the murders were being committed?

[limakey]

V-Dude,

IMO, if Jason did kill them, I can't imagine that OJ Simpson would cover for him. Apparently, Simpson hired a criminal defense lawyer for Jason on his way home from Chicago. I'm sure much could be read into this. However, if this is true, the fact that Simpson hired a lawyered for Jason before talking to him indicates that Simpson would not cover him. IMO.

I do agree with you that Jason Simpson had his issues and was capable of doing this, but I have hard time believing that he would have the ability to keep this to himself. Again, IMO.

[Suzee10]

and you would have to be an absolute idiot to believe Jason could have been the murderer (or even at the scene) and not left some kind of forensic evidence that he had been there that night. How do you think he got orenthal's blood to drip around the crime scene? There was blood of all three victims in the Bronco -- how do you think it got there if orenthal was coming and going to the Bronco over at Rockingham during the time the murders were being committed?


Great post!!!

[volunteerdude]

In 2000, a BBC investigation suggested that in their rush to prove Simpson's guilt, police had neglected a more likely suspect -- Simpson's son by his first marriage, Jason. Jason Simpson was 24 at the time of the killings, and like his father had a history of violence. The younger Simpson was a professional chef who'd previously brandished knives when enraged. He was on anger-suppression meds at the time, and his alibi for the night in question -- that he was working -- was challenged by co-workers. Also, according to BBC's reporters, Nicole had said she thought Jason Simpson was stalking her.

In O.J.’s letter, the sports star proclaimed his innocence. Yet, he ended by saying, “Don’t feel sorry for me, I’ve had a great life, great friends. Please think of the real O.J. and not this lost person.”
THIS SOUNDS LIKE GUILT

The car chase alone was outrageous
if it were you or me - we'd be hounded, cuffed and thrown in a jail cell faster than 20 minutes
This blatantly shows that many people do not look at the crime from celebs as being as serious

I just didn’t believe for an instant that what I was seeing on the screen represented the truth. There were just too many unanswered questions to convince me that the “lost person” in the suicide letter was the same man now giving himself up to police. To my mind, O.J. appeared to be in control of the situation, not the LAPD or the media.
Foremost on my list of unanswered questions was why police had let O.J. become a fugitive from justice in the first place? If indeed the LAPD had solid and incontrovertible blood evidence linking O.J. to the murders, and if reports were true that his bloody glove had been found at the crime scene, and that his shoe prints led from the victims to the alley behind Bundy Drive, it seemed inconceivable to me that LAPD hadn’t already arrested him, or at the least known where he was at all times.

Furthermore, I had to ask myself why the highway patrol didn’t stop the Bronco in Orange County, where it was first reported seen? Even if A.C. Cowlings hadn’t willingly pulled the Bronco over, the highway patrol could easily have set up a blockade or laid down a strip of metal tire tacks in the roadway that would puncture the Bronco’s tires and disable the vehicle. As a former Miami policeman and highway patrolman, I knew that this was the accepted procedure. Instead, the LAPD gave the entire freeway to the fugitives as they would for a visit from the President of the United States.

Nor did the LAPD appear to be in any rush to get O.J. handcuffed when he did reach his Rockingham estate. He was permitted to leave his car, enter his house, use the bathroom, telephone his mother and shake hands with family and friends before being taken into custody.
The activities of O.J. himself raised even more questions in my mind. Had he truly been a family man, as suggested by the loving manner in which he cradled the framed pictures in his lap, he surely would not have desired to kill himself on network television, or worse still in the driveway of his own home and in full view of his friends and family. Nor would he have led the police and press on a slow-speed freeway car chase if he truly desired to make a run across the border. He would have gone underground and could well have had the contacts to remain hidden for quite some time. And if he really was running from the law because he was guilty, and truly was on the verge of a nervous breakdown, as the police and practically everyone else appeared to believe, there was the question of his innocence.

The longer I thought about what I had seen the more skeptical I was that O.J. was guilty.
However, before I risked challenging the status quo, I had to study the case from every conceivable angle and then check the facts. I had solved the majority of crimes in my career by doing just that.

Renowned detective and author, William C. Dear, has completed an exhaustive six-year investigation into the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. After thirty-five years of experience as a private
investigator, focusing primarily on homicides in the U.S. and abroad, Bill Dear utilized his unique skills to narrow the field down to one major suspect and it is not, in his opinion, O.J. Simpson.
Nicknamed “The real James Bond: by the London Times, Toronto Star and the Dallas Times Herald, Bill has been involved in some truly unique and harrowing cases. He solved the mystery surrounding the disappearance and death of a young genius at Michigan State University, as chronicled in his book, The Dungeon Master. He was also head of a team appointed to the exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald, solved the Dean Milo murder in Akron Ohio, which resulted in eleven arrests and convictions – the most ever in U.S. history for a single murder case. The Black Widow murder case and the Wax Museum murder case in Arlington, Texas.

http://www.pimall.com/dear/index.html


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Renowned detective and author, William C. Dear, has completed an exhaustive six-year investigation into the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

While I don't doubt that the investigation exhausted him, he got it wrong. IMO:tongue:

[weezer]

In 2000, a BBC investigation suggested that in their rush to prove Simpson's guilt, police had neglected a more likely suspect -- Simpson's son by his first marriage, Jason. Jason Simpson was 24 at the time of the killings, and like his father had a history of violence. The younger Simpson was a professional chef who'd previously brandished knives when enraged. He was on anger-suppression meds at the time, and his alibi for the night in question -- that he was working -- was challenged by co-workers. Also, according to BBC's reporters, Nicole had said she thought Jason Simpson was stalking her.

There has never been one shred of credible evidence that Jason was at the murder scene the night orenthal slaughtered two human beings. It is a shame and disgrace that NGs desparate to excuse orenthal would try to deflect such an awful thing onto an innocent young man.

Nicole stated to family and friends that orenthal was stalking her in the weeks before her death.

Nicole stated to family and friends that she was afraid that orenthal had her stolen house key -- the key was found in the stuff removed from the Bronco after his 'suicide' run.

[limakey]

V-Dude,

I totally agree with you that if it was you or me, we would not have been treated in the same way. However, that doesn't mean that they way we would have been treated would have been right.

I believe that during the "chase" the police did an excellent job, such an excellent job, that I wonder why this same professionalism, this same patience and compassion (in regards to the comments about his kids, mom, etc.) is a rarity rather then the norm. Keeping in mind that Simpson never threatened the police with harm. I have no problem with police officers firing on suspect when the suspect points the gun at them or makes comments like they won't be taken alive, etc. IMO, I think they believed that Simpson was only a threat to himself and no else during that time.

I do not believe that anyone wanted to see Simpson blow his head off on TV. I do believe that Lange was speaking from his heart about Simpson's kids, mother and friends. Againk these are my opinons only.

I also have no problem with what Simpson was allowed to do after he got into his home. They saved a man's life. They made sure he could not injure himself or them. I don't asking to use the bathroom, call his mom and have a drink of juice to be outrageous demands---from anyone.

[volunteerdude]

There has never been one shred of credible evidence that Jason was at the murder scene the night orenthal slaughtered two human beings. It is a shame and disgrace that NGs desparate to excuse orenthal would try to deflect such an awful thing onto an innocent young man.

Nicole stated to family and friends that orenthal was stalking her in the weeks before her death.

Nicole stated to family and friends that she was afraid that orenthal had her stolen house key -- the key was found in the stuff removed from the Bronco after his 'suicide' run.


nicole said the same thing about Jason stalking her

so why couldnt he be a suspect as well?


Most I would say from my knowledge of a murderer is they dont go after others

they have a goal to kill whoever and leave it at that unless provoked otherwise

Example lets say Antonio Bruno of the Bruno crime family wants Tony 2 toes dead
Well He's only going to go after tony 2 toes but if theres witnesses he's going to get them too

He's not going to go to the local supermarket the next day and just go kill an innocent

Because to him is meaningless

The Iceman in NJ
Killed over 200 people
Sometimes he killed for the fun of it
One time he wanted to test out a crossbow and just shot a guy in the forehead with it
Another was jogging, he drives by and the guy tells him off - Iceman shoots him in the chest
At the end the Iceman said he grew up with no love
Was always beat by his father and scolded by his mother
Same with his brother
And his brother met the same fate and killed a little girl

But in both scenarios these men were provoked

Nicole provoked OJ as theres 2 sides to a story
She wasnt the greatest companion to him or anyone
She had her flaws too like so many
I've lived with these kinds of people and seen the scenarios
She wanted to get back at him in many ways to the point that he blew his top
And a lot of men are like that
I think if she was a bit more discreet she would be alive today

But the most important thing for women to understand is - if you are in a rocky relationship and you don't know what to do
LEAVE AND TELL SOMEONE YOU TRUST
Put a restraining order out
Whatever you have to do to get away from these people

Too many women say they didnt have the power to do such things and they end up beat or dead or crippled because they didnt think

I got an email today from a girl who complained about how many women screw over their boyfriends

Who says OJ didnt have a split personality either?

They say Nicole died in 15 seconds and Ron in a minute
OJ learned how to kill by Navy Seals did he not?

http://myspace.com/stvuyt

[volunteerdude]

V-Dude,

I totally agree with you that if it was you or me, we would not have been treated in the same way. However, that doesn't mean that they way we would have been treated would have been right.

I believe that during the "chase" the police did an excellent job, such an excellent job, that I wonder why this same professionalism, this same patience and compassion (in regards to the comments about his kids, mom, etc.) is a rarity rather then the norm. Keeping in mind that Simpson never threatened the police with harm. I have no problem with police officers firing on suspect when the suspect points the gun at them or makes comments like they won't be taken alive, etc. IMO, I think they believed that Simpson was only a threat to himself and no else during that time.

I do not believe that anyone wanted to see Simpson blow his head off on TV. I do believe that Lange was speaking from his heart about Simpson's kids, mother and friends. Againk these are my opinons only.

I also have no problem with what Simpson was allowed to do after he got into his home. They saved a man's life. They made sure he could not injure himself or them. I don't asking to use the bathroom, call his mom and have a drink of juice to be outrageous demands---from anyone.


Did an excellent job?

There was like 15 cars following him when 10 of those cars could have been on the streets patrolling neighborhoods for crime

Too often I see cops go to situations with multiple car loads of officers for 1 or 2 guys

Gerry Spence went to a filming one time for a girl who robbed 2 banks in las vegas
There were armed guards surrounding her like if she was Rambo
And he said before he left - you know if i were to be a criminal the first thing i would do is rob a bank
Why?
Because 85% of the banks steal from us all the time

gerryspence.com

[limakey]

V-Dude,

IMO, the police always do an excellent job when in very stressful situations, arrests are made and no one is hurt or killed during the process.

[PeterPaul]

V-Dude,

IMO, the police always do an excellent job when in very stressful situations, arrests are made and no one is hurt or killed during the process.

:beer: :beer:

[weezer]

Nicole provoked OJ as theres 2 sides to a story
She wasnt the greatest companion to him or anyone
She had her flaws too like so many
I've lived with these kinds of people and seen the scenarios
She wanted to get back at him in many ways to the point that he blew his top
And a lot of men are like that
I think if she was a bit more discreet she would be alive today

Shame on you -- to blame Nicole for doing anything that would have resulted in her being butchered is wrong! I don't know where you come from or who you live with, but it sounds like you should take your own advice -- seek help. IMOO

[Suzee10]

nicole said the same thing about Jason stalking her

so why couldnt he be a suspect as well?


Most I would say from my knowledge of a murderer is they dont go after others

they have a goal to kill whoever and leave it at that unless provoked otherwise

Example lets say Antonio Bruno of the Bruno crime family wants Tony 2 toes dead
Well He's only going to go after tony 2 toes but if theres witnesses he's going to get them too

He's not going to go to the local supermarket the next day and just go kill an innocent

Because to him is meaningless

The Iceman in NJ
Killed over 200 people
Sometimes he killed for the fun of it
One time he wanted to test out a crossbow and just shot a guy in the forehead with it
Another was jogging, he drives by and the guy tells him off - Iceman shoots him in the chest
At the end the Iceman said he grew up with no love
Was always beat by his father and scolded by his mother
Same with his brother
And his brother met the same fate and killed a little girl

But in both scenarios these men were provoked

Nicole provoked OJ as theres 2 sides to a story
She wasnt the greatest companion to him or anyone
She had her flaws too like so many
I've lived with these kinds of people and seen the scenarios
She wanted to get back at him in many ways to the point that he blew his top
And a lot of men are like that
I think if she was a bit more discreet she would be alive today

But the most important thing for women to understand is - if you are in a rocky relationship and you don't know what to do
LEAVE AND TELL SOMEONE YOU TRUST
Put a restraining order out
Whatever you have to do to get away from these people

Too many women say they didnt have the power to do such things and they end up beat or dead or crippled because they didnt think

I got an email today from a girl who complained about how many women screw over their boyfriends

Who says OJ didnt have a split personality either?

They say Nicole died in 15 seconds and Ron in a minute
OJ learned how to kill by Navy Seals did he not?

http://myspace.com/stvuyt



It was simpson's blood at the crime scene not Jason's. So you are blaming Nicole for her own murder? Is this simpson posting here? He said the same thing in an interview. The only thing that Nicole was guilty of is marrying a possessive, controling batterer. It is simpson's fault he could not control himself. He was not going to allow anyone to have Nicole if he could not have her. He is the sicko, not Nicole, and she did leave the sicko and he stalked her. He would not leave her alone. She called the police, she did eveything she was supposed to do and the police did nothing.

simpson is to blame for both of these murders.

[socaldiva]

It was simpson's blood at the crime scene not Jason's. So you are blaming Nicole for her own murder? Is this simpson posting here? He said the same thing in an interview. The only thing that Nicole was guilty of is marrying a possessive, controling batterer. It is simpson's fault he could not control himself. He was not going to allow anyone to have Nicole if he could not have her. He is the sicko, not Nicole, and she did leave the sicko and he stalked her. He would not leave her alone. She called the police, she did eveything she was supposed to do and the police did nothing.

simpson is to blame for both of these murders.

I agree Suzee, Nicole was doing all that she could to get away from him.

2 sides to every story doesn't mean that both parties are at fault, as that poster seems to think.

[martin II]

It was simpson's blood at the crime scene not Jason's. So you are blaming Nicole for her own murder? Is this simpson posting here? He said the same thing in an interview. The only thing that Nicole was guilty of is marrying a possessive, controling batterer. It is simpson's fault he could not control himself. He was not going to allow anyone to have Nicole if he could not have her. He is the sicko, not Nicole, and she did leave the sicko and he stalked her. He would not leave her alone. She called the police, she did eveything she was supposed to do and the police did nothing.

simpson is to blame for both of these murders.

If Nicole really wanted to get away from oj , why didn't she just move out of town. she had over$300,000 plus $10,000 per month child support. She could have moved far away if oj was harrassing her.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

If Nicole really wanted to get away from oj , why didn't she just move out of town. she had over$300,000 plus $10,000 per month child support. She could have moved far away if oj was harrassing her.imo
martin II

I don't know if that is possible relative to joint custody. She still would have had to had contact due to visitation. IMO

[weezer]

If Nicole really wanted to get away from oj , why didn't she just move out of town. she had over$300,000 plus $10,000 per month child support. She could have moved far away if oj was harrassing her.imo
martin II

she was on her way -- do you suppose that's what drove him over the edge? the fact that she had leased another place away from him and Brentwood?

[socaldiva]

she was on her way -- do you suppose that's what drove him over the edge? the fact that she had leased another place away from him and Brentwood?

Good point. She was on her way out of town, as I recall.

[Suzee10]

If Nicole really wanted to get away from oj , why didn't she just move out of town. she had over$300,000 plus $10,000 per month child support. She could have moved far away if oj was harrassing her.imo
martin II


Why should she have to leave town, her home and her friends? Who the h*** is he that everyone has to be the one that gives up everything ? She did what she was supposed to do. She moved away from him, she contacted police, who did nothing. What would have kept him, as many other batterers do, from finding her? Also she had his kids and he had visitation. If she had left she would have been the one in trouble with the family court.

The murders were simpson's fault, no one else's. Why didn't he control himself and act like a grown man. Why didn't he stop stalking her. Why was he so controlling?

simpson was the one to blame.

[limakey]

Both Nicole and OJ made tenative plans to move. OJ to Florida and Nicole out of Brentwood. Seems to me they both were looking else where to start again. IMO.

[weezer]

Why should she have to leave town, her home and her friends? Who the h*** is he that everyone has to be the one that gives up everything ? She did what she was supposed to do. She moved away from him, she contacted police, who did nothing. What would have kept him, as many other batterers do, from finding her? Also she had his kids and he had visitation. If she had left she would have been the one in trouble with the family court.

The murders were simpson's fault, no one else's. Why didn't he control himself and act like a grown man. Why didn't he stop stalking her. Why was he so controlling?

simpson was the one to blame.

great post! Nicole was doing what she needed to do -- it seems orenthal had/has a real problem with anyone telling him 'no.' IMOO

[weezer]

Both Nicole and OJ made tenative plans to move. OJ to Florida and Nicole out of Brentwood. Seems to me they both were looking else where to start again. IMO.

IIRC, the talk of moving to Florida was that Nicole and orenthal would go there together. Of course, Nicole finally breaking free of her batterer changed all of that.

Nicole had actually leased a house away from Brentwood. Do we know anything orenthal did to prepare to move away? No.

orenthal ran to Florida to outrun the civil trial judgment.

[Suzee10]

great post! Nicole was doing what she needed to do -- it seems orenthal had/has a real problem with anyone telling him 'no.' IMOO


That was the problem fbgweezer with Nicole, his kids and anyone who said "no". He some how got the impression he was "King simpson" and everyone around him were his lessers.

[Suzee10]

IIRC, the talk of moving to Florida was that Nicole and orenthal would go there together. Of course, Nicole finally breaking free of her batterer changed all of that.

Nicole had actually leased a house away from Brentwood. Do we know anything orenthal did to prepare to move away? No.

orenthal ran to Florida to outrun the civil trial judgment.


Exactally right fbgweezer. Great post!!!

[limakey]

If Cora is telling the truth, that she told OJ that he needed to get Nicole and the kids away from Brentwood---what are the chances she told the very same thing to Nicole?

IMO, OJ may have a played a part in her reasons for wanting to move, but perhaps it was because she felt she wanted to move to a place where she could establish her own friends? Anyone who has been through a divorce knows how difficult it can be to establish your own set of friends, etc.

Also, Nicole put herself in a position where she had to move more quickly then she would have liked.

If I remember correctly, OJ has talked about moving to Florida for awhile. Paula was from Florida, maybe he really liked the area?

However, even if he moved to Florida to avoid the judgement, tell me who among us wouldn't do that if we were able to do so? If you have issues with these laws, then perhaps you should declare "war" on states that allow this. IMO.

[martin II]

Exactally right fbgweezer. Great post!!!

weezer

after nicole planned to move out of town, there was no reason for oj to go anyplace as she could no longer be in his business as it related to hom he was seeing.
There was some reason nicole did not leave after the divoice. she always seen to be drawn back to oj in one way or another.
after the divoice what did she do. move about 2 minutes away.There must have been more apartments available in CA than around the corner.
IMO She only decided to move after she realized the jig was up when she received the DO NOT USE IRS letter from oj's lawyer.

martin II

[martin II]

nicole seem to have thought that the role of the other woman was ok when that was the role she played with married oj. But when other women decided to play that role with oj she complained.
some women always seem to think they have some magic wang that will allow them to change a man from previous habits.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

If Cora is telling the truth, that she told OJ that he needed to get Nicole and the kids away from Brentwood---what are the chances she told the very same thing to Nicole?

IMO, OJ may have a played a part in her reasons for wanting to move, but perhaps it was because she felt she wanted to move to a place where she could establish her own friends? Anyone who has been through a divorce knows how difficult it can be to establish your own set of friends, etc.

Also, Nicole put herself in a position where she had to move more quickly then she would have liked.

If I remember correctly, OJ has talked about moving to Florida for awhile. Paula was from Florida, maybe he really liked the area?

However, even if he moved to Florida to avoid the judgement, tell me who among us wouldn't do that if we were able to do so? If you have issues with these laws, then perhaps you should declare "war" on states that allow this. IMO.


i wonder how many here would bankrupt their famalies to pay Fred rather than move to Florida and protect their families security.

imo

martin II

[limakey]

Martin,

If I remember correctly, OJ was seriously thinking of moving to the East Coast. Perhaps it was where he was more popular and it suited his job at NBC better. OJ lost a lot of money in the riots, he also took a pay cut at NBC, maybe there was more money on the East Coast?

I agree with you about Nicole. I have very little sympathy for the "other woman" when she marries the guy and then finds out that there is another "other woman". The sympathy I do have is right with your statement, I think most woman do believe it will be different with them. However, I think any man or woman who gets married, has the right to expect that their spouse will be faithful.

PS--this also for guys who are the "other man". Again, IMO.

I think Nicole was also thinking about moving for a long time----I think the IRS letter pissed her off and moved things up but I think even without the letter, she was going to move and I think she may have wanted to move closer to her family. Again, IMO.

[socaldiva]

i wonder how many here would bankrupt their famalies to pay Fred rather than move to Florida and protect their families security.

imo

martin II


I seriously doubt that we have any double murderers posting, so the point is moot. imo ;)

[socaldiva]

nicole seem to have thought that the role of the other woman was ok when that was the role she played with married oj. But when other women decided to play that role with oj she complained.
some women always seem to think they have some magic wang that will allow them to change a man from previous habits.
imo
martin II

What does any of this have to do with her being murdered?

[martin II]

Martin,

If I remember correctly, OJ was seriously thinking of moving to the East Coast. Perhaps it was where he was more popular and it suited his job at NBC better. OJ lost a lot of money in the riots, he also took a pay cut at NBC, maybe there was more money on the East Coast?

I agree with you about Nicole. I have very little sympathy for the "other woman" when she marries the guy and then finds out that there is another "other woman". The sympathy I do have is right with your statement, I think most woman do believe it will be different with them. However, I think any man or woman who gets married, has the right to expect that their spouse will be faithful.

PS--this also for guys who are the "other man". Again, IMO.

I think Nicole was also thinking about moving for a long time----I think the IRS letter pissed her off and moved things up but I think even without the letter, she was going to move and I think she may have wanted to move closer to her family. Again, IMO.

limakey
I do remember reading someplace that oj had tired of cross country flights from CA to NY on the many business trips. That he liked the golf courses
in Florida and the east coast. He had a 5th ave n.y. apartment (dorman named Mark Furhman).

I think that each person has a right to believe the other after listening to the promises at the alter. Oj seemed to have had a problem refusing some of the advances from other women that come with being a star at the level he
enjoyed and maby Nicole should have known that there were other women willing to do exactly what she had done to get close to fame and money.

There must have been some reason she only moved 2 minutes away from oj after the divoice. it seems that she did not want to get too far away and some time after the devoice after receiving all that money, she did write the can i come home letter to oj. it seems that something pulled her back to oj.maby something she dearly missed. imo

martin II

[volunteerdude]

It was simpson's blood at the crime scene not Jason's. So you are blaming Nicole for her own murder? Is this simpson posting here? He said the same thing in an interview. The only thing that Nicole was guilty of is marrying a possessive, controling batterer. It is simpson's fault he could not control himself. He was not going to allow anyone to have Nicole if he could not have her. He is the sicko, not Nicole, and she did leave the sicko and he stalked her. He would not leave her alone. She called the police, she did eveything she was supposed to do and the police did nothing.

simpson is to blame for both of these murders.


I SAID THAT YOU SHOULD ALSO LOOK AT WHAT THINGS SHE HAS DONE IN THE PAST TO PROVOKE HIM TO GO TO EXTREME LENGTHS - PERIOD

IT HAPPENS ON A DAILY BASIS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY WITH MANY PEOPLE AND BY THE WAY I AM VOLUNTEERING FOR THE FAMILY

YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF AN ARGUEMENT TO UNDERSTAND THE FULL ARGUEMENT
-
Next time maybe O.J. Simpson should call the cable guy.

A federal judge in Miami on Tuesday ordered the former football great to pony up $25,000 in damages to DirecTV after allegedly pirating satellite TV signals.

The satellite-TV provider sued Simpson in March 2004, accusing him of piracy after government agents raided his Miami mansion in 2001 and turned up "bootloaders," illicit devices used to unscramble DirecTV's satellite signals.

At the time, the feds were investigating an ecstasy, money-laundering and satellite-theft ring. Simpson was never charged in relation to the probe.

After DirecTV filed suit, his attorney, Yale Galanter, claimed that, despite being a long-time paying customer, the Juice was being squeezed by the company.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard found in favor of DirecTV, and Galanter vowed to appeal on the grounds that Simpson didn't get a fair hearing.

"[The judge] basically denied us our right to a jury trial," Galanter said after the hearing, per the Associated Press. "This was a decision made by a judge in chambers. They said he did it; we say he didn't. A jury should be able to make that decision."

Galanter later told the Los Angeles Times that Simpson wasn't living in the home when the bootloaders were discovered. The attorney said there was "no evidence that [Simpson] knew or should have known" the devices were against the law.

A rep for DirecTV disputed that assertion, telling E! Online the judge's decision vindicated the company's position that the onetime Heisman winner knew full well what he was doing.

"The ruling serves as a reminder that there are consequences to signal theft, whether you're O.J. or John Q. Public," said Robert Mercer, communications director for DirecTV. "The judge made the correct ruling based on the evidence. Our signal-integrity guy walked in the door of the Simpson residence and saw the devices as they were intercepting our programming."

Mercer also discounted Galanter's statements, saying that Simpson did not have a legit DirecTV account.

More than 10 years since he was acquitted for the slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman, Simpson's legal problems continue to linger.

He wound up on the losing end of a $33.5 million wrongful-death civil suit filed by the families of the victims and has yet to pay the bulk of the award.

In 1997, Simpson and his two children moved from Los Angeles to Miami, purportedly to live a lower-key life. Fat chance.

He was arrested in December 2000 on road-rage charges, allegedly breaking the glasses of a motorist who honked at him; Simpson was eventually acquitted. Then in November 2002, he was slapped with a speeding ticket for racing a powerboat through Biscayne Bay in a zone reserved for endangered manatees. After skipping out on a court date, a warrant was issued for his arrest, but Simpson was able to avoid jail time after showing up for another hearing and paying a fine.


In January 2003, cops were called to the Simpson home after a tearful call from his daughter, Sydney, following an alleged shouting match between her and her father. Police deemed it a family dispute and no charges were filed.


Let's see which was better

Pay the $100 a month for premium channels for a couple yrs or pay 25 grand?

hmmm

hard choice for a millionairre in Miami

http://www.galanterlaw.com/

[Kate Sachel]

Nicole provoked OJ as theres 2 sides to a story
She wasnt the greatest companion to him or anyone
She had her flaws too like so many
I've lived with these kinds of people and seen the scenarios
She wanted to get back at him in many ways to the point that he blew his top
And a lot of men are like that
I think if she was a bit more discreet she would be alive today

http://myspace.com/stvuyt

For a moment I sat here in amazement, just staring at this post.

Let me get this straight; because there are two sides to every story means that Nicole had to have provoked him in some way? Her actions of revenge led him to blow his top? Had she been more discreet she would be alive today? These statements are so far offensive that I almost cannot formulate an appropriate response. Suffice it to say that I believe that someone needs to revoke your volunteer status posthaste.

I agree that Nicole had her flaws, but in what personal way did you know her that allows you to say that she wasn't a good companion to anyone? Quite the contrary, interviews and testimony seem to show that she was a loving, caring, and faithful companion to her men and friends alike.

Kate

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Women with black men tend to take on the same personalities as their mate
Meaning the yelling and competitiveness and don't care attitude that they can do whatever they want


WTH? :confused:

BTW, I have training relative to domestic abuse & I can assure you, you are way off base in what you post. imo

[martin II]

no shame on you for not looking at what cards she had too as theres 2 parts to a story

if you dare to ignore the other side of an issue then you have no business dealing with it

There are a lot of women out there that have alterior motives

A lot of women who cheat on their spouses

Especially if they find out their mate cheated they usually want to get back at them


Why would she stay with an abusive person?

Women with black men tend to take on the same personalities as their mate
Meaning the yelling and competitiveness and don't care attitude that they can do whatever they want

"Goldman, 25, also had an increasingly close relationship with 35-year-old Nicole Brown Simpson, whom he had exercised with, accompanied to dance clubs and often met for coffee and dinner during the past month and a half. He told others that he was just friends with Simpson. But he boasted of her stunning good looks and talked about the special kick it gave him to see heads turn when the two of them pulled up in her white Ferrari in front of The Gate, a fashionable West Hollywood dance club, with him behind the wheel....Six weeks ago Goldman was driving the Ferrari, with its highly recognizable L84AD8 license plate, when he joined [another waiter Craig] Clark for lunch at Cafe Montana in Santa Monica. Clark said that Goldman told him it was Nicole Simpson's car, but that he did not say she was his girlfriend. 'He said they were friends', Clark recalled."


Ask a psychologist about women in abusive relationships


She took cocaine
usually if one side of the relationship is abusing drugs
The other is too

again
i'm only giving a scenario as what i've seen myself of relationships with the african american culture
Its not a permanent reason
I've lived with them, been around them, have black friends, dated black women and been around white women with black men

whose to say she didnt have alterior motives to sleep with handsome ron?
or already did
Nicole Brown Simpson is naturally charming and peace loving, except when provoked.


I'm not saying it had a big part in it but theres that question
wheres her diary?
Diaries tell a lot of what goes on
thats what they are for

Ive also listened to Fayes auiobook of their relationship

Its just a shame that her diary wasnt shown

http://www.eyeweekly.com/eye/issue/issue_10.26.95/NEWS/nec1026.php

there is always two sides to every story if one only looks at one side then one has only part of the story.
Cora Fishman in her criminal trial testimony did tell a side of nicole's life that many seem not to know.

imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

there is always two sides to every story if one only looks at one side then one has only part of the story.
Cora Fishman in her criminal trial testimony did tell a side of nicole's life that many seem not to know.

imo
martin II

2 sides to the story doesn't mean that the woman was equal to the abuser in her behavior, nor does it mean that she provoked him into it. :no: :no:

[weezer]

no shame on you for not looking at what cards she had too as theres 2 parts to a story

if you dare to ignore the other side of an issue then you have no business dealing with it

There are a lot of women out there that have alterior motives

A lot of women who cheat on their spouses

Especially if they find out their mate cheated they usually want to get back at them


Why would she stay with an abusive person?

Women with black men tend to take on the same personalities as their mate
Meaning the yelling and competitiveness and don't care attitude that they can do whatever they want

"Goldman, 25, also had an increasingly close relationship with 35-year-old Nicole Brown Simpson, whom he had exercised with, accompanied to dance clubs and often met for coffee and dinner during the past month and a half. He told others that he was just friends with Simpson. But he boasted of her stunning good looks and talked about the special kick it gave him to see heads turn when the two of them pulled up in her white Ferrari in front of The Gate, a fashionable West Hollywood dance club, with him behind the wheel....Six weeks ago Goldman was driving the Ferrari, with its highly recognizable L84AD8 license plate, when he joined [another waiter Craig] Clark for lunch at Cafe Montana in Santa Monica. Clark said that Goldman told him it was Nicole Simpson's car, but that he did not say she was his girlfriend. 'He said they were friends', Clark recalled."

NOW
Whats that look like to you?
Looks like he had feelings for Nicole
That they were close friends perhaps ?
But he had storng feelings for her
He acted nice towards her most likely on most occasions if there was more than 1 encounter

It takes a lot of balls to bring someone like that around you when you have an obsessive compulsive mate near you
Why is another man driving the expensive care he bought for his woman ?
Many jealous men would say
Especially with they woman as the passenger


Ask a psychologist about women in abusive relationships


She took cocaine
usually if one side of the relationship is abusing drugs
The other is too

again
i'm only giving a scenario as what i've seen myself of relationships with the african american culture
Its not a permanent reason
I've lived with them, been around them, have black friends, dated black women and been around white women with black men

whose to say she didnt have alterior motives to sleep with handsome ron?
or already did
Nicole Brown Simpson is naturally charming and peace loving, except when provoked.


I'm not saying it had a big part in it but theres that question
wheres her diary?
Diaries tell a lot of what goes on
thats what they are for

Ive also listened to Fayes auiobook of their relationship

Its just a shame that her diary wasnt shown

http://www.eyeweekly.com/eye/issue/issue_10.26.95/NEWS/nec1026.php

Let me say this one more time: Nicole did not and could not do anything that gave orenthal a reason to abuse and murder her. orenthal james simpson is the only person responsible for the murders of two human beings. Nothing they said, did or were caused their deaths. orenthal james simpson was/is responsible for their deaths.

[volunteerdude]

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

[volunteerdude]

Let me say this one more time: Nicole did not and could not do anything that gave orenthal a reason to abuse and murder her. orenthal james simpson is the only person responsible for the murders of two human beings. Nothing they said, did or were caused their deaths. orenthal james simpson was/is responsible for their deaths.

you dont know that and i dont know that until we find out both sides of their story

I totally dont believe even so that he or anyone else has a right to take anothers life
all i am s aying is look at both sides of the story to get a bigger picture

He was mostly in the wrong in multiple occasions

Wheres her side?

[Kate Sachel]

you dont know that and i dont know that until we find out both sides of their story

I totally dont believe even so that he or anyone else has a right to take anothers life
all i am s aying is look at both sides of the story to get a bigger picture

He was mostly in the wrong in multiple occasions

Wheres her side?

Her side was in her diaries, which were excluded from the trial of her accused murderer.

Kate

[volunteerdude]

WTH? :confused:

BTW, I have training relative to domestic abuse & I can assure you, you are way off base in what you post. imo

GIVE ME A BREAK LADY
YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVENT BEEN AROUND THE BLOCK IF YOU SAY THAT

[weezer]

you dont know that and i dont know that until we find out both sides of their story

I totally dont believe even so that he or anyone else has a right to take anothers life
all i am s aying is look at both sides of the story to get a bigger picture

He was mostly in the wrong in multiple occasions

Wheres her side?

then let's look:

there was/is no evidence that Nicole had any relationships outside of her marriage. Her dating took place when she and orenthal were apart.

the only person found with drugs in their system on the night of the murders was orenthal james simpson. Not Nicole. Not Ron.

unless the other person is threatening harm, anytime you abuse or murder another human being, you are in the wrong.

[weezer]

GIVE ME A BREAK LADY
YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVENT BEEN AROUND THE BLOCK IF YOU SAY THAT

I'm growing increasingly concerned that you have dealings with neglected and abused children. Please tell me you don't actually have 'hands on' with any of those poor kids.

[weezer]

Since there has never been any evidence whatsoever that Jason was involved in the murders and, in fact, proof that he could not have been there -- am I the only one offended by the title of this thread?

[martin II]

I'm growing increasingly concerned that you have dealings with neglected and abused children. Please tell me you don't actually have 'hands on' with any of those poor kids.

that is a mean comment just because his opinion is different than yours.imo

martin II

[weezer]

that is a mean comment just because his opinion is different than yours.imo

martin II

It wasn't meant to be mean -- I am truly concerned that anyone espousing his thoughts are in contact with abused and/or neglected children.

[martin II]

It wasn't meant to be mean -- I am truly concerned that anyone espousing his thoughts are in contact with abused and/or neglected children.

the insinuation you made about him was mean and uncalled for when you talked about you being concerned about him being in contact with abused and /or neglected children.imo

martin II

[socaldiva]

Since there has never been any evidence whatsoever that Jason was involved in the murders and, in fact, proof that he could not have been there -- am I the only one offended by the title of this thread?

I know what you mean. I'm surprised it is allowed. :(

[socaldiva]

GIVE ME A BREAK LADY
YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVENT BEEN AROUND THE BLOCK IF YOU SAY THAT


:confused: :shrug: :seeya:

[limakey]

Martin,

IMO, I believe Nicole and OJ fell in love at first sight. I don't believe Nicole was a trophy wife nor do I believe she was only in it for the money and the fame. Trophy wives don't get jealous nor do they really care who their husband sleeps with as long as the money keeps rolling in.

I also believe that Nicole was not any different from a lot of woman who divorce their husbands, they don't want to take their children away from their father.

Also, I think there is enough evidence to suggest that Nicole and OJ did continue to turn to each other for advice when the other asked for it. While I can see how angry they got with each other and no matter how much they may have tried, I don't think they ever hated each other and totally stopped caring about each other. I think Nicole hated what OJ did to her but actually hate him enough to do damage to her kids over it? I just don't see it. Again, IMO.

[volunteerdude]

Martin,

IMO, I believe Nicole and OJ fell in love at first sight. I don't believe Nicole was a trophy wife nor do I believe she was only in it for the money and the fame. Trophy wives don't get jealous nor do they really care who their husband sleeps with as long as the money keeps rolling in.

I also believe that Nicole was not any different from a lot of woman who divorce their husbands, they don't want to take their children away from their father.

Also, I think there is enough evidence to suggest that Nicole and OJ did continue to turn to each other for advice when the other asked for it. While I can see how angry they got with each other and no matter how much they may have tried, I don't think they ever hated each other and totally stopped caring about each other. I think Nicole hated what OJ did to her but actually hate him enough to do damage to her kids over it? I just don't see it. Again, IMO.


thats your avg domestic abuse relationship

They play it off like its not such a big deal with this and that but then on the other side they fight like dogs

again
you dont know their inner relationship

i'm actually surprised at the kids
If they were there
How quiet they are
THAT'S IF THEY SAW OR HEARD SOMETHING

A bit odd when the mother was killed

think oj told them to be quiet? or someone else?

AGAIN FOLKS
Not an insinuation but another possibility

Their innocent - yes
But were they forced to withhold info?

BUT NOONE SLEEPS WHILE ANOTHER IS BEING MURDERED AT THEIR HOME
SOMEONE IS GOING TO HEAR COMMOTION GOING ON UNLESS THE RADIO OR TV WAS ON LOUD

[bobaugust]

thats your avg domestic abuse relationship

They play it off like its not such a big deal with this and that but then on the other side they fight like dogs

again
you dont know their inner relationship

i'm actually surprised at the kids
If they were there
How quiet they are
THAT'S IF THEY SAW OR HEARD SOMETHING

A bit odd when the mother was killed

think oj told them to be quiet? or someone else?

AGAIN FOLKS
Not an insinuation but another possibility

Their innocent - yes
But were they forced to withhold info?

BUT NOONE SLEEPS WHILE ANOTHER IS BEING MURDERED AT THEIR HOME
SOMEONE IS GOING TO HEAR COMMOTION GOING ON UNLESS THE RADIO OR TV WAS ON LOUD

volunteerdude, there is no evidence that Simpson's children heard anything. They were sleeping in their rooms at the time of the murders. Based on the location of those rooms they would have been very isolated from any sounds on the front walkway, a story below and a hundred feet away, around several corners.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/nrthsid3.jpg
The location of the "glass door" is indicated by "A," the location of the "wood door" is indicted by "B." Nicole's master bedroom as "C," the kitchen as "D," and the children's bedrooms as "E."

bobaugust

[volunteerdude]

volunteerdude, there is no evidence that Simpson's children heard anything. They were sleeping in their rooms at the time of the murders. Based on the location of those rooms they would have been very isolated from any sounds on the front walkway, a story below and a hundred feet away, around several corners.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/nrthsid3.jpg
The location of the "glass door" is indicated by "A," the location of the "wood door" is indicted by "B." Nicole's master bedroom as "C," the kitchen as "D," and the children's bedrooms as "E."

bobaugust

is there a back door that anyone went in that night or was it just the front?

[martin II]

is there a back door that anyone went in that night or was it just the front?

there is a back door from the garage but no one knows if anyone came in.
Wagner kinda indicated that the lead killer was at the garage area and made some noise for nicole to hear to upset her. if true this may be why she took out the large knife that was found on the table.
otherwise i don't know about the back door.

martin II

[martin II]

is there a back door that anyone went in that night or was it just the front?

volunteerdude
thanks for the layout.

E seems a long was from the front door of the condo. I believe the children and the dog was in that area children sleep dog maby half sleep. which may account for why it appears that the dog did not come put until after the killers had done their deeds and the dog missed nicole not returning to the house.

imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

there is a back door from the garage but no one knows if anyone came in.
Wagner kinda indicated that the lead killer was at the garage area and made some noise for nicole to hear to upset her. if true this may be why she took out the large knife that was found on the table.
otherwise i don't know about the back door.

martin II

martin II, why do you continue to bring up Wagner's failed scenario that Simpson was at Bundy but not the killer when you don't believe any of it?

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Wagner kinda indicated that the lead killer was at the garage area and made some noise for nicole to hear to upset her. if true this may be why she took out the large knife that was found on the table.
otherwise i don't know about the back door.

martin II

"Lead killer"? There is no evidence to support more than one killer.

How do you "kinda" indicate something?

[martin II]

martin II, why do you continue to bring up Wagner's failed scenario that Simpson was at Bundy but not the killer when you don't believe any of it?

bobaugust

bob
this is a discussion group. We are not limited to discussing YOUR failed theory.
There is a lot of wagner that i believe so i cannot say he is wrong.

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
this is a discussion group. We are not limited to discussing YOUR failed theory.
There is a lot of wagner that i believe so i cannot say he is wrong.

martin II

martin II, Wagner created a theory that is contradicted by the known evidence and witness testimony. That's why his theory failed.

You say my failed theory? What theory? What theory do you think I've created that is contradicted by the known evidence and witness testimony?

No one is limiting discussions here but you have made it very clear that you do not believe Simpson was even at Bundy the night of the murders. Since Wagner's theory is based entirely on Simpson being at Bundy why do you bring it up and how can you possibly defend it?

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, Wagner created a theory that is contradicted by the known evidence and witness testimony. That's why his theory failed.

You say my failed theory? What theory? What theory do you think I've created that is contradicted by the known evidence and witness testimony?

No one is limiting discussions here but you have made it very clear that you do not believe Simpson was even at Bundy the night of the murders. Since Wagner's theory is based entirely on Simpson being at Bundy why do you bring it up and how can you possibly defend it?

bobaugust
i think all theories should be discussed expecially since you and i were not at bundy on 6/12 when two people were killed by someone.
ps wagner desputed many of your theories as nonsense so maby that is why
you are always open to attack him.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

i think all theories should be discussed expecially since you and i were not at bundy on 6/12 when two people were killed by someone.
ps wagner desputed many of your theories as nonsense so maby that is why
you are always open to attack him.imo
martin II

martin II, and just what theory of mine do you think Wagner disputes as nonsense?

I don't and never have attacked Wagner. I simply pointed out the evidence and witness testimony that contradicted his imagined theory. We had a long relationship and at times our conversations did heat up. But that doesn't change the fact that I have always given Dick credit for his research and the photographs he was able to obtain as well as praise for his writings regarding Jill Shively. Even today I still use and refer people to some of his photographs and writings.

That doesn't change the fact that his theory that Simpson was at Bundy but not the killer failed. I have no doubt if he was still alive he would have pointed out to you all your misinformation and incorrect beliefs that I have pointed out to you as well as putting you in your place for some of the nasty postings you have made regarding the victims and the family of the victims.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, and just what theory of mine do you think Wagner disputes as nonsense?

I don't and never have attacked Wagner. I simply pointed out the evidence and witness testimony that contradicted his imagined theory. We had a long relationship and at times our conversations did heat up. But that doesn't change the fact that I have always given Dick credit for his research and the photographs he was able to obtain as well as praise for his writings regarding Jill Shively. Even today I still use and refer people to some of his photographs and writings.

That doesn't change the fact that his theory that Simpson was at Bundy but not the killer failed. I have no doubt if he was still alive he would have pointed out to you all your misinformation and incorrect beliefs that I have pointed out to you as well as putting you in your place for some of the nasty postings you have made regarding the victims and the family of the victims.

bobaugust

bob
I don't think you can put me or anyone else in THEIR PLACE.

sorry to dissapoint you.

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
I don't think you can put me or anyone else in THEIR PLACE.

sorry to dissapoint you.

martin II

martin II, You keep making claims regarding my so called theories. You have yet to answer my requests for you to clarify what you are referring to. It's very simple, if you can't support your claims, don't make them.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

*snip* I have no doubt if he was still alive he would have pointed out to you all your misinformation and incorrect beliefs that I have pointed out to you as well as putting you in your place for some of the nasty postings you have made regarding the victims and the family of the victims.



:beer: :beer: :patriot:

[martin II]

martin II, You keep making claims regarding my so called theories. You have yet to answer my requests for you to clarify what you are referring to. It's very simple, if you can't support your claims, don't make them.

bobaugust

bob

IF you need me to do so, I will post some of wagners comments ( that he addressed to you) about some of your claims in the case. But it will have to wait until tomorrow.
martin II

[socaldiva]

bob

IF you need me to do so, I will post some of wagners comments ( that he addressed to you) about some of your claims in the case. But it will have to wait until tomorrow.
martin II

Better check the TOS first. I don't know if posting personal comments from another website is appropriate.

[bobaugust]

bob

IF you need me to do so, I will post some of wagners comments ( that he addressed to you) about some of your claims in the case. But it will have to wait until tomorrow.
martin II

martin II, sorry but I don't need you to do anything.

I've told you before that some of my conversations with Wagner became heated and I've told you before that there are several examples in Wagner's articles where he attributed something to me that I never said. I've told you before that I made him aware of these things and even though he agreed to correct them, redoing older articles was not a priority for him and he never got around to it before he past away.

Post what ever you wish but it it has to do with me personally and it's wrong I will correct it. If you wish to take the chance of posting something on this thread that is completely meaningless to this discussion instead of in a PM that's your decision.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, sorry but I don't need you to do anything.

I've told you before that some of my conversations with Wagner became heated and I've told you before that there are several examples in Wagner's articles where he attributed something to me that I never said. I've told you before that I made him aware of these things and even though he agreed to correct them, redoing older articles was not a priority for him and he never got around to it before he past away.

Post what ever you wish but it it has to do with me personally and it's wrong I will correct it. If you wish to take the chance of posting something on this thread that is completely meaningless to this discussion instead of in a PM that's your decision.

bobaugust

bob'
since wagner is not here to speak for himself now i will let his previous words on his web site speak for themselves.
Actually Wageners information is directly related to the oj threads so i don't know what you mean by meaningless to this discussion. Another poster has given wagners site as a referance in a link.

Wagners attack on your claims has been posted before and i am sure you know this. I feel no need to retreave it and post it again ,but you are the one that asked me to back up claims that your theories/claims had been attacked by wagner.imo

see u

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*

you are the one that asked me to back up claims that your theories/claims had been attacked by wagner.imo



I never saw any such request from Bob. I only saw him ask you to back up your claims.

[bobaugust]

bob'
since wagner is not here to speak for himself now i will let his previous words on his web site speak for themselves.
Actually Wageners information is directly related to the oj threads so i don't know what you mean by meaningless to this discussion. Another poster has given wagners site as a referance in a link.

Wagners attack on your claims has been posted before and i am sure you know this. I feel no need to retreave it and post it again ,but you are the one that asked me to back up claims that your theories/claims had been attacked by wagner.imo

see u

martin II

martin II, you've made claims regarding theories you attribute to me. I repeat,

"You say my failed theory? What theory? What theory do you think I've created that is contradicted by the known evidence and witness testimony?"

"And just what theory of mine do you think Wagner disputes as nonsense?"

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, you've made claims regarding theories you attribute to me. I repeat,

"You say my failed theory? What theory? What theory do you think I've created that is contradicted by the known evidence and witness testimony?"

"And just what theory of mine do you think Wagner disputes as nonsense?"

bobaugust

bob
initially i posted from wagners site.
youa sked me why i was posting from wagner
I statred that wagner has attacked many of your theories.
you asked me to site what theories had been disclaimed or attacked.
i offered to port wagners attackes on some of your claims addressed to you
you said that was not necessary or something to that effect.

Seems you are looking for a fight so i pass.
imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

bob
initially i posted from wagners site.
youa sked me why i was posting from wagner
I statred that wagner has attacked many of your theories.
you asked me to site what theories had been disclaimed or attacked.
i offered to port wagners attackes on some of your claims addressed to you
you said that was not necessary or something to that effect.

Seems you are looking for a fight so i pass.
imo
martin II

I have yet to see Bob "looking for a fight". It seems to me that the one that wants to stir things up is you, by offering to bring in someone's posting from another website in an effort to discredit Bob. Thankfully, it sounds like you are giving up on that idea.

[bobaugust]

bob
initially i posted from wagners site.
youa sked me why i was posting from wagner
I statred that wagner has attacked many of your theories.
you asked me to site what theories had been disclaimed or attacked.
i offered to port wagners attackes on some of your claims addressed to you
you said that was not necessary or something to that effect.

Seems you are looking for a fight so i pass.
imo
martin II

martin II, no I'm not looking for a fight, I'm looking for you to answer my question regarding the claim you made.

You posted, "this is a discussion group. We are not limited to discussing YOUR failed theory."

I asked you what failed theory? I asked you what theory do you think I've created that is contradicted by the known evidence and witness testimony?

You not only didn't answered my question you continued to make more false claims about what your think Wagner said about some of my other supposed theories I'm asking you again martin, what I originally asked you that you still haven't answered.

What theory of mine are you claiming is a failed theory?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The weight and credibility of the evidence is determined by the jury. If the jury determines that the weight and credibility of the evidence presented in a criminal trial is insufficient, then the defendant is determined to be not guilty and, therefore, it is legally incorrect to refer to the ex-defendant as the murderer/killer.

[bobaugust]

The weight and credibility of the evidence is determined by the jury. If the jury determines that the weight and credibility of the evidence presented in a criminal trial is insufficient, then the defendant is determined to be not guilty and, therefore, it is legally incorrect to refer to the ex-defendant as the murderer/killer.

Simpson was found responsible for the deaths of both Ron and Nicole because the civil trial jury believed Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole. That is what the evidence in this case proved and what Simpson's lies confirmed. Reasonable informed people understand that fact and we will continue to call Simpson the killer he was proved to be.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Simpson was found responsible for the deaths of both Ron and Nicole because the civil trial jury believed Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole. That is what the evidence in this case proved and what Simpson's lies confirmed. Reasonable informed people understand that fact and we will continue to call Simpson the killer he was proved to be.

bobaugust

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Day Um Straight Bob! MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Simpson was found responsible for the deaths of both Ron and Nicole because the civil trial jury believed Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole. That is what the evidence in this case proved and what Simpson's lies confirmed. Reasonable informed people understand that fact and we will continue to call Simpson the killer he was proved to be.

bobaugust

Reasonable and informed people may differ on things. I feel that most reasonable and informed people will agree that neither the verdict in the civil trial or the evidence could prove Simpson a killer, even though the jury may have believed otherwise.

[bobaugust]

Reasonable and informed people may differ on things. I feel that most reasonable and informed people will agree that neither the verdict in the civil trial or the evidence could prove Simpson a killer, even though the jury may have believed otherwise.

If someone isn't aware of the evidence or Simpson's testimony from the depositions or what was presented in the civil trial then their opinion is not an informed opinion.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

If the evidence cannot prove something, then it is not reasonable to assert that it did, imho.

[bobaugust]

If the evidence cannot prove something, then it is not reasonable to assert that it did, imho.

If you don't know the evidence then you don't know what it proves.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Simpson was found responsible for the deaths of both Ron and Nicole because the civil trial jury believed Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole. That is what the evidence in this case proved and what Simpson's lies confirmed. Reasonable informed people understand that fact and we will continue to call Simpson the killer he was proved to be.

bobaugust

bob'

i have never seen anyone so stuck on 'OJ LIED" SO WHAT.

MARTIN ii

[weezer]

bob'

i have never seen anyone so stuck on 'OJ LIED" SO WHAT.

MARTIN ii

LOL -- you amaze me. "So what"? How about 'why'?

[William Anthony]

If you don't know the evidence then you don't know what it proves.

bobaugust

I only mean that the verdict tells what it proved-liable. I do understand that.

[bobaugust]

I only mean that the verdict tells what it proved-liable. I do understand that.

The civil trial was about if Simpson killed both victims. The civil trial jurors believed he did and that's what their verdict meant.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The civil trial was about if Simpson killed both victims. The civil trial jurors believed he did and that's what their verdict meant.

bobaugust

The civil trial was about a finding of liability, under some legal theory by a preponderance of the evidence, that Simpson was or was not responsible for the wrongful deaths. As I have stated I am not sure of the juror's convictions, but I am sure of what their verdict meant, which was that Simpson was liable for the wrongful deaths.

[socaldiva]

The civil trial was about if Simpson killed both victims. The civil trial jurors believed he did and that's what their verdict meant.

bobaugust

Some will attempt to twist it, spin it & put it in a blender :tongue: , but since their method of death was murder & Simpson was liable for their deaths (murder) most understand that the civil trial declared him a double murderer. imo

[William Anthony]

Many will disagree with the experts in a field, as is their right. The problem is that we must agree with certain fundamental concepts in that field before we can expound upon expressing our disagreement. In this case, the fundamental concept that we must accept is that a verdict in a civil trial is different from that of a criminal trial. Although I am not privy to what most believe the civil jurors believe, I do know that the verdict they rendered only means a finding of liability. It must be a source of tremendous frustration to believe something is wrong and have no way to change it. I think the first step in reducing frustration is acceptance.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

What exact "lies" in Simpson's deposition that confirms your belief Simpson is the murderer?

[bobaugust]

Many will disagree with the experts in a field, as is their right. The problem is that we must agree with certain fundamental concepts in that field before we can expound upon expressing our disagreement. In this case, the fundamental concept that we must accept is that a verdict in a civil trial is different from that of a criminal trial. Although I am not privy to what most believe the civil jurors believe, I do know that the verdict they rendered only means a finding of liability. It must be a source of tremendous frustration to believe something is wrong and have no way to change it. I think the first step in reducing frustration is acceptance.

I think the first step is using common sense. The civil trial jury found Simpson responsible for the murders because they believed Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

What exact "lies" in Simpson's deposition that confirms your belief Simpson is the murderer?

limakey, lets take them one at a time. Simpson denied he was wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes in over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers nine months before the murders that show him wearing them.

The same size shoes with the exact kind of soles that the killer wore.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I think the first step is using common sense. The civil trial jury found Simpson responsible for the murders because they believed Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

I think we have reached one of our few points of agreement. Common sense and legal practioners tell me that the civil verdict could and did not find Simpson guilty of murder, regardless of their alleged beliefs.

[bobaugust]

I think we have reached one of our few points of agreement. Common sense and legal practioners tell me that the civil verdict could and did not find Simpson guilty of murder, regardless of their alleged beliefs.

Common sense and knowledge of what evidence was presented and what the plaintiffs argued in the civil trial tell us that Simpson was proved to have murdered both Ron and Nicole. That's what the jury believed and that's why they found Simpson responsible for both deaths.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Common sense and knowledge of what evidence was presented and what the plaintiffs argued in the civil trial tell us that Simpson was proved to have murdered both Ron and Nicole. That's what the jury believed and that's why they found Simpson responsible for both deaths.

bobaugust

I choose to believe that the jury did its duty and found him liable, because that is what the evidence proved and what they believed. I do not believe they acted irresponsibly.

[bobaugust]

I choose to believe that the jury did its duty and found him liable, because that is what the evidence proved and what they believed. I do not believe they acted irresponsibly.

Very good. At least we agree on something. The civil trial jury believed Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. That's what the evidence proved, that's in essence what they said in their verdict, and that's why they found him liable.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Very good. At least we agree on something. The civil trial jury believed Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. That's what the evidence proved, that's in essence what they said in their verdict, and that's why they found him liable.

bobaugust

Oh contraire, their verdict meant that he acted in some manner that made him liable for their wronful deaths. I am not a mind reader and having no way of knowing what they believed-only what their verdict actually meant.

[tv]

Oh contraire, their verdict meant that he acted in some manner that made him liable for their wronful deaths. I am not a mind reader and having no way of knowing what they believed-only what their verdict actually meant.The civil jury made a decision based on the evidence that they were presented. They didn't decide whether or not OJS kinda sorta had done something that could have maybe led to someone else killing Ron and Nicole. The decision was based on whether or not they believed that OJS stabbed and slashed the two victims to death. To say that their verdict meant anything else is just playing word games. ;)

[socaldiva]

The civil jury made a decision based on the evidence that they were presented. They didn't decide whether or not OJS kinda sorta had done something that could have maybe led to someone else killing Ron and Nicole. The decision was based on whether or not they believed that OJS stabbed and slashed the two victims to death. To say that their verdict meant anything else is just playing word games. ;)


:beer: :beer: :beer:

[bobaugust]

Oh contraire, their verdict meant that he acted in some manner that made him liable for their wronful deaths. I am not a mind reader and having no way of knowing what they believed-only what their verdict actually meant.

Of course you don't know what the verdict means since you know very little about the civil trial. But we do.

Maybe you should learn more about it before you offer your uninformed opinion about it.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The civil jury made a decision based on the evidence that they were presented. They didn't decide whether or not OJS kinda sorta had done something that could have maybe led to someone else killing Ron and Nicole. The decision was based on whether or not they believed that OJS stabbed and slashed the two victims to death. To say that their verdict meant anything else is just playing word games. ;)

tv
i am not absolutely sure but i think the level of proof is something like 'MORE LIKELY THAN NOT" is that what you understand?

martin II

[weezer]

tv
i am not absolutely sure but i think the level of proof is something like 'MORE LIKELY THAN NOT" is that what you understand?

martin II

I think most reasonable people understand the civil trial verdict -- irregardless of the wording. orenthal james simpson is liable/responsible for the murders of two human beings.

I've always understood that the criminal verdict did not mean 'innocent'? Is that what you understand?

[martin II]

I think most reasonable people understand the civil trial verdict -- irregardless of the wording. orenthal james simpson is liable/responsible for the murders of two human beings.

I've always understood that the criminal verdict did not mean 'innocent'? Is that what you understand?

weezer

currently i don't have a link to whatever my understand might be so i will pass on offering a answer to YOUR question.:no:

martin II

[tv]

tv
i am not absolutely sure but i think the level of proof is something like 'MORE LIKELY THAN NOT" is that what you understand?

martin IImartin, I was talking about the evidence that the verdict was based on. It wasn't based on OJS possibly inciting the anger of racists or some other act which "led" to the victims being murdered. The jury verdict in the civil trial was based on whether or not OJS killed Ron and Nicole with his own two hands. The jury had to use the wording that they were given under the law. The jury decided that MORE LIKELY THAN NOT Simpson brutally killed Ron and Nicole.

[martin II]

martin, I was talking about the evidence that the verdict was based on. It wasn't based on OJS possibly inciting the anger of racists or some other act which "led" to the victims being murdered. The jury verdict in the civil trial was based on whether or not OJS killed Ron and Nicole with his own two hands. The jury had to use the wording that they were given under the law. The jury decided that MORE LIKELY THAN NOT Simpson brutally killed Ron and Nicole.

tv
what differance does it make if the jury verdict is accepted as written/worded and used by the jury as opposed to how some want to change wording to include murder or killed?

what is the purpose for the change??

martin II

[martin II]

tv hi

ps

i will look to see if the words 'OWN TO HANDS" is in the verdict wording.

martin II

[tv]

tv hi

ps

i will look to see if the words 'OWN TO HANDS" is in the verdict wording.

martin II

martin, that doesn't have to be in the wording. They were asked to make a decision based on the evidence presented. What was presented was blood evidence, timeline, motive and other forensic evidence. It all added up to the murders of Ron and Nicole which is what the jury decided happened MORE LIKELY THAN NOT.

I think everyone understands that 'own two hands' was my wording and not the wording of jury. :)

[FlowerPower]

martin, that doesn't have to be in the wording. They were asked to make a decision based on the evidence presented. What was presented was blood evidence, timeline, motive and other forensic evidence. It all added up to the murders of Ron and Nicole which is what the jury decided happened MORE LIKELY THAN NOT.

I think everyone understands that 'own two hands' was my wording and not the wording of jury. :)


I completely agree! I don't understand why some people are trying so hard to make it seem like it means nothing?! Liable is the same equivelant in a civil trial as guilty is in a criminal trial. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

:confused:

[weezer]

....I think everyone understands that 'own two hands' was my wording and not the wording of jury. :)

so do the orenthal apologists...........

I on the other hand, absolutely 100% believe orenthal james simpson to be the murderer of the two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

[tv]

:punch: so do the orenthal apologists...........

I on the other hand, absolutely 100% believe orenthal james simpson to be the murderer of the two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.
:beer: :beer: :beer: Agreed!

[tv]

Don't give it a second thought tv dinner; martinII wants to nickle and dime everyone else all day long while being unable to support half of what he claims.

It's partially laughable and partially simply annoying. I learn to ignore most of what he has to say.

KateThanks, Kate. :)

[William Anthony]

Of course you don't know what the verdict means since you know very little about the civil trial. But we do.

Maybe you should learn more about it before you offer your uninformed opinion about it.

bobaugust

I am informed enough to know that the verdict only means that he is liable for the wrongful deaths. I will not say that you have offered an uniformed opinion, because I am so quickly punished for being rude to you. However, I will say that you are mistaken if you think that the verdict, evidence or the jury form proved Simpson to be the killer. Neither the verdict, evidence or jury form can make Simpson a murderer/killer since that is required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to most likely than not. The jury in the criminal trial has spoken and stated that the evidence was insufficient to prove Simpson the murderer/killer beyond a reasonable doubt.

I realize that there are different opinions on what the evidence proved in both cases. However, that does not give a reason to call the other person's view uninformed, especially when your quote is addressed to the verdict. Those who have taught and practiced law agree that the civil verdict means that Simpson is liable for the wrongful deaths and not guilty of murder. I would venture to guess that even the most uniformed among those who I have mentioned above and understand the meaning of the civil verdict would not diagree as to its meaning. My opinon of what the verdict meant is not uniformed. How much law have you studied in any college, university or other school of higher learning?

[William Anthony]

The civil jury made a decision based on the evidence that they were presented. They didn't decide whether or not OJS kinda sorta had done something that could have maybe led to someone else killing Ron and Nicole. The decision was based on whether or not they believed that OJS stabbed and slashed the two victims to death. To say that their verdict meant anything else is just playing word games. ;)

I understand that some may want to believe that the civil verdict did what the criminal could not. Unfortunately, this is not true. I have posted several times that the verdict of not guilty means not guilty as charged or, more plainly, the prosecution failed to prove the charges.

[bobaugust]

I am informed enough to know that the verdict only means that he is liable for the wrongful deaths. I will not say that you have offered an uniformed opinion, because I am so quickly punished for being rude to you. However, I will say that you are mistaken if you think that the verdict, evidence or the jury form proved Simpson to be the killer. Neither the verdict, evidence or jury form can make Simpson a murderer/killer since that is required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to most likely than not. The jury in the criminal trial has spoken and stated that the evidence was insufficient to prove Simpson the murderer/killer beyond a reasonable doubt.

I realize that there are different opinions on what the evidence proved in both cases. However, that does not give a reason to call the other person's view uninformed, especially when your quote is addressed to the verdict. Those who have taught and practiced law agree that the civil verdict means that Simpson is liable for the wrongful deaths and not guilty of murder. I would venture to guess that even the most uniformed among those who I have mentioned above and understand the meaning of the civil verdict would not diagree as to its meaning. My opinon of what the verdict meant is not uniformed. How much law have you studied in any college, university or other school of higher learning?

I didn't say you you are uniformed about the law but you are uninformed about the evidence that was presented, and the arguments that were made in the civil trial.

Your ridiculous examples of what the jury could have meant with their verdict makes that it very clear how uninformed you are. The fact is that Simpson was proved to be a killer and a liar in the civil trial and the civil trial jurors verdict meant they believed Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I didn't say you you are uniformed about the law but you are uninformed about the evidence that was presented, and the arguments that were made in the civil trial.

Of course you don't know what the verdict means since you know very little about the civil trial. But we do.

Maybe you should learn more about it before you offer your uninformed opinion about it.

bobaugust

This is what you said.

Your ridiculous examples of what the jury could have meant with their verdict makes that it very clear how uninformed you are. The fact is that Simpson was proved to be a killer and a liar in the civil trial and the civil trial jurors verdict meant they believed Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole.
bobaugust

As you see there is nothing in this post about the evidence-only the verdict.

[bobaugust]

As you see there is nothing in this post about the evidence-only the verdict.

The civil trial jury believed Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole based on the evidence presented and Simpson's lying testimony. That's why they came to that verdict and that's what it means.

bobaugust

[Suzee10]

bob'

i have never seen anyone so stuck on 'OJ LIED" SO WHAT.

MARTIN ii


simpson did lie, over and over again. I have never seen anyone so stuck on simpson is "not guilty" after all of the damning evidence against him.

[socaldiva]

simpson did lie, over and over again. I have never seen anyone so stuck on simpson is "not guilty" after all of the damning evidence against him.

:beer: :beer:

[William Anthony]

The civil trial jury believed Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole based on the evidence presented and Simpson's lying testimony. That's why they came to that verdict and that's what it means.

bobaugust

I see, despite being told by legal scholars/practitioners what the verdict means, you choose to believe your own interpretation. Before anyone accuses me wrongly, I am not calling you anything-only that I am reminded of the adage about leading a horse to water. I think we have reached an impass on this subject. Therefore, I will leave you with your interpretation and rely on what legal scholars/practitioners have taught me. I applaud you for thinking outside the box.

[bobaugust]

I see, despite being told by legal scholars/practitioners what the verdict means, you choose to believe your own interpretation. Before anyone accuses me wrongly, I am not calling you anything-only that I am reminded of the adage about leading a horse to water. I think we have reached an impass on this subject. Therefore, I will leave you with your interpretation and rely on what legal scholars/practitioners have taught me. I applaud you for thinking outside the box.

Any legal scholar/practitioner who is informed about the Simpson civil trial would know that the reason the civil trial jury found Simpson responsible for both deaths was because they believed Simpson killed both victims.

Why you can't seem to understand this simple reality is the real question.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Any legal scholar/practitioner who is informed about the Simpson civil trial would know that the reason the civil trial jury found Simpson responsible for both deaths was because they believed Simpson killed both victims.

Why you can't seem to understand this simple reality is the real question.

bobaugust

The meaning of the verdict is what we were discussing. If you want to discuss the reason for the verdict, which I have already stated was, imho, a political production made in opposition to the criminal verdict, we can do this.

[martin II]

simpson did lie, over and over again. I have never seen anyone so stuck on simpson is "not guilty" after all of the damning evidence against him.

SUZEE

"Not Guilty" was the final word in the criminal trial. Everything else could be called noise.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

SUZEE

"Not Guilty" was the final word in the criminal trial. Everything else could be called noise.imo
martin II

Some are discussing who killed Ron & Nicole. Perhaps you refer to that as "noise" as it implicates your sports hero ;) JMO & MOO

[weezer]

SUZEE

"Not Guilty" was the final word in the criminal trial. Everything else could be called noise.imo
martin II

"Liable" was the final word in the civil trial. Liable = Murdered. Everything else could be called noise. imo

[martin II]

"Liable" was the final word in the civil trial. Liable = Murdered. Everything else could be called noise. imo

money trial = make him pay money.
martin II

[weezer]

money trial = make him pay money.
martin II

no one is arguing that -- that is the only avenue left to make orenthal james simpson pay for murdering two human beings. I would add that along with the money, orenthal has suffered loss of everything he held dear: money, reputation, status. He is considered a blight on humanity. imo

[socaldiva]

money trial = make him pay money.
martin II

No, I don't think the point of the civil trial was 'money', but you can't seem to see beyond money. It seems like because you don't like the verdict, you need to degrade it & make it appear to be something tacky. Interesting considering Orenthal can cash in on a sleazy book about the murders & sell his authographs at ghoul conventions & you seem to think that's fine & dandy.

[weezer]

No, I don't think the point of the civil trial was 'money', but you can't seem to see beyond money. It seems like because you don't like the verdict, you need to degrade it & make it appear to be something tacky. Interesting considering Orenthal can cash in on a sleazy book about the murders & sell his authographs at ghoul conventions & you seem to think that's fine & dandy.

I have a sneaking suspicion that orenthal is secondary to the NGs arguments -- I mean, after all, he did write his confession and they STILL defend him. Go figure. ;)

[socaldiva]

*snip* after all, he did write his confession and they STILL defend him. Go figure. ;)

Maybe one of those corrupt LAPD officers held a gun to his head last year & made him write it :hat:

[bobaugust]

The meaning of the verdict is what we were discussing. If you want to discuss the reason for the verdict, which I have already stated was, imho, a political production made in opposition to the criminal verdict, we can do this.

You are the one who could not understand what the meaning of the civil trial verdict. I've simply been explaining it to you.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You are the one who could not understand what the meaning of the civil trial verdict. I've simply been explaining it to you.

bobaugust

I understand that you are trying to explain to me your beleif in what the verdict meant. However, I will take the meaning offered by trained leagal practitioners and instructors.

[martin II]

i don't believe that many/most Americans concern themselves with this case after 12 years. I don't believe that they feel a need to do so as some obviously do. too may other things in life that are more inportant.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

I understand that you are trying to explain to me your beleif in what the verdict meant. However, I will take the meaning offered by trained leagal practitioners and instructors.

I would think that any trained legal practitioner or instructor would be smart enough to inform themselves about the Simpson civil trial before they offered their opinion as to what that particular verdict meant, just like you should do.

bobaugust

[Heyes]

I think I'm going to start promoting the theory that the murders of Nicole and Ron can "be found in the drug world of OJ Simpson" since Hollywood producer Don Simpson's drug dealer claims that he sold drugs to OJ Simpson on the day of the murders.

Kato and oj went to McDonalds???????? I bet not!

[martin II]

Kato and oj went to McDonalds???????? I bet not!

check the results of oj simpsons blood test taken on 6/13 to know if drugs were taken on 6/12.imo
martin II

[weezer]

check the results of oj simpsons blood test taken on 6/13 to know if drugs were taken on 6/12.imo
martin II

the ONLY person with drugs in their system on the night of the murders was orenthal james simpson -- not Nicole, not Ron.

[socaldiva]

i don't believe that many/most Americans concern themselves with this case after 12 years. I don't believe that they feel a need to do so as some obviously do. too may other things in life that are more inportant.imo
martin II

I doubt many/most American's give Orenthal a thought, unless they encounter a news story where he's making a further fool of himself, or if they are unfortunate enough to see him out in public. Bottom line is, when they do think of him, they think of him as a double murderer & a jerk. IMO

[weezer]

I doubt many/most American's give Orenthal a thought, unless they encounter a news story where he's making a further fool of himself, or if they are unfortunate enough to see him out in public. Bottom line is, when they do think of him, they think of him as a double murderer & a jerk. IMO

especially when they see him trying to get to the steak knives in a restaurant! :eek: :D

[socaldiva]

especially when they see him trying to get to the steak knives in a restaurant! :eek: :D

:chicken: I don't know if I'd want to be driving near him either. I seem to recall a couple of incidences where he menaced other drivers. :chicken:

[William Anthony]

I would think that any trained legal practitioner or instructor would be smart enough to inform themselves about the Simpson civil trial before they offered their opinion as to what that particular verdict meant, just like you should do.

bobaugust

Any trained legal practitioner or instructor knows the verdict either means liable or not liable in a civil trial.

[William Anthony]

The civil jury made a decision based on the evidence that they were presented. They didn't decide whether or not OJS kinda sorta had done something that could have maybe led to someone else killing Ron and Nicole. The decision was based on whether or not they believed that OJS stabbed and slashed the two victims to death. To say that their verdict meant anything else is just playing word games. ;)

Your statement as to what the civil trial verdict meant were the questions the criminal trial jury was called upon to answer, and that verdict was not guilty as charged.

[William Anthony]

Of course you don't know what the verdict means since you know very little about the civil trial. But we do.

Maybe you should learn more about it before you offer your uninformed opinion about it.

bobaugust

I beg to differ for I do know what the verdict means. What I am unsure of is who we is that you refer to and where you (we included) ascertained the thoughts/beliefs of the jury.

[William Anthony]

I completely agree! I don't understand why some people are trying so hard to make it seem like it means nothing?! Liable is the same equivelant in a civil trial as guilty is in a criminal trial. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

:confused:

If liable was the same as guilty, then Simpson would be serving jail time, instead of eating out. It would seem that liable is more like not guilty.

[bobaugust]

I beg to differ for I do know what the verdict means. What I am unsure of is who we is that you refer to and where you (we included) ascertained the thoughts/beliefs of the jury.

You may very well know that the civil trial jury verdict means Simpson killed both victims but you won't admit it. "We" is every other poster on this discussion group who is informed about what the civil trial was all about and understands that's exactly what the civil trial verdict means.

bobaugust

[weezer]

If liable was the same as guilty, then Simpson would be serving jail time, instead of eating out. It would seem that liable is more like not guilty.

Jurors say they would rule against Simpson in civil trial
10/18/96 - 07:39 PM ET - Click reload often for latest version
LOS ANGELES - The forewoman and another juror who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson of murder said they likely would decide against him if they were on a civil jury, where the burden of proof is lighter.

"Given that standard and based on the amount of evidence that was presented, ... then yes, you would have to say that yes, he is guilty," Armanda Cooley told Dateline NBC Tuesday.

"I'm standing by my verdict," Marsha Rubin-Jackson added. "But based on what I've heard since I've been out, I would have to vote guilty" in a civil case."

[socaldiva]

*snip*
"I'm standing by my verdict," Marsha Rubin-Jackson added. "But based on what I've heard since I've been out, I would have to vote guilty" in a civil case."

I'd say even if she felt differently, she's still going to "stand by her verdict". To do otherwise would make her appear even more foolish. IMO