OJ Asked to Leave Restaurant

[weezer]

I honestly don't know this, I thought the only juror who ever stepped forward to say that she voted guilty first was one white female juror. I know there were two, but I thought the other jurors always stated that person never revealed who they were so none of them knew who the other person was.

what's your take on the question regarding not one black juror questioning orenthal's guilt?

[martin II]

jotun hi.

I can now read and post again.

martin II

[limakey]

FBG,

I believe all the jurors, regardless of race questioned Simpson's guilt. However, because of the case the DA's put on, the law did not allow for not guilty verdict.

I have read many books and interviews I have seen with the jurors, I remember some of them believing he was probably guilty but they couldn't vote that way.

I don't think the race or the gender of second person who voted to convict has ever been revealed.

[Suzee10]

FBG,

I believe all the jurors, regardless of race questioned Simpson's guilt. However, because of the case the DA's put on, the law did not allow for not guilty verdict.

I have read many books and interviews I have seen with the jurors, I remember some of them believing he was probably guilty but they couldn't vote that way.

I don't think the race or the gender of second person who voted to convict has ever been revealed.


The evidence allowed for a guilty verdict. There was more evidence in this case than ten put together. The jury was not going to convict simpson, they looked for reasons to come back with a not guilty.

[martin II]

ALL

the crininal trial jury

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

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

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

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

The other dissenter has not been identified.

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

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

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

Among the questions that jurors said troubled them:

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

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

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

Aschenbach, in an ABC telephone interview last week, tearfully explained why she changed her original guilty vote.

Lead detective Philip Vannatter "made misstatements" on the witness stand, she said. Former detective Mark Fuhrman, discredited as a lying racist, cast too much doubt on the most prized evidence - a bloody glove found on Simpson's estate.

"I thought it was possible it was planted," Aschenbach said. "And most of the evidence was DNA evidence and that's what was so shaky."

Moran dismissed the trial issue of domestic violence.

"This was a murder trial, not domestic abuse," Moran said. "If you want to get tried for domestic abuse, go in another courtroom and get tried for that."

Gina Rosborough, a 29-year-old postal worker, voiced her opinion on Oprah Winfrey's syndicated talk show "If he committed such a bloody crime, then there should have been more blood in that Bronco that this just little speck that we saw."

Beatrice Wilson, 72, said in a brief telephone interview with The Associated Press that jurors did not rush to judgment. "We was in there nine months," she said. "All the whole time we was there we had plenty of time to think."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns070.htm

[martin II]

In some cases it seems that some people believe that they are entitled or deserve to get the verdict that they believe is the corect one. When the jury returns a different verdict, it seem that the easy thing to do is attack the jury as being stupid, racist, uneducated and biased. This in my opinion of what has happened in the oj case when i see the OJ jury being attacked unfairly. I agree with the jury person that said they had listened to testimony for 9 months. They did not need to take 9 more months to decide who to believe.

martinII

[martin II]

Thanks for that fbg. Okay so I would say that since there were 3 non blacks who voted to acquit that the verdict was not racially motivated. jmo

Red Fox hi
That sounds correct to me also.

martin II

[limakey]

Suz,

The jury didn't have far to look for reasonable doubt did they? The problems of evidence were consistent throughout the state's case. How times can the same type of mistake be made? How many times does a lie have to be said by a cop before a jury must believe them because of their badge? How many times can state CSI people say "they don't remember"? Or they "changed" their minds?

I agree with you that there was a lot of evidence in this case and I agree with you that had the police been brought up on charges on their conduct in this case, Clark and Darden would had a guilty verdict within 20 minutes. IMO.

[martin II]

Suz,

The jury didn't have far to look for reasonable doubt did they? The problems of evidence were consistent throughout the state's case. How times can the same type of mistake be made? How many times does a lie have to be said by a cop before a jury must believe them because of their badge? How many times can state CSI people say "they don't remember"? Or they "changed" their minds?

I agree with you that there was a lot of evidence in this case and I agree with you that had the police been brought up on charges on their conduct in this case, Clark and Darden would had a guilty verdict within 20 minutes. IMO.

limakey
now i agree with that post also.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
"We was in there nine months," she said. "All the whole time we was there we had plenty of time to think."


I'm guessing this juror wasn't an english major. They wonder why it's said that they appear ignorant? :rolleyes:

[Suzee10]

Suz,

The jury didn't have far to look for reasonable doubt did they? The problems of evidence were consistent throughout the state's case. How times can the same type of mistake be made? How many times does a lie have to be said by a cop before a jury must believe them because of their badge? How many times can state CSI people say "they don't remember"? Or they "changed" their minds?

I agree with you that there was a lot of evidence in this case and I agree with you that had the police been brought up on charges on their conduct in this case, Clark and Darden would had a guilty verdict within 20 minutes. IMO.


There was no wrong doing by anyone in this case, only by the defense, smoke and mirrors.

[socaldiva]

There was no wrong doing by anyone in this case, only by the defense, smoke and mirrors.


I agree 100% :beer:

[Suzee10]

I'm guessing this juror wasn't an english major. They wonder why it's said that they appear ignorant? :rolleyes:

I think it was Brenda Moran that made the comment, they were there for nine months and did not need more time to go over the evidence. This is where the jury did not do what the were supposed to do. Her comments let everyone know they had already made up their minds. The point was, there had been nine months of testimony and evidence and it should take way more than a couple of hours to deliberate. As you point out, no english majors here, so in order to do the job they were supposed to go over all of the points of the case to reach a fair and just decision.

[socaldiva]

I think it was Brenda Moran that made the comment, they were there for nine months and did not need more time to go over the evidence. This is where the jury did not do what the were supposed to do. Her comments let everyone know they had already made up their minds. The point was, there had been nine months of testimony and evidence and it should take way more than a couple of hours to deliberate. As you point out, no english majors here, so in order to do the job they were supposed to go over all of the points of the case to reach a fair and just decision.

I agree. There was 9 months of testimony to go over, yet they must have had their minds made up prior to any "deliberations". IMO

[Suzee10]

I agree. There was 9 months of testimony to go over, yet they must have had their minds made up prior to any "deliberations". IMO


With all of the evidence in this case it should have taken a several weeks if not more.

They already had their bags packed.

[socaldiva]

With all of the evidence in this case it should have taken a several weeks if not more.

They already had their bags packed.

I agree. Had they truly deliberated, there was a lot of information to go over. To do so in mere hours was a joke & a complete disservice to justice. imo

[jotun]

jotun hi.

I can now read and post again.

martin II

Martin

Am so glad you can.

Welcome back.

jotun

[martin II]

SUZEE10

**my undrstanding of the jury instrucitons does not put a required time that the jury should deliberate or how much testimony the jury should discuss during the deliberation process. It seems that some believe the opposite of the above but with no basis in law.

**During the trial the jury is required to listen to all testimony for the purpose of determining the truthfulness or non truthfulness of the testimony
and in the criminal trial the jury did this for 9 months.

**the jury is allowed to take a test vote at the beginning of deliberations
as a means to see where they stand on a verdict and to start the process of discussing issues of each jury member.

**Whenever the jury reaches total agreement on a verdict they are not required to deliberate further.
**There are many deliberations where the jury comes to a decision in 4-5 hours or less as they did in the oj case and this case will not be the last time a jury came to a decision in a 'SHORT" period of deliberations.jmoo.
**The 9 months of trial testimony by no means requires the jury to deliberate
for any specific length of time.jmoo.

To say the jury should have gone over ALL the evidence in the trial is not based in law and is not included in the judges instructions. everything not in the link is my own opinion.
martin II

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas62.htm

[limakey]

Martin


If I remember correctly, the judge usually advises a jury not to start off with a straw ballot in fear that it may cause people to dig their heels in. However, most juries do this because they want to know where everybody stands and open up the lines of communication.

Also, IMO, how long did it take the average person to figure out that the cops lied? How long did it take some of the jurors to figure out the gloves didn't fit?

I think the jury evaluated the only neutral evidence in the case---the timeline. Again, this is just my opinon.

[socaldiva]

*snip*


**my undrstanding of the jury instrucitons does not put a required time that the jury should deliberate or how much testimony the jury should discuss during the deliberation process. It seems that some believe the opposite of the above but with no basis in law.



I'm not sure why you are posting this. No one here has said that the law mandates a prescribed amount of deliberations.

[martin II]

Martin


If I remember correctly, the judge usually advises a jury not to start off with a straw ballot in fear that it may cause people to dig their heels in. However, most juries do this because they want to know where everybody stands and open up the lines of communication.

Also, IMO, how long did it take the average person to figure out that the cops lied? How long did it take some of the jurors to figure out the gloves didn't fit?

I think the jury evaluated the only neutral evidence in the case---the timeline. Again, this is just my opinon.

Limakey

If the prosecution timeline did not fit or make sense to the jury, then it would have been impossible for oj to be guilty.
in a speech that JC made he stated that the timeline did not fit.
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
in a speech that JC made he stated that the timeline did not fit.


IIRC prior to being brought into the case, JC also alluded to Simpson appearing to be guilty & afterwards made a remark that led most to believe he didn't think he was innocent. Which "speech" is to be believed ?

[jotun]

Hi Fbgweezer, that is the best way I have heard it said, "Barry showed them how to and Johnny told them why"... I agree!!!

All:
We have many threads for all of this especially the Race thread. Could you take it there?????

IMO:
Also Marcia showed them how to and Darden told them why...

jotun

[jotun]

This guy Ruby, he sounds like he has some strong convictions on the case that compelled him
to take the action he did. That is deserving of the applause he received.

All:IMO
Oh really.Jeff Ruby has been on most of the cable shows and lot of radio shows through out the country.In fact, hired 2 publists to handle his appearences. Didn't like the attention O.J. might get but admitly delights in the attention he gets because of O.J. Has had much local press as well, tv and especially newspaper, half front page above the fold on the Wed and Sun half page below the fold and full page inside. Another basking in that O.J. SPOTLIGHT.

IMO
Does anyone remember another sleazy resturantuer in 63, who murdered Lee Harvey Oswold on live tv? Jack Ruby had some strong convictions also "for the family" Wondering IF Jeff is the son, nephew or other relation of Jack? Does anyone know? The resemblence is amazing.

IMO IMO IMO

jotun

[jotun]

But, the reason why anyone would need or want this info is because Galanter tried to make this (restaurant incident) into a race issue when it wasn't. It was posted for anyone who wanted to voice their opinion on that to him.


All:IMO

So this gives tazzybaby some right to post a lawyer's ad info: business address-phone-e-mail to encourge others to impose their OPINION?
Why would Yale care about anyones opinion?
Yale was there!!!

Plus, Yale didn't ask for any imput and shouldn't have his business inbox filled with imposed views.
IMO THIS IS WRONG.


Yale has his own opinion on another of tazzybaby's links on the fred story 'When asked point-blank IF he THINKS O.J. murdered goldman.
Yale says "NO I DON'T"...

imo imo imo

jotun

[jotun]

All: IMO
Was NEVER a issue with O.J.
Was for Yale.

Yale said SOME regulatory agencies had contacted him to get info on what happened on Derby eve.
Yale said he would cooperate with the HRC or ANY OTHER regulatory agency LOOKING INTO THE MATTER.

IMO
Seems Yale is going to LET these agencies DO IT FOR HIM.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dill/article?Date=2007511&Category=N...

jotun

All:
Someone asked for a better link.Hope this works as is very interesting.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dill/article?AID=20070512/NEWS01/705...

jotun

[socaldiva]

All:
Someone asked for a better link.Hope this works as is very interesting.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dill/article?AID=20070512/NEWS01/705...

jotun

The link didn't work for me....

[Chocoholic]

I agree. Had they truly deliberated, there was a lot of information to go over. To do so in mere hours was a joke & a complete disservice to justice. imo

They deliberated? IIRC one of the jurors even stated that so many innocent black men had gone to jail that this guilty one was for them.

[socaldiva]

*snip*They deliberated?

They claimed they did....:tongue:

[martin II]

They deliberated? IIRC one of the jurors even stated that so many innocent black men had gone to jail that this guilty one was for them.

chocohplic

exactly which juror was that?

martin II

[martin II]

All:IMO
Oh really.Jeff Ruby has been on most of the cable shows and lot of radio shows through out the country.In fact, hired 2 publists to handle his appearences. Didn't like the attention O.J. might get but admitly delights in the attention he gets because of O.J. Has had much local press as well, tv and especially newspaper, half front page above the fold on the Wed and Sun half page below the fold and full page inside. Another basking in that O.J. SPOTLIGHT.

IMO
Does anyone remember another sleazy resturantuer in 63, who murdered Lee Harvey Oswold on live tv? Jack Ruby had some strong convictions also "for the family" Wondering IF Jeff is the son, nephew or other relation of Jack? Does anyone know? The resemblence is amazing.

IMO IMO IMO

jotun


jotun

i remember jack as does most. both try to act like gansters so mabt they are kin jmoo

this Jeff ruby has as resturant partners some ex players with the Reds baseball team.
Pete"LET MAKE A BET" Rose and Johnny Bench have been named
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

All:IMO

So this gives tazzybaby some right to post a lawyer's ad info: business address-phone-e-mail to encourge others to impose their OPINION?
Why would Yale care about anyones opinion?
Yale was there!!!

Plus, Yale didn't ask for any imput and shouldn't have his business inbox filled with imposed views.
IMO THIS IS WRONG.


Yale has his own opinion on another of tazzybaby's links on the fred story 'When asked point-blank IF he THINKS O.J. murdered goldman.
Yale says "NO I DON'T"...

imo imo imo

jotun

JOTUN
I did not agree with tazzy's attempt to JAMM yales e-mail and phone because of hate/anger towards him. Kinda childish imo.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*

i remember jack as does most. both try to act like gansters so mabt they are kin jmoo



You find the restaurant owner to be "ganster" for booting a double murderer from his establishment?

[weezer]

You find the restaurant owner to be "ganster" for booting a double murderer from his establishment?

LOL -- a big bad gangster that was mean to poor ole orenthal.

I think the NG's should unite and boycott the restaurant --- that would make the news. ;)

[martin II]

LOL -- a big bad gangster that was mean to poor ole orenthal.

I think the NG's should unite and boycott the restaurant --- that would make the news. ;)

weezre
naw. i think a better idea would be to just let Mr Ruby fade into the background where he was before the Derby and that PR stunt he pulled.
imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

weezre
naw. i think a better idea would be to just let Mr Ruby fade into the background where he was before the Derby and that PR stunt he pulled.
imo
martin II

PR stunt? He didn't invite Orenthal to the restaurant & I doubt that he's in need of publicity. He's a sucessful businessman.

As for "fading into the background" I wish Orenthal would do that, but he never does. His head keeps popping up.I'd say he's the one that's enamoured with publicity ;)

[weezer]

PR stunt? He didn't invite Orenthal to the restaurant & I doubt that he's in need of publicity. He's a sucessful businessman.

As for "fading into the background" I wish Orenthal would do that, but he never does. His head keeps popping up.I'd say he's the one that's enamoured with publicity ;)

:beer: Ain't it something how everyone conspires against poor ole orenthal?

[socaldiva]

:beer: Ain't it something how everyone conspires against poor ole orenthal?

Yes & 12 yrs later LE & the DA's office are the ones that shut down the publication of Orenthal's book, not public outcry? The conspiracy is very deep indeed :tongue:

[Suzee10]

:beer: Ain't it something how everyone conspires against poor ole orenthal?


Yeah, my heart bleeds for poor old simpson.

[Suzee10]

Yes & 12 yrs later LE & the DA's office are the ones that shut down the publication of Orenthal's book, not public outcry? The conspiracy is very deep indeed :tongue:


Yes socaldiva, it is a conspiracy I tell you, a conspiracy!!!:D

[Kate Sachel]

JOTUN
I did not agree with tazzy's attempt to JAMM yales e-mail and phone because of hate/anger towards him. Kinda childish imo.

martin II

Is it childish that I call my senator when I am outraged at the price of gasoline or lack of appropriate access to health care in my state?

This is how change happens, this is how people make their voices heard whether they are voicing an agreement or objection.

Please don't be sour against the process just because it reflects negatively against someone of whom you admire.

Kate

[Suzee10]

You find the restaurant owner to be "ganster" for booting a double murderer from his establishment?


Socaldiva I guess they have to come up with something, you know it couldn't be because he was simpson. I really respect this guy for standing up for what he believes in and gave old simpson the boot.

[socaldiva]

Socaldiva I guess they have to come up with something, you know it couldn't be because he was simpson. I really respect this guy for standing up for what he believes in and gave old simpson the boot.

I admire him too & I thought he was quite articulate & reasonable in expressing why he refused to serve Simpson.

[Suzee10]

I admire him too & I thought he was quite articulate & reasonable in expressing why he refused to serve Simpson.

I think he was too. I saw an interview of him explaining why he did what he did.

[tazzybaby]

All:IMO

So this gives tazzybaby some right to post a lawyer's ad info: business address-phone-e-mail to encourge others to impose their OPINION?
Why would Yale care about anyones opinion?
Yale was there!!!

Plus, Yale didn't ask for any imput and shouldn't have his business inbox filled with imposed views.
IMO THIS IS WRONG.


Yale has his own opinion on another of tazzybaby's links on the fred story 'When asked point-blank IF he THINKS O.J. murdered goldman.
Yale says "NO I DON'T"...

imo imo imo

jotun

Whoa! You want to address me if you have a problem? lol It seems I've hit some kind of nerve with you.

Yale's info is public. I simply posted it and said if anyone wants to comment they should. I did not take it overboard and keep asking people to send a comment to him. I'm not trying to take him down. lol You're bringing more attention to it with this nonsense. And, if he doesn't care then why the post?

It is no secret that I don't respect Yale Galanter. Just like you don't respect the Goldman's. You post terrible things about the Goldman's constantly. I don't even carry it that far with Galanter.

I don't care what Galanter's opinion of OJ's innocence or guilt. His opinion means nothing. He is a paid spokesman.

If Mr Galanter has an opinion that he'd like to express on one of my links...then please, tell him he can reach me here.

:rolleyes:

[tazzybaby]

JOTUN
I did not agree with tazzy's attempt to JAMM yales e-mail and phone because of hate/anger towards him. Kinda childish imo.

martin II


No one ever said anything about Jamming his e-mail or phone. Oh brother! You guys sure are taking this Yale thing personally. Why? This information was public. It wasn't private. I simply put it there for anyone who wanted to express their opinion. I did NOT solicit for anyone to pester him. I did not say for people to continually contact him over and over or ask anyone to harass him.

I am not the leader of a revolt against Yale Galanter. :no:

[martin II]

No one ever said anything about Jamming his e-mail or phone. Oh brother! You guys sure are taking this Yale thing personally. Why? This information was public. It wasn't private. I simply put it there for anyone who wanted to express their opinion. I did NOT solicit for anyone to pester him. I did not say for people to continually contact him over and over or ask anyone to harass him.

I am not the leader of a revolt against Yale Galanter. :no:

tazzy hi

i am pleased to know you are not leading the charge. Yale is only doing what he should be doing for his client. Fred and his lawyer are on tv making claims against Yales client. Yale is only responding. You have to admit that for 12 years Yale has done a good job of blocking Fred in his quest for oj's money.imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

i am pleased to know you are not leading the charge. Yale is only doing what he should be doing for his client. Fred and his lawyer are on tv making claims against Yales client. Yale is only responding. You have to admit that for 12 years Yale has done a good job of blocking Fred in his quest for oj's money.imo
martin II

Hi Martin,

I don't agree with that. Yale is not his only attorney. The attorney for him in Florida on the case today is not YG. So, I do not agree that Yale has blocked Fred. Fred has recently stepped up his attack on OJ. He had only half heartedly persued him before. I think the book project really upset the Goldman's. I know it would upset me if I were in their shoes.

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

I don't agree with that. Yale is not his only attorney. The attorney for him in Florida on the case today is not YG. So, I do not agree that Yale has blocked Fred. Fred has recently stepped up his attack on OJ. He had only half heartedly persued him before. I think the book project really upset the Goldman's. I know it would upset me if I were in their shoes.

tazzy hi
i don't think the book project UPSET Fred at all. I think the opportunity to get some free money may have EXCITED him and allowed him to accept the fact that he would be making money on his sons and nicole death if he could only get his hands on that book rights.
Now he is even willing to PAY money to get the chance to sell that funky book where oj is talking about his 17 relationship with Nicole and a play killing chapter about some ghost name CHARLIE.imo

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
i don't think the book project UPSET Fred at all. I think the opportunity to get some free money may have EXCITED him

Then I guess you either didn't listen to what the Goldman's said about it, or you are calling them liars. Either way :no:

[weezer]

tazzy hi
i don't think the book project UPSET Fred at all. I think the opportunity to get some free money may have EXCITED him and allowed him to accept the fact that he would be making money on his sons and nicole death if he could only get his hands on that book rights.
Now he is even willing to PAY money to get the chance to sell that funky book where oj is talking about his 17 relationship with Nicole and a play killing chapter about some ghost name CHARLIE.imo

martin II

I think the opportunity to stop the Butcher of Brentwood, orenthal james simpson, from profiting off of the murders was the goal for the Goldmans.

[weezer]

Then I guess you either didn't listen to what the Goldman's said about it, or you are calling them liars. Either way :no:

oh you know martin -- always the first in line to bash the victims and families.

[martin II]

I think the opportunity to stop the Butcher of Brentwood, orenthal james simpson, from profiting off of the murders was the goal for the Goldmans.

weezer

Mr Goldman is now willing to PAY millions to get the title to the book. Not to keep LBA from owning the title but to get the title so Mr Goldman can sell it for profit for Mr Goldman. A book about his sons murder no less.imo

If he makes money. maby he will donate half to Nicole Brown Sinpson foundation.This may make Denise happy.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer

Mr Goldman is now willing to PAY millions to get the title to the book. Not to keep LBA from owning the title but to get the title so Mr Goldman can sell it for profit for Mr Goldman. A book about his sons murder no less.imo

If he makes money. maby he will donate half to Nicole Brown Sinpson foundation.This may make Denise happy.
martin II

so it was okay with you for orenthal -- the murderer -- to profit from the book but not the victim's family?

[Kate Sachel]

so it was okay with you for orenthal -- the murderer -- to profit from the book but not the victim's family?

Apparently so.

I don't think people understand that this is the only option that Fred Goldman has, and considering the fact that I'm in no position to judge what it does for him/to him emotionally since I don't have a child that was butchered, I can only sit back and hope that he succeeds in whatever it is that helps him get through the day.

Kate

[martin II]

so it was okay with you for orenthal -- the murderer -- to profit from the book but not the victim's family?

weezer
the book idea was a product of HC, Regan Books, and OJ Simpson. They had a right to profit from their idea and efforts.

Fred had nothing to do with this book idea and is now trying to hijack the original owners(hc, regan books and oj) idea for profit for himself.

Fred should write his own book and say what he wants to say in it.
mimo
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
the book idea was a product of HC, Regan Books, and OJ Simpson. They had a right to profit from their idea and efforts.

Fred had nothing to do with this book idea and is now trying to hijack the original owners(hc, regan books and oj) idea for profit for himself.

Fred should write his own book and say what he wants to say in it.
mimo
martin II

the book would have had the murderer profiting from his crime -- there is no other way to spin it.

Mr. Goldman has every right to deny orenthal the opportunity to make money off of the butchering of two human beings --

[martin II]

the book would have had the murderer profiting from his crime -- there is no other way to spin it.

Mr. Goldman has every right to deny orenthal the opportunity to make money off of the butchering of two human beings --

weezer
i am not sure that is correct.

Mr Goldman has every right to try to collect his judgement from oj simpson.
I do not agree that he has every right to prevent HC,REGAN BOOKS AND oj from participating in regular legal commercial ventures for profit. imo.
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I do not agree that he has every right to prevent HC,REGAN BOOKS AND oj from participating in regular legal commercial ventures for profit. imo.


The public has every right to protest the book before it's release. This is America. ;)

[weezer]

weezer
i am not sure that is correct.

Mr Goldman has every right to try to collect his judgement from oj simpson.
I do not agree that he has every right to prevent HC,REGAN BOOKS AND oj from participating in regular legal commercial ventures for profit. imo.
martin II

Mr Goldman has every right to go after the judgment -- aren't you one of the posters who has said that it's up to Mr. Goldman to try to get the money? Well, guess what? He did.

Besides, it wasn't Mr. Goldman that prevented the book coming out -- it was the public. The public that believes orenthal james simpson to be a double murderer. IMOO

[tazzybaby]

Mr Goldman has every right to go after the judgment -- aren't you one of the posters who has said that it's up to Mr. Goldman to try to get the money? Well, guess what? He did.

Besides, it wasn't Mr. Goldman that prevented the book coming out -- it was the public. The public that believes orenthal james simpson to be a double murderer. IMOO

I second that!!

:beer:

[martin II]

Mr Goldman has every right to go after the judgment -- aren't you one of the posters who has said that it's up to Mr. Goldman to try to get the money? Well, guess what? He did.

Besides, it wasn't Mr. Goldman that prevented the book coming out -- it was the public. The public that believes orenthal james simpson to be a double murderer. IMOO

weezer
without Groldmans interferance hc would have sold their book and made their profit as they intended to do from the conception of the book.
imo
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
without Groldmans interferance hc would have sold their book and made their profit as they intended to do from the conception of the book.
imo
martin II

you never answered me: why do you feel it was right that a publishing company and the man found responsible for the deaths be the ones that profit from the murders and not the victim's family?

[Kate Sachel]

OK this might be your opinion but the reality is the Goldman and Brown families really don't have anything to do with the criminal event itself. They are not POI/suspects. They are not essential to the unfolding of events that resulted in the deaths of Ron or Nicole. What they are.. are grieving families that lost someone they love to an act of murder. I am consistently surprised as to why anyone interested in this case would care what any of these family members have done since the murders of their son, daughter, sister, brother etc... I would like to see greater compassion for the families of victims in this case and others. I would hope that crime library as a community would be thought of as a compassionate community not a place where victims are revictimized.

Thanks

FH20

:rose:

Kate

[weezer]

OK this might be your opinion but the reality is the Goldman and Brown families really don't have anything to do with the criminal event itself. They are not POI/suspects. They are not essential to the unfolding of events that resulted in the deaths of Ron or Nicole. What they are.. are grieving families that lost someone they love to an act of murder. I am consistently surprised as to why anyone interested in this case would care what any of these family members have done since the murders of their son, daughter, sister, brother etc... I would like to see greater compassion for the families of victims in this case and others. I would hope that crime library as a community would be thought of as a compassionate community not a place where victims are revictimized.

Thanks

FH20

Does this mean there is a possibility that you would consider renaming the "Jason" thread? Maybe merge the posts into the "Unanswered Questions" thread? Since there has been no evidence that he was involved in the murders, I believe it is wrong that his name would be posted like it is on this Board.

[tazzybaby]

OK this might be your opinion but the reality is the Goldman and Brown families really don't have anything to do with the criminal event itself. They are not POI/suspects. They are not essential to the unfolding of events that resulted in the deaths of Ron or Nicole. What they are.. are grieving families that lost someone they love to an act of murder. I am consistently surprised as to why anyone interested in this case would care what any of these family members have done since the murders of their son, daughter, sister, brother etc... I would like to see greater compassion for the families of victims in this case and others. I would hope that crime library as a community would be thought of as a compassionate community not a place where victims are revictimized.

Thanks

FH20

Thank you so much Freshwater!! I completely agree!!

:rose:

[socaldiva]

OK this might be your opinion but the reality is the Goldman and Brown families really don't have anything to do with the criminal event itself. They are not POI/suspects. They are not essential to the unfolding of events that resulted in the deaths of Ron or Nicole. What they are.. are grieving families that lost someone they love to an act of murder. I am consistently surprised as to why anyone interested in this case would care what any of these family members have done since the murders of their son, daughter, sister, brother etc... I would like to see greater compassion for the families of victims in this case and others. I would hope that crime library as a community would be thought of as a compassionate community not a place where victims are revictimized.

Thanks

FH20

Thank you FW, I agree 100%!

[limakey]

Freshwater,

I understand what you are trying to say about the Browns and the Goldmans, however, IMO, whenever you grieve in public, you take a chance of opening up yourself to harsh comments, which include having your motives questioned.

IMO, there are people who truly believe that OJ Simpson is innocent and as much as you may feel he is guilty and see him only as a murderer, others see him just as much as a victim as you see the Browns and the Goldmans.

While I believe Mr. Simpson to be innocent, I do not see him as a victim. I think he deserves the "chair" just for cheating on his wife, both of them. I believe domestic abuse is a very cruel and brutal form of domestic abuse.

I also think the Browns and the Goldmans were are not the only victims. Regardless if you think he is guilty, doesn't his children deserve the same compassion that the Browns and the Goldmans get? Isn't he still responsible for their upbringing? Isn't he still responsible for ensuring they at least get a good education? Don't his children and family have the same right to feel he is innocent as you feel he is guilty? And wouldn't they have a much clearer picture of their parents relationship then any of us here?

And lets be honest and fair, Simpson called the book and the interview what was, blood money. However, any money that Simpson makes to pay back the judgement would be blood money, wouldn't it? Is the money that Simpson pays for his children's welfare also blood money?

[socaldiva]

*snip*
whenever you grieve in public, you take a chance of opening up yourself to harsh comments, which include having your motives questioned.


You do? Why would someone have "harsh comments" for a murder victim's family? Who deserves that?

The reason they were "grieving in public" is that a "celebrity" murdered their loved one. They didn't marry Simpson or invite the cameras into the courtroom. They were simply there seeking justice for the murder of their family member.

[martin II]

OK this might be your opinion but the reality is the Goldman and Brown families really don't have anything to do with the criminal event itself. They are not POI/suspects. They are not essential to the unfolding of events that resulted in the deaths of Ron or Nicole. What they are.. are grieving families that lost someone they love to an act of murder. I am consistently surprised as to why anyone interested in this case would care what any of these family members have done since the murders of their son, daughter, sister, brother etc... I would like to see greater compassion for the families of victims in this case and others. I would hope that crime library as a community would be thought of as a compassionate community not a place where victims are revictimized.

Thanks

FH20

Freshwater hi
Question:

Does posting media reports and personal opinions on Mr Goldmans current legal/Court avtivity against Mr Sinmpson constitute revictimizing him if the postings are not always favorable to him. Mr. Glodman makes himself a public figure by his many public tv appearances and regular utterances by his lawyers. Not everyone agrees with his public position.
thanks in advance.
martin II

[weezer]

IMO, there are people who truly believe that OJ Simpson is innocent and as much as you may feel he is guilty and see him only as a murderer, others see him just as much as a victim as you see the Browns and the Goldmans.

There is one huge difference: a court of law found orenthal james simpson to be responsible for the deaths of two human beings and the majority of the public believe him to be the Butcher of Brentwood. The court of NG's simply offer fantasies -- none of which can be supported by credible proof/evidence. IMO

[Kate Sachel]

whenever you grieve in public, you take a chance of opening up yourself to harsh comments, which include having your motives questioned.



Wow, really?

Because you grieve means you're open to cheap shots? I never knew.

Kate

[martin II]

There is one huge difference: a court of law found orenthal james simpson to be responsible for the deaths of two human beings and the majority of the public believe him to be the Butcher of Brentwood. The court of NG's simply offer fantasies -- none of which can be supported by credible proof/evidence. IMO

weezer
what do we do with the very serious criminal trial verdict of NOT GUILTY. Ignore it? pretend it did not happen?
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
what do we do with the very serious criminal trial verdict of NOT GUILTY. Ignore it? pretend it did not happen?
martin II

orenthal being found not guilty in the criminal trial does not negate him being found responsible in the civil trial.

[martin II]

Limakey : Your assumption that I believe OJ killed his wife and her friend is not accurate. In truth I did not follow the case, have not reviewed the evidence and, as a result, have not formed an opinion regarding factual guilt or innocence. Yes I think the Simpson Children as equally in need of our collective compassion.

Martin II: If it is out there in the public media - of course you can talk about it. Noone is getting infraction points here. Rather I think my intent is being lost. As the admin of this site I walk a fine line between censorship and common sense. I strive to allow all views to have room to express themselves. What I do demand is that the expression is civil and respectful of the views and concerns of others. Clearly there are those that believe the Goldman's are on a crusade of their own but isn't that because after viewing the evidence they believe that OJ killed their son? That makes me have more compassion for them because I can put myself in their shoes and see that their reactions are not irrational. If OJ is actualyl innocent then those on the other side need to consider what that must be like.

I received an amazing recommendation from a member for this forum. The idea is that whatever your position - for one week you must argue the OTHER side of the case. Perhaps an experiment of this nature would lend itself to the intent of my response to Martin.

Feedback is always welcome.
FH20


thanks for your response.
martin II

[martin II]

orenthal being found not guilty in the criminal trial does not negate him being found responsible in the civil trial.

weezer
if i was accused of a crime and was facing 30 years and the criminal jury voted Not Guilty and i was set free, I would consider the matter closed as i like so many other american (Those that ignore civil judgement) would know that the criminal trial was about taking ones freedom and requires a more serious and higher level of proof than the money trial.
If i had 200 million i would negoiate a payout with Mr Goldman and pay him to get rid of the issue. but if i only made $300,000 a year and had high legal bills because of Mr Goldmans actions against me. i would ignore it.

imo
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
if i was accused of a crime and was facing 30 years and the criminal jury voted Not Guilty and i was set free, I would consider the matter closed as i like so many other american (Those that ignore civil judgement) would know that the criminal trial was about taking ones freedom and requires a more serious and higher level of proof than the money trial.
If i had 200 million i would negoiate a payout with Mr Goldman and pay him to get rid of the issue. but if i only made $300,000 a year and had high legal bills because of Mr Goldmans actions against me. i would ignore it.

imo
martin II

If I was orenthal, I would thank God, my lucky stars and the Hood that I wasn't sitting on death row. I bet you're pizzing off a bunch of folks who owe civil judgments when you compare them to a double murderer.

You are right -- the civil trial was about money. And, orenthal was found responsible for the deaths of two human beings and ordered to pay. orenthal's high legal bills were and are his own doing.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
orenthal's high legal bills were and are his own doing.


Isn't that the truth :beer:

[martin II]

If I was orenthal, I would thank God, my lucky stars and the Hood that I wasn't sitting on death row. I bet you're pizzing off a bunch of folks who owe civil judgments when you compare them to a double murderer.

You are right -- the civil trial was about money. And, orenthal was found responsible for the deaths of two human beings and ordered to pay. orenthal's high legal bills were and are his own doing.

weezer
regarless of what one thinks about guilt and civil trials. YOU CANNOT GET BLOOD OUT OF A ROCK.IMO
MARTIN ii

[socaldiva]

weezer
regarless of what one thinks about guilt and civil trials. YOU CANNOT GET BLOOD OUT OF A ROCK.IMO
MARTIN ii


One minute you claim that Orenthal doesn't have money, the next you claim it's not illegal for him to hide funds. Which is it? :confused:

[tazzybaby]

weezer
if i was accused of a crime and was facing 30 years and the criminal jury voted Not Guilty and i was set free, I would consider the matter closed as i like so many other american (Those that ignore civil judgement) would know that the criminal trial was about taking ones freedom and requires a more serious and higher level of proof than the money trial.
If i had 200 million i would negoiate a payout with Mr Goldman and pay him to get rid of the issue. but if i only made $300,000 a year and had high legal bills because of Mr Goldmans actions against me. i would ignore it.

imo
martin II

Hi Martin,

I really don't get how you or the "many other american's" can ignore the civil judgement and praise the criminal trail verdict. I believe that there was enough evidence to convict him. I believe that the system was not put in place to set a murderer free but to prohibit innocent people from going to jail. Therefore, I do not agree with the way that the justice system worked in this case. I feel like the people on the jury had too much hate for the police in their hearts to neutrally view the evidence. And, Fuhrman's testimony gave them the okay to vote how they shouldn't and for the wrong reasons.

However, when Simpson was put on the stand during the civil trial it really opened a lot of things up. I feel that the truth was established beyond any doubts in the criminal trial and then in the civil trial it was backed up. Especially with the fact that he was proven to be a liar on the stand, more pictures of the shoes were found and we heard from some of his own friends (who also helped to prove him a liar). When I hear you and other NG's speak of the criminal trial you back up the rules of our justice system. Not that OJ is necessarily innocent. Just that he was found Not Guilty. Well, if lady justice worked in the criminal trial, then she worked in the civil trial as well. Criminal trial = no jail time for OJ Simpson. Civil trial = OJ Simpson owes the victims families for causing the death of Ron and Nicole.

Both were a part of the justice system.

imo

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

I really don't get how you or the "many other american's" can ignore the civil judgement and praise the criminal trail verdict. I believe that there was enough evidence to convict him. I believe that the system was not put in place to set a murderer free but to prohibit innocent people from going to jail. Therefore, I do not agree with the way that the justice system worked in this case. I feel like the people on the jury had too much hate for the police in their hearts to neutrally view the evidence. And, Fuhrman's testimony gave them the okay to vote how they shouldn't and for the wrong reasons.

However, when Simpson was put on the stand during the civil trial it really opened a lot of things up. I feel that the truth was established beyond any doubts in the criminal trial and then in the civil trial it was backed up. Especially with the fact that he was proven to be a liar on the stand, more pictures of the shoes were found and we heard from some of his own friends (who also helped to prove him a liar). When I hear you and other NG's speak of the criminal trial you back up the rules of our justice system. Not that OJ is necessarily innocent. Just that he was found Not Guilty. Well, if lady justice worked in the criminal trial, then she worked in the civil trial as well. Criminal trial = no jail time for OJ Simpson. Civil trial = OJ Simpson owes the victims families for causing the death of Ron and Nicole.

Both were a part of the justice system.

imo
tazzy hi

Was it Thomas Jefferson that said 'Better to let 1,000 guilty men go free than to put one innocent man in jail."

Think about it. If the framers thought that a civil trial had the same importance as the criminal trial. why didn't they make the basis for proof the same. Why make the criminal trial more difficul;t to prove and allow the civil trial to have a very low level of proof required?
i believe they saw the criminal trial as a more serious trial

Its like in the criminal trial if he is found guilty put his butt in jail. if the civil trial just make him pay some money.imo
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
regarless of what one thinks about guilt and civil trials. YOU CANNOT GET BLOOD OUT OF A ROCK.IMO
MARTIN ii

maybe not but you can keep after a double murderer to pay the civil judgement awarded by a court of law when orenthal james simpson was found responsible for the deaths of two human beings.

[martin II]

maybe not but you can keep after a double murderer to pay the civil judgement awarded by a court of law when orenthal james simpson was found responsible for the deaths of two human beings.

weezer
well what i know is that i woud not like to have you after me for money.
I would be in big trouble. right.

haha
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
well what i know is that i woud not like to have you after me for money.
I would be in big trouble. right.

haha
martin II

I just believe that if you want to hide behind the laws -- then you should also respect. And, yes, you would be in big trouble. The only difference is, I'd be living next door. ;)

[limakey]

S-Diva and Kate,

I will never forget when Katie Couric went back on the air after her husband died. She said that while she got many letters of support, it was the letters that were just plain cruel and mean that really got to her.

And there are people who truly believe Simpson is innocent. I'm sure your harsh comments for those people probably can't be posted but never the less, they have endured the same type of comments that the victims' families have suffered. IMO.

However, I'm sure you have heard of the terms, "professional victim". I have a tremendous amount of respect for any victim or family members to refuses to be silent when they are faced with such harsh and nasty comments. However, as much as a right as people feel they have to call Simpson a murderer in public, then other people feel they have the right to make harsh comments about the Goldmans and Browns.

While I don't agree with the negative comments about the Browns and Goldmans, I think it is fair to say that not all of these comments came from strangers or were said only by people who believe Simpson to be innocent.

I also disagree with the signs of "Guilty", "Butcher of Brentwood" signs that were put on the Rockingham estate gates that were in plain sight of Sydney and Justin. Which Sydney, according to Newsweek, went outside and started taking them down and writing "not" over the "guilty" signs.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
And there are people who truly believe Simpson is innocent. I'm sure your harsh comments for those people probably can't be posted but never the less, they have endured the same type of comments that the victims' families have suffered. IMO.


I'm not sure I'm understanding this. Are you saying that someone that is an outsider that supports Simpson has endured the same type of comments that victim's families have suffered? :confused:

[limakey]

S-Diva,

How many times have the "Talking Heads" said "everybody knows he is guilty!" How many times have these same talking heads said that anyone who believes differently is basically as dumb as a rock?

How many times have people made comments that their belief in Simpson's innocence is based on race alone? There are blacks who believe he is guilty just as there are whites who believe he is innocent?

My point should have perhaps been put differently, whenever anyone goes public with their strong beliefs, they open themselves up to harsh comments, which includes victims. I'm sure there are many woman who have been sexually assaulted can understand this---which is why, IMO, many of them refuse to go public. I'm sure this is also the reason why many men who are victims of the same type of sexual assaults remain silent as well.

I love our country, I love that people have the freedom to stand up for their beliefs, I love the people who stand up to the harsh comments and still carry on. I have nothing but compassion and sympathy for those who have remained silent because they feel they do not have that strength or feel that while they may have it, their families may not.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
My point should have perhaps been put differently, whenever anyone goes public with their strong beliefs, they open themselves up to harsh comments, which includes victims.

It doesn't make it acceptable, nor does it excuse some of the things I've read on this board relative to the Goldman's or the Brown's.

[martin II]

S-Diva,

How many times have the "Talking Heads" said "everybody knows he is guilty!" How many times have these same talking heads said that anyone who believes differently is basically as dumb as a rock?

How many times have people made comments that their belief in Simpson's innocence is based on race alone? There are blacks who believe he is guilty just as there are whites who believe he is innocent?

My point should have perhaps been put differently, whenever anyone goes public with their strong beliefs, they open themselves up to harsh comments, which includes victims. I'm sure there are many woman who have been sexually assaulted can understand this---which is why, IMO, many of them refuse to go public. I'm sure this is also the reason why many men who are victims of the same type of sexual assaults remain silent as well.

I love our country, I love that people have the freedom to stand up for their beliefs, I love the people who stand up to the harsh comments and still carry on. I have nothing but compassion and sympathy for those who have remained silent because they feel they do not have that strength or feel that while they may have it, their families may not.


limakey

I agree that when on goes public with their problem or ask the general public
for help with their problem, one must expect to get some positive support and some negative responses.
There is a limit to what a victim can expect from the public as a result of their situation. All of the public is not obligated to just agree with every utterance and request by a victim and those that dissagree with some of the victims stance have a right to express this dissagree without attack from others.

To express legitimate critisism of some actions of the victim should not be taken as imoral or nonsensitive to his/her situation.

Both victims famalies received different amounts of money from simpson after the civil trial based on what could be auctioned and sold. Yet Mr Goldman, his lawyers and the media regularly state that OJ has not paid one penny to the judgement. Mr Goldmans knows that Mr Simpson offer him $7,000,000 as a settlement in the 1990s and he knows that he rejected this money but when he has talked about not being paid he does not inform the public that he turned down this $7,000,000. I think this opens him up for
critical comments on this issue.imo

I also think that ojs kids should not be targets of hateful comments by some.
My last comments is in support of another poster here a few days ago.

The only way to have a intellegent understand of what happened in these murders is to understand the history of the victims and the accused. As the poster stated there is always two sides to a story. Telling the truth about a persons activities is not bashing that person. It is a search for underlining factors that may have contributed to the events.
imo
martin II

[limakey]

S-Diva,

Your last post is the reason why I believe this board may be in danger due to refusal to even consider a totally neutral post. Never did I say that some of the harsh comments were acceptable, in fact, I didn't even limit my post to just this case alone. The fact is that in our country, we can make harsh comments on public figures regardless if we think they are fair or not.

The point is that this is a two way street. Every comment we make on this public forum is open to criticisms. Every comment the Goldmans and the Browns make, every comment Simpson makes is fair game. Every action they make is also fair game when it comes to motives, etc.

And in this case, not all the harsh and nasty comments made about the Browns and the Goldmans come from only one side. There are G's who have a hard time with the Browns and their comments have been harsh--however, they have a right to them. I believe I'm the only one who has ever posted that I feel it was a mistake to judge the Browns simply based on greed. There are other motives for actions that we may find simply unexplainable.

IMO.

[limakey]

Martin,

Thank you, someone finally gets what I have been trying to say!

I totally agree with you about having to investigate the victims' lives to try to get to the truth of the matter---regardless of where it takes the police. I have always considered this to be a major mistake in this case by the DA's. However, it also very well could be Simpson's refusal to go down this road, at least for Nicole.

In reading some of the books, it appears the defense did have a lot of information that never came to light about Nicole's circle of friends. I don't think there has been one stone left unturned when it comes to Simpson life but I think there are many stones that are left in this case. IMO.

[weezer]

In reading some of the books, it appears the defense did have a lot of information that never came to light about Nicole's circle of friends. I don't think there has been one stone left unturned when it comes to Simpson life but I think there are many stones that are left in this case. IMO.

none of which could bleed orenthal's blood, leave orenthal's bloody footprints, hair, fiber at the murder scene

[limakey]

FBG,

You are right, no one could have left Simpson's bloody footprints at the scene, which is why the blood footprints left behind are not his. Those bloody footprints did not match Simpson's gait. He is not the only man in the world who is over 6' and who weighs over 200 pounds. A size 12 shoe is not uncommon. The DA's never could link the bloody shoe prints to Simpson, they simply don't match his gait or show is obvious natural walk.

[weezer]

FBG,

You are right, no one could have left Simpson's bloody footprints at the scene, which is why the blood footprints left behind are not his. Those bloody footprints did not match Simpson's gait. He is not the only man in the world who is over 6' and who weighs over 200 pounds. A size 12 shoe is not uncommon. The DA's never could link the bloody shoe prints to Simpson, they simply don't match his gait or show is obvious natural walk.

Triumph of Justice; Petrocelli; p 2-3: "The physical evidence was conclusive: Simpson's blood was dripped at the murder scene; a cap with hairs matching his was found next to Ron's and Nicole's dead bodies; one of Simpson's large leather gloves was lying between them; and the matching glove, still holding strands of the victims' hair and stained with their blood and Simpson's, was found outside his house. Size-twelve shoe prints, slightly pigeon-toed, were clearly stamped in the victims' blood, at the murder scene. Simpson is among the 9 percent of the population who wears size-twelve shoes, and he is pigeon-toed. Those shoe prints made an impression that was matched to one sole in the world - a Silga sole, manufactured at the Silga factory in Civitinova Marche, Italy, for the upscale shoemaker Bruno Magli. We had photographs of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes with the identical sole. Simpson's white Ford Bronco, parked outside his house, contained not only Simpson's blood but Ron's and Nicole's, and a shoe impression consistent with the Bruno Magli stained the carpet on the driver's side. A trail of Simpson's blood was dripped up his driveway, into his house, and up to his bedroom and bathroom."

[martin II]

Triumph of Justice; Petrocelli; p 2-3: "The physical evidence was conclusive: Simpson's blood was dripped at the murder scene; a cap with hairs matching his was found next to Ron's and Nicole's dead bodies; one of Simpson's large leather gloves was lying between them; and the matching glove, still holding strands of the victims' hair and stained with their blood and Simpson's, was found outside his house. Size-twelve shoe prints, slightly pigeon-toed, were clearly stamped in the victims' blood, at the murder scene. Simpson is among the 9 percent of the population who wears size-twelve shoes, and he is pigeon-toed. Those shoe prints made an impression that was matched to one sole in the world - a Silga sole, manufactured at the Silga factory in Civitinova Marche, Italy, for the upscale shoemaker Bruno Magli. We had photographs of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes with the identical sole. Simpson's white Ford Bronco, parked outside his house, contained not only Simpson's blood but Ron's and Nicole's, and a shoe impression consistent with the Bruno Magli stained the carpet on the driver's side. A trail of Simpson's blood was dripped up his driveway, into his house, and up to his bedroom and bathroom."


petrocellis book was not testimony. it was his public version of other testimony.
-------------------------
Sock with edta testimony
MR. BLASIER: Now, doctor, I have highlighted the peaks on those two charts. Does the chart up on the screen there correlate to the peaks that appear on those two chromatograms?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is the retention time on those two charts consistent with the retention time that the FBI determined you would have with EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And do both of those charts demonstrate not only the presence of the 293 parent ion, but the 160 daughter ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion as to whether, based on those chromatogram from the FBI, whether the presence of EDTA has been demonstrated on the bloodstain from the sock, Q206?

DR. RIEDERS: Just on the basis of the 160 or the entire picture?

MR. BLASIER: The entire picture.

DR. RIEDERS: On the basis of the entire picture, this has been at these concentrations presented as strongly as it can with present technology.

MR. BLASIER: As what?

DR. RIEDERS: As EDTA.

http://walraven.org/simpson/jul24.html

==========

[weezer]

O.J. Unmasked; Rantala; pgs 134-135: ". . . .Both Martz and Rieders agreed that the data showed signals consistent with the presence of a 293 ion and a 160 ion. (An ion is an atom or molecule which has either gained or lost one or more electrons or protons, giving it an electrical charge. It is only when atoms or molecules are charged that a mass spectrometer can detect them.) The 293 ion and the 160 ion are two of three ions needed to identify EDTA.

Martz and Rieders disagreed on whether a 132 ion was present. . . . .There are three important things to note about Rieder's identification of the 132 ion:

In his original report, prepared for the defense, he did not say that he had found the 132 ion. the first time he made this claim was on the witness stand.

When Rieders showed Marcia Clark what he said was the 132 ion (represented by a peak on a graph), it was no different from adjacent signals identified as 'noise'.

In addition to the presence of the three ions, Martz testified that these ions must be present in a specific ratio to be identified as EDTA. Rieders never demonstrated this ratio.

Far and away the most important part of Rieder's testimony was his claim that the third ion was present. But it was not. This alone estables that EDTA was not identified in the gate and sock stains. Everything else in Rieder's testimony is unimportant compared to this, because without the third ion, his other claims are irrelevant."

[martin II]

weezer


I am not sure what Mr Rantala is talking about.

So far i have seen nothing from Martz OR Reiders about THREE different ions must be present to identify EDTA.

Reiders talks about the parent 293 and the daughter 160 ions are required.

I have not seen anything about a 132 ion.

the three things Reiders talks about are three parts of the process required
not three seperate ions with three different weights.
---------------------------------------------------


MR. BLASIER: So if you were trying to determine whether EDTA was present in a substance, what are the three things that you would look for with this kind of testing?

DR. RIEDERS: The first thing that you look for is if I extract something with water and put it through my column that I am using in this experiment the way I have tested EDTA and found that it comes out in five, six minutes or whatever, will I see--will something come out at six minutes? That is the retention time, or whatever the retention time is. Then what I will do is to have a mass spectrometer look at what comes out at that retention time and tell me whether I will focus on the 293, whether there is any 293, which is also a characteristic of EDTA, so the retention time is one characteristic. The 293 that I am looking at, that means I am only looking for orange-eyed people you might say. If I see orange-eyed people, I count them; others I don't count. I take all the orange-eyed people after I have counted them and throw them in the next mass spectrometer and it breaks them up and only leaves the orange eyes which eight--weigh 160 let's say.

MR. BLASIER: So we are looking for those three things?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, retention time--no. We look for more than that. We look for water solubility because that is how we got it. We look for it going through the column at all because a lot of things don't go through that column. And also that if it does go through the column, that it takes it as much time and no more and no less than the window that I know will contain EDTA, so that is really in a sense the third parameter. Then comes the--does it contain enough molecular ions, 293 masses, you know, are they enough guys in there with--or gals--with 293 on their shirts so that I can actually count them, because if it is less than a certain number I can't really count them so can I see them? Are they there in any other detection--we know my detection limit? Then after breaking those up, the third parameter is the pieces that have 160 tattooed on them and that is what we are looking for, so that we have essentially five parameters.

MR. BLASIER: Did you want to take a break?

THE COURT: Five minutes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Now, also one of the other things that is measured in this system is what's called ion count?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that is--is that essentially counting the number of ions that are getting through to the 160 stage there?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, it is counting the number of ions that the detector can see and see--where it can separate the counts, one from the ion, where he can really count, one, two, three, four, and that means that the detector has to snap at an ion and record it before the next ion gets there, otherwise it will record two as one, so it depends open how quickly it is scanning what is coming in. And if it scans a thousand times a second, it is not going to miss many particles, many 293's, but if it scans it 50 times a second, then it will count 10 as one, you know, like a bunch. So--but that is what it does. It gives you a measure of the amount of that particular 293 or 160 that has come into the mass spectrometer, has been ionized in the first one seen and counted as 293 ions, and then the second one, how many did the detector--how many counts did the detector make.

http://walraven.org/simpson/jul24.html

[martin II]

weezer

this is clarks cross where Reiders says all three are there.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you've testified, sir, that the parent ion 293 is one characteristic of the EDTA, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that there is a daughter ion, 160, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: But that is not the full daughter spectrum that you see there; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Not here. The full daughter spectrum is all the daughters.

MS. CLARK: And the other daughter, which is not shown on this chart, is 132?

DR. RIEDERS: That's one other daughter.

MS. CLARK: And that other daughter ion, 132, was not present on the gate and the sock stains; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Oh, no. That's not correct. Remember that Mr. Blasier showed me a chromatogram which included the--all three, the 293, the 160 and I think the 130 or whatever it was, and all three of them were there, although not in high concentrations. They were below the concentration at which the instrument prints out retention time, peak height and number. It is below what is called the reporting limit of the instrument the way it's set.

MS. CLARK: So what you're saying is, although you can't see it, it's really there?

DR. RIEDERS: No, no. I can see it and so can the instrument. It just didn't label it. There's a big difference between that.

[weezer]

O.J. Unmasked; Rantala; p 38: "The simple fact of the matter is that Rieders had no valid argument to support a claim of the presence of EDTA in either the gate or the sock stains. The necessary 132 ion peak he claimed was present could not be scientifically distinguised from noise. Any errors in quantification by Martz could not possibly be large enough to explain the massively different readings for the reference blood and the evidence samples.

The blood found on the back gate and the socks did not come from an EDTA purple-top tube. The only reasonable supposition is that this blood was somehow conveyed onto these objects a very short time after it had been flowing in the veins of O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson."

[limakey]

FBG,

What Petrocelli says in his book, is "meaningless". It was what was able to be proved or disproved in the criminal trial is what counts. As a lawyer, Petrocelli knows better then to use the word "match", yet he uses it?

And the DA's nor Petrocelli had any valid argument to explain why this blood was not found or seen until days, weeks and months later.

[martin II]

weezer
here is the identify of that 132 ion.

MS. CLARK: But you didn't call that--you did not identify that as the parent ion even though that does have a high peak, maybe three times as high as some of the other peaks on that chart; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I did not because I have nothing to go on to call it a parent ion.

MS. CLARK: Then in fact, what this graph shows, sir, in your opinion, as the 132 is based solely on the fact that you see something at the retention time?

DR. RIEDERS: At the same--yes, at the same retention time where I see the 160 and the 292 and at the same retention time where in the more focused chromatogram that we looked at previously where you can see much better that 160 and that--that--it's in the same place and even the pattern is somewhat similar. So that's why I say that--you saw it before at 160. Now, if you're scanning the whole thing, even though it is so much weaker--I mean this is probably, I don't know, it could be as much as a hundred times less sensitive than the 160 ion--you still see it, and in the same place where the 160 is, you also see the footprints of the 132 ion.

MS. CLARK: And so are you willing to say, sir, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that based on this graph here of the 132 daughter ion, that it is present on the sock? Is that your testimony, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: That what is present on the sock?

MS. CLARK: The 130--that you have the full daughter spectrum on the sock based on this reading of your graph of 132?

DR. RIEDERS: This is the full daughter spectrum on the sock unless there are other smaller ones, you know, unless there are other little pieces around which I have not looked here. And that's--in general is the weakest--the least sensitive of the methods that he could use, but at the same time, it's more specific. You're trading off one for the other.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, we're

weezer
this is from the same above link
martin II

[weezer]

FBG,
Triumph of Justice; Petrocelli; p415:

What Petrocelli says in his book, is "meaningless". It was what was able to be proved or disproved in the criminal trial is what counts. As a lawyer, Petrocelli knows better then to use the word "match", yet he uses it?

And the DA's nor Petrocelli had any valid argument to explain why this blood was not found or seen until days, weeks and months later.

"The blood found at the Bundy murder scene was either the victims' or O.J.'s. No one else's blood was found there. DNA tests performed by three different laboratories confirmed this. The defense claimed contamination that supposedly infected the sensitive DNA testing, but not even they could come up with a contamination argument, however fanciful, that applied to the conventional blood testing that Matheson also had performed. Matheson's conventional tests showed that Simpson's blood type, found at the murder scene, was matched by only one person in 588.. . . "

I don't have a clue what you are referring to about collection 'months' later.

[weezer]

weezer
here is the identify of that 132 ion.

MS. CLARK: But you didn't call that--you did not identify that as the parent ion even though that does have a high peak, maybe three times as high as some of the other peaks on that chart; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I did not because I have nothing to go on to call it a parent ion.

MS. CLARK: Then in fact, what this graph shows, sir, in your opinion, as the 132 is based solely on the fact that you see something at the retention time?

DR. RIEDERS: At the same--yes, at the same retention time where I see the 160 and the 292 and at the same retention time where in the more focused chromatogram that we looked at previously where you can see much better that 160 and that--that--it's in the same place and even the pattern is somewhat similar. So that's why I say that--you saw it before at 160. Now, if you're scanning the whole thing, even though it is so much weaker--I mean this is probably, I don't know, it could be as much as a hundred times less sensitive than the 160 ion--you still see it, and in the same place where the 160 is, you also see the footprints of the 132 ion.

MS. CLARK: And so are you willing to say, sir, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that based on this graph here of the 132 daughter ion, that it is present on the sock? Is that your testimony, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: That what is present on the sock?

MS. CLARK: The 130--that you have the full daughter spectrum on the sock based on this reading of your graph of 132?

DR. RIEDERS: This is the full daughter spectrum on the sock unless there are other smaller ones, you know, unless there are other little pieces around which I have not looked here. And that's--in general is the weakest--the least sensitive of the methods that he could use, but at the same time, it's more specific. You're trading off one for the other.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, we're

weezer
this is from the same above link
martin II

In his original report, prepared for the defense, he did not say that he had found the 132 ion. the first time he made this claim was on the witness stand.

[baked_tater]

OJ was in Louville for one or two days.It is reported that he played golf at a great private course and ate his three meals per day at some of louisville best resturants. Walked around and talked with some of the horse handlers and jocikes. Placed his bets and attended parties just as others did.
Great weekend.

This steak resturant guy and that publicity stunt he pulled means nothing.It seems that he was really pissed because HIS partons were asking for oj's AUTOGRAPH.

Sure OJ and his party just went to another steak resturant for their KOBE
and bubbly.
martin II


Do you have a link for this story? I must have missed it, and thats odd because I live quite near to Louisville. Thanks!

[socaldiva]

Do you have a link for this story? I must have missed it, and thats odd because I live quite near to Louisville. Thanks!

Yes, I'd like a link also. I haven't read what Martin has posted either.

[martin II]

In his original report, prepared for the defense, he did not say that he had found the 132 ion. the first time he made this claim was on the witness stand.

weezer
what i get from reading the testimony by Blazer and clark is that when one uses the chromatogrons(sp) and one scane for only two ions they can be seen strongly. But Reiders said that when one scans starting at the low 130 and go across all availalbe ones to 293 they all can be seen not as strong and that the the machine did see the 132 which is one daughters of the 293.
That since the machine saw all three EDTA was present on those two samples.
imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

S-Diva,

Your last post is the reason why I believe this board may be in danger due to refusal to even consider a totally neutral post. Never did I say that some of the harsh comments were acceptable, in fact, I didn't even limit my post to just this case alone. The fact is that in our country, we can make harsh comments on public figures regardless if we think they are fair or not.

The point is that this is a two way street. Every comment we make on this public forum is open to criticisms. Every comment the Goldmans and the Browns make, every comment Simpson makes is fair game. Every action they make is also fair game when it comes to motives, etc.

And in this case, not all the harsh and nasty comments made about the Browns and the Goldmans come from only one side. There are G's who have a hard time with the Browns and their comments have been harsh--however, they have a right to them. I believe I'm the only one who has ever posted that I feel it was a mistake to judge the Browns simply based on greed. There are other motives for actions that we may find simply unexplainable.

IMO.

You think this board is in danger because I post that the victims shouldn't be re victimized? Perhaps you should take that up with Freshwater, as she's already posted relative to that very topic.

You say that you aren't saying harsh comments are acceptable, yet in your next breath you say that it is "fair game" whether it is fair or not. These families didn't volunteer to become "public figures", they only became such because of the celebrity trial.

Feelings about the Browns & Goldmans have nothing to do with who committed this crime, yet they are constantly brought up & I think it's appalling.

[weezer]

weezer
what i get from reading the testimony by Blazer and clark is that when one uses the chromatogrons(sp) and one scane for only two ions they can be seen strongly. But Reiders said that when one scans starting at the low 130 and go across all availalbe ones to 293 they all can be seen not as strong and that the the machine did see the 132 which is one daughters of the 293.
That since the machine saw all three EDTA was present on those two samples.
imo
martin II

why do you not find it suspect that Rieders discusses the 132 only in testimony and not in his written report? Especially since it takes all three ions to identify EDTA as being present.

[martin II]

Do you have a link for this story? I must have missed it, and thats odd because I live quite near to Louisville. Thanks!

baked

i did post links about OJ and his party leaving Rubys and having dinner at a nearby resturant. look back and you will see the names of two resturantrs he had dinner at on that Derby weekend.

martin II

[socaldiva]

baked

i did post links about OJ and his party leaving Rubys and having dinner at a nearby resturant. look back and you will see the names of two resturantrs he had dinner at on that Derby weekend.

martin II

No, there was more to your post than that. You didn't simply post that he went to another restaurant. You need to provide a link relative to the balance of your post. :no:

[martin II]

Simpson was welcomed at another restaurant, Basa Modern Vietnamese Cuisine, on Thursday. The co-owner, Steven Ton, said he tries to treat everyone equally. "I try to treat everyone like family when they are here. I treated him just like I did everyone else."

Ton also said none of the other customers complained about Simpson's presence.



http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=6493883&nav=menu31_3



http://www.sevicherestaurant.com/menu2.html#

[weezer]

Simpson was welcomed at another restaurant, Basa Modern Vietnamese Cuisine, on Thursday. The co-owner, Steven Ton, said he tries to treat everyone equally. "I try to treat everyone like family when they are here. I treated him just like I did everyone else."

Ton also said none of the other customers complained about Simpson's presence.



http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=6493883&nav=menu31_3



http://www.sevicherestaurant.com/menu2.html#

martin, one link is to the story about orenthal NOT eating at the steakhouse and the other link is to a restaurant menu????????????

[martin II]

why do you not find it suspect that Rieders discusses the 132 only in testimony and not in his written report? Especially since it takes all three ions to identify EDTA as being present.

weezer

no

AS i understand it the 293 parent and the 160 daughter are the stronger ions
When one look for those two. but when you scan starting at 130 and go all the way up to 293 /295 all are seen but weaker. this makes sense to me.

if you read his testinmony from beginning you can see what the focus was.
He seems to have gone deeper into what the machins saw as a result of the deeper quesiton Clark asked.
Martz made different testimony based on who quesitoned him also.

I also noted that Reiders was advising the LA prosecutors office on EDTA during this trial. clarke was pissed and was trying to pur words in his mouth but he was not having any of it.

The main quesiton for me if small amounts of edta is in some food but as Reiders says 95% of it is dissapated in stool within 1 hour.

imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

martin, one link is to the story about orenthal NOT eating at the steakhouse and the other link is to a restaurant menu????????????

I didn't see any "kobe" or "bubbly" on that menu either, or anything saying Orenthal ate at that restaurant.

[socaldiva]

martin, one link is to the story about orenthal NOT eating at the steakhouse and the other link is to a restaurant menu????????????

Here is a sentence from the one link, but it says Simpson ate there on a Thursday. Looks to me like that was well after Derby weekend. ;) I also doubt they serve "kobe" & "bubbly".



"Simpson was welcomed at another restaurant, Basa Modern Vietnamese Cuisine, on Thursday. The co-owner, Steven Ton, said he tries to treat everyone equally. "I try to treat everyone like family when they are here. I treated him just like I did everyone else."

Ton also said none of the other customers complained about Simpson's presence"

[martin II]

Do you have a link for this story? I must have missed it, and thats odd because I live quite near to Louisville. Thanks!

Simpson was welcomed at another restaurant, Basa Modern Vietnamese Cuisine, on Thursday. The co-owner, Steven Ton, said he tries to treat everyone equally. "I try to treat everyone like family when they are here. I treated him just like I did everyone else."

Ton also said none of the other customers complained about Simpson's presence.



http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=6493883&nav=menu31_3

i had deleted the link to that other resturant but had the menu as i looked at and had it saved.
But i have posted both before.
Does this clear it up for you.

MARTIN ii

[socaldiva]

Simpson was welcomed at another restaurant, Basa Modern Vietnamese Cuisine, on Thursday. The co-owner, Steven Ton, said he tries to treat everyone equally. "I try to treat everyone like family when they are here. I treated him just like I did everyone else."

Ton also said none of the other customers complained about Simpson's presence.



http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=6493883&nav=menu31_3

i had deleted the link to that other resturant but had the menu as i looked at and had it saved.
But i have posted both before.
Does this clear it up for you.

MARTIN ii

That was on a Thursday, not the same night Ruby gave him the boot. No "kobe" or "bubbly" is mentioned either :no:

[socaldiva]

Basa just opened in March of this year, so perhaps the owner needs all of the customers he can get :tongue: Here's the menu & I don't see any "kobe" on it:

http://www.basarestaurant.net/Menu.html

[weezer]

Simpson was welcomed at another restaurant, Basa Modern Vietnamese Cuisine, on Thursday. The co-owner, Steven Ton, said he tries to treat everyone equally. "I try to treat everyone like family when they are here. I treated him just like I did everyone else."

Ton also said none of the other customers complained about Simpson's presence.



http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=6493883&nav=menu31_3

i had deleted the link to that other resturant but had the menu as i looked at and had it saved.
But i have posted both before.
Does this clear it up for you.

MARTIN ii

your original post made statements about what a great week orenthal had at the Derby -- the many restaurants he ate at and the rounds of golf he played. So far, you've not backed up those statements as asked except to post the link to the story of the restaurant where he was asked to leave. Like the other two posters, I'd like to see your statements backed up with links.

[martin II]

here is a third resturant that i did not know about


http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070509/NEWS01/70509036

[martin II]

your original post made statements about what a great week orenthal had at the Derby -- the many restaurants he ate at and the rounds of golf he played. So far, you've not backed up those statements as asked except to post the link to the story of the restaurant where he was asked to leave. Like the other two posters, I'd like to see your statements backed up with links.

weezer

i did not save all the llinks.

i have given you three links today that i searched back and found for you.

You know i gave you a link to a picture of the jocky and oj hugging in a very friendly manner and i gave you the link to the picture fo the woman you asked about.
In one of those previous stories it talked about oj playing goldfat a local course.

so i think i have given you links.
martin II

[weezer]

here is a third resturant that i did not know about


http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070509/NEWS01/70509036

actually, you've posted confirmation on two restaurants. how about the golf course?

[bobaugust]

weezer

no

AS i understand it the 293 parent and the 160 daughter are the stronger ions
When one look for those two. but when you scan starting at 130 and go all the way up to 293 /295 all are seen but weaker. this makes sense to me.

if you read his testinmony from beginning you can see what the focus was.
He seems to have gone deeper into what the machins saw as a result of the deeper quesiton Clark asked.
Martz made different testimony based on who quesitoned him also.

I also noted that Reiders was advising the LA prosecutors office on EDTA during this trial. clarke was pissed and was trying to pur words in his mouth but he was not having any of it.

The main quesiton for me if small amounts of edta is in some food but as Reiders says 95% of it is dissapated in stool within 1 hour.

imo
martin II

martin II, this entire argument is meaningless since none of the questioned bloodstains came from EDTA preserved blood. That's the relevant fact. The gate blood did not come from Simpson reference sample. The sock blood did not come from Nicole's autopsy sample

The defense claims that these blood stains were planted were proven to be false claims.

bobaugust

[weezer]

weezer

i did not save all the llinks.

i have given you three links today that i searched back and found for you.

You know i gave you a link to a picture of the jocky and oj hugging in a very friendly manner and i gave you the link to the picture fo the woman you asked about.
In one of those previous stories it talked about oj playing goldfat a local course.

so i think i have given you links.
martin II

martin, you make outrageous statements about orenthal having a high-ho time at the derby --- about eating kobe steaks, drinking bubbly and playing golf at a private club. So far, you've posted a link to the story of the restaurant he was kicked out of, the menu of another restaurant that says nothing about orenthal being there, the quote from the owner of the vietnamese restaurant, and finally a restaurant you admitted you didn't know about. I've not read/seen anything about the golf -- I'd just like to know which club that was.

[martin II]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horses/2007-05-03-2768026987_x.htm

[socaldiva]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horses/2007-05-03-2768026987_x.htm

I don't see anything in this link either that says Simpson dined on "kobes" & "bubbly" & played golf at an exclusive club :shrug:

I'm just pleased that the killer didn't get to eat at his first restaurant of choice, Ruby's :D

[weezer]

I don't see anything in this link either that says Simpson dined on "kobes" & "bubbly" & played golf at an exclusive club :shrug:

I'm just pleased that the killer didn't get to eat at his first restaurant of choice, Ruby's :D

me too -- I'm still in admiration of the owner stepping up to the plate the way he did. :beer:

I think it's interesting that none of the other restaurants where orenthal dined on kobes and bubbly rushed to defend orenthal.

[bobaugust]

FBG,

What Petrocelli says in his book, is "meaningless". It was what was able to be proved or disproved in the criminal trial is what counts. As a lawyer, Petrocelli knows better then to use the word "match", yet he uses it?

And the DA's nor Petrocelli had any valid argument to explain why this blood was not found or seen until days, weeks and months later.

limakey, the new evidence that was presented in the civil trial as well as Simpson's testimony in the civil trial was just as important as what was presented in the criminal trial.

How the blood on the rear gate at Bundy was overlooked by the criminalists and not collected until about three weeks later was explained. As well as a reasonable explanation was given why blood on Simpson's sock wasn't seen until about three months later. These explanations do not change the fact that both of these blood stains were proved not to be planted.

bobaugust

[martin II]

me too -- I'm still in admiration of the owner stepping up to the plate the way he did. :beer:

I think it's interesting that none of the other restaurants where orenthal dined on kobes and bubbly rushed to defend orenthal.

maby because the others resturant owners were more instered in serving their customers and had no need to pull cheap PR stunts in their resturants.
martin II

[weezer]

maby because the others resturant owners were more instered in serving their customers and had no need to pull cheap PR stunts in their resturants.
martin II

you've managed to stay civil to this point -- why ruin it now? Do you have proof that this was a PR stunt by the owner? Do you even know who alerted the media to the incident?

[weezer]

personally, I think anyone anywhere with orenthal holding a knife should look for the quickest exit. So, maybe the owner was actually serving his customers. ;)

[socaldiva]

personally, I think anyone anywhere with orenthal holding a knife should look for the quickest exit. ;)

:lol:

Since when is tossing a patron from your restaurant considered a 'PR' stunt?

Seems to me that anyone that goes against Orenthal is accused of wanting money around here.

[martin II]

martin, you make outrageous statements about orenthal having a high-ho time at the derby --- about eating kobe steaks, drinking bubbly and playing golf at a private club. So far, you've posted a link to the story of the restaurant he was kicked out of, the menu of another restaurant that says nothing about orenthal being there, the quote from the owner of the vietnamese restaurant, and finally a restaurant you admitted you didn't know about. I've not read/seen anything about the golf -- I'd just like to know which club that was.

weezer

Today at your reeust i have given you three links to resturants that oj had dinner at during that weekend that mr Ruby denied his service. I had also given you two links to oj and the jocks having fun and the lady that you called PUFFY. The article about Oj playing golf did not specify the name of the course but i have not found it again.

You are going back to a post of mine a few weeks ago. Remember i was given a time out since then and i did not save all of the links ot everything.

But i think you read the same articles about this derby weekend as everyone else did. At least from what i remember you were informed about these issues.

I i find the name of the golf couse i will post it for you.

imo
martin II

[weezer]

weezer

Today at your reeust i have given you three links to resturants that oj had dinner at during that weekend that mr Ruby denied his service. I had also given you two links to oj and the jocks having fun and the lady that you called PUFFY. The article about Oj playing golf did not specify the name of the course but i have not found it again.

You are going back to a post of mine a few weeks ago. Remember i was given a time out since then and i did not save all of the links ot everything.

But i think you read the same articles about this derby weekend as everyone else did. At least from what i remember you were informed about these issues.

I i find the name of the golf couse i will post it for you.

imo
martin II

okay -- EXCEPT you gave quotes from two restaurants only. Enough said on the subject unless, of course, you want to start baiting again with descriptions of orenthal's wonderful time at the Derby eating kobe steaks and drinking bubbly. :eek:

I do wonder which golf course it is since your post said it was 'private' and that would mean he was there as a guest and I'd like to know which guest.

[martin II]

you've managed to stay civil to this point -- why ruin it now? Do you have proof that this was a PR stunt by the owner? Do you even know who alerted the media to the incident?

wezer
i believe what Mr Ruby did was a cheap pr stunt. I don't care who alerted the media. who ever did it mr Ruby certainly did not refuse to make himself available to tell the world the details that day and some days after.


Actually i had thought that the issue of Oj not being served by Ruby had been talked out until you decided to bring it back up today.

So it does matter to me who called the media or that oj was not served.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Today at your reeust i have given you three links to resturants that oj had dinner at during that weekend that mr Ruby denied his service.

You gave two links, one of which said that Orenthal ate there almost a week after the derby & neither mentioned "kobes" & "bubbly". That's were the trouble begins, when you embellish your posts. imo

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I don't care who alerted the media. who ever did it mr Ruby certainly did not refuse to make himself available to tell the world the details that day and some days after.



Why would he "refuse to make himself available" for doing something he thought was morally correct? He took a stand & stood behind it. Makes sense to me. ;)

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Actually i had thought that the issue of Oj not being served by Ruby had been talked out until you decided to bring it back up today.

So it does matter to me who called the media or that oj was not served.imo
martin II

Weezer didn't bring it up today, Baked Tater did ;)

If it doesn't matter to you that OJ was not served, perhaps you should note the topic of this thread :shrug:

[weezer]

wezer
i believe what Mr Ruby did was a cheap pr stunt. I don't care who alerted the media. who ever did it mr Ruby certainly did not refuse to make himself available to tell the world the details that day and some days after.


Actually i had thought that the issue of Oj not being served by Ruby had been talked out until you decided to bring it back up today.

So it does matter to me who called the media or that oj was not served.imo
martin II

actually, I wasn't the one to bring it up but no-matter.

[weezer]

You gave two links, one of which said that Orenthal ate there almost a week after the derby & neither mentioned "kobes" & "bubbly". That's were the trouble begins, when you embellish your posts. imo

that's the problem with the NG's in large part --

[socaldiva]

that's the problem with the NG's in large part --

I agree. I don't think anyone here minds debating the truth, but when fabrications are posted they tend to take on a life of their own & distort the truth. imo

[martin II]

that's the problem with the NG's in large part --

weezer
I do hope you can enjoy the remainder of your weekend.
martin II

[gypsyk]

Kudos' to the restaurant owner. :lol: I will always believe O.J. did it. The only reason the glove didn't fit was because it shrunk after being soaked in those poor peoples blood. He literally got away with murder just like Nicole said, "because he's O.J. Simpson". His maker will judge him.

[gypsyk]

Whereas this may have made the owner feel good, refusing to serve or demanding that a orderly person/party of people leave his resturant, that is open to the PUBLIC, can be a problem for the owner. This may violate the owners city/state license to serve the PUBLIC. Resturants open to the public
are usually required to serve all patrons.One cannot discriminate between partons when the doors are open to all the PUBLIC.jmoo
martin II
As a business owner, they have the right to refuse service to anyone. I wouldn’t want a double murderer in my establishment, would you? I wouldn’t want that kind of publicity. I don’t believe race had anything to do with him asking O.J. to leave. Again I say KUDOS’ to the restaurant owner.

[socaldiva]

Kudos' to the restaurant owner. :lol: I will always believe O.J. did it. The only reason the glove didn't fit was because it shrunk after being soaked in those poor peoples blood. He literally got away with murder just like Nicole said, "because he's O.J. Simpson". His maker will judge him.

I LOVE your post. Welcome :biggrin:

[socaldiva]

As a business owner, they have the right to refuse service to anyone. I wouldn’t want a double murderer in my establishment, would you? I wouldn’t want that kind of publicity. I don’t believe race had anything to do with him asking O.J. to leave. Again I say KUDOS’ to the restaurant owner.


Another good post :D

[martin II]

As a business owner, they have the right to refuse service to anyone. I wouldn’t want a double murderer in my establishment, would you? I wouldn’t want that kind of publicity. I don’t believe race had anything to do with him asking O.J. to leave. Again I say KUDOS’ to the restaurant owner.

gypsyk hi

Condisering the size of Mr Rubys resturant and the number of patrons in and out in the course of a day i or he would have no way to know how many murders, child molesters or abusers may have come in his resturant that day or been in the resturant when he asked Mr Simpson to leave.

I think Mr Simpson did the right thing by gathering his party and moving on to another resturant to have their meal. In the scheme of important things
i don't think it was that important.imo

Wonder what Mr Ruby would have done if oj had left and his party members had stayed. Would they have been served?

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Condisering the size of Mr Rubys resturant and the number of patrons in and out in the course of a day i or he would have no way to know how many murders, child molesters or abusers may have come in his resturant that day or been in the resturant when he asked Mr Simpson to leave.


We know how many spent a reported 10 million on his defense & wrote a book about the crime & taunted the victim's families. ONE & he got the boot :tongue:

[gypsyk]

But "not guilty" does not mean innocent, big difference. The not guilty came from simpson and Johnny C. fans.
There was way too much grandstanding from Marcia Clark and Judge Ito. A more experienced ADA should have been 1st chair in this trial. I believe that if the cameras were not allowed in the court & tried in Brentwood instead of Los Angeles they might have gotten a GUILTY verdict in the criminal court. I watched the whole trial and Ms. Clark seemed like she was addressing the audience & cameras, not the court. My heart goes out to the Goldman’s, Browns and especially the Simpson children. Those poor children have had to live with the fact that their dad just may be a double murderer, a person who may have killed their mother. We can be 99.99% sure he did it, but unless you were a fly on the wall and saw him do it, we cannot be 100%. Some innocent people are convicted & some guilty set free. No court system is 100% perfect.

[martin II]

There was way too much grandstanding from Marcia Clark and Judge Ito. A more experienced ADA should have been 1st chair in this trial. I believe that if the cameras were not allowed in the court & tried in Brentwood instead of Los Angeles they might have gotten a GUILTY verdict in the criminal court. I watched the whole trial and Ms. Clark seemed like she was addressing the audience & cameras, not the court. My heart goes out to the Goldman’s, Browns and especially the Simpson children. Those poor children have had to live with the fact that their dad just may be a double murderer, a person who may have killed their mother. We can be 99.99% sure he did it, but unless you were a fly on the wall and saw him do it, we cannot be 100%. Some innocent people are convicted & some guilty set free. No court system is 100% perfect.

why would Breentwood jury be different?
martin II

[limakey]

Martin,

I have kind of addressed your lost post in "NG's Prosecute Simpson".

[Kate Sachel]

FBG,

What Petrocelli says in his book, is "meaningless". It was what was able to be proved or disproved in the criminal trial is what counts. As a lawyer, Petrocelli knows better then to use the word "match", yet he uses it?

And the DA's nor Petrocelli had any valid argument to explain why this blood was not found or seen until days, weeks and months later.

This post is the crux of why debating with you is nearly impossible.

Since when is truth established only in a criminal trial? Who decided that a criminal trial is the definitive version of events or that a verdict is always correct? Or do you only feel this way when the verdict in a criminal trial is one that you support?

Do you believe then that men who are being let out of prison due to new DNA technology that proves they didn't committ the crime for which they were imprisoned should be re-jailed on the basis that "it was what was able to be proved or disproved in the criminal trial is what counts"?

Kate

[martin II]

Martin,

I have kind of addressed your lost post in "NG's Prosecute Simpson".

The thread seems to be gone

[tazzybaby]

FBG,

What Petrocelli says in his book, is "meaningless". It was what was able to be proved or disproved in the criminal trial is what counts. As a lawyer, Petrocelli knows better then to use the word "match", yet he uses it?

And the DA's nor Petrocelli had any valid argument to explain why this blood was not found or seen until days, weeks and months later.


Hi Limakey,

I am so suprised to see you saying this!!!! You quote books and use the information ALL the time! You even believe what the books say without seeing any back up (ie the kids). I've never seen anyone go by the books made after the fact as much as you do??

:shrug:

[tazzybaby]

You think this board is in danger because I post that the victims shouldn't be re victimized? Perhaps you should take that up with Freshwater, as she's already posted relative to that very topic.

You say that you aren't saying harsh comments are acceptable, yet in your next breath you say that it is "fair game" whether it is fair or not. These families didn't volunteer to become "public figures", they only became such because of the celebrity trial.

Feelings about the Browns & Goldmans have nothing to do with who committed this crime, yet they are constantly brought up & I think it's appalling.

:beer:

Great Post!!

[limakey]

Taz,

I have read many books on this case, I felt and still feel that you can't just read one side. However, I have also made it clear that I understand that each side is going to slant it their way. Which is why much of what they say in the books, is really meaningless when it comes to evidence. Except, when the "same side" of books gives radically different versions of the events because there can only be one truth.

Mr. August is the one who swears by the G's books. He knows Petrocelli's book better then Petrocelli does, IMO.:read:

[limakey]

Kate,

Have you read Vanatter and Lange's book on this case? Did you know that a tech in the lab gave a statement that they were told about the blood on the back gate but were ordered not to collect it? That an investigation was done on this but the results never released to the public?

Did you know that Lange testified he told Fung about the blood on the back gate. Did you know that Fung testified he didn't remember being told? Did you know in Goldberg's book he says Fung looked for the blood but couldn't see it?

So Kate, is it really me that makes "me" nearly impossible to deal with on this issue, or is it really what the "experts" wrote about it and my desire to find out which one is the truth? It appears to me, with all these different versions, it is impossible for any of us to know the truth on this issue. IMO.

[bobaugust]

Kate,

Have you read Vanatter and Lange's book on this case? Did you know that a tech in the lab gave a statement that they were told about the blood on the back gate but were ordered not to collect it? That an investigation was done on this but the results never released to the public?

Did you know that Lange testified he told Fung about the blood on the back gate. Did you know that Fung testified he didn't remember being told? Did you know in Goldberg's book he says Fung looked for the blood but couldn't see it?

So Kate, is it really me that makes "me" nearly impossible to deal with on this issue, or is it really what the "experts" wrote about it and my desire to find out which one is the truth? It appears to me, with all these different versions, it is impossible for any of us to know the truth on this issue. IMO.

limakey, support your claim that Hank Goldberg wrote that Dennis Fung looked for blood on the rear gate but couldn't see any. Post the page number where you think you read this, please.

We know the truth that the blood was on the rear gate from seven witnesses who testified to seeing it and a crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders that documents it.

bobaugust

[jotun]

Taz,

I have read many books on this case, I felt and still feel that you can't just read one side.

Mr. August is the one who swears by the G's books. He knows Petrocelli's book better then Petrocelli does, IMO.:read:

limakey,
IMO:
I agree. Have most of the O.J. books.
IMO:
'ENRON' Petroselli's ghostwriter wrote it as a JOKE BOOK.
Very few take it seriously.Certainly not Selli, who thought O.J. WAS INNOCENT until"paid" to believe otherwise.In fact he argued for the defence in the plant-ifs mock trial and won.Their jury found O.J.
"NOT LIABLE".

IMO.....

jotun

[limakey]

Jotun,

I remember a couple of the book tour interviews Petrocelli's gave. His book was not well received because of his comments about Arnelle being an accomplice. Also, I think the media may had a colder reaction to his book because I think they truly believed they won the trial for him. I'm not kidding when I say I truly believe Gumby and Pokey could have been called to the stand and they would have been believed. IMO.

Also, Petrocelli's "evidence" was meaningless because his answers to the DA's questions weren't even close. It didn't seem to matter that the sweat suit that was talked about was never even compared the fibers. The civil trial wasn't about evidence, it was about revenge. Again, IMO.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Also, Petrocelli's "evidence" was meaningless because his answers to the DA's questions weren't even close.


:confused: I don't think the DA was involved in the civil trial :shrug:

[2L8 4A D8]

Martin,

I have kind of addressed your lost post in "NG's Prosecute Simpson".

The thread seems to be gone

Today, 10:38 PM
2L8 4A D8
Criime Library Supreme Member

What happened to the new Thread started by Limakey entitled something like the "NG's Prosecution of OJ" or something like that? It sure went over with a big "slam dunk" regarding the opinions of the NG's didn't it? I was so looking forward to reading all of the NG's opinions regarding their theories on that, uh huh!

Boom Chaka Boom Chaka Boom Boom Boom!!! JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Jotun,

I remember a couple of the book tour interviews Petrocelli's gave. His book was not well received because of his comments about Arnelle being an accomplice. Also, I think the media may had a colder reaction to his book because I think they truly believed they won the trial for him. I'm not kidding when I say I truly believe Gumby and Pokey could have been called to the stand and they would have been believed. IMO.

Also, Petrocelli's "evidence" was meaningless because his answers to the DA's questions weren't even close. It didn't seem to matter that the sweat suit that was talked about was never even compared the fibers. The civil trial wasn't about evidence, it was about revenge. Again, IMO.

limakey, there was a huge amount of new information directly relating to the murders and Simpson's lying alibi that became known in the many depositions that were given under oath before the civil trial. Mistakes that were made by the prosecution in the criminal trial were corrected New evidence was presented in the civil trial that was not known at the time of the criminal trial and the most important difference was Simpson's testimony.

The civil trial was the real search for the truth about these murders and the truth was found. Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

Have you read Vanatter and Lange's book on this case? Did you know that a tech in the lab gave a statement that they were told about the blood on the back gate but were ordered not to collect it? That an investigation was done on this but the results never released to the public?

Did you know that Lange testified he told Fung about the blood on the back gate. Did you know that Fung testified he didn't remember being told? Did you know in Goldberg's book he says Fung looked for the blood but couldn't see it?

So Kate, is it really me that makes "me" nearly impossible to deal with on this issue, or is it really what the "experts" wrote about it and my desire to find out which one is the truth? It appears to me, with all these different versions, it is impossible for any of us to know the truth on this issue. IMO.

Yes indeed limakey, it is just you that makes you nearly impossible to debate with. I noticed that you did not answer a single one of my questions and that tells me something right there.

None of what you are asking me here has anything to do with the questions that I posed to you. Rather, I feel this is your way of trying to deflect. You almost do it well.

Please answer my questions and then I will respond accordingly to yours.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Jotun,

I remember a couple of the book tour interviews Petrocelli's gave. His book was not well received because of his comments about Arnelle being an accomplice. Also, I think the media may had a colder reaction to his book because I think they truly believed they won the trial for him. I'm not kidding when I say I truly believe Gumby and Pokey could have been called to the stand and they would have been believed. IMO.

Also, Petrocelli's "evidence" was meaningless because his answers to the DA's questions weren't even close. It didn't seem to matter that the sweat suit that was talked about was never even compared the fibers. The civil trial wasn't about evidence, it was about revenge. Again, IMO.

Do you have news articles or references to your statement that his book was not well recieved because of his comments regarding Arnelle being an accomplice or is this just your opinion?

Was Simpson's own testimony meaningless? After all, that was one of the major areas of "new evidence". I suppose you might think he lied under oath to frame himself as well hmmm?

Kate

[tv]

why would Breentwood jury be different?
martin II
For one thing, it would have been a true jury of his peers.

[FlowerPower]

I was excited to see someone take a stand against OJ and not allow him to eat in his restaurant! At least someone stood up and said that they think he is scum for the things that he's done at the families expense!! That includes his children!

This board is great too! Lots of really good info!!

:seeya:

[socaldiva]

I was excited to see someone take a stand against OJ and not allow him to eat in his restaurant! At least someone stood up and said that they think he is scum for the things that he's done at the families expense!! That includes his children!

This board is great too! Lots of really good info!!

:seeya:

I agree, it was great for someone to take a moral stand against the killer & I don't care how many other places he gets to eat, getting thrown out is priceless :D

Welcome to the board :seeya:

[FlowerPower]

I agree, it was great for someone to take a moral stand against the killer & I don't care how many other places he gets to eat, getting thrown out is priceless :D

Welcome to the board :seeya:


Thanks so much! I'm afraid I'm not as familiar with the details as you all here. but, with all of the links/testimony/and references I may be able to kinda keep up...lol

:cool:

[martin II]

For one thing, it would have been a true jury of his peers.


The CJS has one standard for jury of ones peers which they used in this jury selection. If yours is different what is it?
martin II

[weezer]

The CJS has one standard for jury of ones peers which they used in this jury selection. If yours is different what is it?
martin II

a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status -- none of which sat on the criminal jury.

[martin II]

a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status -- none of which sat on the criminal jury.

too bad for you that no legal jury selection system in the u.s.a. uses your standard when selecting a jury. maby state lawmakers would be interested in
tossing the current selection system in favor of yours because you don't beleive Oj had a jury of his peers.imo

martinII

[martin II]

For one thing, it would have been a true jury of his peers.

tvdinner

The jury seleciton system used to seat the Oj jury is the one used to seat all juries in LA county for all trials. Do you believe that another system of seleciton should have been put in place for the oj trial.
martin II

[weezer]

too bad for you that no legal jury selection system in the u.s.a. uses your standard when selecting a jury. maby state lawmakers would be interested in
tossing the current selection system in favor of yours because you don't beleive Oj had a jury of his peers.imo

martinII

you're the one that brought up jury of 'peers' -- I was simply giving the definition of 'peer.' I would have settled for an impartial jury.

what do you believe it to mean in the CJS?

[weezer]

JURY OF PEERS
Our forefathers felt that in order to have JUSTICE, it was obvious that a JURY of "PEERS" must be people who actually know the defendant. How else would they be able to judge motive and intent?

"PEERS" of the defendant, like the rights of the JURY have also been severely tarnished. Originally, it meant people of "equals in station and rank." (Black's Law Dictionary, 1910), "freeholders of a neighborhood," (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1886), or a "A companion; a fellow; an associate." (Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English Language).

[martin II]

JURY OF PEERS
Our forefathers felt that in order to have JUSTICE, it was obvious that a JURY of "PEERS" must be people who actually know the defendant. How else would they be able to judge motive and intent?

"PEERS" of the defendant, like the rights of the JURY have also been severely tarnished. Originally, it meant people of "equals in station and rank." (Black's Law Dictionary, 1910), "freeholders of a neighborhood," (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1886), or a "A companion; a fellow; an associate." (Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English Language).

maby your system should have been used for the oj trial and then reverted back to the norm after his trial.
martin II

[weezer]

maby your system should have been used for the oj trial and then reverted back to the norm after his trial.
martin II

now you're talking :tongue:

[tv]

tvdinner

The jury seleciton system used to seat the Oj jury is the one used to seat all juries in LA county for all trials. Do you believe that another system of seleciton should have been put in place for the oj trial.
martin II

Martin, I wasn't suggesting that another system of selection should have been used. I was referring to the fact that he was tried "downtown" rather than in Santa Monica. The change of venue was unnecessary. The jurors that sat on this case were about as far from being Simpson's peers as you can get.

[martin II]

you're the one that brought up jury of 'peers' -- I was simply giving the definition of 'peer.' I would have settled for an impartial jury.

what do you believe it to mean in the CJS?

I bet there were ignorant, racist, biased people (your desctripton of the jo jury) living in brentwood that could be fooled just as there was in Santa Monica.
martin II

[martin II]

Martin, I wasn't suggesting that another system of selection should have been used. I was referring to the fact that he was tried "downtown" rather than in Santa Monica. The change of venue was unnecessary. The jurors that sat on this case were about as far from being Simpson's peers as you can get.

tv dinner
how many of the final jurors in the santa monica civil trial were black and had the same financial status as oj?
It was the prosecution that moved the trial to LA not OJ.

do you have the same complaint about all the other trials moved to LA.
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Martin, I wasn't suggesting that another system of selection should have been used. I was referring to the fact that he was tried "downtown" rather than in Santa Monica. The change of venue was unnecessary. The jurors that sat on this case were about as far from being Simpson's peers as you can get.

tv dinner

Do you believe that the citizens of santa monica were more dedicated, hardworking and honest than the citizens of LA?
martin II

[weezer]

tv dinner

Do you believe that the citizens of santa monica were more dedicated, hardworking and honest than the citizens of LA?
martin II

no one is arguing that the citizens of santa monica were more anything than the citizens of LA. Most everyone acknowledges that the criminal trial jury was biased in their decision. IMO

[weezer]

tv dinner

Do you believe that the citizens of santa monica were more dedicated, hardworking and honest than the citizens of LA?
martin II

you're not trying to bait anyone are you martin? :no:

[tv]

tv dinner
how many of the final jurors in the santa monica civil trial were black and had the same financial status as oj?
It was the prosecution that moved the trial to LA not OJ.

do you have the same complaint about all the other trials moved to LA.
MARTIN iiI'm not familiar with how many or which trials have been moved to LA. I do know there have been several high-profile cases there that were not moved. Are you trying to say that I'm biased against Simpson over other defendants? What would be my motivation?

The prosecution used the reason that LA could accomodate the media better than Santa Monica. They also thought the defense would push to have it moved there anyway. Neither are good reasons in my opinion.

[martin II]

I'm not familiar with how many or which trials have been moved to LA. I do know there have been several high-profile cases there that were not moved.

The prosecution used the reason that LA could accomodate the media better than Santa Monica. They also thought the defense would push to have it moved there anyway. Neither are good reasons in my opinion.

one of the positive reason for the trial being moved was that in santa monica
there was little chance that blacks would end up on the jury. see civil trial.
i don't think there was any juror in the civil trial that had the financial and social status as oj. do you. was that a jury of oj's peers.

you havent told me your idea of what oj's peers are like as yet.
martin II

[weezer]

one of the positive reason for the trial being moved was that in santa monica
there was little chance that blacks would end up on the jury. see civil trial.
i don't think there was any juror in the civil trial that had the financial and social status as oj. do you. was that a jury of oj's peers.

you havent told me your idea of what oj's peers are like as yet.
martin II

so, you think that the only people who should judge orenthal was 'blacks'?

[tv]

tv dinner
how many of the final jurors in the santa monica civil trial were black and had the same financial status as oj?
It was the prosecution that moved the trial to LA not OJ.

do you have the same complaint about all the other trials moved to LA.
MARTIN iiI'm not nearly as familliar with the civil trial as I am the criminal trial. I have no idea of the make up of the participants. I rarely make statements without facts to back them up.

[tv]

one of the positive reason for the trial being moved was that in santa monica
there was little chance that blacks would end up on the jury. see civil trial.
i don't think there was any juror in the civil trial that had the financial and social status as oj. do you. was that a jury of oj's peers.

you havent told me your idea of what oj's peers are like as yet.
martin IIIn a perfect world, my idea of Simpson's peers would be people with similiar background and life experiences. Color doesn't really figure into it for me.

[martin II]

In a perfect world, my idea of Simpson's peers would be people with similiar background and life experiences. Color doesn't really figure into it for me.

tv
i don't think any of the civil trial jurors from santa manica had a net worth of $10,000,000 and life experiences at the level of oj.i have not heard any complaints that the civil jury was not oj's peers.
martin II

[martin II]

I'm not nearly as familliar with the civil trial as I am the criminal trial. I have no idea of the make up of the participants. I rarely make statements without facts to back them up.


tv
here is the civil jurors

http://walraven.org/simpson/c_jury.html

[weezer]

tv
here is the civil jurors

http://walraven.org/simpson/c_jury.html

your link doesn't work

[tv]

tv
i don't think any of the civil trial jurors from santa manica had a net worth of $10,000,000 and life experiences at the level of oj.i have not heard any complaints that the civil jury was not oj's peers.
martin II The only reason the make up of the jury bothers me is that along with the incompetence of the prosecution it was a double whammy. With the mountain of evidence that exists a competent prosecution could have won the case.

[martin II]

so, you think that the only people who should judge orenthal was 'blacks'?

so far i have not said that. so it is not necessary for you to twist my comments into someting i have not said.

LA is a much more diverse population than santa monica. a larger base of all groups to draw from. a better opportunity to get diverse people with diverse opinions and lifestyles.

martin II

[martin II]

The only reason the make up of the jury bothers me is that along with the incompetence of the prosecution it was a double whammy. With the mountain of evidence that exists a competent prosecution could have won the case.

tv
you are not suggesting that the LA jury was not hardworking, dedicated and honest and a jury from santa monica would have been, are you?
martin II

[tv]

tv
here is the civil jurors

http://walraven.org/simpson/c_jury.htmlThank you for the link.

[martin II]

your link doesn't work


it just worked for me.

martinii

[tv]

tv
you are not suggesting that the LA jury was not hardworking, dedicated and honest and a jury from santa monica would have been, are you?
martin IINo, I'm not. Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting that?

[martin II]

No, I'm not. Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting that?

ok then

thanks

i am not suggesting. just trying to understand why you think moving the trial to la was such a mistake and leaving it in santa monica would have been better.

unless you are saying the santa monica prosecutors would have done a better job with the case.
martin II

[tv]

ok then

thanks

i am not suggesting. just trying to understand why you think moving the trial to la was such a mistake and leaving it in santa monica would have been better.

unless you are saying the santa monica prosecutors would have done a better job with the case.
martin IImartin, you already understand why I think moving the trial was a mistake. Not understanding my position and disagreeing with it are two different things. :)

[socaldiva]

*snip*
The prosecution used the reason that LA could accomodate the media better than Santa Monica. They also thought the defense would push to have it moved there anyway. Neither are good reasons in my opinion.

Unless I'm mistaken, I think earthquake damage to the Santa Monica courthouse was also a factor in moving it to Los Angeles. We had a sizable earthquake in early 1994.

[socaldiva]

tv
i don't think any of the civil trial jurors from santa manica had a net worth of $10,000,000 and life experiences at the level of oj.i have not heard any complaints that the civil jury was not oj's peers.
martin II

I think it was reported that he spent his $10,000.00 on his criminal trial defense, so at that point we had an unemployed has been sports player living on a retirement pension. :tongue:

[martin II]

martin, you already understand why I think moving the trial was a mistake. Not understanding my position and disagreeing with it are two different things. :)

tv
i think your position is that oj was not tried by a jury of his peers.

i believe that he was tried by a jury selected by the same method as all juries in other trials without complaint.

martin II

[tv]

tv
i think your position is that oj was not tried by a jury of his peers.

i believe that he was tried by a jury selected by the same method as all juries in other trials without complaint.

martin IImartin, once the location of the trial was decided, a jury was chosen by the same method as any other jury. I have no problem with the way the individual jurors were selected. Do you really believe that there has never been an objection to a trial's location before?

If I didn't know better I'd think you were pulling my leg. :rolleyes:

[tv]

I think it was reported that he spent his $10,000.00 on his criminal trial defense, so at that point we had an unemployed has been sports player living on a retirement pension. :tongue:Good point! :D

[socaldiva]

Good point! :D

Thank you :seeya:

[martin II]

Good point! :D

TV
it was reported that his legal fees for the trials was in the neighborhood of $3,000,000.00 not $10,000.00.

But his lawyers offered to pay Fred $7,000,000.00 in the 1990s (ACCORDING TO TAZZYS POST) so there is still some cash someplace. right?
imo
martin II

[limakey]

TV Dinner and Martin,

I was skimming Gerald Uelman's book and I took notice of a couple things, one was that LA DA's have always "gerrymandered" where trials would be held. Robert Philobosian (sp?) did it in the Rodney King Trial.

IMO, with the evidence in this case, it wouldn't have mattered where it was held or what the racial makeup of the jury was, it would have ended in a not guilty verdict. That was the only legal verdict they could have come to. IMO.

[socaldiva]

TV
it was reported that his legal fees for the trials was in the neighborhood of $3,000,000.00 not $10,000.00.

But his lawyers offered to pay Fred $7,000,000.00 in the 1990s (ACCORDING TO TAZZYS POST) so there is still some cash someplace. right?
imo
martin II

Then ole Orenthal is lying again. He claims the legal fees "cleaned him out". He's also claimed that he's had to borrow against the retirement money.

[socaldiva]

TV Dinner and Martin,

I was skimming Gerald Uelman's book and I took notice of a couple things, one was that LA DA's have always "gerrymandered" where trials would be held. Robert Philobosian (sp?) did it in the Rodney King Trial.

IMO, with the evidence in this case, it wouldn't have mattered where it was held or what the racial makeup of the jury was, it would have ended in a not guilty verdict. That was the only legal verdict they could have come to. IMO.

Didn't you post just recently that books are written with a certain bias & shouldn't be given too much weight, something to that effect? As for "gerrymandered", it's been widely reported that the trial was moved due to the media onslaught & earthquake damage. Did you miss those factors, or just dismiss them because they didn't fit into your version?

Not guilty was not "the only legal verdict they could have come to". As for the racial makeup of the jury, yes it did matter as that jury had an agenda that they wouldn't have had if they had been of a different race. IMO

[weezer]

Didn't you post just recently that books are written with a certain bias & shouldn't be given too much weight, something to that effect? As for "gerrymandered", it's been widely reported that the trial was moved due to the media onslaught & earthquake damage. Did you miss those factors, or just dismiss them because they didn't fit into your version?

Not guilty was not "the only legal verdict they could have come to". As for the racial makeup of the jury, yes it did matter as that jury had an agenda that they wouldn't have had if they had been of a different race. IMO

"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."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns047.htm

I think their statements are at odds with the facts since the evidence did not change from the criminal to the civil trials. The criminal jury used the verdict to voice their agenda -- nothing more. IMO

[n.n]

In a perfect world, my idea of Simpson's peers would be people with similiar background and life experiences. Color doesn't really figure into it for me.

Amen to that. I wonder whether over-emphasizing the jurors' color in this case means that black jurors are accused of being more partial than white ones.

[weezer]

Amen to that. I wonder whether over-emphasizing the jurors' color in this case means that black jurors are accused of being more partial than white ones.

you can't ignore the color of this jury -- it is what they based their decision on. It is what cochran played to. IMO

[martin II]

you can't ignore the color of this jury -- it is what they based their decision on. It is what cochran played to. IMO

your comment may be because you did not get the criminal trial verdict that you THOUGHT you were entitled to.imo

black jury members send black people to jail just like other juries do. The fact that so many black men are in jail kinda supports that idea.imo

martin II

[martin II]

you can't ignore the color of this jury -- it is what they based their decision on. It is what cochran played to. IMO

One can if one is not biased against those kind of people.imo
martin II

[weezer]

your comment may be because you did not get the criminal trial verdict that you THOUGHT you were entitled to.imo

black jury members send black people to jail just like other juries do. The fact that so many black men are in jail kinda supports that idea.imo

martin II

I didn't think I was entitled to any one verdict. I thought the victims, their families and society deserved to have a murderer tried for murder NOT LE for mistreatment (whether real or perceived) of one segment of society. To ignore that LA presented the perfect storm for the "LE Mistreats Black Men" trial, is to ignore the obvious. cochran would be disappointed in you not recognizing his brillance. IMO

[weezer]

One can if one is not biased against those kind of people.imo
martin II

don't have a clue what you mean

[martin II]

I didn't think I was entitled to any one verdict. I thought the victims, their families and society deserved to have a murderer tried for murder NOT LE for mistreatment (whether real or perceived) of one segment of society. To ignore that LA presented the perfect storm for the "LE Mistreats Black Men" trial, is to ignore the obvious. cochran would be disappointed in you not recognizing his brillance. IMO


WEEZER
YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT.

"Of course we have a right to the verdict we want -- that's what going to trial is all about. "

[weezer]

WEEZER
YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT.

"Of course we have a right to the verdict we want -- that's what going to trial is all about. "

and you think that contradicts my post?

[martin II]

don't have a clue what you mean

you stated that one cannot ignore the color of the jury.

[weezer]

you stated that one cannot ignore the color of the jury.

are you saying I'm biased against the jury because they are black?

[jotun]

TV
it was reported that his legal fees for the trials was in the neighborhood of $3,000,000.00 not $10,000.00.

But his lawyers offered to pay Fred $7,000,000.00 in the 1990s (ACCORDING TO TAZZYS POST) so there is still some cash someplace. right?
imo
martin II

Martin,
Tazzy's post is flat out WRONG. Slates said no such thing.Slates said 7 million, was what Petroselli's law firm spent in the money trial. O.J. certainly NEVER offered 7 million, he only had a 10-11 million worth.And he spent more like 6 million on his defence. Had to raise money from his book,mortage on his house etc for that.
Have been looking for my OLD post that explains all this for the other thread goldman sues.

jotun

[tazzybaby]

Martin,
Tazzy's post is flat out WRONG. Slates said no such thing.Slates said 7 million, was what Petroselli's law firm spent in the money trial. O.J. certainly NEVER offered 7 million, he only had a 10-11 million worth.And he spent more like 6 million on his defence. Had to raise money from his book,mortage on his house etc for that.
Have been looking for my OLD post that explains all this for the other thread goldman sues.

jotun

Jotun,

Where's your link? My post was from a link. Here is the post (with link, by the way).....

According to Ron Slate, the Goldman family turned down a $7 million settlement of the wrongful death suit back in the 1990s. While Galanter said that he's still willing to negotiate a deal, Polak says any such agreement is unlikely.

"If [Simpson's] going to continue saying he's not going to work and he's not going to pay, I really don't know what the heck there is to talk about," Polak said. "We have made substantial progress in putting him in the virtual jail cell that we have always said that we want to place him in."

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/...5-174b636c3b00


:rolleyes:

[jotun]

Jotun,

Where's your link? My post was from a link. Here is the post (with link, by the way).....

According to Ron Slate, the Goldman family turned down a $7 million settlement of the wrongful death suit back in the 1990s. While Galanter said that he's still willing to negotiate a deal, Polak says any such agreement is unlikely.


http://www.eonline.com/news/article/...5-174b636c3b00


:rolleyes:

ALL:

tazzy,
Have a printout but not a link. Yours doesn't work.Didn't get it from a print reporter in 07 [who got it wrong].
Taped it live on tv in 97 plus O.J. at a early debtors hearing.Also taped Slates a few other times in 97. He said would think the plant-iffs would want to settle since Petroselli's law firm had spent 6-7 million on the money trial.And if they would get the judgement down to a reasonable sum like other wrongful death-suits, MAYBE O.J. would pay.

Also saw Yale on tv in 07 saying he would like to see it settled to get this over so everyone could go on with their lives.Didn't say what O.J.thought just himself.Fred surely doesn't want to give up the O.J. SPOTLIGHT. As Polok said.

IMO IMO IMO.

jotun

[weezer]

ALL:

tazzy,
Have a printout but not a link. Yours doesn't work.Didn't get it from a print reporter in 07 [who got it wrong].
Taped it live on tv in 97 plus O.J. at a early debtors hearing.Also taped Slates a few other times in 97. He said would think the plant-iffs would want to settle since Petroselli's law firm had spent 6-7 million on the money trial.And if they would get the judgement down to a reasonable sum like other wrongful death-suits, MAYBE O.J. would pay.

Also saw Yale on tv in 07 saying he would like to see it settled to get this over so everyone could go on with their lives.Didn't say what O.J.thought just himself.Fred surely doesn't want to give up the O.J. SPOTLIGHT. As Polok said.

IMO IMO IMO.

jotun

you are the one who has it wrong -- and whether or not yale would want to settle is moot. Mr. Goldman will continue to pursue the murderer of his son. Good for him!

who is Polok?

IMO

[2L8 4A D8]

What happened to the new Thread started by Limakey entitled something like the "NG's Prosecution of OJ" or something like that? It sure went over with a big "slam dunk" regarding the opinions of the NG's didn't it? I was so looking forward to reading all of the NG's opinions regarding their theories on that, uh huh!

Boom Chaka Boom Chaka Boom Boom Boom!!! JMO and MOO!!

What happened? Didn't hear anything from Freshwater. Then the Thread just disppeared! Whammy - it was gone just like that! I guess that Freshwater just shut the Thread down! Thanks for the Thread Starter answering me! Buh Bye!

JMO and MOO!!

[tazzybaby]

ALL:

tazzy,
Have a printout but not a link. Yours doesn't work.Didn't get it from a print reporter in 07 [who got it wrong].
Taped it live on tv in 97 plus O.J. at a early debtors hearing.Also taped Slates a few other times in 97. He said would think the plant-iffs would want to settle since Petroselli's law firm had spent 6-7 million on the money trial.And if they would get the judgement down to a reasonable sum like other wrongful death-suits, MAYBE O.J. would pay.

Also saw Yale on tv in 07 saying he would like to see it settled to get this over so everyone could go on with their lives.Didn't say what O.J.thought just himself.Fred surely doesn't want to give up the O.J. SPOTLIGHT. As Polok said.

IMO IMO IMO.

jotun

Jotun,

If I were to say that I didn't have a link all I had was a tape or a piece of paper you would definately not go for that. You gave me he** for a previous post (before FW stated that we HAD to have backup) for not having a link (and on MOST of my posts I always had a link). I conceded and even apologized for not saving the link even though I didn't have to because at the time FW hadn't stated that we HAD to have a link. I expect you to do what you demand of me.

Now, my point in my post (the whole reason I posted it) was to show that OJ WOULD settle. Limakey has stated over and over and over and over and over and over and over that he isn't paying because he didn't do it. That's what OJ says in the media but he has had his lawyers try to settle. They are his representatives. Especially Gallanter (PR rep). That's why it was so bad when Gallanter made a fool of himself (because of OJ) stating that there definately was NO BOOK. Now, are you saying that his lawyers know what they're talking about or not? Are you saying that they say things on OJ's behalf that he doesn't agree with? I believe that if OJ didn't want to settle he would tell his lawyers NO WAY and have them make a statement in the media to clear up the problem. That didn't happen. So, as far as I'm concerned they are speaking FOR OJ. They are representing him. And, as far as either one of us know OJ TOLD them to settle so HE could go on and make as much money as he could.

P.S. > My link worked when I posted it. Martin and others read it when it was posted.

[2L8 4A D8]

What happened? Didn't hear anything from Freshwater. Then the Thread just disppeared! Whammy - it was gone just like that! I guess that Freshwater just shut the Thread down! Thanks for the Thread Starter answering me! Buh Bye!

JMO and MOO!!

Okie Dokie Smokie! I don't need to receive a Golden Invitation of what happened. I get the hint! Thanks alot! Buh Bye! :seeya:

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

Okie Dokie Smokie! I don't need to receive a Golden Invitation of what happened. I get the hint! Thanks alot! Buh Bye! :seeya:

JMO and MOO!!

I don't think you'll ever get an answer from the thread starter. She has you & I on iggy (and most G's if I'm not mistaken) :D

[weezer]

I don't think you'll ever get an answer from the thread starter. She has you & I on iggy (and most G's if I'm not mistaken) :D

yep, I made her list too! :tongue:

[jotun]

Jotun,

If I were to say that I didn't have a link all I had was a tape or a piece of paper you would definately not go for that. You gave me he** for a previous post (before FW stated that we HAD to have backup) for not having a link (and on MOST of my posts I always had a link). I conceded and even apologized for not saving the link even though I didn't have to because at the time FW hadn't stated that we HAD to have a link. I expect you to do what you demand of me.

Now, my point in my post (the whole reason I posted it) was to show that OJ WOULD settle. Limakey has stated over and over and over and over and over and over and over that he isn't paying because he didn't do it. That's what OJ says in the media but he has had his lawyers try to settle. They are his representatives. Especially Gallanter (PR rep). That's why it was so bad when Gallanter made a fool of himself (because of OJ) stating that there definately was NO BOOK. Now, are you saying that his lawyers know what they're talking about or not? Are you saying that they say things on OJ's behalf that he doesn't agree with? I believe that if OJ didn't want to settle he would tell his lawyers NO WAY and have them make a statement in the media to clear up the problem. That didn't happen. So, as far as I'm concerned they are speaking FOR OJ. They are representing him. And, as far as either one of us know OJ TOLD them to settle so HE could go on and make as much money as he could.

P.S. > My link worked when I posted it. Martin and others read it when it was posted.

tazzy

Don't remember giving you a hard time about a link.Except the blogs.Very seldom rely on the print media.
Only truly believe what I see with my own eyes.Reason I always tape everything O.J.so I can watch again to get it right.Amazing whats not seen the first or even second time.Media is not much of a back-up since they have always got much WRONG.Sorry I don't have a link from 97. So will have to be IMO.

Your point that O.J. would 'settle' may be correct, at that first debtors hearing,even tho innocent.Think since he lost, thought he might just pay them and get on with his life without this debt hanging over his head.But since they didn't want to agree to a reasonable sum. Was $300,000 + ,their true motive was revealed.So his attitude became****them.
"I didn't do the crime will not pay them a dime." Goldmans will now have to work for every penny.

No, O.J.didn't ever WANT to settle.Kelly rumored settlement talks to the media during the money trial.O.J. angry shot that down with "There will be NO settlement."


Maybe lawyers were working behind his back without his knowledge.Was rumored in the 'national enquirer' that lawyers were talking deal in the murder trial.
Sharpiro??? O.J.angry, had Johnnie announce in court that there would be NO DEAL. Johnnie said all O.J. would accept would be release and an apology.

But his lawyer Yale DID have deal talk in the road rage trial without his knowledge. Rifkin the homicide d.a.,who tried the case, said after the 'NOT GUILTY' verdict.That she didn't offer O.J.a deal because he said, at his press conference after he turned himself in, that he didn't want any deals.So she didn't offer one.But that Yale came to her with a deal which she accepted before trial.But "O.J. TURNED IT DOWN." Reporters were perplexed said you mean O.J.could have avoided this trial and the possible 16 year sentence????? She said,"YES"...

Sometimes lawyers do try to settle things then take it to their clients later and advise them to accept.

I have that link you posted.Didn't
dispute the link, only the accuracy of the reporter on what Slates didn't say.
IMO-IMO-IMO

jotun

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Only truly believe what I see with my own eyes.Reason I always tape everything O.J.so I can watch again to get it right.Amazing whats not seen the first or even second time.Media is not much of a back-up since they have always got much WRONG.


How do you tape something without it being disbursed through "the media"?

[2L8 4A D8]

so much of it had to be deleted due to insults, rude behavior and a breakdown of civility. It wasn't worth the work to save the good parts :( Limakey had a great idea of people taking an opposing view but I don't think it will work here because in an attempt to take the opposing view members felt the continued need to demonstrate their original position. The attempt was to engage in an intellectual exercise that would lead to new understandings of the validity of the side oppoisite your own but it turned out that members simply used the format to make a the same old points that they have always held. Sad but true.

FH20

Thank you for finally answering me. Or someone finally answering me. Yes, it is very sad but true. Especially on this Board!