OJ Simpson- New project....

[sassylassy]

According to this link oj simpson is working on a new project:

Simpson revealed that he's soon to be involved with a documentary about media coverage because he wanted to discuss what he perceived as inaccuracies and sensationalism.

"It is about time that the news media point out that they are not doing their job," says O.J. "Things have changed a lot from my trial until today. It is all about ratings, unfortunately. When I was growing up, to watch guys like Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley, I didn't know what they thought of the news. Legitimate news people are giving their opinions. It is hard to tell the difference between legitimate news people and Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly."

link:www.perezhilton.com

[weezer]

According to this link oj simpson is working on a new project:

Simpson revealed that he's soon to be involved with a documentary about media coverage because he wanted to discuss what he perceived as inaccuracies and sensationalism.

"It is about time that the news media point out that they are not doing their job," says O.J. "Things have changed a lot from my trial until today. It is all about ratings, unfortunately. When I was growing up, to watch guys like Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley, I didn't know what they thought of the news. Legitimate news people are giving their opinions. It is hard to tell the difference between legitimate news people and Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly."

link:www.perezhilton.com

LOL -- don't you know a whole bunch of folks are waiting to hear what orenthal has to say about this -- NOT -- LOL

[martin II]

According to this link oj simpson is working on a new project:

Simpson revealed that he's soon to be involved with a documentary about media coverage because he wanted to discuss what he perceived as inaccuracies and sensationalism.

"It is about time that the news media point out that they are not doing their job," says O.J. "Things have changed a lot from my trial until today. It is all about ratings, unfortunately. When I was growing up, to watch guys like Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley, I didn't know what they thought of the news. Legitimate news people are giving their opinions. It is hard to tell the difference between legitimate news people and Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly."

link:www.perezhilton.com

sassy
thanks

i just asked for you and you popped up. Great.
Goor to see you posting.

that is definately a much needed subject oj plans to talk about.

martin II

[weezer]

LOL -- and then what? Think he'll hit the circuit giving presentations on morality? or maybe ethics? or maybe how to not batter and murder your spouse? LOL

[socaldiva]

My bet is that Huntley, Brinkley & Cronkite all know Orenthal is a double murderer. It ain't the messenger that's the problem, the evidence told us who the killer was ;) JMO, IMO & MOO & all that....:D

[socaldiva]

LOL -- and then what? Think he'll hit the circuit giving presentations on morality? or maybe ethics? or maybe how to not batter and murder your spouse? LOL

He just never knows when to STH up. It's one of the reasons he is actively hated. imo

[socaldiva]

*snip*

It is hard to tell the difference between legitimate news people and Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly."



Yeah, it's hard to tell the difference when you're Orenthal dumber than a doorknob Simpson. The rest of America knows that Nancy Grace & Bill O'Reilly don't claim to be news anchors. :lol:

[weezer]

Yeah, it's hard to tell the difference when you're Orenthal dumber than a doorknob Simpson. The rest of America knows that Nancy Grace & Bill O'Reilly don't claim to be news anchors. :lol:

LOL -- I had to laugh out loud with this post!

[weezer]

My bet is that Huntley, Brinkley & Cronkite all know Orenthal is a double murderer. It ain't the messenger that's the problem, the evidence told us who the killer was ;) JMO, IMO & MOO & all that....:D

I can't even imagine that ANYBODY thinks orenthal has enough credability to discuss 'inaccuracies' -- although :eek: he does know all about 'sensationalism' ;)

[socaldiva]

I can't even imagine that ANYBODY thinks orenthal has enough credability to discuss 'inaccuracies' -- although :eek: he does know all about 'sensationalism' ;)

The only one that comes to mind off the top of my head is Al Sharpton :shrug:

[weezer]

The only one that comes to mind off the top of my head is Al Sharpton :shrug:

oh dang! I didn't think about him or jesse.........LOL

[socaldiva]

oh dang! I didn't think about him or jesse.........LOL


Yeah, I thought of Jesse right after I hit the submit reply button :tongue:

I think he'll have to wait on Sharpton though. I think he's worried about Paris Hilton at the moment. lol.

[limakey]

Sassy and Martin,

I think this is great for two reasons not only because is he right but also that new book about Princess Diana. It seems to me that when ever a celebrity turns the tables on the media, they get a tad upset. IMO.

[socaldiva]

Sassy and Martin,

I think this is great for two reasons not only because is he right but also that new book about Princess Diana. It seems to me that when ever a celebrity turns the tables on the media, they get a tad upset. IMO.

What on earth does this have to do with a new book about Princess Diana? Orenthal didn't turn the tables on anyone, he's just flappin' his jaws with nonsense, as usual. IMO

So much for some people's theory that he is content with his life & doesn't care what the public at large thinks. I think his actions say the contrary. He's trying to wiggle his way back in & it isn't going to work. IMO & MOO

[tv]

I can't even imagine that ANYBODY thinks orenthal has enough credability to discuss 'inaccuracies' -- although :eek: he does know all about 'sensationalism' ;)

We're supposed to take seriously the opinion of someone that butchered two people with a knife and then has the incredibly poor taste to sign autographs at slasher conventions? :rolleyes: :D

[martin II]

We're supposed to take seriously the opinion of someone that butchered two people with a knife and then has the incredibly poor taste to sign autographs at slasher conventions? :rolleyes: :D

tv
which brings to mind that the lawyers action at the trademark office had absolutely no effect on oj signing the mark "oj simpson" and making money
off of it so don't know what oj lost. imo
martin II

[martin II]

Sassy and Martin,

I think this is great for two reasons not only because is he right but also that new book about Princess Diana. It seems to me that when ever a celebrity turns the tables on the media, they get a tad upset. IMO.

some in the media hold the same opinion as oj on this issue but we can look for the offenders to make a concerted effort to derail the issue by switching the subject.imo

martin II

[limakey]

Martin,

Any celebrity who has a run in or a scandal could do a documentary on the press. Remember Michael Irvine? When the press wrote all this stuff and when he was exhonrated he demanded that they spend the same amount of press on his exhonration.

Look at the Paris Hilton case. We have seen judges in the Simpson case who were so weak kneeded, the allowed the 4 lead detectives to lie about Simpson being suspect, etc......yet they will be firm on keeping her prison? I'm not saying she shouldn't have gotten jail time but are you kidding me? The judge is no nonsense? He bowed to media pressure, IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

Any celebrity who has a run in or a scandal could do a documentary on the press. Remember Michael Irvine? When the press wrote all this stuff and when he was exhonrated he demanded that they spend the same amount of press on his exhonration.

Look at the Paris Hilton case. We have seen judges in the Simpson case who were so weak kneeded, the allowed the 4 lead detectives to lie about Simpson being suspect, etc......yet they will be firm on keeping her prison? I'm not saying she shouldn't have gotten jail time but are you kidding me? The judge is no nonsense? He bowed to media pressure, IMO.

limakey
remember tha politician i think he was that after being cleared ask 'WHERE DO I GO TO GET MY REPUTATION BACK MR PROSECUTOR"

The media makes suckers out of most of the public.
Maby if oj puts the subject out there "opens the door" others may join in and maby this serious problem created by the graces and o'reillys and others can be addressed.
Actually i think a lot of americans hear comments by say grace and automatically believe that it represents truth. some seem to have the attitude of "IT MUST BE TRUE IF IT IS ON TV" as if only truth gets on tv.imo

martiII

[martin II]

We're supposed to take seriously the opinion of someone that butchered two people with a knife and then has the incredibly poor taste to sign autographs at slasher conventions? :rolleyes: :D


tv hi

i am more concerned about the person that is responsible for sending about 3,000 of our young men and women to their deaths of late.imo
martin II

[weezer]

tv hi

i am more concerned about the person that is responsible for sending about 3,000 of our young men and women to their deaths of late.imo
martin II

you're comparing the war to orenthal butchering two human beings?

[martin II]

you're comparing the war to orenthal butchering two human beings?

my post speaks for itself no need for you to try to translate it into you think.
imo
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

tv hi

i am more concerned about the person that is responsible for sending about 3,000 of our young men and women to their deaths of late.imo
martin II

Are you as actively posting on that thread as you are on this one?

Kate

[martin II]

sassy hi

oj's intention to do this documentary will certainly create a new set of legal action. i assume.;)

martin II

[weezer]

sassy hi

oj's intention to do this documentary will certainly create a new set of legal action. i assume.;)

martin II

there won't be any documentary that we'll ever see -- talk about a losing proposition! IMO

[tv]

tv hi

i am more concerned about the person that is responsible for sending about 3,000 of our young men and women to their deaths of late.imo
martin II
Hi martin, what does the war and the president have to do with OJS signing autographs at slasher conventions?

[tazzybaby]

I can't read the link at work. Not sure what he would be doing in this "project". Go around on television and complain? Write a book? Wierd.

:shrug:

[FlowerPower]

How many people are going to really take him serious?

:shrug:

[Martyrdom]

Yup, surely can't be waitin' for this one.

I'm guessing I can be lookin' under category Documentary with a sub category of Comedy when I go to order it huh.

I dunno bout you all but I surely do hate the way the media sensationalizes murder ... like it's important or somethin':rolleyes:

[sassylassy]

Sassy and Martin,

I think this is great for two reasons not only because is he right but also that new book about Princess Diana. It seems to me that when ever a celebrity turns the tables on the media, they get a tad upset. IMO.

I hear what your saying. I personally think the media is out of control!

Some media shows dont do any reseach on their stories or sources & just roll it out to the public, I disagree with that!

I was surprised to hear oj was doing this project, if he is in fact doing this project....I will believe it when I see it !

just because one website posted it doesnt exactly mean that its going to happen!

[sassylassy]

Yeah, it's hard to tell the difference when you're Orenthal dumber than a doorknob Simpson. The rest of America knows that Nancy Grace & Bill O'Reilly don't claim to be news anchors. :lol:

just for the record, what you quoted was part of the link. not my words.
:read:
Thanks!

[sassylassy]

Yup, surely can't be waitin' for this one.

I'm guessing I can be lookin' under category Documentary with a sub category of Comedy when I go to order it huh.

I dunno bout you all but I surely do hate the way the media sensationalizes murder ... like it's important or somethin':rolleyes:


Wow!

I didnt expect you to order anything OJ :)

[socaldiva]

just for the record, what you quoted was part of the link. not my words.
:read:
Thanks!

I didn't realize it until you mentioned it, that it appeared to be your words. I apologize. It was clear to me that those thoughts/words weren't yours, but I should have posted it better.

[Martyrdom]

Wow!

I didnt expect you to order anything OJ :)

I've always been up for a cheap thrill.:tongue:

[martin II]

I hear what your saying. I personally think the media is out of control!

Some media shows dont do any reseach on their stories or sources & just roll it out to the public, I disagree with that!

I was surprised to hear oj was doing this project, if he is in fact doing this project....I will believe it when I see it !

just because one website posted it doesnt exactly mean that its going to happen!

sassy
i agree. it may or may not be true.
It also could be that the website owner may have had a slow 'STORY" day
and decided to give people like us something to talk about.

I think the message is worthy of thought.

imo
martin II

[sassylassy]

I didn't realize it until you mentioned it, that it appeared to be your words. I apologize. It was clear to me that those thoughts/words weren't yours, but I should have posted it better.

Thank you!

[sassylassy]

sassy
i agree. it may or may not be true.
It also could be that the website owner may have had a slow 'STORY" day
and decided to give people like us something to talk about.

I think the message is worthy of thought.

imo
martin II


could be!

I guess like all things time will tell!

:)

[Heyes]

What on earth does this have to do with a new book about Princess Diana? Orenthal didn't turn the tables on anyone, he's just flappin' his jaws with nonsense, as usual. IMO

So much for some people's theory that he is content with his life & doesn't care what the public at large thinks. I think his actions say the contrary. He's trying to wiggle his way back in & it isn't going to work. IMO & MOO


Your quote says it all!
Perfect!
He will continue this nonsense until he dies or gets back the respect he thinks is owed to him.
Not to be rude but I'm looking forward to the silence. How old is he now?

[socaldiva]

[/COLOR][/B]


Your quote says it all!
Perfect!
He will continue this nonsense until he dies or gets back the respect he thinks is owed to him.
Not to be rude but I'm looking forward to the silence. How old is he now?

If I'm not mistaken, he will 60 in July.

[2L8 4A D8]

IMO, the only Posters than would or could care about this OJ cr@p is the NG's if you ask me! Why don't ya all just hand it through PM's to each other and save the rest of us the wasted bandwidth it accumulates! :punch:

JMO and MOO!!

[sassylassy]

IMO, the only Posters than would or could care about this OJ cr@p is the NG's if you ask me! Why don't ya all just hand it through PM's to each other and save the rest of us the wasted bandwidth it accumulates! :punch:

JMO and MOO!!

Sorry you feel this thread is wasted bandwidth!:rolleyes:

I can only suggest if u dont care for the conversation move on!

JMO MOO

[sassylassy]

Snip **
. The rest of America knows that Nancy Grace & Bill O'Reilly don't claim to be news anchors. :lol:

actually speaking of Nancy Grace she has something on tonight about Oj...
not sure what time its on?

[socaldiva]

actually speaking of Nancy Grace she has something on tonight about Oj...
not sure what time its on?

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to look for it. She's on 3 times an evening here. Maybe it's on Arnelle being given a dead line of tomorrow relative to be deposed about the book.....

[sassylassy]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to look for it. She's on 3 times an evening here. Maybe it's on Arnelle being given a dead line of tomorrow relative to be deposed about the book.....


No Problem :)

I only caught a quick preview, I think it was about the legal battle & hiding assets.....I am going to log off now & see if I can catch it!

:seeya:

[2L8 4A D8]

Sorry you feel this thread is wasted bandwidth!:rolleyes:

I can only suggest if u dont care for the conversation move on!

JMO MOO

Yeah, unfortunately like you, I have as much right to my opinion on this Thread as you do for starting this Thread!

I suggest that if you don't care for the conversation that I give on YOUR Thread, then move on yourself and don't tell what I can say and what I can't say on YOUR Thread!

You're not the boss or Moderator that I know of and unfortunately, we can't pick or choose our NG or G Posters/Thread Starters! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[sassylassy]

Yeah, unfortunately like you, I have as much right to my opinion on this Thread as you do for starting this Thread!

I suggest that if you don't care for the conversation that I give on YOUR Thread, then move on yourself and don't tell what I can say and what I can't say on YOUR Thread!

You're not the boss or Moderator that I know of and unfortunately, we can't pick or choose our NG or G Posters/Thread Starters! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, however the rules suggest we post in a respectful manner to each other .....which clearly you arent doing!

Just becuz u dont care for the discussion that doesnt give U the right to be disrespectful!

[2L8 4A D8]

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, however the rules suggest we post in a respectful manner to each other .....which clearly you arent doing!

Just becuz u dont care for the discussion that doesnt give U the right to be disrespectful!

Yeah, .........which clearly you aren't doing either and never have! Again, don't care for the conversation? Then move on yourself!

Don't like disrespectful Posters, then don't post on Boards or start Threads! Unfortunately this is a public message board and not every Posters are going to post what you like and don't like!

Again, I have and had a right to my own opinion of this Thread. Sorry you don't like it!

JMO and MOO!!

[sassylassy]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to look for it. She's on 3 times an evening here. Maybe it's on Arnelle being given a dead line of tomorrow relative to be deposed about the book.....


So socaldiva...

did u happen to catch what Nancy Grace was saying about OJ last night?

[socaldiva]

So socaldiva...

did u happen to catch what Nancy Grace was saying about OJ last night?


Not yet. I taped it, but I haven't watched yet. How about you?

[sassylassy]

Not yet. I taped it, but I haven't watched yet. How about you?

No I missed it!

maybe you can give us an update after you watch it?

[socaldiva]

No I missed it!

maybe you can give us an update after you watch it?

I sure will :patriot:

[sassylassy]

Thanks!

I am thinking she may have something on tonight as well, with the latest updates & all...

[socaldiva]

I just watched Nancy Grace's show from Thursday & there was no mention of Simpson. It was all about the family murdered in the SUV & the little 4 yr old girl that went missing in Portugal. I taped yesterday's show as well, but haven't watched that one yet.

[weezer]

I just watched Nancy Grace's show from Thursday & there was no mention of Simpson. It was all about the family murdered in the SUV & the little 4 yr old girl that went missing in Portugal. I taped yesterday's show as well, but haven't watched that one yet.

thanks for the update diva!

[socaldiva]

thanks for the update diva!

You're welcome. There was mention of the book on Anderson Cooper 360. Not much that is new, but here is the link to the transcript. You have to scroll down about 3/4 of the way:



http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/15/acd.02.html

[sassylassy]

I just watched Nancy Grace's show from Thursday & there was no mention of Simpson. It was all about the family murdered in the SUV & the little 4 yr old girl that went missing in Portugal. I taped yesterday's show as well, but haven't watched that one yet.

Umm sorry Diva, maybe I mixed up the days?

I know 4 sure they were doing on a piece on the recent Simpson updates,
(maybe it was Wed?)

[socaldiva]

Umm sorry Diva, maybe I mixed up the days?

I know 4 sure they were doing on a piece on the recent Simpson updates,
(maybe it was Wed?)

Could be, or maybe they planned to talk about it, but ran out of time? It does make sense she would be talking about it this week in light of the recent events surrounding the book. I'm midway through yesterday's show & Jane Velez-Mitchell is sitting in for Nancy. No mention of Simpson thus far, they are talking about that poor woman that died in the ER lobby because no one would help her :(

[sassylassy]

Could be, or maybe they planned to talk about it, but ran out of time? It does make sense she would be talking about it this week in light of the recent events surrounding the book. I'm midway through yesterday's show & Jane Velez-Mitchell is sitting in for Nancy. No mention of Simpson thus far, they are talking about that poor woman that died in the ER lobby because no one would help her :(


umm I'm thinking now I very well could have confused the shows :o

maybe I heard it on Anderson Cooper, I usually flip back & forth between the two before I go to bed!

O/T ...but yeah I have caught the coverage of that poor woman that died in the ER, totally unreal! I think these are the types of problems w the health care system that Michael Moore is covering in his new movie!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
umm I'm thinking now I very well could have confused the shows :o

maybe I heard it on Anderson Cooper, I usually flip back & forth between the two before I go to bed!



I know what you mean about getting the shows confused. There are so many, that they tend to run together sometimes :tongue:

[jotun]

I hear what your saying. I personally think the media is out of control!

Some media shows dont do any reseach on their stories or sources & just roll it out to the public, I disagree with that!

I was surprised to hear oj was doing this project, if he is in fact doing this project....I will believe it when I see it !

just because one website posted it doesnt exactly mean that its going to happen!
ALL
sassy
I agree.Couldn't get your link.Does it have the whole O.J. INTERVIEW, about the book, derby etc.?
This article was by a writer who was doing a story on Linda Deutch,who was the BEST & most accurate trial reporter.Her fairness got her one of the few thank-you calls from O.J.after the murder trial.And still gets her an interview whenever she calls.She did the A.P.interview with O.J. about the book, when it was cancelled.

This "project" is just an interview on O.J.'s favorite subject-the media.
"it's about time that the news media point out that they are not doing their job".As O.J. has all these years, since the murders and especially since the 'not guilty' verdict.The best was at a church in D.C.where he said alot of this and alot more while the media covered him saying it.
PRICELESS.

But sorry O.J.
Enjoyed seeing Paris Hilton go back to jail.

IMO-IMO-IMO

jotun

[socaldiva]

*snip*
But sorry O.J.
Enjoyed seeing Paris Hilton go back to jail.


:confused: who didn't? :shrug:

[sassylassy]

ALL
sassy
I agree.Couldn't get your link.Does it have the whole O.J. INTERVIEW, about the book, derby etc.?
This article was by a writer who was doing a story on Linda Deutch,who was the BEST & most accurate trial reporter.Her fairness got her one of the few thank-you calls from O.J.after the murder trial.And still gets her an interview whenever she calls.She did the A.P.interview with O.J. about the book, when it was cancelled.

This "project" is just an interview on O.J.'s favorite subject-the media.
"it's about time that the news media point out that they are not doing their job".As O.J. has all these years, since the murders and especially since the 'not guilty' verdict.The best was at a church in D.C.where he said alot of this and alot more while the media covered him saying it.
PRICELESS.

But sorry O.J.
Enjoyed seeing Paris Hilton go back to jail.

IMO-IMO-IMO

jotun


Hi Jotun

hmm not sure why the link didnt work 4 you ( sorry about that!)
hopefully this one will work:

http://perezhilton.com/topics/oj_simpson/

Story:

Simpson revealed that he's soon to be involved with a documentary about media coverage because he wanted to discuss what he perceived as inaccuracies and sensationalism.

"It is about time that the news media point out that they are not doing their job," says O.J. "Things have changed a lot from my trial until today. It is all about ratings, unfortunately. When I was growing up, to watch guys like Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley, I didn't know what they thought of the news. Legitimate news people are giving their opinions. It is hard to tell the difference between legitimate news people and Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly."

p..s

ditto 4 me on Paris

[Heyes]

Hi Jotun

hmm not sure why the link didnt work 4 you ( sorry about that!)
hopefully this one will work:

http://perezhilton.com/topics/oj_simpson/

Story:

Simpson revealed that he's soon to be involved with a documentary about media coverage because he wanted to discuss what he perceived as inaccuracies and sensationalism.

"It is about time that the news media point out that they are not doing their job," says O.J. "Things have changed a lot from my trial until today. It is all about ratings, unfortunately. When I was growing up, to watch guys like Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley, I didn't know what they thought of the news. Legitimate news people are giving their opinions. It is hard to tell the difference between legitimate news people and Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly."

p..s

ditto 4 me on Paris

Oj is going to lecture the news media? lol lol lol
Someone please tell me how it's "hard to tell the difference between the legitimate news people and Nancy Grace". LMAO!

[jotun]

Hi Jotun

hmm not sure why the link didnt work 4 you ( sorry about that!)
hopefully this one will work:

http://perezhilton.com/topics/oj_simpson/

Story:

Simpson revealed that he's soon to be involved with a documentary about media coverage because he wanted to discuss what he perceived as inaccuracies and sensationalism.

"It is about time that the news media point out that they are not doing their job," says O.J. "Things have changed a lot from my trial until today. It is all about ratings, unfortunately. When I was growing up, to watch guys like Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley, I didn't know what they thought of the news. Legitimate news people are giving their opinions. It is hard to tell the difference between legitimate news people and Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly."

p..s

ditto 4 me on Paris

sassy
Thanks,that one works.
If you go to and click---
tells Editor & Publisher, will be the entire article that I have.

jotun

[jotun]

Oj is going to lecture the news media? lol lol lol
Someone please tell me how it's "hard to tell the difference between the legitimate news people and Nancy Grace". LMAO!

How??? it's HARD to tell the DIFFERENCE??
Because "Legitimate news people are giving their opinions"
O.J.is saying just like nancy grace who just gives her opinion.
That wasn't the NEWS until O.J.
IMO

jotun

[socaldiva]

How??? it's HARD to tell the DIFFERENCE??
Because "Legitimate news people are giving their opinions"
O.J.is saying just like nancy grace who just gives her opinion.
That wasn't the NEWS until O.J.
IMO

jotun

:confused: I don't even understand your post :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Oj is going to lecture the news media? lol lol lol
Someone please tell me how it's "hard to tell the difference between the legitimate news people and Nancy Grace". LMAO!

I admire a strong, intelligent and opinionated female. I admire Nancy's record as a prosecution attorney. I sympathize with her loss. However, the media seems to have afforded her to speak in manner in which she was unable to speak as a DA. I think people look to the media to give unbiased reporting. I stopped watching her after the fiasco with John Mark Carr. At the times I did watch her, it seemed to me that she thought everyone was guilty until proven innocent. This is just mho.

[William Anthony]

I think I need to clarify my last post. This is not to say that I believe that JMK is not a sick individual who needs to be put away. Only that some in the media sensationalized what they called a confession and jumped to unsupported conclusions. Fortunately, I saw his transportation in the airport on tv and heard his statements for myself. I never heard a confession-only the claim that he was with her when she passed.

[William Anthony]

I admire a strong, intelligent and opinionated female. I admire Nancy's record as a prosecution attorney. I sympathize with her loss. However, the media seems to have afforded her to speak in manner in which she was unable to speak as a DA. I think people look to the media to give unbiased reporting. I stopped watching her after the fiasco with John Mark Carr. At the times I did watch her, it seemed to me that she thought everyone was guilty until proven innocent. This is just mho.

correction, However, the media seems to have afforded her a chance to speak in manner in which she was unable to speak as a DA. I was in a rush to go to church.

[Kate Sachel]

I admire a strong, intelligent and opinionated female. I admire Nancy's record as a prosecution attorney. I sympathize with her loss. However, the media seems to have afforded her to speak in manner in which she was unable to speak as a DA. I think people look to the media to give unbiased reporting. I stopped watching her after the fiasco with John Mark Carr. At the times I did watch her, it seemed to me that she thought everyone was guilty until proven innocent. This is just mho.

If you think about it everyone really is percieved as guilty until proven innocent. If not, why handcuffs and imprisonment until the outcome of trial?

Just something to think about.

Kate

[William Anthony]

If you think about it everyone really is percieved as guilty until proven innocent. If not, why handcuffs and imprisonment until the outcome of trial?

Just something to think about.

Kate

I think the answer to this one is easy. Society wants to have the person who committed a crime to be punished for the crime. The police are charge with finding the person they believe probably committed the crime, making an arrest on probable cause and holding that person until it is determined that there is enough evidence to formally charge that person. The person is then arraigned where he learns of the charges brought against him and enters a plea. The person either is indicted or a no bill is given or has a preliminary hearing where it is either determined that there is enough evidence for the person to proceed to trial or the charges are dropped. Throughout this whole procedure the person retains the presumption of innocence. The prosecution is theoretically held to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person so charged is guilty. Until such time as that the person retains the presumption of innocence. If you mean to say that, because some see a person in handcuffs they automatically think they are guilty, then the case of John Mark Carr comes to mind.

[Kate Sachel]

I think the answer to this one is easy. Society wants to have the person who committed a crime to be punished for the crime. The police are charge with finding the person they believe probably committed the crime, making an arrest on probable cause and holding that person until it is determined that there is enough evidence to formally charge that person. The person is then arraigned where he learns of the charges brought against him and enters a plea. The person either is indicted or a no bill is given or has a preliminary hearing where it is either determined that there is enough evidence for the person to proceed to trial or the charges are dropped. Throughout this whole procedure the person retains the presumption of innocence. The prosecution is theoretically held to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person so charged is guilty. Until such time as that the person retains the presumption of innocence. If you mean to say that, because some see a person in handcuffs they automatically think they are guilty, then the case of John Mark Carr comes to mind.

I don't think it's that cookie cutter neat.

But, if you believe what you say then you should have no issue with the fact that OJ Simpson was handcuffed upon arrival at Rockingham since the police obviously thought they had their man. Rather, be satisfied that you felt justice was served with the verdict.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I don't think it's that cookie cutter neat.

But, if you believe what you say then you should have no issue with the fact that OJ Simpson was handcuffed upon arrival at Rockingham since the police obviously thought they had their man. Rather, be satisfied that you felt justice was served with the verdict.

Kate

I think that I should define what justice means to me, before I answer. To me, justice means that the accused gets a trial that is free of harmful error, and follows all the procedural, substantive and evidentiary rules and a fair and impartial jury listens and pays close attention to the evidence presented and renders a verdict based on their determination of facts after considering the evidence. I was not so displeased that he was immediately placed in handcuffs upon his arrival, as I was with the testimony that he was not to be arrested at that time. I believe that the jury was likewise displeased with this testimony. Having said the above, I believe that in both trials that justice was served until proven otherwise, which is why I accept the verdicts. I accept the verdict in the civil trial, even though I may question its motivation. I have not called any juror any name or spoke of them in a derrogatory manner.

[bobaugust]

I think that I should define what justice means to me, before I answer. To me, justice means that the accused gets a trial that is free of harmful error, and follows all the procedural, substantive and evidentiary rules and a fair and impartial jury listens and pays close attention to the evidence presented and renders a verdict based on their determination of facts after considering the evidence. I was not so displeased that he was immediately placed in handcuffs upon his arrival, as I was with the testimony that he was not to be arrested at that time. I believe that the jury was likewise displeased with this testimony. Having said the above, I believe that in both trials that justice was served until proven otherwise, which is why I accept the verdicts. I accept the verdict in the civil trial, even though I may question its motivation. I have not called any juror any name or spoke of them in a derrogatory manner.

Of course you have spoken about the civl trial jurors in a derogatory manner when you accuse them of doing something impermissible when in fact there is absolutely no evidence that they did.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Of course you have spoken about the civl trial jurors in a derogatory manner when you accuse them of doing something impermissible when in fact there is absolutely no evidence that they did.

bobaugust

Then I could not have spoken of them in a derrogatory manner as I have not accused them of what you claim I have. I think you should reread my post before accusing me. However, should you choose not to, I will understand. I did point to the evidence that they may have, which is your post of their comments.

[bobaugust]

Then I could not have spoken of them in a derrogatory manner as I have not accused them of what you claim I have. I think you should reread my post before accusing me. However, should you choose not to, I will understand. I did point to the evidence that they may have, which is your post of their comments.

I read your post when you said, "It is obvious that they were interested in doing what the criminal trial failed to do, imho. Inso doing, they did something that was impermissible in believing that they found him liable for murder, imho."

There is no evidence that I know of that the civil trial jurors were interested in doing what the criminal trial failed to do. If you know of any please inform us.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I read your post when you said, "It is obvious that they were interested in doing what the criminal trial failed to do, imho. Inso doing, they did something that was impermissible in believing that they found him liable for murder, imho."

There is no evidence that I know of that the civil trial jurors were interested in doing what the criminal trial failed to do. If you know of any please inform us.

bobaugust

You posted it when the juror said they found him liable for murder-that is the evidence. He was found not guilty of murder in the criminal trial, the judge did not instruct them to find him liable for murder, because he was not legally permitted to so do. Yet, they found him liable for murder and I think that you will not diagree that MOST OF AMERICA was outraged over the criminal verdict and thought that Simpson was a murderer. [B]I think[B]most reasonable thinking people can see the correlation.

[bobaugust]

You posted it when the juror said they found him liable for murder-that is the evidence. He was found not guilty of murder in the criminal trial, the judge did not instruct them to find him liable for murder, because he was not legally permitted to so do. Yet, they found him liable for murder and I think that you will not diagree that MOST OF AMERICA was outraged over the criminal verdict and thought that Simpson was a murderer. [B]I think[B]most reasonable thinking people can see the correlation.

The civil trial jurors found Simpson liable for both deaths or in other words liable for killing both victims or in other words liable for murdering both victims or in other words liable for murder. They never said they found Simpson guilty of murder. Most reasonable thinking people believe Simpson killed both victims.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The civil trial jurors found Simpson liable for both deaths or in other words liable for killing both victims or in other words liable for murdering both victims or in other words liable for murder. They never said they found Simpson guilty of murder. Most reasonable thinking people believe Simpson killed both victims.

bobaugust

What is it you do not understand? The crime of murder was not for the civil jury to consider or conclude or find.

[martin II]

The civil trial jurors found Simpson liable for both deaths or in other words liable for killing both victims or in other words liable for murdering both victims or in other words liable for murder. They never said they found Simpson guilty of murder. Most reasonable thinking people believe Simpson killed both victims.

bobaugust

BOB
Why not just not be creative and leave out the 'IN OTHER WORDS' use the words on the verdict form.imo

martin II

[bobaugust]

What is it you do not understand? The crime of murder was not for the civil jury to consider or conclude or find.

What is it you do not understand? The civil trial was all about Simpson killing Ron and Nicole. That's exactly what the civil trial jury had to consider and conclude to come to a verdict.

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

What is it you do not understand? The crime of murder was not for the civil jury to consider or conclude or find.

True, but they had to establish that the proximate cause of the death was the negligence or other wrongful act of the defendant. Considering the fact that Nicole and Ron were murdered and did not die accidentally, what wrongful act do you think they were deciding on?

The jury was specifically asked to conclude whether or not Simpson "willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ron Goldman". Taking into consideration that the cause of Ron's death was multiple stab wounds I would think it obvious that by answering "yes" to that question that the jury decided that Simpson stabbed Ron multiple times.

Kate

[William Anthony]

What is it you do not understand? The civil trial was all about Simpson killing Ron and Nicole. That's exactly what the civil trial jury had to consider and conclude to come to a verdict.

bobaugust

I see that you did not use the word murder as the civil jury did in your posts of their comments. Before anyone accuses me of setting you up again, I will say that your omission of the word murder, seems, imho, to indicate that you have conceeded the point that the civil jury was not to consider, conclude or find the crime of murder, which i was saying all along.

[William Anthony]

True, but they had to establish that the proximate cause of the death was the negligence or other wrongful act of the defendant. Considering the fact that Nicole and Ron were murdered and did not die accidentally, what wrongful act do you think they were deciding on?

The jury was specifically asked to conclude whether or not Simpson "willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ron Goldman". Taking into consideration that the cause of Ron's death was multiple stab wounds I would think it obvious that by answering "yes" to that question that the jury decided that Simpson stabbed Ron multiple times.

Kate

How can you say my post is true and then indicate that they did? You have said that I could not have things both ways. Are you trying to have things both ways by saying it is true that the jury could not find Simpson liable of murder and then indicate they did? The question was did Simpson willfully and wrongfully cause the death or Ronald Goldman, not did Simpson committ the crime of murder on Ron.

[Kate Sachel]

How can you say my post is true and then indicate that they did? You have said that I could not have things both ways. Are you trying to have things both ways by saying it is true that the jury could not find Simpson liable of murder and then indicate they did? The question was did Simpson willfully and wrongfully cause the death or Ronald Goldman, not did Simpson committ the crime of murder on Ron.

I think you may have missed the point here. By saying "true" I was agreeing that the question itself was not if Simpson committed the crime of murder on Ron but was still pointing out that, in essence, the answer to the question "did Simpson willfully and wrongfully cause the death of Ron", considering how Ron died, was that Simpson killed him.

I'm pointing out that this is different than say, a wrongful death suit in which a construction worker was killed because his operation equipment was faulty and a jury was being asked to find if negligence in the equipment maintenance was the reason why the equipment was faulty thus causing the workers death.

So relax for a moment William and rest quite assured that I, unlike some, am not trying to have it both ways.

Kate

[bobaugust]

I see that you did not use the word murder as the civil jury did in your posts of their comments. Before anyone accuses me of setting you up again, I will say that your omission of the word murder, seems, imho, to indicate that you have conceeded the point that the civil jury was not to consider, conclude or find the crime of murder, which i was saying all along.

You're arguing semantics. Both victims were found dead. Murder is the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice and aforethought. Based on the evidence presented and Simpson's lying testimony that's what the civil trial jury believed Simpson did. and that's why they found him liable.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I think you may have missed the point here. By saying "true" I was agreeing that the question itself was not if Simpson committed the crime of murder on Ron but was still pointing out that, in essence, the answer to the question "did Simpson willfully and wrongfully cause the death of Ron", considering how Ron died, was that Simpson killed him.

I'm pointing out that this is different than say, a wrongful death suit in which a construction worker was killed because his operation equipment was faulty and a jury was being asked to find if negligence in the equipment maintenance was the reason why the equipment was faulty thus causing the workers death.

So relax for a moment William and rest quite assured that I, unlike some, am not trying to have it both ways.

Kate

This question is specifically for you, Kate. Are you saying that the civil jury could find, conclude or consider Simpson liable for murder?

[William Anthony]

What is it you do not understand? The civil trial was all about Simpson killing Ron and Nicole. That's exactly what the civil trial jury had to consider and conclude to come to a verdict.

bobaugust

For the sake of discussion, I will conceed this even though I may not agree, and say to you that you did not use the word murder, which is what the juror said (found him liable for murderand what I was discussing.

[William Anthony]

You're arguing semantics. Both victims were found dead. Murder is the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice and aforethought. Based on the evidence presented and Simpson's lying testimony that's what the civil trial jury believed Simpson did. and that's why they found him liable.

bobaugust

Based on the juror's statements you posted, they found him liable for murder, which I maintain murder was impermissible for them to consider, conclude or find. You may see it as semantics. However, those in the legal and members of the legal profession and those, who have respect for the system and the law see it as more than a semantical difference, imho. If it were simply a semantical difference, there would be no need for two distinct systems, imho.

[William Anthony]

I think you may have missed the point here. By saying "true" I was agreeing that the question itself was not if Simpson committed the crime of murder on Ron but was still pointing out that, in essence, the answer to the question "did Simpson willfully and wrongfully cause the death of Ron", considering how Ron died, was that Simpson killed him.

I'm pointing out that this is different than say, a wrongful death suit in which a construction worker was killed because his operation equipment was faulty and a jury was being asked to find if negligence in the equipment maintenance was the reason why the equipment was faulty thus causing the workers death.

So relax for a moment William and rest quite assured that I, unlike some, am not trying to have it both ways.

Kate

here is a portion of of your post.

"I was agreeing that the question itself was not if Simpson committed the crime of murder on Ron..." you agree that the civil jury was not called upon to answer whether Simpson murdered Ron. I see that you did not use the word murder in your post, but instead used in essence killed. The jury statement that was posted did not say that we found that Simpson willfully and wronfully killed Ron. It said they found him liable for murder. In essence, any poster cannot have it both ways, imho.

[William Anthony]

here is a portion of of your post.

"I was agreeing that the question itself was not if Simpson committed the crime of murder on Ron..." you agree that the civil jury was not called upon to answer whether Simpson murdered Ron. I see that you did not use the word murder in your post, but instead used in essence killed. The jury statement that was posted did not say that we found that Simpson willfully and wronfully killed Ron. It said they found him liable for murder. In essence, any poster cannot have it both ways, imho.

Correction. In essence, any poster should not have it both ways, imho. I am not the moderator and cannot tell anyone what they can or cannot post, and realized that the way the sentence was originally written made it appear that I was telling posters what they could not post.

[bobaugust]

For the sake of discussion, I will conceed this even though I may not agree, and say to you that you did not use the word murder, which is what the juror said (found him liable for murderand what I was discussing.

The fact is that someone murdered both victims. Based on the evidence presented and Simpson's lying testimony the civil trial jurors believed Simpson was that someone. That's why they found him liable.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Based on the juror's statements you posted, they found him liable for murder, which I maintain murder was impermissible for them to consider, conclude or find. You may see it as semantics. However, those in the legal and members of the legal profession and those, who have respect for the system and the law see it as more than a semantical difference, imho. If it were simply a semantical difference, there would be no need for two distinct systems, imho.

What the jurors said after the trial was not the legal verdict. They were simply expressing the reality of their beliefs as to what the verdict meant to them. Simply put they all believed Simpson killed, murdered both victims and that's why they found him liable.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The fact is that someone murdered both victims. Based on the evidence presented and Simpson's lying testimony the civil trial jurors believed Simpson was that someone. That's why they found him liable.

bobaugust

You are correct that the fact is that someone or some people murdered them. The jurors in a criminal jury trial are the only ones who can say who that someone or some people are. The criminal jury has spoken, saying that the evidence in the criminal trial was insufficient to say it was a fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone was Simpson. The civil jury could find him liable for the wrongful deaths. However, the statement was they found him liable for murder. You are now postulating not only to what the jurors believed but also to they meant when they made the statement.
I do believe the jurors were cable of saying they found him liable, because they believed he murdered them. However, what they said is they found him liable for murder, which I maintain they were not permitted to consider, conclude or find. I understand that you made this postulate to combat my belief that the civil trial was a political production, that is imho. However, I do not believe that you have special powers that enable you to read minds or interpret thoughts.

[weezer]

*Snipped* . . . The jurors in a criminal jury trial are the only ones who can say who that someone or some people are.

Uh, no -- the civil jury found he was responsible for the deaths of two human beings. The two human beings, Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were murdered. Guess the civil jury believed orenthal murdered them. imo

[socaldiva]

Uh, no -- the civil jury found he was responsible for the deaths of two human beings. The two human beings, Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were murdered. Guess the civil jury believed orenthal murdered them. imo


:beer: :beer: :beer:

[Suzee10]

I do not know simpson does not just go away. The last project he had was booted. Why does he now think anyone wants to know what he thinks or what he is doing????

[Suzee10]

Yeah, it's hard to tell the difference when you're Orenthal dumber than a doorknob Simpson. The rest of America knows that Nancy Grace & Bill O'Reilly don't claim to be news anchors. :lol:


Dummer than a doorknob simpson, now that is funny!!!:beer:

[William Anthony]

Uh, no -- the civil jury found he was responsible for the deaths of two human beings. The two human beings, Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were murdered. Guess the civil jury believed orenthal murdered them. imo

I thought you had some legal training when you mentioned mens rea. Responsible for the deaths is not the same as committing the crime of murder.

[weezer]

I thought you had some legal training when you mentioned mens rea. Responsible for the deaths is not the same as committing the crime of murder.

I've also been 'home schooling' my law degree! ;) And, yes, in this case, responsible does mean orenthal james simpson murdered two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. imo

[William Anthony]

I've also been 'home schooling' my law degree! ;) And, yes, in this case, responsible does mean orenthal james simpson murdered two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. imo

You are assuredly entitled to home school yourself, although you may miss some of the finer points by not attending a college and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. The fact that he has been found not guilty means that he can never be tried again or held responsible for the murders in a court of law. This in no way prevents MOST OF AMERICA from labeling him a murderer. I would think that, since you have taken the interest to home school yourself in the law, you would have an appreciation and a respect for what the difference is. Is there something that is keeping you from appreciating and respecting the difference?

[weezer]

You are assuredly entitled to home school yourself, although you may miss some of the finer points by not attending a college and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. The fact that he has been found not guilty means that he can never be tried again or held responsible for the murders in a court of law. This in no way prevents MOST OF AMERICA from labeling him a murderer. I would think that, since you have taken the interest to home school yourself in the law, you would have an appreciation and a respect for what the difference is. Is there something that is keeping you from appreciating and respecting the difference?

ah but william, he was found responsible for the murders in a court of law. You really should avail yourself of the specifics of the civil trial. imo

[William Anthony]

ah but william, he was found responsible for the murders in a court of law. You really should avail yourself of the specifics of the civil trial. imo

I do not know how many times I must say this and it is not to say anything against you or anyone else. I see that you and others hold deeply to your opinions and that is your right. I have said that I accept both verdicts. Therefore, it is not important for me to acquaint myself with the specifics of the civil trial. I am not trying to prove him a murderer or not a murderer. I am interested in the law. I respect the verdicts, but do not respect or accept people who try to say that the verdicts equal something other than what they say. If it was stated as their opinion as to what the verdict meant, I could not disagree with the fact that it was their opinion.

I think that you may understand that it was impossible for him to be found liable for murder in a civil trial. The court of law that could have found him guilty of murder did not. Could he have gotten away with murder-yes? Could he not be the murderer-yes? The problem is that in the one court where he could have been convicted the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We may discuss whether evidence was properly admitted or excluded in the criminal trial. This would be an interesting discussion and go further to establish whether or not there should have been reasonable doubt. I make this post to you, because you seem to be to some degree a little more open than some posters on this board, imho. I do not expect my suggestion to fly and will continue to accept both verdicts.

[bobaugust]

You are correct that the fact is that someone or some people murdered them. The jurors in a criminal jury trial are the only ones who can say who that someone or some people are. The criminal jury has spoken, saying that the evidence in the criminal trial was insufficient to say it was a fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone was Simpson. The civil jury could find him liable for the wrongful deaths. However, the statement was they found him liable for murder. You are now postulating not only to what the jurors believed but also to they meant when they made the statement.
I do believe the jurors were cable of saying they found him liable, because they believed he murdered them. However, what they said is they found him liable for murder, which I maintain they were not permitted to consider, conclude or find. I understand that you made this postulate to combat my belief that the civil trial was a political production, that is imho. However, I do not believe that you have special powers that enable you to read minds or interpret thoughts.

Lets do some clarifying here. The civil trial jurors did not say Simpson was found liable for murder. One civil trial juror said that. And one civil trial juror said Simpson was found liable of the murders.

I understand your legal argument. I also understand based on the evidence presented as well as Simpson's lying testimony all the ciivl trial jurors believed Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. As to liability, based on Judge Fujisaki's instructions to the jury the civil trial jurors found Simpson liable for killing both Ron and Nicole. The fact is that both Ron and Nicole were murdered. So it could also be said that Simpson was found liable for the murders of Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Lets do some clarifying here. The civil trial jurors did not say Simpson was found liable for murder. One civil trial juror said that. And one civil trial juror said Simpson was found liable of the murders.

I understand your legal argument. I also understand based on the evidence presented as well as Simpson's lying testimony all the ciivl trial jurors believed Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. As to liability, based on Judge Fujisaki's instructions to the jury the civil trial jurors found Simpson liable for killing both Ron and Nicole. The fact is that both Ron and Nicole were murdered. So it could also be said that Simpson was found liable for the murders of Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

Let's beging at the end. If you will allow me to be a little bit jovial, I will say that many have asked me for links to what they say I stated as fact. I will now ask you to provide a link to anyone that was found liable for murder as you say it could be said, smile. I could say I was the President of the United States, which would not make it true, smile. Are you saying that the judge told the jury to find Simpson liable for killing them, smile? I understand that the juror believed, but it has been so long ago that his/her statement was posted, that the juror stated they found him liable for murder. I still do not know what "all" the jurors believed. I believe they could have found him liable for the wrongful deaths without believing that he physically killed them. This is not to say they believed this-only that I do not know what they believed. Judging from their statements before the trial commenced and the statements made after it terminated, I am still of the opinion that the trial was a political production made in oppostition to the criminal verdict, which does not mean that Goldman did not have the right to pursue a civil remedy for a civil wrong.

[bobaugust]

Let's beging at the end. If you will allow me to be a little bit jovial, I will say that many have asked me for links to what they say I stated as fact. I will now ask you to provide a link to anyone that was found liable for murder as you say it could be said, smile. I could say I was the President of the United States, which would not make it true, smile. Are you saying that the judge told the jury to find Simpson liable for killing them, smile? I understand that the juror believed, but it has been so long ago that his/her statement was posted, that the juror stated they found him liable for murder. I still do not know what "all" the jurors believed. I believe they could have found him liable for the wrongful deaths without believing that he physically killed them. This is not to say they believed this-only that I do not know what they believed. Judging from their statements before the trial commenced and the statements made after it terminated, I am still of the opinion that the trial was a political production made in oppostition to the criminal verdict, which does not mean that Goldman did not have the right to pursue a civil remedy for a civil wrong.

No I'm not saying the judge told the jury to find Simpson liable for killing them, he told them in his instructions they could find him liable for killing Ron and Nicole. I've posted that many times, read it again..

You say you do not know what the civil trial jurors believed about Simpson killing both Ron and Nicole yet it was made clear as to what they believed in the same article that I posted that you have been falsely referring to the civil trial jurors saying they found Simpson liable for murder.

"Jurors said they took 12 hours to reach a verdict in the compensatory phase last week because they painstakingly went through the evidence. They didn't take their first vote until the very end - and found out then they were unanimous in their feeling that Simpson was a killer."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns223.htm

Your opinion that the civil trial was a political production has no basis in fact and no credibility,

Jury Instructions Judge Fujisaki January 28, 1997
"As I have told you, this is a civil case. You may know that defendant Simpson was already tried in a criminal case for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman and that defendant Simpson was acquitted in that criminal case. The acquittal in the criminal case has no effect on this case. Even though defendant Simpson was acquitted in the criminal case, you can still find him liable for killing Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson in this civil case."

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No I'm not saying the judge told the jury to find Simpson liable for killing them, he told them in his instructions they could find him liable for killing Ron and Nicole. I've posted that many times, read it again..

You say you do not know what the civil trial jurors believed about Simpson killing both Ron and Nicole yet it was made clear as to what they believed in the same article that I posted that you have been falsely referring to the civil trial jurors saying they found Simpson liable for murder.

"Jurors said they took 12 hours to reach a verdict in the compensatory phase last week because they painstakingly went through the evidence. They didn't take their first vote until the very end - and found out then they were unanimous in their feeling that Simpson was a killer."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns223.htm

Your opinion that the civil trial was a political production has no basis in fact and no credibility,

Jury Instructions Judge Fujisaki January 28, 1997
"As I have told you, this is a civil case. You may know that defendant Simpson was already tried in a criminal case for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman and that defendant Simpson was acquitted in that criminal case. The acquittal in the criminal case has no effect on this case. Even though defendant Simpson was acquitted in the criminal case, you can still find him liable for killing Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson in this civil case."

bobaugust

I have posted my reasons for forming my opinion that the civil trial was a political production, and nothing you posted changes my mind. In fact your posts continue to reinforce my opinion. It is interesting that the judge did not say you can still find him not liable for the killings, but stated you can still find him liable for killing Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson in this civil case. Based on your posts of their statements before the trial began, I would offer the opinion that they were almost unanimous in their feelings that he was the killer before the trial began. the judge's instructions might be viewedas an istruction to find him liable for the killings, imho. I have previously stated that it may have beeninadvertently inartfully worded. However, regardless, I am still concerned and it gives the appearance of a political production, as well as the jurors statements before and after the trial that it was a political production with a foregone conclusion, imho. This is the evidence which I believe supports my opinion.

[bobaugust]

I have posted my reasons for forming my opinion that the civil trial was a political production, and nothing you posted changes my mind. In fact your posts continue to reinforce my opinion. It is interesting that the judge did not say you can still find him not liable for the killings, but stated you can still find him liable for killing Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson in this civil case. Based on your posts of their statements before the trial began, I would offer the opinion that they were almost unanimous in their feelings that he was the killer before the trial began. the judge's instructions might be viewedas an istruction to find him liable for the killings, imho. I have previously stated that it may have beeninadvertently inartfully worded. However, regardless, I am still concerned and it gives the appearance of a political production, as well as the jurors statements before and after the trial that it was a political production with a foregone conclusion, imho. This is the evidence which I believe supports my opinion.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just pointing out why your opinion that the civil trial was a political production has no basis in fact and no credibility.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just pointing out why your opinion that the civil trial was a political production has no basis in fact and no credibility.

bobaugust

The basis in fact is their statements before and after the trial combined with the judges jury instructions. The credibility is history and my ability to read with comprehension.

[bobaugust]

The basis in fact is their statements before and after the trial combined with the judges jury instructions. The credibility is history and my ability to read with comprehension.

I'm sorry to say but based on all the false claims, ridiculous interpretations, and claims of reasonable doubt based only on your imagination you have made in your postings regarding the Bundy murders your opinions have no credibility.

bobaugust

[weezer]

The basis in fact is their statements before and after the trial combined with the judges jury instructions. The credibility is history and my ability to read with comprehension.

So you've chosen to read juror statements before and after but not watch/read/research the civil trial itself? Now that's a real base to build an opinion on. imo ;)

[William Anthony]

So you've chosen to read juror statements before and after but not watch/read/research the civil trial itself? Now that's a real base to build an opinion on. imo ;)

The civil trial was not televised, to my knowledge,in my location and I did not research the trial, because I accept the verdict, which was what I expected it to be. I did not read the statements of jurors until bobaugust so graciously posted them on this board, which said statements reinforced my opinion of the civil trial.

[William Anthony]

I'm sorry to say but based on all the false claims, ridiculous interpretations, and claims of reasonable doubt based only on your imagination you have made in your postings regarding the Bundy murders your opinions have no credibility.

bobaugust

You have again accused me of making false claims and I am again asking you to stop. You have insulted my interpretations and I am asking you to stop. I consider this a personal attack, which I do not believe is allowed on this board. You have stated as a fact that "my opinions have no credibility". I will now ask you to provide a link, from some source other than this board to prove that. I will state that in my opinion your personal attacks on me have no credibility. I do not know, if you have recieved any infractions for the conduct I reported. It appears to me that, if you have, you have chosent to ignore them. I will report your derrogatory comments about me and the personal attacks, if they continue. I sense that, when you become agitated with my disagreements you stoop to personal attacks, which may be an effort on your part to get this board shut down. There are others on this board, who I believe are willing to engage in a civil and respectful disscussion with other posters and me. I understand that you have strong beliefs and opinions, as do I. However, this does not allow you or I to make personal attacks. I will respectfully ask you to cease and desist from this point forward.

[bobaugust]

You have again accused me of making false claims and I am again asking you to stop. You have insulted my interpretations and I am asking you to stop. I consider this a personal attack, which I do not believe is allowed on this board. You have stated as a fact that "my opinions have no credibility". I will now ask you to provide a link, from some source other than this board to prove that. I will state that in my opinion your personal attacks on me have no credibility. I do not know, if you have recieved any infractions for the conduct I reported. It appears to me that, if you have, you have chosent to ignore them. I will report your derrogatory comments about me and the personal attacks, if they continue. I sense that, when you become agitated with my disagreements you stoop to personal attacks, which may be an effort on your part to get this board shut down. There are others on this board, who I believe are willing to engage in a civil and respectful disscussion with other posters and me. I understand that you have strong beliefs and opinions, as do I. However, this does not allow you or I to make personal attacks. I will respectfully ask you to cease and desist from this point forward.

When you offer opinions regarding the legality of evidence in this case that none of the real attorneys in this case in either trial ever made then your opinion has no credibly.

When you offer your own made up interpretations of a word that is contradicted by every dictionary definition of that word as well as reality then I will point out that your interpretation is wrong. If you continue to make that claim I will point out that it's false.

When you make a claim that is supported only by your imagination and contradicted by the actual evidence in this case I will point out why you are wrong. If you continue to make that claim I will point out that it's false.

It's very simple stop continually posting false claims in our discussions and I will stop calling them false.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

When you offer opinions regarding the legality of evidence in this case that none of the real attorneys in this case in either trial ever made then your opinion has no credibly.

When you offer your own made up interpretations of a word that is contradicted by every dictionary definition of that word as well as reality then I will point out that your interpretation is wrong. If you continue to make that claim I will point out that it's false.

When you make a claim that is supported only by your imagination and contradicted by the actual evidence in this case I will point out why you are wrong. If you continue to make that claim I will point out that it's false.

It's very simple stop continually posting false claims in our discussions and I will stop calling them false.

bobaugust

This may come as a news flash to you, but attorneys to do always object to objectionable material, because they have another way of handling it, as with Rokahr and the photos.

The only reality is that the dictionary does not support you claim that doctored means to physically change. Imho and, as I believe,most of the posters on this board see what the dictionary said and see who continues the personal attacks. I will reiterate, because someone offers something to the discussion with which you disagree, does not make that false. What I am trying to say is that there are more ways to look at things than your way. A wise man once said, we are all more wrong than we are right. I do not know everything and am willing to discuss and learn. I do not engage or debate things, I know little about. I listen and learn. All subjects do not interest me, so I skim those.

[weezer]

This may come as a news flash to you, but attorneys to do always object to objectionable material, because they have another way of handling it, as with Rokahr and the photos.

The only reality is that the dictionary does not support you claim that doctored means to physically change. Imho and, as I believe,most of the posters on this board see what the dictionary said and see who continues the personal attacks. I will reiterate, because someone offers something to the discussion with which you disagree, does not make that false. What I am trying to say is that there are more ways to look at things than your way. A wise man once said, we are all more wrong than we are right. I do not know everything and am willing to discuss and learn. I do not engage or debate things, I know little about. I listen and learn. All subjects do not interest me, so I skim those.

Alter
–verb (used with object) 1. to make different in some particular, as size, style, course, or the like; modify: to alter a coat; to alter a will; to alter course.
–verb (used without object) 3. to change; become different or modified.

v. al·tered, al·ter·ing, al·ters
v. tr.
To change or make different; modify: altered my will.
To adjust (a garment) for a better fit.

v. intr.
To change or become different.

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
alter
c.1374, "to change (something)," from O.Fr. altérer, from M.L. alterare, from L. alter "the other (of the two)," from PIE *al- "beyond" + comp. suffix -ter (cf. other). Intr. sense "to become otherwise" first recorded 1590. Alteration "change in ready-made clothes to suit a customer's specifications" is from 1901.

WordNet - Cite This Source alter

verb
1. cause to change; make different; cause a transformation; "The advent of the automobile may have altered the growth pattern of the city"; "The discussion has changed my thinking about the issue" [syn: change]
2. become different in some particular way, without permanently losing one's or its former characteristics or essence; "her mood changes in accordance with the weather"; "The supermarket's selection of vegetables varies according to the season" [syn: change]
3. make an alteration to; "This dress needs to be altered"
4. insert words into texts, often falsifying it thereby [syn: interpolate]

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source
alter [ˈoːltə] verb

to make or become different; to change

[weezer]

This may come as a news flash to you, but attorneys to do always object to objectionable material, because they have another way of handling it, as with Rokahr and the photos.

The only reality is that the dictionary does not support you claim that doctored means to physically change. Imho and, as I believe,most of the posters on this board see what the dictionary said and see who continues the personal attacks. I will reiterate, because someone offers something to the discussion with which you disagree, does not make that false. What I am trying to say is that there are more ways to look at things than your way. A wise man once said, we are all more wrong than we are right. I do not know everything and am willing to discuss and learn. I do not engage or debate things, I know little about. I listen and learn. All subjects do not interest me, so I skim those.

–verb (used with object) 8. to give medical treatment to; act as a physician to: He feels he can doctor himself for just a common cold.
9. to treat (an ailment); apply remedies to: He doctored his cold at home.
10. to restore to original or working condition; repair; mend: She was able to doctor the chipped vase with a little plastic cement.
11. to tamper with; falsify: He doctored the birthdate on his passport.
12. to add a foreign substance to; adulterate: Someone had doctored the drink.
13. to revise, alter, or adapt (a photograph, manuscript, etc.) in order to serve a specific purpose or to improve the material: to doctor a play.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source doc·tor (dŏk'tər) Pronunciation Key
v. doc·tored, doc·tor·ing, doc·tors Informal
v. tr.

Informal To give medical treatment to: "[He] does more than practice medicine. He doctors people. There's a difference" (Charles Kuralt).
To repair, especially in a makeshift manner; rig.

To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself: doctored the evidence.
To add ingredients so as to improve or conceal the taste, appearance, or quality of: doctor the soup with a dash of sherry. See Synonyms at adulterate.
To alter or modify for a specific end: doctored my standard speech for the small-town audience.
Baseball To deface or apply a substance to (the ball): was ejected because he doctored the ball with a piece of sandpaper.

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
doctor

c.1303, "Church father," from O.Fr. doctour, from M.L. doctor "religious teacher, adviser, scholar," from L. doctor "teacher," from doct- stem of docere "to show, teach," originally "make to appear right," causative of decere "be seemly, fitting" (see decent). Familiar form doc first recorded c.1850. Meaning of "holder of highest degree in university" is first found c.1375; that of "medical professional" dates from 1377, though this was not common till late 16c. Verb sense of "alter, disguise, falsify" is first recorded 1774.

[William Anthony]

"The discussion has changed my thinking about the issue" [syn: change]





Thank you. Instead of discussion, I think testimony can be inserted.

[weezer]

Thank you. Instead of discussion, I think testimony can be inserted.

I'm going to assume you know what an object, verb and synonym are. The piece you extracted and posted to bolster your argument shows that the synonym is 'change.' Thus, the discussion changed the reader's mind -- not the discussion changed the automobile.

[William Anthony]

To falsify [/B]or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself: doctored the evidence.




Since we were speaking of the photos as evidence, I think this is more appropriate. There is nothing here, when speaking of evidence that says to physically alter-it says in such a way and uses the word doctored. Again, I thank you.

[weezer]

Since we were speaking of the photos as evidence, I think this is more appropriate. There is nothing here, when speaking of evidence that says to physically alter-it says in such a way and uses the word doctored. Again, I thank you.

william, the word 'change' denotes action -- to physically alter -- and since we are speaking of the photos as evidence, your use of the words alter and/or doctored are used incorrectly. There were no changes to the photos. Now, if you want to say that the testimony altered YOUR thinking, then that's different. But there is no testimony or evidence that any of the photos were altered or doctored and most especially, not by words.

[weezer]

Since we were speaking of the photos as evidence, I think this is more appropriate. There is nothing here, when speaking of evidence that says to physically alter-it says in such a way and uses the word doctored. Again, I thank you.

since we were speaking of the photos as evidence, I think this is more appropriate:

to revise, alter, or adapt (a photograph, manuscript, etc.) in order to serve a specific purpose or to improve the material: to doctor a play.

[bobaugust]

This may come as a news flash to you, but attorneys to do always object to objectionable material, because they have another way of handling it, as with Rokahr and the photos.

The only reality is that the dictionary does not support you claim that doctored means to physically change. Imho and, as I believe,most of the posters on this board see what the dictionary said and see who continues the personal attacks. I will reiterate, because someone offers something to the discussion with which you disagree, does not make that false. What I am trying to say is that there are more ways to look at things than your way. A wise man once said, we are all more wrong than we are right. I do not know everything and am willing to discuss and learn. I do not engage or debate things, I know little about. I listen and learn. All subjects do not interest me, so I skim those.

This may come as a news flash to you but I already agreed that the the definition for the word doctored did not say physically changed, it said altered. I posted the definition for you of the word altered, to become different. The reality is that words to not alter or change a photograph. To alter or change a photograph it has to be physically changed. There was never any claim made by any attorney in either trial in this case that any crime scene photograph was altered or any crime scene photograph was ever changed as to what it showed.

Yes all the posters on this board have seen your own made up interpretation of what you think doctored means and understand that you are wrong. You write high and mighty words but not only haven't you learned that you are wrong, you cant admit that you are wrong, and you continue to argue your made up interpretation.

You say you do not engage or debate things you know little about. Wrong. You continually engage, debate and offer your opinion about things you know nothing about like what happened in the civil trial or like what Petrocelli wrote in his book.

Your claim that the photograph showing Fuhrman pointing at the glove was doctored is outright false.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

*snip*
You say you do not engage or debate things you know little about. Wrong. You continually engage, debate and offer your opinion about things you know nothing about like what happened in the civil trial or like what Petrocelli wrote in his book.



:beer: :beer: :beer:

[William Anthony]

william, the word 'change' denotes action -- to physically alter -- and since we are speaking of the photos as evidence, your use of the words alter and/or doctored are used incorrectly. There were no changes to the photos. Now, if you want to say that the testimony altered YOUR thinking, then that's different. But there is no testimony or evidence that any of the photos were altered or doctored and most especially, not by words.

I think I now see where the problem lies. Items of evidence must be authenticated and a proper foundation laid. I have previously posted that altered means to alter the details. I have never argued that the photos did not depict what they depict. My argument is that the photos were doctored through the testimony in that the time they were taken was altered from night to day or vice versa. The authentification and foundation are part of the evidence's admissibility. The defense did not take Rokahr on voir dire but chose to show he doctored, altered the photos through his testimony in front of the jury, imho. Evidence must be what it purports to be, not simply a picture of a person, but when the picture was taken. Any attempt to say that the picture was taken when it was not is altering/doctoring. I think that, if you would go back to my original post, you will see that I said that the defense, having shown evidence that the photos could have been doctored, the jury was free to dismiss them.

[weezer]

I think I now see where the problem lies. Items of evidence must be authenticated and a proper foundation laid. I have previously posted that altered means to alter the details. I have never argued that the photos did not depict what they depict. My argument is that the photos were doctored through the testimony in that the time they were taken was altered from night to day or vice versa. The authentification and foundation are part of the evidence's admissibility. The defense did not take Rokahr on voir dire but chose to show he doctored, altered the photos through his testimony in front of the jury, imho. Evidence must be what it purports to be, not simply a picture of a person, but when the picture was taken. Any attempt to say that the picture was taken when it was not is altering/doctoring. I think that, if you would go back to my original post, you will see that I said that the defense, having shown evidence that the photos could have been doctored, the jury was free to dismiss them.

I'm not sure what you're argument even is. There was no testimony that the photo (any photo) was 'doctored.' I will say once again, to doctor or to alter an object is to change it. There was nothing 'changed' in any crime scene photo. If, as you propose, the jury did in fact believe the photo(s) were doctored/altered, then they were duped. imo

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure what you're argument even is. There was no testimony that the photo (any photo) was 'doctored.' I will say once again, to doctor or to alter an object is to change it. There was nothing 'changed' in any crime scene photo. If, as you propose, the jury did in fact believe the photo(s) were doctored/altered, then they were duped. imo

I understand and it is now July 3rd and this is a post that was made by me on June 13th, that should have ended the discussion, since I never claimed the photos were doctored.

"I had a chance to review the tape of Rokahr's testimony and those are my feelings after the review. Yes. you are correct-intimations as to the times the photos were taken and implications as to the dates they were taken.

The word I gave the definition for was doctored, and, if you did not understand how I used the word then I think the proper thing to do would be to ask in which context I was using the word, before calling my claims, which I never claimed-only that the defense presented such evidence and the possibility that the jury believed the defense's version, false."
__________________

I then went on to explain that doctored could be a simple as presenting something as something it is not, i.e. a photo taken when it was not. We have exhausted much energy and I remain convinced there is nothing that says to doctor evidence you must physically change it. If the jury believed one photo was doctored by altering, changing or varying the time it was taken to make it decpeptive as to a picture taken at another time, they were free to dismiss the other photos, believing that the other photos may have been likewise doctored, imho. I do not expect this to change you opinion on the words doctored or altered or any synonym for them and I will not change mine as to what I meant when I used it. Ergo, before we bore the posters, who may have other insights to share, might I respectfully suggest that we drop the issue and move on to greater if not better things.

[bobaugust]

I understand and it is now July 3rd and this is a post that was made by me on June 13th, that should have ended the discussion, since I never claimed the photos were doctored.

"I had a chance to review the tape of Rokahr's testimony and those are my feelings after the review. Yes. you are correct-intimations as to the times the photos were taken and implications as to the dates they were taken.

The word I gave the definition for was doctored, and, if you did not understand how I used the word then I think the proper thing to do would be to ask in which context I was using the word, before calling my claims, which I never claimed-only that the defense presented such evidence and the possibility that the jury believed the defense's version, false."
__________________

I then went on to explain that doctored could be a simple as presenting something as something it is not, i.e. a photo taken when it was not. We have exhausted much energy and I remain convinced there is nothing that says to doctor evidence you must physically change it. If the jury believed one photo was doctored by altering, changing or varying the time it was taken to make it decpeptive as to a picture taken at another time, they were free to dismiss the other photos, believing that the other photos may have been likewise doctored, imho. I do not expect this to change you opinion on the words doctored or altered or any synonym for them and I will not change mine as to what I meant when I used it. Ergo, before we bore the posters, who may have other insights to share, might I respectfully suggest that we drop the issue and move on to greater if not better things.

You are so wrong. First of all to doctor a photograph means to alter it or change it. Simply to claim that the photograph was taken two hours before the evidence tells us it was taken is not doctoring. Not only can't you seem to comprehend that reality but you don't know what the criminal trial jurors believed about that photograph since no attorney in this case ever suggested or claimed any crime scene photograph was doctored.

The thread, A Silent Murder? Page 15 Post #598 6/29/07 William Anthony
"The fact remains that there was evidence that the photo was not what it was represented to be (doctored)"

I understand why you want to drop the subject since you have the ridiculous belief that a photograph is doctored by words and you can't admit you are wrong. Your claim that any crime scene photograph was doctored is a false claim.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You are so wrong. First of all to doctor a photograph means to alter it or change it. Simply to claim that the photograph was taken two hours before the evidence tells us it was taken is not doctoring. Not only can't you seem to comprehend that reality but you don't know what the criminal trial jurors believed about that photograph since no attorney in this case ever suggested or claimed any crime scene photograph was doctored.

The thread, A Silent Murder? Page 15 Post #598 6/29/07 William Anthony
"The fact remains that there was evidence that the photo was not what it was represented to be (doctored)"

I understand why you want to drop the subject since you have the ridiculous belief that a photograph is doctored by words and you can't admit you are wrong. Your claim that any crime scene photograph was doctored is a false claim.

bobaugust

First, you well know that I did not claim any photo was doctored. I was speaking of the evidence the defense provided. You want to change every post that I make to a claim, when they are just another way to look at the evidence and is opposed to your false claim to know the truth, facts and reality. I know it burns you that the dictionay does not support your false claim that something has to be physically altered or changed in order to be doctored. You spend so much time trying to prove me wrong that you now want to disagree with the experts who wrote the dictionary or use those mind reading abilities that permeate your posts to say that you know what the author of publisher of the dictionary meant. I do not know what they meant, but I do believe they meant what they said and were not so lazy as to not write or type the word physically in front of altered, changed or doctored. You seem to want to disagree with any expert, including those on the English language, when the evidence they offer does not support your false claims. I for one do not have the the knowledge to disagree with the experts, which is why I point to the evidence and watch tapes of their testimony before I say that, imho, there is reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

You are so wrong. First of all to doctor a photograph means to alter it or change it. Simply to claim that the photograph was taken two hours before the evidence tells us it was taken is not doctoring. Not only can't you seem to comprehend that reality but you don't know what the criminal trial jurors believed about that photograph since no attorney in this case ever suggested or claimed any crime scene photograph was doctored.

The thread, A Silent Murder? Page 15 Post #598 6/29/07 William Anthony
"The fact remains that there was evidence that the photo was not what it was represented to be (doctored)"

I understand why you want to drop the subject since you have the ridiculous belief that a photograph is doctored by words and you can't admit you are wrong. Your claim that any crime scene photograph was doctored is a false claim.

bobaugust

First, you well know that I did not claim any photo was doctored. I was speaking of the evidence the defense provided, showing that they could have been doctored. You want to change every post that I make to a claim, when they are just another way to look at the evidence and is opposed to your false claim to know the truth, facts and reality. I know it burns you that the dictionay does not support your false claim that something has to be physically altered or changed in order to be doctored. You spend so much time trying to prove me wrong that you now want to disagree with the experts who wrote the dictionary or use those mind reading abilities that permeate your posts to say that you know what the author of publisher of the dictionary meant. I do not know what they meant, but I do believe they meant what they said and were not so lazy as to not write or type the word physically in front of altered, changed or doctored. You seem to want to disagree with any expert, including those on the English language, when the evidence they offer does not support your false claims. I for one do not have the the knowledge to disagree with the experts, which is why I point to the evidence and watch tapes of their testimony before I say that, imho, there is reasonable doubt.

Again my post and my explanation.

"The fact remains that there was evidence that the photo was not what it was represented to be (doctored)

The photo was presented to be a photo taken in the daylight and the evidence, was the testimony saying it was taken at night. Ergo, the evidence was that the photo was doctored by the testimony showing that it was not what it was represented to be, i. e. a photo taken in the daylight, which change, altered the details/the time the photo was taken, imho.

[weezer]

First, you well know that I did not claim any photo was doctored. I was speaking of the evidence the defense provided, showing that they could have been doctored. You want to change every post that I make to a claim, when they are just another way to look at the evidence and is opposed to your false claim to know the truth, facts and reality. I know it burns you that the dictionay does not support your false claim that something has to be physically altered or changed in order to be doctored. You spend so much time trying to prove me wrong that you now want to disagree with the experts who wrote the dictionary or use those mind reading abilities that permeate your posts to say that you know what the author of publisher of the dictionary meant. I do not know what they meant, but I do believe they meant what they said and were not so lazy as to not write or type the word physically in front of altered, changed or doctored. You seem to want to disagree with any expert, including those on the English language, when the evidence they offer does not support your false claims. I for one do not have the the knowledge to disagree with the experts, which is why I point to the evidence and watch tapes of their testimony before I say that, imho, there is reasonable doubt.

Again my post and my explanation.

"The fact remains that there was evidence that the photo was not what it was represented to be (doctored)

The photo was presented to be a photo taken in the daylight and the evidence, was the testimony saying it was taken at night. Ergo, the evidence was that the photo was doctored by the testimony showing that it was not what it was represented to be, i. e. a photo taken in the daylight, which change, altered the details/the time the photo was taken, imho.

I don't know why you are so insistent on this. The fact is, you are the one redoing the definition in the dictionary -- not bobaugust.

As I see it, your argument is really authentication. Had there not been a foundation laid to support the prosecution's contention, the photo would not have been admitted as evidence. Or, maybe the introduction of the photo could have been used in the appeal. The photo was allowed and orenthal's appeal failed. imo

[William Anthony]

I don't know why you are so insistent on this. The fact is, you are the one redoing the definition in the dictionary -- not bobaugust.

As I see it, your argument is really authentication. Had there not been a foundation laid to support the prosecution's contention, the photo would not have been admitted as evidence. Or, maybe the introduction of the photo could have been used in the appeal. The photo was allowed and orenthal's appeal failed. imo

I do not know what you are talking about, since there was no need for Simpson to appeal the verdict in the criminal trial. I have poste what the dictionary said and bobaugust has twice admitted that it did not say to physically change. The defense did not object to the photo's admission, because they had aminition to destroy Rokahr's credibilty and the evidence he offered, imho. I think that some may be doctoring or altering (pun intended as a joke) the defition.

[weezer]

I do not know what you are talking about, since there was no need for Simpson to appeal the verdict in the criminal trial. I have poste what the dictionary said and bobaugust has twice admitted that it did not say to physically change. The defense did not object to the photo's admission, because they had aminition to destroy Rokahr's credibilty and the evidence he offered, imho. I think that some may be doctoring or altering (pun intended as a joke) the defition.

doctor and alter are either nouns or verbs -- nothing else. The dictionary does 'say' to 'change' -- and change means to do something physically.

you are being obstinate on this and you are wrong. imo

[William Anthony]

doctor and alter are either nouns or verbs -- nothing else. The dictionary does 'say' to 'change' -- and change means to do something physically.

you are being obstinate on this and you are wrong. imo

From the dictionay I previously cited, Change-"to do or SAY something in many various ways." Pg. 234 Rokahr's testimony changing in order to decieve the time the photo was taken, thereby doctoring the photo, imho.

[weezer]

From the dictionay I previously cited, Change-"to do or SAY something in many various ways." Pg. 234 Rokahr's testimony changing in order to decieve the time the photo was taken, thereby doctoring the photo, imho.

This is foolish -- you did not find a dictionary that gave the definition as you have interpreted.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
change /tʃeɪndʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[cheynj] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, changed, chang·ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one's name; to change one's opinion; to change the course of history.
2. to transform or convert (usually fol. by into): The witch changed the prince into a toad.
3. to substitute another or others for; exchange for something else, usually of the same kind: She changed her shoes when she got home from the office.
4. to give and take reciprocally; interchange: to change places with someone.
5. to transfer from one (conveyance) to another: You'll have to change planes in Chicago.
6. to give or get smaller money in exchange for: to change a five-dollar bill.
7. to give or get foreign money in exchange for: to change dollars into francs.
8. to remove and replace the covering or coverings of: to change a bed; to change a baby.
–verb (used without object) 9. to become different: Overnight the nation's mood changed.
10. to become altered or modified: Colors change if they are exposed to the sun.
11. to become transformed or converted (usually fol. by into): The toad changed into a prince again.
12. to pass gradually into (usually fol. by to or into): Summer changed to autumn.
13. to make a change or an exchange: If you want to sit next to the window, I'll change with you.
14. to transfer between trains or other conveyances: We can take the local and change to an express at the next stop.
15. to change one's clothes: She changed into jeans.
16. (of the moon) to pass from one phase to another.
17. (of the voice) to become deeper in tone; come to have a lower register: The boy's voice began to change when he was thirteen.
–noun 18. the act or fact of changing; fact of being changed.
19. a transformation or modification; alteration: They noticed the change in his facial expression.
20. a variation or deviation: a change in the daily routine.
21. the substitution of one thing for another: We finally made the change to an oil-burning furnace.
22. variety or novelty: Let's try a new restaurant for a change.
23. the passing from one place, state, form, or phase to another: a change of seasons; social change.
24. Jazz. harmonic progression from one tonality to another; modulation.
25. the supplanting of one thing by another.
26. anything that is or may be substituted for another.
27. a fresh set of clothing.
28. money given in exchange for an equivalent of higher denomination.
29. a balance of money that is returned when the sum tendered in payment is larger than the sum due.
30. coins of low denomination.
31. any of the various sequences in which a peal of bells may be rung.
32. Also,'change. British. exchange (def. 10).
33. Obsolete. changefulness; caprice.
—Verb phrase34. change off, a. to take turns with another, as at doing a task.
b. to alternate between two tasks or between a task and a rest break.

—Idioms35. change front, Military. to shift a military force in another direction.
36. change hands. hand (def. 47).
37. change one's mind, to change one's opinions or intentions.
38. ring the changes, a. to perform all permutations possible in ringing a set of tuned bells, as in a bell tower of a church.
b. to vary the manner of performing an action or of discussing a subject; repeat with variations.

[William Anthony]

This is foolish -- you did not find a dictionary that gave the definition as you have interpreted.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
change /tʃeɪndʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[cheynj] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, changed, chang·ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one's name; to change one's opinion; to change the course of history.
2. to transform or convert (usually fol. by into): The witch changed the prince into a toad.
3. to substitute another or others for; exchange for something else, usually of the same kind: She changed her shoes when she got home from the office.
4. to give and take reciprocally; interchange: to change places with someone.
5. to transfer from one (conveyance) to another: You'll have to change planes in Chicago.
6. to give or get smaller money in exchange for: to change a five-dollar bill.
7. to give or get foreign money in exchange for: to change dollars into francs.
8. to remove and replace the covering or coverings of: to change a bed; to change a baby.
–verb (used without object) 9. to become different: Overnight the nation's mood changed.
10. to become altered or modified: Colors change if they are exposed to the sun.
11. to become transformed or converted (usually fol. by into): The toad changed into a prince again.
12. to pass gradually into (usually fol. by to or into): Summer changed to autumn.
13. to make a change or an exchange: If you want to sit next to the window, I'll change with you.
14. to transfer between trains or other conveyances: We can take the local and change to an express at the next stop.
15. to change one's clothes: She changed into jeans.
16. (of the moon) to pass from one phase to another.
17. (of the voice) to become deeper in tone; come to have a lower register: The boy's voice began to change when he was thirteen.
–noun 18. the act or fact of changing; fact of being changed.
19. a transformation or modification; alteration: They noticed the change in his facial expression.
20. a variation or deviation: a change in the daily routine.
21. the substitution of one thing for another: We finally made the change to an oil-burning furnace.
22. variety or novelty: Let's try a new restaurant for a change.
23. the passing from one place, state, form, or phase to another: a change of seasons; social change.
24. Jazz. harmonic progression from one tonality to another; modulation.
25. the supplanting of one thing by another.
26. anything that is or may be substituted for another.
27. a fresh set of clothing.
28. money given in exchange for an equivalent of higher denomination.
29. a balance of money that is returned when the sum tendered in payment is larger than the sum due.
30. coins of low denomination.
31. any of the various sequences in which a peal of bells may be rung.
32. Also,'change. British. exchange (def. 10).
33. Obsolete. changefulness; caprice.
—Verb phrase34. change off, a. to take turns with another, as at doing a task.
b. to alternate between two tasks or between a task and a rest break.

—Idioms35. change front, Military. to shift a military force in another direction.
36. change hands. hand (def. 47).
37. change one's mind, to change one's opinions or intentions.
38. ring the changes, a. to perform all permutations possible in ringing a set of tuned bells, as in a bell tower of a church.
b. to vary the manner of performing an action or of discussing a subject; repeat with variations.


I just gave the page and have previously cited the dictionary. Please, do not say that what I posted is not in there, There is something in the dictionary that says Library of Congress cataloging-in-Publication Data, E. Neufedlt, editor in chief-3rd college ed.

[bobaugust]

First, you well know that I did not claim any photo was doctored. I was speaking of the evidence the defense provided, showing that they could have been doctored. You want to change every post that I make to a claim, when they are just another way to look at the evidence and is opposed to your false claim to know the truth, facts and reality. I know it burns you that the dictionay does not support your false claim that something has to be physically altered or changed in order to be doctored. You spend so much time trying to prove me wrong that you now want to disagree with the experts who wrote the dictionary or use those mind reading abilities that permeate your posts to say that you know what the author of publisher of the dictionary meant. I do not know what they meant, but I do believe they meant what they said and were not so lazy as to not write or type the word physically in front of altered, changed or doctored. You seem to want to disagree with any expert, including those on the English language, when the evidence they offer does not support your false claims. I for one do not have the the knowledge to disagree with the experts, which is why I point to the evidence and watch tapes of their testimony before I say that, imho, there is reasonable doubt.

Again my post and my explanation.

"The fact remains that there was evidence that the photo was not what it was represented to be (doctored)

The photo was presented to be a photo taken in the daylight and the evidence, was the testimony saying it was taken at night. Ergo, the evidence was that the photo was doctored by the testimony showing that it was not what it was represented to be, i. e. a photo taken in the daylight, which change, altered the details/the time the photo was taken, imho.

No attorney in this case in either trial ever claimed, suggested, or intimated that any crime scene photograph was doctored. YOU are the who said that and you continue to say it. That claim is false.

Every dictionary definition of the word doctored says the same thing, to alter, to change, to make different. The crime scene photograph was never altered, changed, or made different. The only issue the defense raised was the time of day the photograph was taken based only on the testimony of the photographer who took the photograph. The photographer was not well when they interviewed him and could not remember the exact time of day he took the photograph. The time of day the photograph was taken could not be determined by what the photograph showed.

There was no evidence that photograph was taken at night only the confused testimony of the photographer. All of the other evidence is that it was taken at dawn two hours later than the time the defense tried to claim. The photograph was always represented as to what it showed, Mark Fuhrman pointing to the glove at Bundy.

You're the only one who has ever used the word doctored regarding any crime scene photograph in this case. To justify your use of the word you point to the dictionary definition. Yet the dictionary definition does not support your interpretation regarding a photograph.

YOUR claim that a crime scene photograph was doctored is a false claim.

bobaugust

[weezer]

I just gave the page and have previously cited the dictionary. Please, do not say that what I posted is not in there, There is something in the dictionary that says Library of Congress cataloging-in-Publication Data, E. Neufedlt, editor in chief-3rd college ed.

IIRC, you did not cite the link but rather extracted a portion of a post by someone else. There is no definition for your use of the word.

[William Anthony]

IIRC, you did not cite the link but rather extracted a portion of a post by someone else. There is no definition for your use of the word.

You do not recall correctly as Bobaugust made the claim that I did not cite the dictionary and I reposted the post with the citation. I have not extracted a portion of anyone's post on this issue other than yours, I believe, to add support to my statement on the meaning of doctored as it related to evidence. Please, do not say that the hard copy that I have does not say what I posted without providing a link to support your accusation, since you made this statement as a fact.

[weezer]

You do not recall correctly as Bobaugust made the claim that I did not cite the dictionary and I reposted the post with the citation. I have not extracted a portion of anyone's post on this issue other than yours, I believe, to add support to my statement on the meaning of doctored as it related to evidence. Please, do not say that the hard copy that I have does not say what I posted without providing a link to support your accusation, since you made this statement as a fact.

there is no dictionary that gives the definition as you have stated it. imo

[William Anthony]

there is no dictionary that gives the definition as you have stated it. imo


It is word for word.

[weezer]

It is word for word.

there is no dictionary that gives the definition as you have stated it. imo

[William Anthony]

there is no dictionary that gives the definition as you have stated it. imo

I see you changed it to imo, now. When I asked you for a link, smile. I do not engage in lies on this board, since when I become a lawyer my credibility, and some question it now (smile) will be an issue.

[weezer]

I see you changed it to imo, now. When I asked you for a link, smile. I do not engage in lies on this board, since when I become a lawyer my credibility, and some question it now (smile) will be an issue.

you need to pay more attention to detail (smile) -- I did not need to change my post since I cut and pasted the same answer -- the 'imo' was on the first post also.

[William Anthony]

you need to pay more attention to detail (smile) -- I did not need to change my post since I cut and pasted the same answer -- the 'imo' was on the first post also.

As a general statement you are correct that I need to pay more attention to detail, due to my chosen career path. However, in this particular instance I did (smile). You seem to be speaking of two posts but forgot your post that came before it, post #138. Here it is.

"IIRC, you did not cite the link but rather extracted a portion of a post by someone else. There is no definition for your use of the word."

As you can see this was not stated as an opinion but as fact, so I ask you to back that statement of fact up with a link.

[bobaugust]

You do not recall correctly as Bobaugust made the claim that I did not cite the dictionary and I reposted the post with the citation. I have not extracted a portion of anyone's post on this issue other than yours, I believe, to add support to my statement on the meaning of doctored as it related to evidence. Please, do not say that the hard copy that I have does not say what I posted without providing a link to support your accusation, since you made this statement as a fact.

The dictionary definition of the word doctored you posted was "to change in order to deceive." The fact is that no crime scene photograph was ever changed let alone changed in order to deceive. Your claim that a crime scene photograph was doctored is a false claim.

bobaugust

[weezer]

As a general statement you are correct that I need to pay more attention to detail, due to my chosen career path. However, in this particular instance I did (smile). You seem to be speaking of two posts but forgot your post that came before it, post #138. Here it is.

"IIRC, you did not cite the link but rather extracted a portion of a post by someone else. There is no definition for your use of the word."

As you can see this was not stated as an opinion but as fact, so I ask you to back that statement of fact up with a link.

Good Gawd but you are tiresome (smile). I have posted numerous excerpts and links for definitions -- none of which support your use of the word. You, however, have not posted a link to your statement -- that I can find. Please repost and we can end this debate.

[William Anthony]

Good Gawd but you are tiresome (smile). I have posted numerous excerpts and links for definitions -- none of which support your use of the word. You, however, have not posted a link to your statement -- that I can find. Please repost and we can end this debate.

What is making me tired is reposting things I have already posted and you not doing likewise when I request you to so do (smile). I am sorry that you cannot find it-but I am not going to search for the post again. The debate can be ended without me reposting, if you would post the links to the pigentoed shoeprints found at Bundy and a link showing that the definition I posted is not in the dictionary (smile). I do not perceive the same degree of hostilty in your posts as I perceive in the Others' posts. So, I will be happy to continue the discussion with you once you post the links I requested, please.

[weezer]

What is making me tired is reposting things I have already posted and you not doing likewise when I request you to so do (smile). I am sorry that you cannot find it-but I am not going to search for the post again. The debate can be ended without me reposting, if you would post the links to the pigentoed shoeprints found at Bundy and a link showing that the definition I posted is not in the dictionary (smile). I do not perceive the same degree of hostilty in your posts as I perceive in the Others' posts. So, I will be happy to continue the discussion with you once you post the links I requested, please.

nah -- I think I'll just pass. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

nah -- I think I'll just pass. :seeya:

I am not surprised (smile).

[martin II]

nah -- I think I'll just pass. :seeya:

I have looked at testimony but have not found any testimony of any PIGEON TOED foot print found at bundy as you have claimed so many times.


I have reviewed Bodiaz's drawings and have found no pigeon toed prints in this exhibit.

If there is such testimony you could give us a link to this proof and then i could agree with you.

can you give a link to your proof or direct me to any link you have posted previously to prove your claim.

just to say i posted this without proof of doing so will not prove anything.
Thanks in advance.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I have looked at testimony but have not found any testimony of any PIGEON TOED foot print found at bundy as you have claimed so many times.



The link for this has been posted in the past & others have pointed this out to you.

[weezer]

*Snipped*. . . just to say i posted this without proof of doing so will not prove anything."

good one! :seeya:

[William Anthony]

There has been much discussion over word doctored related to the possibility that the photo of MF pointing to the glove was taken at night as opposed to in the daylight . Why? Imho, if the photo was taken at night before LE left to go to Rockingham and combined with what may or may not be the MF's slip or non-slip of the tongue, then there is evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude, if they believe the testimony of the MF's animus toward interracial couples, imho, the glove at Rockingham could have been placed there by someone who admitted, whether true or untrue, to making up evidence (the pulling off of a junkie's old scab). I would also like to say that we should remember it was not the defense's duty to prove anything, imho. Imho, these reasonable inferences lead to reasonable doubt on that issue.

[bobaugust]

There has been much discussion over word doctored related to the possibility that the photo of MF pointing to the glove was taken at night as opposed to in the daylight . Why? Imho, if the photo was taken at night before LE left to go to Rockingham and combined with what may or may not be the MF's slip or non-slip of the tongue, then there is evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude, if they believe the testimony of the MF's animus toward interracial couples, imho, the glove at Rockingham could have been placed there by someone who admitted, whether true or untrue, to making up evidence (the pulling off of a junkie's old scab). I would also like to say that we should remember it was not the defense's duty to prove anything, imho. Imho, these reasonable inferences lead to reasonable doubt on that issue.

The photograph of Mark Fuhrman pointing to the glove documents the evidence that every witness including Mark Fuhrman testified to seeing at Bundy. One glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at the feet of Ron Goldman.

There is no evidence that there was a second glove at Bundy, only in the imagination of some people who refuse to accept the reality of the actual evidence in this case.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The photograph of Mark Fuhrman pointing to the glove documents the evidence that every witness including Mark Fuhrman testified to seeing at Bundy. One glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at the feet of Ron Goldman.

There is no evidence that there was a second glove at Bundy, only in the imagination of some people who refuse to accept the reality of the actual evidence in this case.

bobaugust

You know what the evidence is even if you do not want to accept it. MF's testimony when asked specifically about the Bundy glove responed with the word them and had not been asked a question about the knit cap in two prior pages of testimony. You can say that it is your opinion that there was no evidence of a second glove at Bundy, but people reading and watching the testimony are free to form their own opinions of what he said or meant, imho.
He could have said I saw the glove and the cap, but he was asked about the glove and said them, and then state it was a slip of the tongue and then stated it was not a slip of the tongue, or vice versa. The reality of the evidence, imho, is that his testimony changed as his tongue slid, if not slipped, imho.

[bobaugust]

You know what the evidence is even if you do not want to accept it. MF's testimony when asked specifically about the Bundy glove responed with the word them and had not been asked a question about the knit cap in two prior pages of testimony. You can say that it is your opinion that there was no evidence of a second glove at Bundy, but people reading and watching the testimony are free to form their own opinions of what he said or meant, imho.
He could have said I saw the glove and the cap, but he was asked about the glove and said them, and then state it was a slip of the tongue and then stated it was not a slip of the tongue, or vice versa. The reality of the evidence, imho, is that his testimony changed as his tongue slid, if not slipped, imho.

It's unbelievable that you continue to argue that Fuhrman said there were two gloves under the plant at Bundy. You are as wrong about that as you are about your belief that words can doctor a photograph.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

It's unbelievable that you continue to argue that Fuhrman said there were two gloves under the plant at Bundy. You are as wrong about that as you are about your belief that words can doctor a photograph.

bobaugust

Imho, what is unbelievable is that you rely on transcripts and that testimony has been posted. However, you will not rely on what the transcript says in this instance, imho. Another thing that I have noticed, you have stated that Simpson was a liar and intimated that I was, but, yet you have not called anyone of witnesses not of the Black race a liar (you say confusion, mistakes and human error), with the exception or MF, who you say lied about something irrelevant or immaterial, although he was convicted of perjury.

[bobaugust]

Imho, what is unbelievable is that you rely on transcripts and that testimony has been posted. However, you will not rely on what the transcript says in this instance, imho. Another thing that I have noticed, you have stated that Simpson was a liar and intimated that I was, but, yet you have not called anyone of witnesses not of the Black race a liar (you say confusion, mistakes and human error), with the exception or MF, who you say lied about something irrelevant or immaterial, although he was convicted of perjury.

In the preliminary hearing when Fuhrman said the word "them" he was referring to the evidence under the plant at the male victims feet that he had previously testified to seeing on direct questioning, a glove and a knit cap. Fuhrman's testimony didn't change and his testimony is very clear that he saw what every other witness who testified about the evidence at Bundy saw. There is no evidence of a second glove at Bundy.

In the criminal trial the only witnesses who were found to have lied under oath were Mark Fuhrman about not saying the "n" word in the last ten years and Arnelle Simpson who lied about what door she opened to let the police into Simpson's house. In the civil trial the only witnesses who were found to have lied under oath was Orenthal James Simpson who told numerous lies about his fabricated changing alibi and all the incriminating evidence against him, Arnelle Simpson who lied again about what door she opened to let the police into Simpson's house, And Skip Taft who lied about the cuts he saw on Simpson's fingers.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

In the preliminary hearing when Fuhrman said the word "them" he was referring to the evidence under the plant at the male victims feet that he had previously testified to seeing on direct questioning, a glove and a knit cap. Fuhrman's testimony didn't change and his testimony is very clear that he saw what every other witness who testified about the evidence at Bundy saw. There is no evidence of a second glove at Bundy.

In the criminal trial the only witnesses who were found to have lied under oath were Mark Fuhrman about not saying the "n" word in the last ten years and Arnelle Simpson who lied about what door she opened to let the police into Simpson's house. In the civil trial the only witnesses who were found to have lied under oath was Orenthal James Simpson who told numerous lies about his fabricated changing alibi and all the incriminating evidence against him, Arnelle Simpson who lied again about what door she opened to let the police into Simpson's house, And Skip Taft who lied about the cuts he saw on Simpson's fingers.

bobaugust

This has nothing to do with the race of the people you previously stated or intimated they lied, while those of another race were mistaken, confused, ill, or made humana error, according to you. One can say that they were not mistaken, confused ill or made human error, imho. Your assetion does not take into account that he was asked specifically about the glove when he said them and had not been asked about the knit cap in two pages or the trasncript. You are entitled to your opinion even if it is not supported by the evidence, imho. The fact that others only saw one glove could mean that MF saw the other one and confiscated it before they saw it, or that they were mistaken, confused or made human error, imho.

[martin II]

This has nothing to do with the race of the people you previously stated or intimated they lied, while those of another race were mistaken, confused, ill, or made humana error, according to you. One can say that they were not mistaken, confused ill or made human error, imho. Your assetion does not take into account that he was asked specifically about the glove when he said them and had not been asked about the knit cap in two pages or the trasncript. You are entitled to your opinion even if it is not supported by the evidence, imho. The fact that others only saw one glove could mean that MF saw the other one and confiscated it before they saw it, or that they were mistaken, confused or made human error, imho.

while he was in the back alley of bundy.

imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

This has nothing to do with the race of the people you previously stated or intimated they lied, while those of another race were mistaken, confused, ill, or made humana error, according to you. One can say that they were not mistaken, confused ill or made human error, imho. Your assetion does not take into account that he was asked specifically about the glove when he said them and had not been asked about the knit cap in two pages or the trasncript. You are entitled to your opinion even if it is not supported by the evidence, imho. The fact that others only saw one glove could mean that MF saw the other one and confiscated it before they saw it, or that they were mistaken, confused or made human error, imho.

Correction, Your assetion does not take into account that he was asked specifically about the glove when he said them and had not been asked about the knit cap in the preceeding two pages of the trasncript.

[William Anthony]

while he was in the back alley of bundy.

imo
martin II


Martin,

Some will say that he would have been foolish to take the glove not knowing, if Simpson had an air-tight alibi, or whether the blood belonged to someone else. He would not have been so foolish, if his intention was to implicate Simpson in the murders. This is not to say he did, but another way of looking at the issues raised by the defense. Given his use of the word them, his knowledge of the alleged three thumps on the wall, and the testimony of his animus toward interracial couples, it is not unreasonble to draw an inference that he wanted to implicate Simpson in the murders, imho.

[martin II]

Martin,

Some will say that he would have been foolish to take the glove not knowing, if Simpson had an air-tight alibi, or whether the blood belonged to someone else. He would not have been so foolish, if his intention was to implicate Simpson in the murders. This is not to say he did, but another way of looking at the issues raised by the defense. Given his use of the word them, his knowledge of the alleged three thumps on the wall, and the testimony of his animus toward interracial couples, it is not unreasonble to draw an inference that he wanted to implicate Simpson in the murders, imho.

After it was learned that a victim was nicole simpson it did not take furhman
long to mentally think of oj. imo
The glove being found on ojs property would be bad news for oj even if the blood on the glove was not his.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

After it was learned that a victim was nicole simpson it did not take furhman
long to mentally think of oj. imo
The glove being found on ojs property would be bad news for oj even if the blood on the glove was not his.imo
martin II


Martin,

As it turned out to be, even though there was evidence that it did not fit him.

[William Anthony]

After it was learned that a victim was nicole simpson it did not take furhman
long to mentally think of oj. imo
The glove being found on ojs property would be bad news for oj even if the blood on the glove was not his.imo
martin II

Martin,

As it turned ou to be, even though there was evidence that it did not fit. Do you know, if the glove fitting evidence was admitted in the civil trial, i.e. by way of video tape?

[martin II]

Martin,

As it turned ou to be, even though there was evidence that it did not fit. Do you know, if the glove fitting evidence was admitted in the civil trial, i.e. by way of video tape?

william

i am not sure if a video was shown but i think Rubin came back to testify.
I am sure Rubin was pleased that Cochran did not do the cross of him in the civil trial.imo

martin II

[bobaugust]

This has nothing to do with the race of the people you previously stated or intimated they lied, while those of another race were mistaken, confused, ill, or made humana error, according to you. One can say that they were not mistaken, confused ill or made human error, imho. Your assetion does not take into account that he was asked specifically about the glove when he said them and had not been asked about the knit cap in two pages or the trasncript. You are entitled to your opinion even if it is not supported by the evidence, imho. The fact that others only saw one glove could mean that MF saw the other one and confiscated it before they saw it, or that they were mistaken, confused or made human error, imho.

This has nothing to do with race. You're one who raised that issue, not me. And you still can't seem to comprehend what the testimony was about when Fuhrman said the word "them". Uelmen was asking Fuhrman about the same thing he told Clark in direct questioning, where he was when he saw the glove under the plant. When Fuhrman said the word "them" he was speaking about the evidence he saw at the feet of Ron Goldman, a glove and a knit cap. The past two pages of his testimony is meaningless to this issue. The only time Fuhrman had been asked previously about this evidence was on direct when Clark asked him about it and that was evidently further back then two pages of testimony. Uelmen understood what Fuhrman meant when he said the word "them" and continued to ask Fuhrman about the one glove he saw.

Mark Fuhrman testified to seeing one glove and one knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron Goldman's feet the same as every other witness who testified about this including witnesses who were at Bundy before Fuhrman had even arrived there. There is no evidence of a second glove at Bundy. Period. Simpson took his right hand glove with him when he left Bundy.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Martin,

As it turned ou to be, even though there was evidence that it did not fit. Do you know, if the glove fitting evidence was admitted in the civil trial, i.e. by way of video tape?

william

the video of oj trying on the gloves in the criminal trial was played without audio. i think with strong objections of PETROCELLI

martinii

[William Anthony]

This has nothing to do with race. You're one who raised that issue, not me. And you still can't seem to comprehend what the testimony was about when Fuhrman said the word "them". Uelmen was asking Fuhrman about the same thing he told Clark in direct questioning, where he was when he saw the glove under the plant. When Fuhrman said the word "them" he was speaking about the evidence he saw at the feet of Ron Goldman, a glove and a knit cap. The past two pages of his testimony is meaningless to this issue. The only time Fuhrman had been asked previously about this evidence was on direct when Clark asked him about it and that was evidently further back then two pages of testimony. Uelmen understood what Fuhrman meant when he said the word "them" and continued to ask Fuhrman about the one glove he saw.

Mark Fuhrman testified to seeing one glove and one knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron Goldman's feet the same as every other witness who testified about this including witnesses who were at Bundy before Fuhrman had even arrived there. There is no evidence of a second glove at Bundy. Period. Simpson took his right hand glove with him when he left Bundy.

bobaugust

The past two pages are not meaningless to the issue, imho, since Bailey pointed to the fact that he had not been asked about the cap in the prior two pages of the transcript from the preliminary hearing. Perhaps, you do not understand the purpose of a preliminary, which might be to get the trial dismissed, or to get a preview of the evidence and the witnesses. The fact that Ulemen was not the one to cross the MF at the time of trial speaks volumes, imho. Bailey destoryed MF on the witness stand, imho, to include his slip of the tongue (the MF's testimony) and non-slip of the tongue (his testimony) and his testimony that he was asked specifically about the glove and his testimony that he had not been asked about the cap in the prior two pages.

Simpson was never placed behing the quarters where the right hand glove was found, but the MF was.

[William Anthony]

william

i am not sure if a video was shown but i think Rubin came back to testify.
I am sure Rubin was pleased that Cochran did not do the cross of him in the civil trial.imo

martin II

Martin,

I whole heartedly agree. I think they should have shown the video of his testimony in the criminal trial with the audio.

[William Anthony]

This has nothing to do with race. You're one who raised that issue, not me. And you still can't seem to comprehend what the testimony was about when Fuhrman said the word "them". Uelmen was asking Fuhrman about the same thing he told Clark in direct questioning, where he was when he saw the glove under the plant. When Fuhrman said the word "them" he was speaking about the evidence he saw at the feet of Ron Goldman, a glove and a knit cap. The past two pages of his testimony is meaningless to this issue. The only time Fuhrman had been asked previously about this evidence was on direct when Clark asked him about it and that was evidently further back then two pages of testimony. Uelmen understood what Fuhrman meant when he said the word "them" and continued to ask Fuhrman about the one glove he saw.

Mark Fuhrman testified to seeing one glove and one knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron Goldman's feet the same as every other witness who testified about this including witnesses who were at Bundy before Fuhrman had even arrived there. There is no evidence of a second glove at Bundy. Period. Simpson took his right hand glove with him when he left Bundy.

bobaugust

I did not say it had to do with race and simply made a quizzical observation and inartfully asked you to explain how you determine who is mistaken, making human error or confused. Oh, someone wrote a book saying Rokahr was ill and confused, so we can leave him out. What about the Thano P?

[Kate Sachel]

This question is specifically for you, Kate. Are you saying that the civil jury could find, conclude or consider Simpson liable for murder?

I'm back from a much needed week long vacation in Fiji, and feel refreshed enough to respond.

No, that is not what I am technically saying since that wasn't the question posed to the jurors. One of the questions was "do you find ... that defendant Orenthal James Simpson ... willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman". However, I'm pointing out the fact that, considering how Ron Goldman died, answering "yes" to that question cannot mean anything other than that Simpson killed him.

As for Nicole ... the jury was not even asked to find if they believe that Simpson caused her death but rather only if Simpson committed battery upon her.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I'm back from a much needed week long vacation in Fiji, and feel refreshed enough to respond.

No, that is not what I am technically saying since that wasn't the question posed to the jurors. One of the questions was "do you find ... that defendant Orenthal James Simpson ... willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman". However, I'm pointing out the fact that, considering how Ron Goldman died, answering "yes" to that question cannot mean anything other than that Simpson killed him.

As for Nicole ... the jury was not even asked to find if they believe that Simpson caused her death but rather only if Simpson committed battery upon her.

Kate

I too had to do something refreshing, so I took a long bath and got a good night's rest. The reason the question was not posed was that they could not legally enter a verdict stating they found him liable for murder, agreed?

If agreeable, we can then go on to discuss the rest of your post, because we have always maintained a degree of civility.

[tv]

Martin,

Some will say that he would have been foolish to take the glove not knowing, if Simpson had an air-tight alibi, or whether the blood belonged to someone else. He would not have been so foolish, if his intention was to implicate Simpson in the murders. This is not to say he did, but another way of looking at the issues raised by the defense. Given his use of the word them, his knowledge of the alleged three thumps on the wall, and the testimony of his animus toward interracial couples, it is not unreasonble to draw an inference that he wanted to implicate Simpson in the murders, imho.William, I'm sure this has been discussed before, but why would Mark Fuhrman risk his career to frame OJ Simpson for murder after going easy on him when called to an domestic disturbance between Simpson and Nicole an earlier date?

To me, that simply flies in the face of any kind of logic.

[tv]

Martin,

As it turned ou to be, even though there was evidence that it did not fit. Do you know, if the glove fitting evidence was admitted in the civil trial, i.e. by way of video tape? Of course it appeared it didn't fit; he was wearing a latex glove under it in addition to doing the best acting of his career...the whole demonstration was ridiculous and the prosecution should have been embarrassed for wanting to do it.

[tv]

Imho, what is unbelievable is that you rely on transcripts and that testimony has been posted. However, you will not rely on what the transcript says in this instance, imho. Another thing that I have noticed, you have stated that Simpson was a liar and intimated that I was, but, yet you have not called anyone of witnesses not of the Black race a liar (you say confusion, mistakes and human error), with the exception or MF, who you say lied about something irrelevant or immaterial, although he was convicted of perjury.I'm convinced the perjury conviction of Det. Mark Fuhrman was a purely political production. :)

[William Anthony]

William, I'm sure this has been discussed before, but why would Mark Fuhrman risk his career to frame OJ Simpson for murder after going easy on him when called to an domestic disturbance between Simpson and Nicole an earlier date?

To me, that simply flies in the face of any kind of logic.

tvdinner,

Yes, it has been discussed before but I do not see his intentions, if he did it, so risky. He could have been trying to implicate not frame Simpson for the murders. In other words show that Simpson had some knowledge of or had some culpability in the murders. I know of instances when White women were abused by the Black men and the police refused to do anything, saying the women got what they deserved. History tells us that Black women were abused by White men and nothing was done. I am only offering another way to view the evidence by infering that his failure to act in the abuse incident may have been motivated more by a gender prejudice than by his hatred of iinterracial couples. However, when given the chance he could have decided to act on his aforementioned hatred. If Simpson had an alibi at the times of the thumps and the blood did not match his, as alleged, the MF could have said the murder intended to kill Simpson but something changed his mind. This would not contain the degree of risk that many believe, if he only intended to implicate Simpson.

[William Anthony]

I'm convinced the perjury conviction of Det. Mark Fuhrman was a purely political production. :)

I am on the fense on that issue. I do not know wheter or not the lie was relevant as MF did the smart thing and plead the 5th. I think that there would have been further investigations into his conduct, if he had plead not guilty as opposed to no lo contendre.

[William Anthony]

Of course it appeared it didn't fit; he was wearing a latex glove under it in addition to doing the best acting of his career...the whole demonstration was ridiculous and the prosecution should have been embarrassed for wanting to do it.

I think that for whatever reasons, which could be those that you have mentioned the gloves did more than appeared to not fit-they did not fit. Yes, I agree the demonstration was ridiculous. I do not think he had to act, partially because of the reasons you have mentioned. Think about the impression the jury was left with a pair of gloves that did not fit that were found/pointe to by a detective who had racial animosity and admitted on tape, whether true or not, to fabricating/planting evidence and the defense suggested the detective planted the glove on Simpson's property.

[martin II]

tvdinner,

Yes, it has been discussed before but I do not see his intentions, if he did it, so risky. He could have been trying to implicate not frame Simpson for the murders. In other words show that Simpson had some knowledge of or had some culpability in the murders. I know of instances when White women were abused by the Black men and the police refused to do anything, saying the women got what they deserved. History tells us that Black women were abused by White men and nothing was done. I am only offering another way to view the evidence by infering that his failure to act in the abuse incident may have been motivated more by a gender prejudice than by his hatred of iinterracial couples. However, when given the chance he could have decided to act on his aforementioned hatred. If Simpson had an alibi at the times of the thumps and the blood did not match his, as alleged, the MF could have said the murder intended to kill Simpson but something changed his mind. This would not contain the degree of risk that many believe, if he only intended to implicate Simpson.


william
i tihnk that was one of the excusses le used to try to justify thyeir illegal entry onto ojs property.
'WE WANTED TO BE SURE NO ONE HAD BEEN HURT HERE"

MARTINii

[martin II]

I think that for whatever reasons, which could be those that you have mentioned the gloves did more than appeared to not fit-they did not fit. Yes, I agree the demonstration was ridiculous. I do not think he had to act, partially because of the reasons you have mentioned. Think about the impression the jury was left with a pair of gloves that did not fit that were found/pointe to by a detective who had racial animosity and admitted on tape, whether true or not, to fabricating/planting evidence and the defense suggested the detective planted the glove on Simpson's property.

WILIAM
I AGREE, the gloves DID NOT FIT for reasons the prosecution had obviously ignored. I think Mr Rubin also may have caused the prosecution to believe that would fit. Darden was trying to pull the prosecutions fat out of the fire
and it did not work. imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

I too had to do something refreshing, so I took a long bath and got a good night's rest. The reason the question was not posed was that they could not legally enter a verdict stating they found him liable for murder, agreed?

If agreeable, we can then go on to discuss the rest of your post, because we have always maintained a degree of civility.

The civil trial jury found Simpson liable for killing Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson in the civil case.

bobaugust

[martin II]

WILIAM
I AGREE, the gloves DID NOT FIT for reasons the prosecution had obviously ignored. I think Mr Rubin also may have caused the prosecution to believe that would fit. Darden was trying to pull the prosecutions fat out of the fire
and it did not work. imo
martin II

william
what i found comical is that Mr Rubin and a few of the lawyers tried on the gloves in a effort to try to prove/understand why the gloves did not fit oj.
Also the questions and testimony about that meeting in Dardens office after the gloves did not fit as the prosecution looked for and developed a excuse as to wht the gloves did not fit.
I think at first they said the gloves did fit and the next day they offered shrinkage as to why the gloves did not fit.
The jury may have felt:no:

imo0
martin II

[martin II]

The civil trial jury found Simpson liable for killing Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson in the civil case.

bobaugust

bob

do you have a reason as to why the civil verdict form did not aked if oj KILLED anyone?
martin II

[William Anthony]

WILIAM
I AGREE, the gloves DID NOT FIT for reasons the prosecution had obviously ignored. I think Mr Rubin also may have caused the prosecution to believe that would fit. Darden was trying to pull the prosecutions fat out of the fire
and it did not work. imo
martin II

Martin,

I agree that the prosecution's ship was sinking at that point and that Rubin did not have a life jacket for them.

[William Anthony]

The civil trial jury found Simpson liable for killing Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson in the civil case.

bobaugust

Bobaugust,

I apologize if I failed to address my post to Kate. I was specifically looking for her response since She and I have been able to engage in civil discussions. This is not intended to say that you can not feel free to interject into any discussion. I would ask Kate, if she agrees with this post you posted, or, if she believes that the verdict is that he was liable for the killings. I think she posted that the question was that he battered Nicole, according to her post.

[William Anthony]

william
what i found comical is that Mr Rubin and a few of the lawyers tried on the gloves in a effort to try to prove/understand why the gloves did not fit oj.
Also the questions and testimony about that meeting in Dardens office after the gloves did not fit as the prosecution looked for and developed a excuse as to wht the gloves did not fit.
I think at first they said the gloves did fit and the next day they offered shrinkage as to why the gloves did not fit.
The jury may have felt:no:

imo0
martin II

Martin,

If there was no shrinkage, these gloves should have fit, :) . Maybe, the jury was not as unitelligent as some have posted.

[martin II]

Martin,

If there was no shrinkage, these gloves should have fit, :) . Maybe, the jury was not as unitelligent as some have posted.

william

i agree. Cochran was able to get Rubin to admit that 3cc of water/liquid would
have no effect on the gloves.So i guess this caused the jury to accept that the gloves did not shrink.:shrug:

martin II

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree that the prosecution's ship was sinking at that point and that Rubin did not have a life jacket for them.

william

what looked like a life jacket when they asked oj to put the gloves on actually on second look, turned out to be a anchor.
imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

william

i agree. Cochran was able to get Rubin to admit that 3cc of water/liquid would
have no effect on the gloves.So i guess this caused the jury to accept that the gloves did not shrink.:shrug:

martin II

Martin,

I believe the gloves would have fit someone other than Simpson, even with their hands in laytex. Since the ship was already sinking, imho, I wonder why they did not try that demonstration to show the laytex altered/doctored (a joke, bobaugust) the fit.

[William Anthony]

william

what looked like a life jacket when they asked oj to put the gloves on actually on second look, turned out to be a anchor.
imo
martin II

gurgle, gurgle, gurgle, :) . I think we should clarify that we are not making light of the murders, only the prosecution's demonstration.

[martin II]

gurgle, gurgle, gurgle, :) . I think we should clarify that we are not making light of the murders, only the prosecution's demonstration.


william

i agree.


What is strange is that the prosecution failed to remember the first rule of being a successful lawyer.

NEVER ASK A QUESTION THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO.

MARTIN ii

[William Anthony]

william

i agree.


What is strange is that the prosecution failed to remember the first rule of being a successful lawyer.

NEVER ASK A QUESTION THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO.

MARTIN ii

Correct, and that comes from assuming that you know all the answers, imho.

[martin II]

Martin,

I believe the gloves would have fit someone other than Simpson, even with their hands in laytex. Since the ship was already sinking, imho, I wonder why they did not try that demonstration to show the laytex altered/doctored (a joke, bobaugust) the fit.

WILLIAM

What i found amusing was chris asking the judge to instruct oj as to how to put the gloves on after it was obvious that they did not fit.i think chris wanted a just just give oj a solid right cross on the chin at that point.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

Correct, and that comes from assuming that you know all the answers, imho.

maby Darden was attempting to give the dream team a death blow and ended up falling off the boat himself.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

WILLIAM

What i found amusing was chris asking the judge to instruct oj as to how to put the gloves on after it was obvious that they did not fit.i think chris wanted a just just give oj a solid right cross on the chin at that point.

imo
martin II

Martin,

Or Rubin or both or them.

[martin II]

william
speaking of darden.

In his often repeated oprah interview he made two comments

1. that after the trial he took a leave of absence. one day a reporter called and told him he had been relieved of his position. He called his office and he says he was told he had abandoned his position. he said basically he was fired. That he because a defense lawyer and that cochran helped him get started by sending him clients.

2. That when he looks at furhman now "at how he has been received by the media and other people in high places it makes me want to vomit".

imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

maby Darden was attempting to give the dream team a death blow and ended up falling off the boat himself.imo
martin II

Do you know if Marcia and Chris ever handled a case, after the trial or were asked to become commentators on legal trials?

[martin II]

Martin,

Or Rubin or both or them.

Rubin seemed to be interested in making sure he got a invatation to the prosecution victory party. imo

When Rubin got off the stand he said something to oj. cochran asked him what did he say and Rubin said he told oj 'GOOD LUCK'

martin II

[William Anthony]

william
speaking of darden.

In his often repeated oprah interview he made two comments

1. that after the trial he took a leave of absence. one day a reporter called and told him he had been relieved of his position. He called his office and he says he was told he had abandoned his position. he said basically he was fired. That he because a defense lawyer and that cochran helped him get started by sending him clients.

2. That when he looks at furhman now "at how he has been received by the media and other people in high places it makes me want to vomit".

imo
martin II

Martin,

I think you were posting this at the time I was asking the question. Personally, I think his sickness is a result of envy that he was not so accepted. I do not think I would hire him to defend me.

[William Anthony]

Rubin seemed to be interested in making sure he got a invatation to the prosecution victory party. imo

When Rubin got off the stand he said something to oj. cochran asked him what did he say and Rubin said he told oj 'GOOD LUCK'

martin II

Martin,

Sort of like the executioner saying do not take this personal, :) .

[martin II]

Do you know if Marcia and Chris ever handled a case, after the trial or were asked to become commentators on legal trials?

Chris never worked as a prosecutor again.After some teaching he became a defense lawyer. Marcia was offered and accepted positions as a commentator.
Both made money off of oj as a result of the books they wrote imo
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Martin,

Sort of like the executioner saying do not take this personal, :) .

When D FUNG got off the stand it is reported that he walked over to the defense table and started shaking hands.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

william
what i am thinking is that Gil Garcetti may have or would have had to approve that glove demonstration before Darden did it. But darden sure did take the heat when it failed.

martin II

[William Anthony]

william
what i am thinking is that Gil Garcetti may have or would have had to approve that glove demonstration before Darden did it. But darden sure did take the heat when it failed.

martin II

Martin,

I think it was Darden's puppy that did not grow to become the dog he wanted it to be. I think Garcetti fed the puppy.

[martin II]

Martin,

I think it was Darden's puppy that did not grow to become the dog he wanted it to be. I think Garcetti fed the puppy.

william

I think Garcetti had a use for Darden and this caused Darden to think he was ready to go against Cochran and that 'DREAM TEAM'
But i am not sure the dream team had been assembeled with Cochran as their leader when Darden decided to sit at the prosecutions table.
Shaperio may still have been in charge.
martin II

[socaldiva]

William, I'm sure this has been discussed before, but why would Mark Fuhrman risk his career to frame OJ Simpson for murder after going easy on him when called to an domestic disturbance between Simpson and Nicole an earlier date?

To me, that simply flies in the face of any kind of logic.


And he would have been subject to a prison sentence had he done something of this nature & got caught. If you are caught planting evidence & it's a death penalty case, you could get a sentence of death yourself. Of course this turned out not to be a death penalty case, but that wouldn't have been known on the night of the murders.

btw: how did this thread entitled OJ's new project become a thread about Darden???

[William Anthony]

There is no logic to conduct spured by racial hatred as evidenced by Hitler and his followers.

[socaldiva]

We are not talking about Hitler & there is no evidence that I know of that MF exhibited "racial hatred" while he was a detective. The fact remains that there is no evidence to support him planting or doing anything of that nature in this case.

[William Anthony]

There has been a previous discussion on taking the 5th, and stated that it was to protect a defendant. I have given that some thought and have not reached a conclusion. I know that a defendant does not have to produce any proof, nor can a defendant be compelled to testify. This is different from someone, being called as a witness and then asserting his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, imho. The jury is instuced that they cannot come to a conclusion that the witness did any of the things to which he took the 5th. However, the fact remains that the witness did not deny doing them. Hence, the evidence is that claims were made which MF did not deny and there was evidence that he harbored racial hatred toward interracial couples, and some of the statements made on the tapes were made after he became a detective, such as, if he goes down, the case goes down.

I think that anyone who could say that an entire race of people should be burned and made the statement about going down allows a reasonable inference to be drawn that he did something improper in this case, such as planting the glove, when it is combined with the other previously discussed evidence, imho. I was not discussing Hitler, per se, but using him and his followers as an example of illogical conduct spured by racial hatred.

[socaldiva]

MF comment of the case going down if he went down, seems to have come to be the case, since many seem to like to hang their hat on his perceived actions. As for the questions asked after he plead the 5th, the defense atty was purposely asking inflamatory questions after the initial question, as they knew he would have to continue to plead the 5th on all subsequent questions. IIRC & IMO.

As for Hitler, I believe he was consistent in his behavior. I don't know that his horrific deeds were illogical, but they were certainly evil.

We were talking about the inconsistancy of MF not going after Simpson during a domestic dispute call, yet supposedly setting him up as a murderer years later.

[William Anthony]

I do not see getting someone for an incident of spousal abuse, when a high percentage of the cases are not prosecuted due to the reluctance of victims to testitfy, is inconsistent with someone filled with racial hatred trying to implicate someone in a murder. He could have answered all the questions, but chose to take the 5th. It would have been easy to say that he did not count those incidents since he was allegedly playing a role.

Aside from being evil, I do not think it logical to think you can or should annihilate an entire race of people or engage in conduct to that end. I do not think it logical to allow your hatred to place you in a position that the world is able to question your motivation or conduct.

[socaldiva]

Bottom line: There was ample evidence to charge Hitler with racial hatred & the annilation of thousands of human beings. There was no evidence to support Furhman acting with racial hatred or corruption at Bundy or Rockingham. JMO

[William Anthony]

My opinion of the evidence is somewhat different in that it allows for a reasonable inference to be drawn, keeping in mind that the burden of proof remained on the prosecution. Thus, imho, there was reasonable doubt as to this issue, which remained unresolved through his taking of the 5th and his plea of no contest.

[martin II]

It seems that furhman was consistant in his thoughts as he did say simular things when he was interviewed for his try at retirement as he did to McKenny. Did he think his claims in the retirement interview would also be made into a screen play?

martin II

[socaldiva]

It seems that furhman was consistant in his thoughts as he did say simular things when he was interviewed for his try at retirement as he did to McKenny. Did he think his claims in the retirement interview would also be made into a screen play?

martin II

It wasn't an "attempt at retirement" IIRC, it was an attempt at disability. Obviously LAPD & the mental health experts didn't see him as unfit, or they wouldn't have returned him to work. Also IIRC the internal affairs investigation around the time of the murders turned up nothing untoward in his professional performance.

[William Anthony]

It seems that furhman was consistant in his thoughts as he did say simular things when he was interviewed for his try at retirement as he did to McKenny. Did he think his claims in the retirement interview would also be made into a screen play?

martin II

Martin,

It is said that it is easier to remember the truth than it is a lie.

[socaldiva]

Perhaps that's why Orenthal stuck put his foot in his mouth on multiple occasions & his lies were directly linked to the actual murders. ;)

[William Anthony]

Perhaps, that is why the MF was telling the truth on the tapes and when he applied for disability. Perhaps the truth is easier to remember than mistakes, confusion and human error.

[tv]

There is no logic to conduct spured by racial hatred as evidenced by Hitler and his followers.Willliam, please tell me you're not comparing the indisputable evil of Hitler to the perception by some, without proof, that Mark Fuhrman tried to frame OJ Simpson for a double murder.

[martin II]

Perhaps, that is why the MF was telling the truth on the tapes and when he applied for disability. Perhaps the truth is easier to remember than mistakes, confusion and human error.

william

Furhman was consistant to the point where McKenny thought he was telling the truth of his experience. The interviewer for the retirement must have had
other experiences of cops trying to pull a fast one as furhman tried and just told him NO.

martin II

[martin II]

Willliam, please tell me you're not comparing the indisputable evil of Hitler to the perception by some, without proof, that Mark Fuhrman tried to frame OJ Simpson for a double murder.


william
Furhman was a small fry.
racial hatred is racial hatred. HITLER had the resources and the cooperation of the german people imo which allowed him carry out his evil acts on a scale unheard of with the exception of what happened to Africans in the slave trade. imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

william
Furhman was a small fry.
racial hatred is racial hatred. HITLER had the resources and the cooperation of the german people imo which allowed him carry out his evil acts on a scale unheard of with the exception of what happened to Africans in the slave trade. imo
martin II

"Hitler had the cooperation of the german people"? I think you are wrong about that.


The race thread was removed & I know you are aware of that. It seems as though you are looking to revive that discussion here. Furhman had nothing to do with Hitler or the slaves in Africa, so perhaps this thread needs to get back on topic.

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,

I apologize if I failed to address my post to Kate. I was specifically looking for her response since She and I have been able to engage in civil discussions. This is not intended to say that you can not feel free to interject into any discussion. I would ask Kate, if she agrees with this post you posted, or, if she believes that the verdict is that he was liable for the killings. I think she posted that the question was that he battered Nicole, according to her post.

Kate is correct, that was one of the three questions asked on the verdict form relating to Nicole Brown Simpson. It has been posted several times. But that doesn't change the fact that the civil trial jury found Simpson liable for killing both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Willliam, please tell me you're not comparing the indisputable evil of Hitler to the perception by some, without proof, that Mark Fuhrman tried to frame OJ Simpson for a double murder.

I think you will be pleased as that was not the comparison I was making. I was speaking of the illogical conduct spured by feelings of racial hatred and reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence presented in the criminal trial and the events that transpired during that trial. I have said that he may not have been trying to frame Simpson and only to implicate him, which is not to say he did either, only that a reasonable inference can be drawn from that aforesaid evidence and transpired events. I hope you understand that I was speaking on the basis of reasonable doubt and historical events that have precedent to allow the inference to be drawn, since I have cited a case that stated jurors could speculate and enter into conjecture. I know that a post of the evil conjurs up strong feelings and tried to explain that I was not comparing the conduct of the two. However, the statement that an entire race of people should be burned speaks monumentally to the degree of racial hate the speaker harbored, which I do not think would disapate in ten years.

[William Anthony]

Kate is correct, that was one of the three questions asked on the verdict form relating to Nicole Brown Simpson. It has been posted several times. But that doesn't change the fact that the civil trial jury found Simpson liable for killing both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

With all due respect, the question was aked of Kate as to her agreement, since she posted the jury was asked to decide if Simpson battered Nicole. I understood what your position was and I was only asking Kate if she agreed with your posts.

[Suzee10]

Why don't this bas**** just go bury his head somewhere and give it a rest. I would have thought he or anyone would have been so embarrassed after the last fiasco he would have never wanted to be in the spotlight ever again. Does he not have the good sense to see no one except a pitiful few wants to see or hear from him again.

Geez!!!!!

[Suzee10]

sassy hi

oj's intention to do this documentary will certainly create a new set of legal action. i assume.;)

martin II


Yeah, maybe someone else will sue him!!!

[Suzee10]

We're supposed to take seriously the opinion of someone that butchered two people with a knife and then has the incredibly poor taste to sign autographs at slasher conventions? :rolleyes: :D


I totally agree tvdinner.


I think not tvdinner!!! simpson is a total idiot and is so in love with himself.

[Suzee10]

How many people are going to really take him serious?

:shrug:



Zero, that's how many! ;)

[Suzee10]

[/COLOR][/B]


Your quote says it all!
Perfect!
He will continue this nonsense until he dies or gets back the respect he thinks is owed to him.
Not to be rude but I'm looking forward to the silence. How old is he now?


My sentiments exactly Heyes. :beer:

[William Anthony]

Why don't this bas**** just go bury his head somewhere and give it a rest. I would have thought he or anyone would have been so embarrassed after the last fiasco he would have never wanted to be in the spotlight ever again. Does he not have the good sense to see no one except a pitiful few wants to see or hear from him again.

Geez!!!!!

Thanks, I got the message and, if bobaugust wants to continue what I think is a futile discussion, we should take it to another board and leave this one for those who wish to discuss the propriety of Simpson's new project.

[jotun]

btw: how did this thread entitled OJ's new project become a thread about Darden???

It evolved from anthony's desire to post AGAIN his view on what the money trial jury's verdict was[while I AGREE with him this is NOT the thread for it] then to bobaugust who has to 'correct'everyone on everything. Then went to the MF, gloves, fake shoe photos, meaning of words etc.

PLEASE use the proper thread and knock yourselves out.There is a money trial thread also a fuhrman & corruption thread etc.Some of US don't want to have to plow thru this over & over & over.

jotun

[jotun]

Why don't this bas**** just go bury his head somewhere and give it a rest.

Geez!!!!!


ON TOPIC.....

Never happen. We'll all be waiting for the next interview.Otherwise will just be the same 13 year-old case with the same tired arguements.

jotun

[jotun]

Yeah, maybe someone else will sue him!!!

Bet not.
But not to worry, goldman will sue again if he thinks there is any O.J. MONEY anywhere.

jotun

[socaldiva]

I don't think Fred needs to sue again, he's already got a judgement for 33+ million. He just need to find a way to have it enforced ;)

[jotun]

Thanks, I got the message and, if bobaugust wants to continue what I think is a futile discussion, we should take it to another board and leave this one for those who wish to discuss the propriety of Simpson's new project.

O.J.'S NEW PROJECT

Glad you did!!!
Hope the others get IT as well.
Should be a rule- post on the proper thread.

Thank you.

jotun

[William Anthony]

It evolved from anthony's desire to post AGAIN his view on what the money trial jury's verdict was[while I AGREE with him this is NOT the thread for it] then to bobaugust who has to 'correct'everyone on everything. Then went to the MF, gloves, fake shoe photos, meaning of words etc.

PLEASE use the proper thread and knock yourselves out.There is a money trial thread also a fuhrman & corruption thread etc.Some of US don't want to have to plow thru this over & over & over.

jotun

I do not want this to take the discussion off topic, but I do want the information concerning me to be correct. The evolution started from my response to your post on Nancy Grace. Another poster then posted on the presumption of innocence and asked me what I felt about Simpson being placed in handcuffs. I then responded with an explanation, to which the poster responded with another question. I explained what justice meant and stated I accepted both verdicts and had not made any derrogatory remarks about the jurors. It was then that another poster responded and the subject got far off topic, imho. Thank you for your agreement on the two issues. I think that you will see that the off topic discussion evolved from your post on Nancy Grace.

[Kate Sachel]

I too had to do something refreshing, so I took a long bath and got a good night's rest. The reason the question was not posed was that they could not legally enter a verdict stating they found him liable for murder, agreed?

If agreeable, we can then go on to discuss the rest of your post, because we have always maintained a degree of civility.

Hi William,

No, the reason that question wasn't asked in regard to Nicole is because her estate didn't actually bring a wrongful death action because the Brown's said they didn't want her children to have to testify in their part of the estate. What the Browns brought against Simpson was a survivorship suit. But since their were three suits pending (Goldman, Rufo, Estate of Brown Simpson) the judge ordered them to be condensed into one civil action.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Hi William,

No, the reason that question wasn't asked in regard to Nicole is because her estate didn't actually bring a wrongful death action because the Brown's said they didn't want her children to have to testify in their part of the estate. What the Browns brought against Simpson was a survivorship suit. But since their were three suits pending (Goldman, Rufo, Estate of Brown Simpson) the judge ordered them to be condensed into one civil action.

Kate


Hello Kate,

I am sure you understand the difference between a wrongful death and a survivorship action, so, in fact, the jury could not enter a verdict saying that Simpson killed Nicole. I have learned about the consolidation, which did not change the cause of actions, as it relates to the Brown and Goldman suits. The fact is that, since no wrongful death suit was filed on behalf of the Browns, they lacked standing as it pertained to a wrongful death action and the jury could not legally enter a verdict saying that Simpson killed Nicole, imho. I think we are in agreement, correct?

If we are in agreement, then we can discuss the rest of your post.

[Kate Sachel]

Hello Kate,

I am sure you understand the difference between a wrongful death and a survivorship action, so, in fact, the jury could not enter a verdict saying that Simpson killed Nicole. I have learned about the consolidation, which did not change the cause of actions, as it relates to the Brown and Goldman suits. The fact is that, since no wrongful death suit was filed on behalf of the Browns, they lacked standing as it pertained to a wrongful death action and the jury could not legally enter a verdict saying that Simpson killed Nicole, imho. I think we are in agreement, correct?

If we are in agreement, then we can discuss the rest of your post.

I thought you had meant that the jury was not asked because the law wouldn't allow a verdict of "responsible for murder" in a civil suit, and thus I responded as I did. Since I see that you have become aware of the fact that a wrongful death claim was not filed in regard to Nicole Brown Simpson then I obviously would agree with your statement.

However, you don't have to educate me on the fact that consolidation of the suits did not change the cause of actions. I am well aware of that fact.

Let's continue discussion,

Kate

[William Anthony]

I thought you had meant that the jury was not asked because the law wouldn't allow a verdict of "responsible for murder" in a civil suit, and thus I responded as I did. Since I see that you have become aware of the fact that a wrongful death claim was not filed in regard to Nicole Brown Simpson then I obviously would agree with your statement.

However, you don't have to educate me on the fact that consolidation of the suits did not change the cause of actions. I am well aware of that fact.

Let's continue discussion,

Kate

I was not trying to educate you but acknowledging your knowledge. There a two issues, before we continue. We have agreed that the jury did not render a verdict finding Simpson liable for Nicole's wrongful death. Can we agree that a civil trial jury cannot enter a verdict stating we the jury find the defendant liable for murder (and I am not discussing what they believed or what others believe they believed-only what they are legally permitted to do)? Once we have reached agreement on this point we can then discuss whether they found Simpson liable for killing Ron, if I remember the substance of your post correctly without looking it up.

[jotun]

I do not want this to take the discussion off topic, but I do want the information concerning me to be correct. The evolution started from my response to your post on Nancy Grace. Another poster then posted on the presumption of innocence and asked me what I felt about Simpson being placed in handcuffs. I then responded with an explanation, to which the poster responded with another question. I explained what justice meant and stated I accepted both verdicts and had not made any derrogatory remarks about the jurors. It was then that another poster responded and the subject got far off topic, imho. Thank you for your agreement on the two issues. I think that you will see that the off topic discussion evolved from your post on Nancy Grace.

O.J.'S NEW PROJECT

William
Since my days old reply has mysteriously disappeared.Will try again.

Sure blame me.
My post was to heyes as was yours[page 2]
My post was NOT about N.G.But explaining what O.J.said & meant to a poster who asked & didn't understand.

After other complaints,you posted that you would go to the proper thread and then continued to post here about the money trial.

bobaugust pulls your chain on every thread, just as Johnnie did to Darden daily.Would think you would be on to it by now.

I agree with you on most of your posts.Just post them on the proper thread PLEASE.

jotun

[jotun]

ALL
sassy
O.J. INTERVIEW, about the book, derby etc.?
This article was by a writer who was doing a story on Linda Deutch,who was the BEST & most accurate trial reporter.Her fairness got her one of the few thank-you calls from O.J.after the murder trial.And still gets her an interview whenever she calls.She did the A.P.interview with O.J. about the book, when it was cancelled.

This "project" is just an interview on O.J.'s favorite subject-the media.
"it's about time that the news media point out that they are not doing their job".As O.J. has all these years, since the murders and especially since the 'not guilty' verdict.The best was at a church in D.C.where he said alot of this and alot more while the media covered him saying it.
PRICELESS.

IMO-IMO-IMO

jotun


sassy-ALL
Excert of the completed article on Linda Deutsch from which the "NEW PROJECT" evolved.

Deutsch reached the pinnacle when Simpson went on trial...In the end she remains unsure if Simpson commited the killings but believes the prosecution didn't prove it's case"He wasn't convicted because the evidence wasn't there" she says "The defence was fabulous."
Simpson says she provided the"fairest reporting" on his circus of a trial."It was so fair I went out of my way to contact her and tell her...She is the only reporter who has my number" Simpson told EP."Linda is really the only person
in the media I would talk to because she doesn't change my words and will put it in context"
She says she has spoken with Simpson 3 or 4 times a year,usually for comments or updates or new information such as the
controversial 2006 book 'If I Did It'.She even received a surprise phone call for him last Christmas.

jotun
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/epndp/newsarticle_displayisp?vnu_content_id...

[William Anthony]

O.J.'S NEW PROJECT

William
Since my days old reply has mysteriously disappeared.Will try again.

Sure blame me.
My post was to heyes as was yours[page 2]
My post was NOT about N.G.But explaining what O.J.said & meant to a poster who asked & didn't understand.

After other complaints,you posted that you would go to the proper thread and then continued to post here about the money trial.

bobaugust pulls your chain on every thread, just as Johnnie did to Darden daily.Would think you would be on to it by now.

I agree with you on most of your posts.Just post them on the proper thread PLEASE.

jotun

I am not talking about a post to heyes. I am talking about your post mentioning NG and my response. Then bobaugust and I went off topic and I tried to get the discussion on the proper thread. Another poster responded to one of my prior posts. I consider this poster to be civil, intelligent and honest, so I responded. I would only like to inform you that your comparison of JC and Darden is inaccurate, in my opinion, because Bobaugust was posting long before I started and it was he, much like the prosecution who made the claim. I do have a chain which I wear around my neck and, unless Bobaugust is a female, he has never pulled it.

I was not blaming you, only correcting you on how the discussion started. You made an accusation, imho, against me, which I felt needed correcting. I am happy that you agree on most of my posts. With that said, I will sign off.

[William Anthony]

. Then bobaugust and I went off topic and I tried to get the discussion on the proper thread. Another poster responded to one of my prior posts. I consider this poster to be civil, intelligent and honest, so I responded. I would only like to inform you that your comparison of JC and Darden is inaccurate, in my opinion, because Bobaugust was posting long before I started and it was he, much like the prosecution who made the claim. I do have a chain which I wear around my neck and, unless Bobaugust is a female, he has never pulled it.

I was not blaming you, only correcting you on how the discussion started. You made an accusation, imho, against me, which I felt needed correcting. I am happy that you agree on most of my posts. With that said, I will sign off.


Jotun,

YOU ARE CORRECT AND I DID POST IN RESPONSE TO HEYES. I APOLOGIZE, SINCE I DID NOT RESPOND TO YOUR POST. HOWEVER, THE REST OF MY POST REMAINS TRUE, IMHO, AND I WILL AGAIN SIGN OFF.

[William Anthony]

Before anyone says that I meant something else, I was speaking only of the chain I wear around my neck, which is the only chain I wear. I do not let men put their hands near my neck. If the chain becomes undone, I ask women to fasten it. I feel that I need to post this, because I am so often misunderstood. It just a personal thing with me that I do not want a male fastening the chain on my neck and that is all I meant. If you sense that I am concerned about being misunderstood, you would be right. I will apologize again for posting on this thread, but I felt the need to explain. I am also getting sleepy, so goodnight.